|
Post by stb12 on Sept 29, 2022 14:56:43 GMT
No but I now believe Starmer will win a majority. I didn’t until recently with the Tories implosion and the choice of Truss as leader confirms it for me I'll give it to you that's confident. Labour have never achieved the swing required Yep I know that there’s still many arguments against it especially considering the comfortable majority the Tories start with but I think their implosion seems fairly unprecedented. I know they suffered in the 90s and while I was too young then to witness it now seems much worse and there’s far less talent in there I think Sunak would have been competent enough to make sure it was at least a hung parliament situation but just look at how much of a mess Truss has made of things in a matter of days (taking out the mourning period for the Queen). Unless the Tories can manage to bring about another leadership change and choose someone far better I don’t see how they recover now
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Sept 29, 2022 14:57:54 GMT
It's also supremely arrogant. If and when we lose, a right leaning party or coalition will eventually win again. This country isn't the country Labour lefties think we are. We aren't a cold water Cali. no we're the UK where unless your name is Boris Tories haven't had a significant majority since the 80s So we won a significant majority three years ago? I don't see why his doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 29, 2022 15:03:37 GMT
It's also supremely arrogant. If and when we lose, a right leaning party or coalition will eventually win again. This country isn't the country Labour lefties think we are. We aren't a cold water Cali. Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own. I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. I don’t doubt people like yourself genuinely see PR as the right thing to do and to allow more choice across the spectrum But it’s clear that for a lot on the left that are now pro-PR it’s mainly because they see it as a way of locking the Tories out of power. I’m just not too comfortable with that as a motive
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 29, 2022 15:08:11 GMT
He isn't necessarily wrong tbf. 15 years will be enough. After that, a rest and reboot. Besides, Labour no longer being controlled by a cabal of the antisemitic and the insane means that it isn't dangerous to have a change of government. let's hope Starmer is forced to introduce PR, be nice if this was the last conservative majority Not without a referendum surely.
On a personal note, I feel increasingly confident that I'll be voting Labour at the next GE and one of the few things that would definitely stop me from doing this would be a commitment to get rid of FPTP.
(Reinstating Jeremy Corbyn as leader would be another.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 29, 2022 15:11:39 GMT
It's also supremely arrogant. If and when we lose, a right leaning party or coalition will eventually win again. This country isn't the country Labour lefties think we are. We aren't a cold water Cali. Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own.I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. Nor would PR prevent this, or at least most of the forms of PR actually practised in political systems around the world.
Do I have to dredge out and repost my list of cases in which a party has won an outright majority under PR despite polling less than 50%?
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Sept 29, 2022 15:16:14 GMT
Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own.I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. Nor would PR prevent this, or at least most of the forms of PR actually practised in political systems around the world.
Do I have to dredge out and repost my list of cases in which a party has won an outright majority under PR despite polling less than 50%?
Yes. Do you have another dredgeable list in which a party or candidate has won a majority despite having been outpolled by a rival?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 29, 2022 15:20:23 GMT
Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own. I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. I don’t doubt people like yourself genuinely see PR as the right thing to do and to allow more choice across the spectrum But it’s clear that for a lot on the left that are now pro-PR it’s mainly because they see it as a way of locking the Tories out of power. I’m just not too comfortable with that as a motive Me neither but I can't be responsible for the motivation of others!
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 29, 2022 15:23:37 GMT
Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own.I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. Nor would PR prevent this, or at least most of the forms of PR actually practised in political systems around the world. Do I have to dredge out and repost my list of cases in which a party has won an outright majority under PR despite polling less than 50%?
Whatever way you look at it FPTP exacerbates majorities of seats without majorities of votes. Indeed, its supporters argue this is an advantage - strong government, which we are enjoying at the moment. It also means that most votes make little difference to the outcome. Maybe you could also dredge out all those where this has not happened and compare the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 29, 2022 15:54:35 GMT
PR wouldn't lock the Tories out of government, but it would make it much less likely that they would have a governing majority. And given that they have at this point in the political cycle alienated all the other parties that currently win seats, that does mean they would need to change to win again and would need to maintain a broader coalition, both in terms of partners and probably within their own ranks.
