O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Kent Magpie]

I voted for PR in 2011, I think I was the only one.

No..there were at least 2 of us then!

[sidders]

No..there were at least 2 of us then!

The insuperable difficulty with PR is the difficulty of tying an MP to a particular constituency.
If a global vote count results in Tory 34% Labour 30% Lib Dem 17% Greens 9 % and so on - how do you ensure that areas finish up with accountable MPs?

[sidders]

lol. Just trying to keep up with how many more are turning their back on Sir Kneeler, aka Mr.Flip Flop. Still, he has his mate Corbyn to talk to, you know, that man he wanted as our PM….you just could not make this up. Lubbly jubbly.

Let's face it, Suckerman, with all the brown stuff coming out of the Covid enquiry with regard to Bozo and Risky, it's hard to conclude that Corbyn would have done worse.
Like Elite says, you need to prepare yourself for a massacre in the New Year. The Tories are dead in the water.

[BigFatPie]

That first line is especially spot on.

The Enquiry has a difficult job to do. We need to learn lessons... even the most harshest critic of the Johnson regime would readily admit that the pandemic was a set of circumstances that would test the most competent of administrations to the absolute limit. And even the most ardent of Johson fanboys and girls would admit that they weren't... hang on, no they wouldn't. What am I saying?

The Enquiry needs to establish how we could have done better, not just in terms of the political leadership but in terms of the NHS, policing, preparedness... every aspect of the response, political and civil. We can only do that if people feel able to admit their mistakes so that we can learn from them.

But at the same time, there needs to be accountability. Quite how to balance all that, I'm not sure. Some of it (especially the corrupt and/or fraudulent PPE contracts) should be through criminal prosecutions.

Yes, ideally the enquiry will do both, give us the tools to deal with a pandemic in the future, *and* pave the way for criminal prosecutions if necessary.

This country doesn’t really do gross negligence manslaughter, you only have to look at Hillsborough to know that.

[Kent Magpie]

The insuperable difficulty with PR is the difficulty of tying an MP to a particular constituency.
If a global vote count results in Tory 34% Labour 30% Lib Dem 17% Greens 9 % and so on - how do you ensure that areas finish up with accountable MPs?

There are systems that do give local accountability to an MP. For instance you could have single transferrable vote for constituency MPs and then 'county' MPs based on the support proportions across the county. The set up is a bit Pittesque, but the voting system would be much fairer (either than the current system or Pitt!).

The issue we have with our current system is that a party with only 34% has unfettered power, only restricted by the courts and Lords (for now). A change won't happen anyway, as both main parties stand to lose in a change of voting system.

[the_anticlough]

There are systems that do give local accountability to an MP. For instance you could have single transferrable vote for constituency MPs and then 'county' MPs based on the support proportions across the county. The set up is a bit Pittesque, but the voting system would be much fairer (either than the current system or Pitt!).

Recent parliamentarians have shown that contact to local constituencies doesn't matter, it's kind of an optional extra for them

Tory MP Chris Pincher hardly turned up in Tamworth for a year or more after he was exposed for the ***ual assaults, groping men in the Carlton Club

Nadine Dories never turned up in Bedfordshire. And Matt Hancock could just zip off to the jungle for a few weeks without as much a by-your-leave. So much for any link between MPs and their constituents

If we really wanted to keep constituency MPs, smart algorithms could allocated proportionally-elected MPS far more rationally than what party central offices do now.

It shouldn't be a problem, and certainly not an obstacle to having fair representation for what the nation actually wants (as opposed to accepting a 4th choice to stop a 5th)

[sidders]

Recent parliamentarians have shown that contact to local constituencies doesn't matter, it's kind of an optional extra for them

Tory MP Chris Pincher hardly turned up in Tamworth for a year or more after he was exposed for the ***ual assaults, groping men in the Carlton Club

Nadine Dories never turned up in Bedfordshire. And Matt Hancock could just zip off to the jungle for a few weeks without as much a by-your-leave. So much for any link between MPs and their constituents

If we really wanted to keep constituency MPs, smart algorithms could allocated proportionally-elected MPS far more rationally than what party central offices do now.

