Do you want to discuss boring politics? (51 Viewers)

[Deleted member 9744]

Someone's going to come on here and say they are centre right or moderates though. I really don't know what they have to say or do for some people to realise how extreme our last Government was. Let’s not forget these two held senior positions.

Laughing boy Sir Ernie is back. You think Braverman is a moderate?

 

---

[MalcSB]

France also uses a majoritarian system, just over 2 rounds of voting.

How would PR improve our democracy and governance? To use this election as an example, Labour would’ve needed to enter a coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens to form a government.

Hypothetically, there could be a situation where the Tories, Reform and Lib Dems could prevent the biggest party from forming a government, which happened in Spain recently.

Then in government, these smaller parties can exert undue influence on policy making. For example, in Scotland where the Greens held unearned influence on a handful of policy areas as the very junior partner of the coalition with the SNP.

I didn’t vote for a Labour government but the country decisively favoured them as the majority party. This election in particular produced distorted results, however, the Labour government can crack on with their agenda without needing to be held back by multiple junior parties.

It’s not perfect but I don’t envy PR systems at all. Our political culture is very different too as the one of the only major western democracy to have never had its democracy overthrown.

I gave up history over 55 years ago, which major western democracies have been overthrown is the last 100 - 150 years?

 

[MalcSB]

Someone's going to come on here and say they are centre right or moderates though. I really don't know what they have to say or do for some people to realise how extreme our last Government was. Let’s not forget these two held senior positions.

It’s not just history Im not very good at. What did the last government do (i,e. Since 2019) that would characterise it as extreme right?

 

[shmmeee]

 

[shmmeee]

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I gave up history over 55 years ago, which major western democracies have been overthrown is the last 100 - 150 years?

Well, most Mediterranean countries had experiences with dictatorships in the 1970s e.g. Francois Spain.

Germany had Nazism less than 100 years ago and before Gaullist France, there was close to a communist government, likewise in Italy. On Italy, their political system is complicated and anti majoritarian due to their experience with Mussolini.

Very Brief history lesson, on my way to Dusseldorf to celebrate the semi final win! See you in Berlin and goodnight!

 

[MalcSB]

Well, most Mediterranean countries had experiences with dictatorships in the 1970s e.g. Francois Spain.

Germany had Nazism less than 100 years ago and before Gaullist France, there was close to a communist Spain, likewise in Italy. On Italy, their political system is complicated and anti majoritarian due to their experience with Mussolini.

Very Brief history lesson, on my way to Dusseldorf to celebrate the semi final win! See you in Berlin and goodnight!

So that’s three then.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Decisive majorities, in my personal opinion, is better. That’s just one school of thought, on the continent, the prevailing belief is that politics by consensus is inherently more desirable.

Like most things in politics, left or right, FPTP or PR, there is no definitive correct answer. Different things work for different countries and their political systems/traditions.

I’ll reiterate the point that, whilst I didn’t vote for a Labour government, it is desirable that they can carry out their ‘mandate’ (however weak or strong) without barrier. In a PR environment, I genuinely believe Brexit would’ve deadlocked the country more and risked a lot more of a toxic political environment and culture. As it happens, the 2019 GE delivered Brexit definitively - even if I personally didn’t agree with it in 2016. In my view, this shows how dynamic our constitutional settlement is.

Of course this is just one school of thought.

But is it better when a party not convincing even half the country to vote for them are given carte blanche to push through whatever they like?

That's why i want two houses elected using different methods as you then get the benefits (and disadvantages) of both.

One thing I do think about is in the PR chamber whether or not I'd symbolically leave c. 30-40% of the seats unfilled to reflect turnout and the wishes of the whole electorate rather than just those that voted?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So that’s three then.

Bearing in mind the Eastern bloc countries, it’s a lot more; East Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and so on…

 

[MalcSB]

Bearing in mind the Eastern bloc countries, it’s a lot more; East Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and so on…

Not sure that had anything to do with a voting system.

 

[MalcSB]

But is it better when a party not convincing even half the country to vote for them are given carte blanche to push through whatever they like?

That's why i want two houses elected using different methods as you then get the benefits (and disadvantages) of both.

One thing I do think about is in the PR chamber whether or not I'd symbolically leave c. 30-40% of the seats unfilled to reflect turnout and the wishes of the whole electorate rather than just those that voted?