I think a lot of people supporting PR are doing so for reasons that don't necessarily stand up, but then again that also applies to lots of people supporting FPTP. The best argument for some form of PR in my view is that partisan loyalties are obviously weaker than they are and whilst FPTP works quite well in fairly stable party systems, you're more likely to get heavily disproportionate outcomes as politics becomes more fragmentary and you're more likely to get wild swings.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 29, 2022 16:20:26 GMT
Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own. I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. I don’t doubt people like yourself genuinely see PR as the right thing to do and to allow more choice across the spectrum But it’s clear that for a lot on the left that are now pro-PR it’s mainly because they see it as a way of locking the Tories out of power. I’m just not too comfortable with that as a motive If people think that PR (of whatever form) would lock the Tories out of power (presumably permanently?) then they don't understand the change that they are advocating and don't know much about voting systems or elections.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Sept 29, 2022 16:25:44 GMT
Not the issue - the question is whether any party no matter what it's ideology is should gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes, on their own. I don't think electoral reform would lead to a permanent coalition and in any case there would inevitably be more parties and the ability for some parties to poll better in terms of seats. I don’t doubt people like yourself genuinely see PR as the right thing to do and to allow more choice across the spectrum But it’s clear that for a lot on the left that are now pro-PR it’s mainly because they see it as a way of locking the Tories out of power. I’m just not too comfortable with that as a motive This
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Sept 29, 2022 16:28:07 GMT
let's hope Starmer is forced to introduce PR, be nice if this was the last conservative majority Not without a referendum surely.
On a personal note, I feel increasingly confident that I'll be voting Labour at the next GE and one of the few things that would definitely stop me from doing this would be a commitment to get rid of FPTP.
(Reinstating Jeremy Corbyn as leader would be another.)
do you mean as leader?
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Sept 29, 2022 16:30:38 GMT
no we're the UK where unless your name is Boris Tories haven't had a significant majority since the 80s So we won a significant majority three years ago? I don't see why his doesn't count. Boris has a personal appeal that I think reaches out to non Tories. To get the biggest share of the vote for 40 years or more is an incredible feet that I don't really think any Tory could do except Boris
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Sept 29, 2022 16:31:27 GMT
I'll give it to you that's confident. Labour have never achieved the swing required Yep I know that there’s still many arguments against it especially considering the comfortable majority the Tories start with but I think their implosion seems fairly unprecedented. I know they suffered in the 90s and while I was too young then to witness it now seems much worse and there’s far less talent in there I think Sunak would have been competent enough to make sure it was at least a hung parliament situation but just look at how much of a mess Truss has made of things in a matter of days (taking out the mourning period for the Queen). Unless the Tories can manage to bring about another leadership change and choose someone far better I don’t see how they recover now tbf the talent argument works both ways
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Sept 29, 2022 16:33:18 GMT
no we're the UK where unless your name is Boris Tories haven't had a significant majority since the 80s Well unless your name is Tony, Labour haven't had a significant majority either. tbf though Blair did it three times and led a labour government for 11 years. Tories have got rid of their 80 seat majority winner in 3 years with only win under his belt
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 29, 2022 16:39:26 GMT
Nor would PR prevent this, or at least most of the forms of PR actually practised in political systems around the world.
Do I have to dredge out and repost my list of cases in which a party has won an outright majority under PR despite polling less than 50%?
Yes.Do you have another dredgeable list in which a party or candidate has won a majority despite having been outpolled by a rival? We've been round this cycle so often.
Turkey 2002 is a classic example: the AKP won 363 seats (out of 550) with 34% of the vote.
If you want something in western Europe, in the Spanish GE in 2011, the PP won 186/350 with 44.6%; and the same year, even closer to home, in Scotland, SNP 69/129 on 45.4% of the vote.
The point is that PR as actually practised in countries that have it is far from guaranteeing that a party won't win a Parliamentary majority off a minority vote.
