So another change from Starmer. After pushing the idea of electoral change early in his leadership, he now is saying First Passed the Post is a good system and won’t be changed. I am not surprised at this. Some of his fans will be disappointed.
Sorry to double post.
On top of this despite looking a shoe in for PM Starmer’s individual popularity is lower than that of Corbyn at this time in the last election cycle.
So another change from Starmer. After pushing the idea of electoral change early in his leadership, he now is saying First Passed the Post is a good system and won’t be changed. I am not surprised at this. Some of his fans will be disappointed.
No-one who is still a fan of Starmer gives a shit about him rowing back on any pledge to actually do anything.
Indeed. There were signs of growing support for PR within Labour ranks. Little chance of that now.
One thing that puzzles me, though is the talk here of Starmer's 'fans'. I may lead a sheltered life but I've not come across anyone I could describe as a 'fan.' A kind of pragmatic toleration, I'd say, rather than outright adulation or fan-dom.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone chanting 'Oh ... Ke-ir Starmer ... Oh Ke-ir Starmer..' to that White Stripes riff.
Indeed. There were signs of growing support for PR within Labour ranks. Little chance of that now.
One thing that puzzles me, though is the talk here of Starmer's 'fans'. I may lead a sheltered life but I've not come across anyone I could describe as a 'fan.' A kind of pragmatic toleration, I'd say, rather than outright adulation or fan-dom.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone chanting 'Oh ... Ke-ir Starmer ... Oh Ke-ir Starmer..' to that White Stripes riff.
Does Starmer have fans?
I've never met one.
His current fans are those who will get government jobs and those hoping for government jobs in the near future. ( I am not on about Burgon. )
Well, that makes a change from the incumbent Chancellor, who seems to have gone AWOL.
I’ll give him a pass on three grounds:
1) if he’s not out and about chancelloring then he’s probably not damaging anything
2) during purdah he’s only allowed to do care and maintenance stuff anyway, and I assume that’s what he’s doing
3) I imagine we both know exactly where he is and why - his constituency!
Hehe...yes, fair enough, especially (1), and you're right about (2), but I've heard that not much has been seen of him out-and-about in his constituency...make of that what you will...
Well, that makes a change from the incumbent Chancellor, who seems to have gone AWOL.
I’ll give him a pass on three grounds:
1) if he’s not out and about chancelloring then he’s probably not damaging anything
2) during purdah he’s only allowed to do care and maintenance stuff anyway, and I assume that’s what he’s doing
3) I imagine we both know exactly where he is and why - his constituency!
Hehe...yes, fair enough, especially (1), and you're right about (2), but I've heard that not much has been seen of him out-and-about in his constituency...make of that what you will...
Interesting. He's on Twitter a lot with pictures of him campaigning in his constituency...
Well, that makes a change from the incumbent Chancellor, who seems to have gone AWOL.
I’ll give him a pass on three grounds:
1) if he’s not out and about chancelloring then he’s probably not damaging anything
2) during purdah he’s only allowed to do care and maintenance stuff anyway, and I assume that’s what he’s doing
3) I imagine we both know exactly where he is and why - his constituency!
Hehe...yes, fair enough, especially (1), and you're right about (2), but I've heard that not much has been seen of him out-and-about in his constituency...make of that what you will...
Interesting. He's on Twitter a lot with pictures of him campaigning in his constituency...
OK, fair enough. Good luck to him...
Ah, but are they pictures of him campaigning in his constituency now ?
I may be being naïve, but considering that the only people who can vote for him are his constituents, perhaps at the moment that's the most logical place for him (or any of his colleagues for that matter) to be.
I may be being naïve, but considering that the only people who can vote for him are his constituents, perhaps at the moment that's the most logical place for him (or any of his colleagues for that matter) to be.
That's true, of course, though I'd heard somewhere that he was keeping a low profile, perhaps knowing that he's going to lose his seat.
Indeed. There were signs of growing support for PR within Labour ranks. Little chance of that now.
One thing that puzzles me, though is the talk here of Starmer's 'fans'. I may lead a sheltered life but I've not come across anyone I could describe as a 'fan.' A kind of pragmatic toleration, I'd say, rather than outright adulation or fan-dom.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone chanting 'Oh ... Ke-ir Starmer ... Oh Ke-ir Starmer..' to that White Stripes riff.
