|
|
Post by pericles on Sept 2, 2021 10:26:54 GMT
This was a useful dataset on seats that are being called 'blue wall' seats-https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_n7iMas7vUMa60QsvcuwnsgU82mc6IRkERM8MGFMkhs/edit#gid=0 The thing that sticks out is there are a lot fewer of these than the old 'red wall' seats, or even the majority of Labour seats that still voted to Leave. So it's really in Labour's interests to try as hard as possible to reduce the education divide and avoid being wedged like it was in 2019. That said, these seats could make the difference in a close election where the Tories also lose some of their closer 2019 gains and traditional marginals. It could easily see a return to hung parliament days. Some sort of LibDem revival in seats only they can win necessary. As I've said elsewhere I do not see Labour winning a majority again, but a hung Parliament could prove interesting Yes, a Labour majority is at least a two-election job, even given the recent political volatility. Seat-wise, their position isn't that different from where the Tories were after 2005, but of course they need bigger swings. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 10:30:34 GMT
It could easily see a return to hung parliament days. Some sort of LibDem revival in seats only they can win necessary. As I've said elsewhere I do not see Labour winning a majority again, but a hung Parliament could prove interesting Yes, a Labour majority is at least a two-election job, even given the recent political volatility. Seat-wise, their position isn't that different from where the Tories were after 2005, but of course they need bigger swings. We have discussed this elsewhere but I don't think a Labour majority is likely at all. A hung Parliament should bring both IndyRef2 and Electoral reform ( as by definition a hung Parliament will need more LibDem seats and they aren't daft enough to do any deal without Electoral reform given the way they were shafted during the Coalition. So it could bring big changes. |
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Sept 2, 2021 10:40:42 GMT
Yes, a Labour majority is at least a two-election job, even given the recent political volatility. Seat-wise, their position isn't that different from where the Tories were after 2005, but of course they need bigger swings. We have discussed this elsewhere but I don't think a Labour majority is likely at all. A hung Parliament should bring both IndyRef2 and Electoral reform ( as by definition a hung Parliament will need more LibDem seats and they aren't daft enough to do any deal without Electoral reform given the way they were shafted during the Coalition. So it could bring big changes. Could a change of electoral system without a referendum really happen though? And if there is a referendum, I doubt they'd vote to get rid of FPP-natural aversion to change, and 2017-2019 make hung parliaments look really bad. From our experience in NZ, it took a perfect storm of several 'wrong winner' elections and both major parties breaking their big promises, so there was a very strong mood for change, and still in the actual referendum MMP only got 54%. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 10:43:28 GMT
We have discussed this elsewhere but I don't think a Labour majority is likely at all. A hung Parliament should bring both IndyRef2 and Electoral reform ( as by definition a hung Parliament will need more LibDem seats and they aren't daft enough to do any deal without Electoral reform given the way they were shafted during the Coalition. So it could bring big changes. Could a change of electoral system without a referendum really happen though? And if there is a referendum, I doubt they'd vote to get rid of FPP-natural aversion to change, and 2017-2019 make hung parliaments look really bad. From our experience in NZ, it took a perfect storm of several 'wrong winner' elections and both major parties breaking their big promises, so there was a very strong mood for change, and still in the actual referendum MMP only got 54%. Yes. Indeed, I think if it happens there will not be a referendum as it will be a manifesto pledge in the parties manifestos who introduce it Another new referendum will not happen in a hurry, for obvious reasons. Those who say there must be a referendum are inevitably those against change. There is no reason at all why there has to be one. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 13:36:58 GMT
Could a change of electoral system without a referendum really happen though? And if there is a referendum, I doubt they'd vote to get rid of FPP-natural aversion to change, and 2017-2019 make hung parliaments look really bad. From our experience in NZ, it took a perfect storm of several 'wrong winner' elections and both major parties breaking their big promises, so there was a very strong mood for change, and still in the actual referendum MMP only got 54%. Yes. Indeed, I think if it happens there will not be a referendum as it will be a manifesto pledge in the parties manifestos who introduce it Another new referendum will not happen in a hurry, for obvious reasons. Those who say there must be a referendum are inevitably those against change. There is no reason at all why there has to be one.
If it's only in the manifesto of a party that gets 10% of the vote before going into coalition, and then goes ahead without a referendum, I think it's fair to say there might be a bit of a backlash...
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 13:39:36 GMT
Yes. Indeed, I think if it happens there will not be a referendum as it will be a manifesto pledge in the parties manifestos who introduce it Another new referendum will not happen in a hurry, for obvious reasons. Those who say there must be a referendum are inevitably those against change. There is no reason at all why there has to be one. If it's only in the manifesto of a party that gets 10% of the vote before going into coalition, and then goes ahead without a referendum, I think it's fair to say there might be a bit of a backlash...