Even more so when it’s a party who hasn’t convinced even a quarter of the country,

 

[Sick Boy]

Well, most Mediterranean countries had experiences with dictatorships in the 1970s e.g. Francois Spain.

Germany had Nazism less than 100 years ago and before Gaullist France, there was close to a communist Spain, likewise in Italy. On Italy, their political system is complicated and anti majoritarian due to their experience with Mussolini.

Very Brief history lesson, on my way to Dusseldorf to celebrate the semi final win! See you in Berlin and goodnight!

True about Italy. The media likes to go on about how it's ruled by a hard right government but nothing really changes from one government to the next.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Even more so when it’s a party who hasn’t convinced even a quarter of the country,

Like the 2010 and 2015 Tory party then

 

[MalcSB]

Like the 2010 and 2015 Tory party then

Exactly, although 2010 was a coalition so at least 59% of votes cast were represented in government.

 

[shmmeee]

Exactly, although 2010 was a coalition so at least 59% of votes cast were represented in government.

I think there’s a few Lib Dem voters who would argue with that.

 

[skybluetony176]

I think there’s a few Lib Dem voters who would argue with that.

I have to say though I think that’s their fault. There seem to be a major misunderstanding what being in a coalition means. It means a negotiated combination of 2 (or more) parties policies with some policies inevitably falling by the wayside. Sorry but anyone who thought that voting Lib Dem would have delivered them as a majority government in 2010 were delusional, they were always going to be part of a coalition and being a coalition member means you’re not going to deliver your manifesto in full. Although I struggle to remember a majority government that has ever delivered their manifesto in full.

 

[shmmeee]

I have to say though I think that’s their fault. There seem to be a major misunderstanding what being in a coalition means. It means a negotiated combination of 2 (or more) parties policies with some policies inevitably falling by the wayside. Sorry but anyone who thought that voting Lib Dem would have delivered them as a majority government in 2010 were delusional, they were always going to be part of a coalition and being a coalition member means you’re not going to deliver your manifesto in full. Although I struggle to remember a majority government that has ever delivered their manifesto in full.

It was more voting Lib Dem because Labour were uninspiring and getting the Tories at all that was the issue.

 

[Grendel]

I have to say though I think that’s their fault. There seem to be a major misunderstanding what being in a coalition means. It means a negotiated combination of 2 (or more) parties policies with some policies inevitably falling by the wayside. Sorry but anyone who thought that voting Lib Dem would have delivered them as a majority government in 2010 were delusional, they were always going to be part of a coalition and being a coalition member means you’re not going to deliver your manifesto in full. Although I struggle to remember a majority government that has ever delivered their manifesto in full.

Didn't you claim to vote Lib Dem that election Tonester?

 

[Sky_Blue_Daz]

Have the government announced a bank holiday for Monday yet?

 

[MalcSB]

In all seriousness planning is the big test of “country before party”. The majority is big enough that local Labour MPs could be allowed to protest but I don’t think that matches the message personally. One of the hard truths that needs to be told is some stuff will get built even if everyone isn’t delighted about it because the country needs it. So I hope Starmer does build in new Labour constituencies.

Sarah Coombes?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Not sure that had anything to do with a voting system.

It was quite important Malc because those countries had experiences with one party rule and their systems were set up to prevent that.

Think of it this way, how would you design a political and electoral system if your country had experiences with violent dictatorships? You wouldn’t design it like our system!

 

[skybluetony176]

Didn't you claim to vote Lib Dem that election Tonester?

I did grendull.

 

[skybluetony176]

It was more voting Lib Dem because Labour were uninspiring and getting the Tories at all that was the issue.

Could have been worse, could have been the Tories with no one sitting on their shoulder whispering in their ear. I dread to think how much harder and faster they would have gone on austerity had they not been in coalition with the Lib Dem’s. It was the best possible outcome for the country if you ask me. The Tories were always going to be in power after the 2010 GE. Much better to have them in a coalition with more moderates than them on their own. As the chaos that followed proved.

 

[Grendel]

Could have been worse, could have been the Tories with no one sitting on their shoulder whispering in their ear. I dread to think how much harder and faster they would have gone on austerity had they not been in coalition with the Lib Dem’s. It was the best possible outcome for the country if you ask me. The Tories were always going to be in power after the 2010 GE. Much better to have them in a coalition with more moderates than them on their own. As the chaos that followed proved.