Does Starmer have fans?
I've never met one.
His current fans are those who will get government jobs and those hoping for government jobs in the near future. ( I am not on about Burgon. )
Of course. All political party leaders will have their acolytes, hoping for some kind of reward for their loyalty. 'Twas ever thus.
I may be being naïve, but considering that the only people who can vote for him are his constituents, perhaps at the moment that's the most logical place for him (or any of his colleagues for that matter) to be.
Not naive but whilst true, it misses the bigger picture.
1. He has a majority, effectively of 12,000*
2. He's the number two minister in the government.
For those two reasons, one would expect him to do a lot of national campaigning and only a little in the Surrey countryside.
The opposite appears to be the case.
AFZ
*It's theoretical because it's a new constituency.
Yes, and it's perhaps significant that Rachel Reeves is often to be seen with Sir Keir, though maybe she's also doing some campaigning in her constituency (Leeds West, I think), where her majority last time round was over 10500.
He is set to get a big majority. He is less popular than the man he has punished, and many vocal voters in the last election said they wouldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn. There is a certain irony.
I guess it also shows how bad the Tories are.
He is set to get a big majority. He is less popular than the man he has punished, and many vocal voters in the last election said they wouldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn. There is a certain irony.
I guess it also shows how bad the Tories are.
Speculation this morning on the radio that the social media slogans of the anti-Tory groups and pro Proportional Representation groups (along the lines of 'we're the 57% who didn't vote Tory!') might have to flip on Friday to 'we're the 60%+ that didn't vote Labour'
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
That rather depends on it being interpreted as such.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
I'm not sure why it's substantially deeper than the water in 1951 that gave a majority to the party with fewer votes, or all the other times parties got stonking majorities from a minority of the votes. The press may suddenly decide to notice the problem when it's their favoured parties losing out, of course.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
I'm not sure why it's substantially deeper than the water in 1951 that gave a majority to the party with fewer votes, or all the other times parties got stonking majorities from a minority of the votes. The press may suddenly decide to notice the problem when it's their favoured parties losing out, of course.
Had I been alive then, I would have.
Stonking majority on (potentially) less than 40% is a new low (if it happens) though. 6/10+ of votes cast *against* the governing party.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
I'm not sure why it's substantially deeper than the water in 1951 that gave a majority to the party with fewer votes, or all the other times parties got stonking majorities from a minority of the votes. The press may suddenly decide to notice the problem when it's their favoured parties losing out, of course.
Had I been alive then, I would have.
Stonking majority on (potentially) less than 40% is a new low (if it happens) though. 6/10+ of votes cast *against* the governing party.
No, it's not a new low.
The party that came second getting an overall majority is the nadir.
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
I'm not sure why it's substantially deeper than the water in 1951 that gave a majority to the party with fewer votes, or all the other times parties got stonking majorities from a minority of the votes. The press may suddenly decide to notice the problem when it's their favoured parties losing out, of course.
Had I been alive then, I would have.
Stonking majority on (potentially) less than 40% is a new low (if it happens) though. 6/10+ of votes cast *against* the governing party.
No, it's not a new low.
The party that came second getting an overall majority is the nadir.
There is, in normal circumstances, no real difference between a majority of 15 and a majority of 100.
It is, still, a ridiculous result, of course.
That was the point @Arethosemyfeet made, to which I was replying in the post you quoted….
My point *in response* was that in that case, daft as it is, we’re talking about 2 parties with a vote share of 48%+ each.
So a huge majority for a party with sub-40% is well and truly through the looking glass.
We’ve just spent 8 years arguing about whether 52% of the people who voted (never mind turnout) is ‘the will of the people’ - I’ve always been clear that it’s not.
Sub 40% and an unassailable majority is definitely at the bug end of the feature-bug line, and probably further on than 1951, which at least arguably gave a narrow win to the wrong side in an effective dead heat
Which is not what we’re talking about here, and hence, in my opinion, it’s a new low.
Nevertheless, as you’ll know if you’ve read my post replying to ‘what about 1951?’ I don’t agree with the outcome there either.
Btw that’s all assuming sub 40% - if they do better than that then it does look more normal
Fair enough. I was continuing to argue the point.