It's true that you can devise a PR system under which such an outcome is virtually impossible, but such a system would have such serious drawbacks in other ways that it's seldom if ever used (I think maybe Israel, but I'm not sure of the exact operation of their system).
I'd urge advocates of PR to be more specific about which exact system they support, then we can have a serious discussion about its advantages or drawbacks compared with FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 29, 2022 16:54:54 GMT
PR wouldn't lock the Tories out of government, but it would make it much less likely that they would have a governing majority. And given that they have at this point in the political cycle alienated all the other parties that currently win seats, that does mean they would need to change to win again and would need to maintain a broader coalition, both in terms of partners and probably within their own ranks. I think a lot of people supporting PR are doing so for reasons that don't necessarily stand up, but then again that also applies to lots of people supporting FPTP. The best argument for some form of PR in my view is that partisan loyalties are obviously weaker than they are and whilst FPTP works quite well in fairly stable party systems, you're more likely to get heavily disproportionate outcomes as politics becomes more fragmentary and you're more likely to get wild swings. This is all very true, but it's also true that FPTP tends to make politics less fragmentary by heavily penalizing parties that split (unless they come to a pre-election accommodation, in which case they might as well become a single party since they are effectively operating as one).
A feature of the last two British GEs is that the proportion of votes claimed by the two big parties, which had seemed for a long time to be in inexorable decline, has increased markedly and was over 75% in both cases, a figure not seen since 1992 and before that 1979. So there is nothing inevitable about more fragmentary politics.
I suppose it really depends whether you see political fissiparity as a feature or a bug. I think it's a bug.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 29, 2022 17:01:32 GMT
Yes.Do you have another dredgeable list in which a party or candidate has won a majority despite having been outpolled by a rival? We've been round this cycle so often.
Turkey 2002 is a classic example: the AKP won 363 seats (out of 550) with 34% of the vote.
If you want something in western Europe, in the Spanish GE in 2011, the PP won 186/350 with 44.6%; and the same year, even closer to home, in Scotland, SNP 69/129 on 45.4% of the vote.
The point is that PR as actually practised in countries that have it is far from guaranteeing that a party won't win a Parliamentary majority off a minority vote.
It's true that you can devise a PR system under which such an outcome is virtually impossible, but such a system would have such serious drawbacks in other ways that it's seldom if ever used (I think maybe Israel, but I'm not sure of the exact operation of their system).
I'd urge advocates of PR to be more specific about which exact system they support, then we can have a serious discussion about its advantages or drawbacks compared with FPTP.
Ha ha. That way madness lies.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 9,125
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Sept 29, 2022 17:33:47 GMT
Driving the FCDO and No 10 to distraction to secure Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release doesn’t smack of NIMBY-ism. That was Tulip Siddiq, not Rupa Huq. yes, because the Radcliffes are constituents of Tulip Siddiq.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Sept 29, 2022 17:46:47 GMT
Yes.Do you have another dredgeable list in which a party or candidate has won a majority despite having been outpolled by a rival? We've been round this cycle so often.
Turkey 2002 is a classic example: the AKP won 363 seats (out of 550) with 34% of the vote.
If you want something in western Europe, in the Spanish GE in 2011, the PP won 186/350 with 44.6%; and the same year, even closer to home, in Scotland, SNP 69/129 on 45.4% of the vote.
The point is that PR as actually practised in countries that have it is far from guaranteeing that a party won't win a Parliamentary majority off a minority vote.
It's true that you can devise a PR system under which such an outcome is virtually impossible, but such a system would have such serious drawbacks in other ways that it's seldom if ever used (I think maybe Israel, but I'm not sure of the exact operation of their system).
I'd urge advocates of PR to be more specific about which exact system they support, then we can have a serious discussion about its advantages or drawbacks compared with FPTP.
I support AMS or AV+ keeps the constituency member plus a PR boost to balance out the disadvantage smaller parties face under first past the post. I think its important to have constituency members but than list member offers representation to people who feel under represented. It provides for more stable government than straight PR. I'd rather regional lists as you get in the weird situation where because some one in Wandsworth now has a new Labour member you lose your labour member on the list even though you live in Ealing
|
|