It needs to be in the different manifestos of parties forming a government who will vote through change. A majority under FPTP adding all their seats together, and in the manifestos so it cannot be blocked according to custom. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 13:53:36 GMT
If it's only in the manifesto of a party that gets 10% of the vote before going into coalition, and then goes ahead without a referendum, I think it's fair to say there might be a bit of a backlash...
It needs to be in the different manifestos of parties forming a government who will vote through change. A majority under FPTP adding all their seats together, and in the manifestos so it cannot be blocked according to custom.
That would entail European-style pre-emptive coaliations written into the manifestos, which may also prove unpopular.
2010-2015 we had a coalition government, made up of parties that, combined, did get an absolute majority of the popular vote. While I thought that this was one of the best administrations in my lifetime, a whole lot of people on all sides absolutely hated it for various reasons - even though it was arguably the most democratic and representative government in decades.
Getting people to accept this sort of thing as the norm is a very big ask indeed.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,097
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 2, 2021 13:59:05 GMT
Don't Labour normally put some vague wording about possibly thinking about maybe looking into perhaps at some point reconsidering the voting system in their manifesto?
That could probably be used as a basis for forcing it through without a referendum if that were deemed politically necessary or advantageous. I suspect the Tories ensured there was a referendum in 2011 because they were determined to win in, but Labour might not be so bothered in future coalition negotiations.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 14:01:00 GMT
It needs to be in the different manifestos of parties forming a government who will vote through change. A majority under FPTP adding all their seats together, and in the manifestos so it cannot be blocked according to custom. That would entail European-style pre-emptive coaliations written into the manifestos, which may also prove unpopular. 2010-2015 we had a coalition government, made up of parties that, combined, did get an absolute majority of the popular vote. While I thought that this was one of the best administrations in my lifetime, a whole lot of people on all sides absolutely hated it for various reasons - even though it was arguably the most democratic and representative government in decades.
Getting people to accept this sort of thing as the norm is a very big ask indeed.
It is up to the electorate. I don't want another referendum about anything ever again, so I'm happy with this proposal in order to change the electoral system. If people prefer to have the current system then they can vote for parties which want to keep it (assuming that if this happens Labour have shifted to backing change). Once the system has changed as in Scotland and Wales, it will be accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 2, 2021 14:01:16 GMT
It needs to be in the different manifestos of parties forming a government who will vote through change. A majority under FPTP adding all their seats together, and in the manifestos so it cannot be blocked according to custom.
That would entail European-style pre-emptive coaliations written into the manifestos, which may also prove unpopular. No it wouldn't. it would simply require the parties forming that government to all have pledges to change the voting system to some variety of PR in their manifestos. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 14:03:26 GMT
Don't Labour normally put some vague wording about possibly thinking about maybe looking into perhaps at some point reconsidering the voting system in their manifesto? That could probably be used as a basis for forcing it through without a referendum if that were deemed politically necessary or advantageous. I suspect the Tories ensured there was a referendum in 2011 because they were determined to win in, but Labour might not be so bothered in future coalition negotiations. I don't think that would be either acceptable or desirable. It needs to be agreed by the party and then openly added to the manifesto and I think other parties will not be drawn into negotiation otherwise. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 14:38:13 GMT
That would entail European-style pre-emptive coaliations written into the manifestos, which may also prove unpopular. 2010-2015 we had a coalition government, made up of parties that, combined, did get an absolute majority of the popular vote. While I thought that this was one of the best administrations in my lifetime, a whole lot of people on all sides absolutely hated it for various reasons - even though it was arguably the most democratic and representative government in decades.
Getting people to accept this sort of thing as the norm is a very big ask indeed.
It is up to the electorate. I don't want another referendum about anything ever again, so I'm happy with this proposal in order to change the electoral system. If people prefer to have the current system then they can vote for parties which want to keep it (assuming that if this happens Labour have shifted to backing change). Once the system has changed as in Scotland and Wales, it will be accepted.
I'd like to see many more referendums on all kinds of stuff. More direct democracy. More control given to the voters on specific issues.
The idea that by voting for a party one must endorse 100% of their manifesto is silly. More importantly it's very unfair to hold voters to something they didn't want in the first place.
I might vote Conservative because I like 15% of the stuff in their manifesto compared to 5% of the LD manifesto and 1% of the Labour manifesto, therefore it's the least bad option. I can still be dead against 85% of the stuff in the Tory manifesto and would vote against it given the opportunity.
The EURef result was, at last in part, due to large numbers of people feeling they hadn't been listened to directly; that sending members of broad-church parties to parliament on the basis of policy-bundle manifestos wasn't good enough.