Our parliamentary system with FPTP is buggered. I think we can all agree on that.
As I have stated on a thread recently (don't know which one), I have believed in electoral reform for over three decades.
My main point being that for most purposes a small majority is exactly the same as a large one. Thus 40% of the vote giving a party 52% of the seats is much the same as 38% giving them 80%.
There is a deeper point in that we do not elect an executive and the executive has almost all the power.
As you know, we elect representatives. The Prime Minister is then appointed by the Sovereign as one who has the confidence of the Commons to serve and form a government. Parliament is Sovereign and holds the executive to account and can at any point remove a government.
The problem with this theory is that a combination of the effect of political parties and parliamentary procedures means that, in effect the executive from a party that has a majority has unrestricted power. There are, of course, legal/constitutional limits on that power but they are not clearly defined boundaries. To some extent, I believe that the lack of codified constitution is the big risk here. Obviously, the events on the other side of the Pond and behaviour of the Supreme Court shows that bad actors within the judiciary can destroy the protections of a written constitutional document.
Political parties and the whip system are a fact of modern democracies and thus the MPs who are supposed to hold the executive to account spend a lot of time being controlled by the self same executive. This is the inherent contradiction in our system.
Which brings me back to my original point that a party having a large majority of seats from a minority of votes is little different to a party having a small majority from a minority of votes. Backbench rebellions very rarely thwart a government's plans. If the majority is 100 then up to 50 MPs can rebel without it causing a problem for the government. A majority of 20 only requires 11 MPs to block the executive. Implicitly it is more likely that their will be 11 rebels rather than 51 but in reality this is a rare distinction. A majority of about 10 is enough for the executive to do pretty much whatever it wants most of the time. A majority of 1 is tricky with sickness and absentees for other reasons, making votes knife-edge.
Therefore, I maintain that the large skew that turns 38% of the votes into 80% of the seats that we may see this week is not on a practical level materially different to the 'standard skew' that turns 40-45% of the votes into ~55%+ of the seats. Whereas a party that got fewer votes than their opponents having an overall majority is the bigger anomaly,
YMMV of course.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
AFZ
The only drawback with PR is I'd like to explore some way of doing the horse-trading before the election - not sure how this can be made to work, but I'd like to explore it as the big weakness (IMO) of PR is the cobbling together of a programme of government *after* the vote.
It's probably unworkable but I'd prefer some way of either parties coming together before the election to hammer out an acceptable programme of government, then putting that to the voters as blocs*, or each party to have a menu where depending on the arithmetic of the vote you know in advance what the coalition will be and therefore what the programme of government you'll actually get will look like.
*which would over time end up looking much like the current system of two large parties, but with PR.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
AFZ
The only drawback with PR is I'd like to explore some way of doing the horse-trading before the election - not sure how this can be made to work, but I'd like to explore it as the big weakness (IMO) of PR is the cobbling together of a programme of government *after* the vote.
It's probably unworkable but I'd prefer some way of either parties coming together before the election to hammer out an acceptable programme of government, then putting that to the voters as blocs*, or each party to have a menu where depending on the arithmetic of the vote you know in advance what the coalition will be and therefore what the programme of government you'll actually get will look like.
*which would over time end up looking much like the current system of two large parties, but with PR.
Not going to happen under Labour anyway, despite early promise. I don’t agree with the Cons much but Starmer does flip-flop
My point *in response* was that in that case, daft as it is, we’re talking about 2 parties with a vote share of 48%+ each.
So a huge majority for a party with sub-40% is well and truly through the looking glass.
We’ve just spent 8 years arguing about whether 52% of the people who voted (never mind turnout) is ‘the will of the people’ - I’ve always been clear that it’s not.
Where 'we' are - with all due respect - a small handful of political obsessives. I really can't see why gaining a magic (say) 41% would make the result any less proportionate, and for the same reason why we'd suddenly be in a new reality.
My point *in response* was that in that case, daft as it is, we’re talking about 2 parties with a vote share of 48%+ each.
So a huge majority for a party with sub-40% is well and truly through the looking glass.
We’ve just spent 8 years arguing about whether 52% of the people who voted (never mind turnout) is ‘the will of the people’ - I’ve always been clear that it’s not.