It shouldn't be a problem, and certainly not an obstacle to having fair representation for what the nation actually wants (as opposed to accepting a 4th choice to stop a 5th)

The 3 MPs mentioned above have / will get their comeuppance on election day. The only reason my Labour-sympathising friend votes Tory in Mansfield is because his MP is outstanding when it comes to supporting constituents when things go awry. Most of those MPs that ignore the people they serve will eventually be called to account. Best of all is when the MP has local history / knowledge / familial links with the constituency. Most voters will shun algorhythms as angrily as footy fans deplore VAR.

[the_anticlough]

The 3 MPs mentioned above have / will get their comeuppance on election day. The only reason my Labour-sympathising friend votes Tory in Mansfield is because his MP is outstanding when it comes to supporting constituents when things go awry. Most of those MPs that ignore the people they serve will eventually be called to account. Best of all is when the MP has local history / knowledge / familial links with the constituency. Most voters will shun algorhythms as angrily as footy fans deplore VAR.

I don't think they would, I wonder what proportion of folk, including on NCM, have been in touch with a local MP over the last 5 years...

A fat lot of good the present FPTP system has done/is doing. An occasional letter about a planning application or some other gripe shouldn't be an obstacle to having fairer representation.

There would be lots of solutions anyway - it's not an insurmountable problem if you think beyond the current, failed paradigm

[BanjoPie]

I don't think they would, I wonder what proportion of folk, including on NCM, have been in touch with a local MP over the last 5 years...

A fat lot of good the present FPTP system has done/is doing. An occasional letter about a planning application or some other gripe shouldn't be an obstacle to having fairer representation.

There would be lots of solutions anyway - it's not an insurmountable problem if you think beyond the current, failed paradigm

why the fancy words? - You could have just said 'model' !

[Newish Pie]

I don't think they would, I wonder what proportion of folk, including on NCM, have been in touch with a local MP over the last 5 years...

A fat lot of good the present FPTP system has done/is doing. An occasional letter about a planning application or some other gripe shouldn't be an obstacle to having fairer representation.

There would be lots of solutions anyway - it's not an insurmountable problem if you think beyond the current, failed paradigm

I think there's something to be said for MPs having a constituency link, though (for me) that's nowhere near enough to justify the current FPTP system.

I agree with others that there ought to be scope (and reward or penalty at the ballot box) for level of engagement with the community they represent. There are good and bad constituency MPs and ward councillors of all parties, and the response to the Nadine Dorries' of this world is probably some kind of minimum standards of community engagement leading to the option of a recall petition. There ought to be a way to do this fairly.

I don't know how many people here live in Lillian Greenwood's constituency (Nottingham South), but IIRC she did some good work trying (and I think getting) some answers at the end of the Hardy era, and raising County's plight in Parliament. It's this kind of thing that probably won't happen without a local link of some kind, which doesn't have to be the current system.

I'm a bit suspicious of party list systems where parties can just list candidates and they'll be elected without individual scrutiny. It could be argued that there are constituencies where a performing seal with the right colour rosette would be elected, and I guess that's true. But if someone does something disgraceful, it doesn't seem right to me that they could be named on a party list and sneak in.

The answer might be a mixed system with local MPs plus share-of-vote MPs from a list. It's a tricky one... I've not yet found a system I'm entirely happy with, but I'm very unhappy with the current one.

[magpie_mania]

Politics just gets better.

30p Lee Anderson reported as being offered a very large amount of money to defect to Reform. (£400k mentioned).

Enough to buy 1.3m meals Lee.

[drillerpie]

Politics just gets better.

30p Lee Anderson reported as being offered a very large amount of money to defect to Reform. (£400k mentioned).

Enough to buy 1.3m meals Lee.

That can't be legal surely?

[Bohinen]

why the fancy words? - You could have just said 'model' !

Given your first post in this thread, I would keep my head down, if I were you.

[BanjoPie]

Given your first post in this thread, I would keep my head down, if I were you.

If not for my post this thread would not exist!! - anyway, whilst I was initially impressed with the leadership, it didn't last long. Had you have taken the trouble to read all my posts on this thread you would have read that I changed my mind as events took place. I was a Tory voter but will not be voting for them in the next election as it appears I was voting for a bunch of criminals.

[Elite_Pie]

That can't be legal surely?

I can't see that bothering them too much!

What it does mean is that either Lee Anderson or Richard Tice is telling lies.