Didn't you vote for Cameron in the next election Tonester?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Could have been worse, could have been the Tories with no one sitting on their shoulder whispering in their ear. I dread to think how much harder and faster they would have gone on austerity had they not been in coalition with the Lib Dem’s. It was the best possible outcome for the country if you ask me. The Tories were always going to be in power after the 2010 GE. Much better to have them in a coalition with more moderates than them on their own. As the chaos that followed proved.

One Lib Dem proudly boasted about getting the Tories to agree to their plastic bag charging policy by voting with them on austerity and cuts to welfare

 

[MalcSB]

It was quite important Malc because those countries had experiences with one party rule and their systems were set up to prevent that.

Think of it this way, how would you design a political and electoral system if your country had experiences with violent dictatorships? You wouldn’t design it like our system!

I’m thoroughly confused, which is easily done.

Wouldn’t a FPTP system allowing a huge majority in the house whilst only garnering 20% of the electorate facilitate a move to a one party state when compared with a PR system with the inevitable coalition and hence power sharing.
Even with a ”two house” system. You fill the upper house with sympathisers and pass laws unopposed to fulfil the aim of permanent power.

The UK doesn’t have a written constitution to prevent it. I suppose the king could refuse to give royal assent - next stop a republic.

 

[shmmeee]

Could have been worse, could have been the Tories with no one sitting on their shoulder whispering in their ear. I dread to think how much harder and faster they would have gone on austerity had they not been in coalition with the Lib Dem’s. It was the best possible outcome for the country if you ask me. The Tories were always going to be in power after the 2010 GE. Much better to have them in a coalition with more moderates than them on their own. As the chaos that followed proved.

It been a while since this argument so excuse the rust but a minority Tory govt wouldn’t have been emboldened in 2015 to get Brexit through and might have avoided both that and Corbyn. The Lib Dem activist base at the time was mostly idealistic people on the left of Labour and enabling a Tory govt in any way was a betrayal of their vote.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Starmer has just announced some new money to spend on weapons, never a "tough decision" to be made in this area

The Tories are full of weapons who recently became unemployed

It been a while since this argument so excuse the rust but a minority Tory govt wouldn’t have been emboldened in 2015 to get Brexit through and might have avoided both that and Corbyn. The Lib Dem activist base at the time was mostly idealistic people on the left of Labour and enabling a Tory govt in any way was a betrayal of their vote.

A Lib-Lab coalition could have done good things, but think Clegg simply despised Brown so couldn’t get past that. There was a bigger anti-Tory than pro-Tory vote and it really ought to have been facilitated.

 

[MalcSB]

The Tories are full of weapons who recently became unemployed

A Lib-Lab coalition could have done good things, but think Clegg simply despised Brown so couldn’t get past that. There was a bigger anti-Tory than pro-Tory vote and it really ought to have been facilitated.

Hasn't there just been a bigger anti Labour vote than pro Labour?

 

[skybluetony176]

One Lib Dem proudly boasted about getting the Tories to agree to their plastic bag charging policy by voting with them on austerity and cuts to welfare

Not sure about that but I do remember that they got their pledge to raise the tax threshold to £10k implemented making everyone noticeably better off in their pockets overnight, especially if you were on a lower income. Think I’m right in saying that it was the single biggest ever jump.

 

[shmmeee]

The Tories are full of weapons who recently became unemployed

A Lib-Lab coalition could have done good things, but think Clegg simply despised Brown so couldn’t get past that. There was a bigger anti-Tory than pro-Tory vote and it really ought to have been facilitated.

I don’t think there was any route to anything other than a Tory lead govt. the question for me is how a minority govt would have faired compared to having the human shields up from 2010-15 while they did unpopular things.

 

[shmmeee]

Hasn't there just been a bigger anti Labour vote than pro Labour?

We have no idea. That’s not how our voting system works. Even if we take this argument the “anti Labour” vote is smaller than the anti anyone else vote.

 

[skybluetony176]

Hasn't there just been a bigger anti Labour vote than pro Labour?

Not compared to the anti reform vote. 95% of the country didn’t vote for them.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hasn't there just been a bigger anti Labour vote than pro Labour?

Not by the number of seats won. In 2010 the Lib-Lab seat total was higher than the Tory one.

 

[PVA]

Hasn't there just been a bigger anti Labour vote than pro Labour?

1. We have absolutely no way of knowing.
2. Why is this kind of mental gymnastics being applied only to this election? It's almost as if people can't accept the fact Labour got a huge majority...