Where 'we' are - with all due respect - a small handful of political obsessives. I really can't see why gaining a magic (say) 41% would make the result any less proportionate, and for the same reason why we'd suddenly be in a new reality.
It is also not an accurate comparison. Brexit is (in the short-to-medium term) an irreversible decision. Electing a government who make lots of decisions and can be removed in 5 years (or sooner in certain circumstances) is a very different kind of vote.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
I'm not seeing a downside in requiring Parliament and Executive interacting differently, especially if that means that they start behaving like adults trying to do the best for the country rather than a bunch of toddlers wanting to get one over on the other side.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
I'm not seeing a downside in requiring Parliament and Executive interacting differently, especially if that means that they start behaving like adults trying to do the best for the country rather than a bunch of toddlers wanting to get one over on the other side.
A change in the voting system is just part of the answer.
We need a proper constitution, like most modern countries, that cannot be changed by a simple vote in Parliament. In particular, we need to end the effective elected dictatorship made possible by the use of 'royal prerogative' powers and other outdated claptrap.
BTW, this will not happen. And I'd be amazed if a change in the voting system happened either.
Indeed - and part of why this is such a weird election. Unlike any other in my lifetime. We're almost certainly about to hand a huge mandate to a party very few actually want, because they want the other one even less. There's no enthusiasm, no 'things can only get better', no 'who governs Britain', no 'never had it so good', no 'plan to rebuild Britain' no anything.
Just a resigned shuffling walk to the polling station to dispatch one party with seemingly little actual enthusiasm or desire for what comes next.
I laughed at the suggestion the other day on the radio that Labour could receive a hiding in five years time that will make the one the Tories get tomorrow look like a gentle slap - but you know what? There's a glimmer of possibility in it. A slightly febrile undercurrent if things don't get rapidly better that I don't know if anyone knows how to ride, control, or tame.
But this isn't deep water. This is FPTP doing what it says on the tin. It is supposed to turn pluralities into parliamentary majorities and suppress small parties. It is unfair but hardly weird or unexpected.
Indeed - and part of why this is such a weird election. Unlike any other in my lifetime. We're almost certainly about to hand a huge mandate to a party very few actually want, because they want the other one even less. There's no enthusiasm, no 'things can only get better', no 'who governs Britain', no 'never had it so good', no 'plan to rebuild Britain' no anything.
It's worse than that; such periods allow discontent to build up under the surface, as people see an increasing disconnect between the levers they can pull and any real change in their circumstances, with subsequent eruptions coming in unexpected places (the Brexit vote for instance).
This is why things like the current goings on in Clacton are criminally stupid; it may look very clever to a policy wonk to have the Tories humiliated by being beaten by Farage - they may even relish the prospect of looking 'moderate' against an opposition of the further right and believe this gives them an extended stay in power, but main-streaming these kinds of political tendencies has never had salutatory effects.
Labour are already in talks with investors to put more public money into our services. So in effect the system that has brought us to where we are now is the solution Labour has to offer. When will they learn private business doesn’t doesn’t invest out of charity. It invests to make a profit. Money that will go to investors and not the NHS or Transport infrastructure.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ShehabKhan/status/1805957926432985334
That this isn't an accident is shown by the fact that he's taken the same line previously, and it was repeated by a member of the Shadow Cabinet:
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1805370592553533775
On top of this despite looking a shoe in for PM Starmer’s individual popularity is lower than that of Corbyn at this time in the last election cycle.
No-one who is still a fan of Starmer gives a shit about him rowing back on any pledge to actually do anything.
the current prediction is), would you be surprised at him not wanting to change it?
One thing that puzzles me, though is the talk here of Starmer's 'fans'. I may lead a sheltered life but I've not come across anyone I could describe as a 'fan.' A kind of pragmatic toleration, I'd say, rather than outright adulation or fan-dom.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone chanting 'Oh ... Ke-ir Starmer ... Oh Ke-ir Starmer..' to that White Stripes riff.
Does Starmer have fans?
I've never met one.
Attack dogs and apologists aren't the same as fans.
"Fanatic" was the original etymology. Whether it retains all the connotations is open to discussion.
I’ll give him a pass on three grounds:
1) if he’s not out and about chancelloring then he’s probably not damaging anything
2) during purdah he’s only allowed to do care and maintenance stuff anyway, and I assume that’s what he’s doing
3) I imagine we both know exactly where he is and why - his constituency!