Politicians still haven't learned from this. They are still keen to take 'tacit endorsement' of their policies at any opportunity and proclaim that voters 'roundly rejected' everything about the opposition, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 14:48:34 GMT
It is up to the electorate. I don't want another referendum about anything ever again, so I'm happy with this proposal in order to change the electoral system. If people prefer to have the current system then they can vote for parties which want to keep it (assuming that if this happens Labour have shifted to backing change). Once the system has changed as in Scotland and Wales, it will be accepted. I'd like to see many more referendums on all kinds of stuff. More direct democracy. More control given to the voters on specific issues.
The idea that by voting for a party one must endorse 100% of their manifesto is silly. More importantly it's very unfair to hold voters to something they didn't want in the first place. I might vote Conservative because I like 15% of the stuff in their manifesto compared to 5% of the LD manifesto and 1% of the Labour manifesto, therefore it's the least bad option. I can still be dead against 85% of the stuff in the Tory manifesto and would vote against it given the opportunity.
The EURef result was, at last in part, due to large numbers of people feeling they hadn't been listened to directly; that sending members of broad-church parties to parliament on the basis of policy-bundle manifestos wasn't good enough.
Politicians still haven't learned from this. They are still keen to take 'tacit endorsement' of their policies at any opportunity and proclaim that voters 'roundly rejected' everything about the opposition, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced.
I don't like direct democracy at all. Tends to mean lots of things ordered which costs money but then voting down the money needed to do them. California operated like this for years and what should have been a very wealthy state was bankrupted. Took Jerry Brown to sort it, incongruously! Electors will vote on the balance of who they like most. Electoral reform will be one issue in the manifestos along with lots of other things. There is no reason to pick that out as requiring a referendum. Once established then there is much more chance of a more pluralist parliament. A genuinely right-libertarian party could exist independently rather than as a wing of the Conservative party, for example. It's the way to get rid of broad church parties and lack of choice. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 14:56:44 GMT
That would entail European-style pre-emptive coaliations written into the manifestos, which may also prove unpopular. No it wouldn't. it would simply require the parties forming that government to all have pledges to change the voting system to some variety of PR in their manifestos.
That's what I mean - you're only going to get that unanimity in policy with certain specific combinations of parties, so you are pre-empting coalitions - and to some extent ruling out other coalition options - or making those combinations conditional on certain policies not being enacted where there is no agreement thereon.
Constitutionally this shouldn't be an issue, but we saw in 2010-2015 that it's an absolute deal-breaker for some voters who really didn't seem to understand how coalition government works.
Let's say party A promises NO electoral reform and gets 46% of the vote.
Party B promises electoral reform and gets 30% of the vote.
Party C promises electoral reform and gets 21% of the vote.
Parties A and C go into coalition, and there is no electoral reform because party A is the major partner. However, voters for parties B and C combined did advocate electoral reform and their support totalled over 50%.
But a coalition that excludes party A is seen as shamefully unfair given that they got more votes than any other party by some distance. The narrative then becomes one of robbing the rightful winner of the election AND conspiring to prevent them winning in the future.
In reality any party winning 46% of the vote is likely to have an outright majority under the current system anyway, but 51% of people still voting for parties advocating electoral reform becomes problematic.
This is ultimately why I think referendums are the least-bad option. And that applies to IndyRef, EURef, and also stuff like the death penalty where the public view is clearly not represented proportionally by our politicians.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Sept 2, 2021 15:41:25 GMT
I don't like direct democracy at all. Tends to mean lots of things ordered which costs money but then voting down the money needed to do them. California operated like this for years and what should have been a very worthy state was bankrupted. Took Jerry Brown to sort it, incongruously! Electors will vote on the balance of who they like most. Electoral reform will be one issue in the manifestos along with lots of other things. There is no reason to pick that out as requiring a referendum. Once established then there is much more chance of a more pluralist parliament. A genuinely right-libertarian party could exist independently rather than as a wing of the Conservative party, for example. It's the way to get rid of broad church parties and lack of choice. I used to like direct democracy. After the fall out of the Brexit vote and the acrimony it has caused, I'm not quite as sure as I once was. One thing I know for certain is that I do not like representative democracy, mainly because it isn't. So I guess its the lesser of two evils. As for electoral reform, the strongest argument against is that it is presented as the solution to all the problems with our political system. If that was the case, Australia would be a utopia, but is in fact further along the authoritarian scale than we are. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 17:09:11 GMT
I don't like direct democracy at all. Tends to mean lots of things ordered which costs money but then voting down the money needed to do them. California operated like this for years and what should have been a very worthy state was bankrupted. Took Jerry Brown to sort it, incongruously! Electors will vote on the balance of who they like most. Electoral reform will be one issue in the manifestos along with lots of other things. There is no reason to pick that out as requiring a referendum. Once established then there is much more chance of a more pluralist parliament. A genuinely right-libertarian party could exist independently rather than as a wing of the Conservative party, for example. It's the way to get rid of broad church parties and lack of choice. I used to like direct democracy. After the fall out of the Brexit vote and the acrimony it has caused, I'm not quite as sure as I once was. One thing I know for certain is that I do not like representative democracy, mainly because it isn't. So I guess its the lesser of two evils. As for electoral reform, the strongest argument against is that it is presented as the solution to all the problems with our political system. If that was the case, Australia would be a utopia, but is in fact further along the authoritarian scale than we are. Australia doesn't have a proportional system. I don't think it solves all the problems but it does mean less domination by two large catch all parties and no more majority government on 36% of the vote |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 17:31:24 GMT
I used to like direct democracy. After the fall out of the Brexit vote and the acrimony it has caused, I'm not quite as sure as I once was. One thing I know for certain is that I do not like representative democracy, mainly because it isn't. So I guess its the lesser of two evils. As for electoral reform, the strongest argument against is that it is presented as the solution to all the problems with our political system. If that was the case, Australia would be a utopia, but is in fact further along the authoritarian scale than we are. Australia doesn't have a proportional system. I don't think it solves all the problems but it does mean less domination by two large catch all parties and no more majority government on 36% of the vote The inconvenient contradiction is that the very election that saw a party returned to government with a 66 seat majority on a 36% share is the same election that saw arch PR proponents the Lib Dems achieve their best result in decades. I don't doubt that there are many principled campaigners in their ranks but then, well, Lorely Burt... |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,433
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 2, 2021 17:52:01 GMT
Australia doesn't have a proportional system. I don't think it solves all the problems but it does mean less domination by two large catch all parties and no more majority government on 36% of the vote The inconvenient contradiction is that the very election that saw a party returned to government with a 66 seat majority on a 36% share is the same election that saw arch PR proponents the Lib Dems achieve their best result in decades. I don't doubt that there are many principled campaigners in their ranks but then, well, Lorely Burt... But still ended up with a majority on 36% of the vote. The LibDems don't interest me in terms of how well or badly they do. I just want more choice and better representation |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 2, 2021 18:19:00 GMT
The inconvenient contradiction is that the very election that saw a party returned to government with a 66 seat majority on a 36% share is the same election that saw arch PR proponents the Lib Dems achieve their best result in decades. I don't doubt that there are many principled campaigners in their ranks but then, well, Lorely Burt... But still ended up with a majority on 36% of the vote. The LibDems don't interest me in terms of how well or badly they do. I just want more choice and better representation Presumably you were a Labour member/activist at the time. How did you feel about it then? |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 2, 2021 18:46:36 GMT
It is up to the electorate. I don't want another referendum about anything ever again, so I'm happy with this proposal in order to change the electoral system. If people prefer to have the current system then they can vote for parties which want to keep it (assuming that if this happens Labour have shifted to backing change). Once the system has changed as in Scotland and Wales, it will be accepted.
I'd like to see many more referendums on all kinds of stuff. More direct democracy. More control given to the voters on specific issues.
The idea that by voting for a party one must endorse 100% of their manifesto is silly. More importantly it's very unfair to hold voters to something they didn't want in the first place.
I might vote Conservative because I like 15% of the stuff in their manifesto compared to 5% of the LD manifesto and 1% of the Labour manifesto, therefore it's the least bad option. I can still be dead against 85% of the stuff in the Tory manifesto and would vote against it given the opportunity.
The EURef result was, at last in part, due to large numbers of people feeling they hadn't been listened to directly; that sending members of broad-church parties to parliament on the basis of policy-bundle manifestos wasn't good enough.
Politicians still haven't learned from this. They are still keen to take 'tacit endorsement' of their policies at any opportunity and proclaim that voters 'roundly rejected' everything about the opposition, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced.
I think Mike dealt with this pretty well, but just to take an example about how absurd so-called direct democracy could end up:
Ref 1 - NHS -- Do you agree that an extra £X bn is needed to enable our NHS to fulfill all the backlog of work and to fund new research projects?
Chances are a majority of people would vote YES
Ref 2 a few months later - To pay for the £X bn you agreed we needed to spend on the NHS, we now need to raise the basic rate of income tax by X pence in the £ - do you agree with this proposal?
People being as they are, this would almost certainly result in a NO vote.
OOPS! What does the government do then? They;ve been "instructed" by the Direct Democracy process to spend billions on the NHS but forbidden from raising the funds to do so....  |
|