Hehe...yes, fair enough, especially (1), and you're right about (2), but I've heard that not much has been seen of him out-and-about in his constituency...make of that what you will...
Interesting. He's on Twitter a lot with pictures of him campaigning in his constituency...
OK, fair enough. Good luck to him...
Ah, but are they pictures of him campaigning in his constituency now ?
That's true, of course, though I'd heard somewhere that he was keeping a low profile, perhaps knowing that he's going to lose his seat.
Of course. All political party leaders will have their acolytes, hoping for some kind of reward for their loyalty. 'Twas ever thus.
That's different to having 'fans'.
Not naive but whilst true, it misses the bigger picture.
1. He has a majority, effectively of 12,000*
2. He's the number two minister in the government.
For those two reasons, one would expect him to do a lot of national campaigning and only a little in the Surrey countryside.
The opposite appears to be the case.
AFZ
*It's theoretical because it's a new constituency.
He is set to get a big majority. He is less popular than the man he has punished, and many vocal voters in the last election said they wouldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn. There is a certain irony.
I guess it also shows how bad the Tories are.
Speculation this morning on the radio that the social media slogans of the anti-Tory groups and pro Proportional Representation groups (along the lines of 'we're the 57% who didn't vote Tory!') might have to flip on Friday to 'we're the 60%+ that didn't vote Labour'
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but Labour could be about to get a massive landslide on less than 40% of the vote and that (if it comes to pass) will put us in very deep water potentially.
Well, you say that, but there's no actual mechanism to do anything about it, and no party that comes into power via FPTP is going to end FPTP, unless the media can be persuaded to get behind it, it's not going to happen.
Which is sort of my point about ‘deep water’
That rather depends on it being interpreted as such.
I'm not sure why it's substantially deeper than the water in 1951 that gave a majority to the party with fewer votes, or all the other times parties got stonking majorities from a minority of the votes. The press may suddenly decide to notice the problem when it's their favoured parties losing out, of course.
Had I been alive then, I would have.
Stonking majority on (potentially) less than 40% is a new low (if it happens) though. 6/10+ of votes cast *against* the governing party.
No, it's not a new low.
The party that came second getting an overall majority is the nadir.
1951
Labour: 13,948,385 votes, 295 seats
Conservatives: 13,717,851 votes, 321 seats.
(625 seats in total so overall majority of 17).
There is, in normal circumstances, no real difference between a majority of 15 and a majority of 100.
It is, still, a ridiculous result, of course.
That was the point @Arethosemyfeet made, to which I was replying in the post you quoted….
My point *in response* was that in that case, daft as it is, we’re talking about 2 parties with a vote share of 48%+ each.
So a huge majority for a party with sub-40% is well and truly through the looking glass.
We’ve just spent 8 years arguing about whether 52% of the people who voted (never mind turnout) is ‘the will of the people’ - I’ve always been clear that it’s not.
Sub 40% and an unassailable majority is definitely at the bug end of the feature-bug line, and probably further on than 1951, which at least arguably gave a narrow win to the wrong side in an effective dead heat
Which is not what we’re talking about here, and hence, in my opinion, it’s a new low.
Nevertheless, as you’ll know if you’ve read my post replying to ‘what about 1951?’ I don’t agree with the outcome there either.
This one on Friday, along with 1951, is looking like being down there with the least legitimate.
But almost for that reason, nothing will change to address that.
Fair enough. I was continuing to argue the point.
Our parliamentary system with FPTP is buggered. I think we can all agree on that.
As I have stated on a thread recently (don't know which one), I have believed in electoral reform for over three decades.
My main point being that for most purposes a small majority is exactly the same as a large one. Thus 40% of the vote giving a party 52% of the seats is much the same as 38% giving them 80%.
There is a deeper point in that we do not elect an executive and the executive has almost all the power.
As you know, we elect representatives. The Prime Minister is then appointed by the Sovereign as one who has the confidence of the Commons to serve and form a government. Parliament is Sovereign and holds the executive to account and can at any point remove a government.
The problem with this theory is that a combination of the effect of political parties and parliamentary procedures means that, in effect the executive from a party that has a majority has unrestricted power. There are, of course, legal/constitutional limits on that power but they are not clearly defined boundaries. To some extent, I believe that the lack of codified constitution is the big risk here. Obviously, the events on the other side of the Pond and behaviour of the Supreme Court shows that bad actors within the judiciary can destroy the protections of a written constitutional document.
Political parties and the whip system are a fact of modern democracies and thus the MPs who are supposed to hold the executive to account spend a lot of time being controlled by the self same executive. This is the inherent contradiction in our system.
Which brings me back to my original point that a party having a large majority of seats from a minority of votes is little different to a party having a small majority from a minority of votes. Backbench rebellions very rarely thwart a government's plans. If the majority is 100 then up to 50 MPs can rebel without it causing a problem for the government. A majority of 20 only requires 11 MPs to block the executive. Implicitly it is more likely that their will be 11 rebels rather than 51 but in reality this is a rare distinction. A majority of about 10 is enough for the executive to do pretty much whatever it wants most of the time. A majority of 1 is tricky with sickness and absentees for other reasons, making votes knife-edge.
Therefore, I maintain that the large skew that turns 38% of the votes into 80% of the seats that we may see this week is not on a practical level materially different to the 'standard skew' that turns 40-45% of the votes into ~55%+ of the seats. Whereas a party that got fewer votes than their opponents having an overall majority is the bigger anomaly,
YMMV of course.
More to the point, I think we fiercely agree that FPTP is deeply flawed. Some form of PR is desperately needed with the reality that it would make for near-permanent coalitions and a need for parliament and the executive to interact differently.
AFZ
The only drawback with PR is I'd like to explore some way of doing the horse-trading before the election - not sure how this can be made to work, but I'd like to explore it as the big weakness (IMO) of PR is the cobbling together of a programme of government *after* the vote.
It's probably unworkable but I'd prefer some way of either parties coming together before the election to hammer out an acceptable programme of government, then putting that to the voters as blocs*, or each party to have a menu where depending on the arithmetic of the vote you know in advance what the coalition will be and therefore what the programme of government you'll actually get will look like.
*which would over time end up looking much like the current system of two large parties, but with PR.
Not going to happen under Labour anyway, despite early promise. I don’t agree with the Cons much but Starmer does flip-flop
Where 'we' are - with all due respect - a small handful of political obsessives. I really can't see why gaining a magic (say) 41% would make the result any less proportionate, and for the same reason why we'd suddenly be in a new reality.
It is also not an accurate comparison. Brexit is (in the short-to-medium term) an irreversible decision. Electing a government who make lots of decisions and can be removed in 5 years (or sooner in certain circumstances) is a very different kind of vote.
Me neither. But it is a big cultural change.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1808458226142196083
We need a proper constitution, like most modern countries, that cannot be changed by a simple vote in Parliament. In particular, we need to end the effective elected dictatorship made possible by the use of 'royal prerogative' powers and other outdated claptrap.
BTW, this will not happen. And I'd be amazed if a change in the voting system happened either.
Indeed - and part of why this is such a weird election. Unlike any other in my lifetime. We're almost certainly about to hand a huge mandate to a party very few actually want, because they want the other one even less. There's no enthusiasm, no 'things can only get better', no 'who governs Britain', no 'never had it so good', no 'plan to rebuild Britain' no anything.
Just a resigned shuffling walk to the polling station to dispatch one party with seemingly little actual enthusiasm or desire for what comes next.
I laughed at the suggestion the other day on the radio that Labour could receive a hiding in five years time that will make the one the Tories get tomorrow look like a gentle slap - but you know what? There's a glimmer of possibility in it. A slightly febrile undercurrent if things don't get rapidly better that I don't know if anyone knows how to ride, control, or tame.
Home Rule for Ireland? Why?
2016?
It's worse than that; such periods allow discontent to build up under the surface, as people see an increasing disconnect between the levers they can pull and any real change in their circumstances, with subsequent eruptions coming in unexpected places (the Brexit vote for instance).
This is why things like the current goings on in Clacton are criminally stupid; it may look very clever to a policy wonk to have the Tories humiliated by being beaten by Farage - they may even relish the prospect of looking 'moderate' against an opposition of the further right and believe this gives them an extended stay in power, but main-streaming these kinds of political tendencies has never had salutatory effects.