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

[BigFatPie]

I completely agree and the sooner the FPTP system is removed the better (the Tories love it but don't even use it for their poxy leadership election). It's *******ised the system for some time leading to many folks not really voting for who they really want to win but instead voting for the least worse option or worse completely wasting their vote.

I do think the only way FPTP is removed soon is by tactical voting at the next election potentially leading to a Lab/Lib Dem coalition.

If you think Labour have lurched too far to the centre for you anticlough I would recommend holding your nose at the ballot box. Sadly a vote for the Greens in nearly every seat in the UK (apart from Brighton & Hove) is a wasted vote under FPTP and assists the Tories.

I’m 100% behind PR, though I think Driller’s predictions of what may happen to the political landscape could well be pretty accurate. We can’t risk ever having another majority Tory government though.

As regards immigration, it was a major reason why Corbyn and many of his fellow travellers on the far left were ambivalent/supportive about Brexit, they imagined a future where the majority of foreign workers were kicked out f the country and the great British artisan could rightfully claim the wage he was entitled to. How’s that working out?

[sinophile]

Corbyn was never anti-immigration. I think the left wing argument for Brexit was much more to with the loss of democratic control (as they saw it) due to decision-making being remote in Brussels.

[BigFatPie]

Corbyn was never anti-immigration. I think the left wing argument for Brexit was much more to with the loss of democratic control (as they saw it) due to decision-making being remote in Brussels.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/07/jeremy-corbyn-wholesale-eu-immigration-has-destroyed-conditions-british

[Mapperleypie]

Corbyn was never anti-immigration. I think the left wing argument for Brexit was much more to with the loss of democratic control (as they saw it) due to decision-making being remote in Brussels.

I disagree. The left of the Labour Party that were against the EU fell into two main camps imo.

- those that saw the driving down of wages by EU migration (which is easily debunked)
- the older guard that saw the single market as some sort of Tory project so was inherently bad.

Both these views were wrong-headed

[the_anticlough]

If you think Labour have lurched too far to the centre for you anticlough I would recommend holding your nose at the ballot box. Sadly a vote for the Greens in nearly every seat in the UK (apart from Brighton & Hove) is a wasted vote under FPTP and assists the Tories.

But that kind of thinking is part of the endless closed circle that supports the status quo.
As an individual voter, my single vote is never going to matter anyway. But let's suppose we're talking about voters like me en masse...Still can't do it, unless they pledge PR (or Burnham is leader), it's way beyond 'holding your nose' for me

In any case, I'd like to see all people like me vote Green, try to embarrass the voting system, hope for a hung parliament (likely), see Labour receive that final push into backing electoral reform.

As far as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' is concerned, people being a bit better off from 2024-28 is nothing compared to the plight of many future generations of British people ruled by Thatcherites with the occasional Blairite interlude for the rest of the 22nd Century. In terms of risk and reward, there's not enough to lose, too much to gain by rolling the dice and trying to change the country into one that works for everyone.

Since Starmar rejected it, the country's largest union has come out in favour of PR to join 83% of the membership apparently.

Just one simple message on their website.

"Our political class has failed working people and our system is broken. It is time to change our democracy."

https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2021/october/unite-conference-historic-vote-to-back-pr-voting-in-westminster-elections/

.

[the_anticlough]

Really interesting conversation this.

I'm pro PR but I think some people are missing a trick if they think moving to PR would turn Britain into a socialist paradise.]

I doubt anyone would think that.

[You would end up with Labour fracturing into Corbynite and Blairite parties, and before/during/after an election campaign they would have to compromise on policy, and the end result might not be very different to what we have now.

In addition we would probably have a centrist party (which might be the Blairite party plus a few moderate Conservatives).

On the other end of the spectrum the same thing would happen to the Conservative party and as well as helping parties further to the left it would also help those further to the right.

Yeah, the two main parties would likely smash to smithereens pretty quickly. That'd be a positive thing!
You'd probably get a couple of decades of centrifugal fracturing before parties began to combine and consolidate again. For me though, it's firstly about guaranteeing a voice, platform and place for the radical ideas the country desperately needs. Suppression of alternatives is one of main aims/outcomes of the current Westminster, business and finance-based system.

It'd be quite unpredictable. Projecting outcomes is interesting, but that misses the point really. You change the voting system because it's the right and fair thing to do.

Imagine devising a political system for a new country from scratch. Erm...What shall we do...
A) Let everyone vote and then have a forum of representatives in proportion to that vote...or
B ) Have a vote and then give disproportionately high representation and unlimited power to one and zero to others...

[drillerpie]

Yeah, the two main parties would likely smash to smithereens pretty quickly. That'd be a positive thing!
You'd probably get a couple of decades of centrifugal fracturing before parties began to combine and consolidate again. For me though, it's firstly about guaranteeing a voice, platform and place for the radical ideas the country desperately needs. Suppression of alternatives is one of main aims/outcomes of the current Westminster, business and finance-based system.

It'd be quite unpredictable. Projecting outcomes is interesting, but that misses the point really. You change the voting system because it's the right and fair thing to do.

Imagine devising a political system for a new country from scratch. Erm...What shall we do...
A) Let everyone vote and then have a forum of representatives in proportion to that vote...or
B ) Have a vote and then give disproportionately high representation and unlimited power to one and zero to others...

Yes I completely agree that it's the right thing to because it's just a fairer system rather than because it might bring any particular outcome.

I think there would be continual splintering of parties, some amalgamation of parties, but more splintering than anything else, because of personal and policy disagreements.

In my subjective opinion this tends to affect left wing parties more as they are more likely to break up because they dogmatically follow their ideology while right wing parties tend to be more dogmatic.

A lot of these parties would then fall under the minimum for entering parliament which would be around 5% or so.

Like I said at the beginning I would definitely like to see it, just because I think it's fairer. It's certain that parties like the Greens would see a great benefit from it, but just remember that any country even at the best of times has at least a 5-10% of people willing to vote for a very far right (BNP style) party, and in these fractious times most Western countries with a PR system have strong or very strong far right parties (Le Pen, AfD, Salvini/Meloni, Vox). I don't see why we would be any different!

[drillerpie]

Sorry I meant to say right wing parties are pragmatic, not dogmatic.

[applepie2]

Sorry I meant to say right wing parties are pragmatic, not dogmatic.

They somehow manage to be both pragmatic and dogmatic. All the Conservative leader candidates are repeating the low taxation dogma, which is a great way of making richer people richer, and poorer people poorer. This is called “levelling up” ...

[GranthamPie]

They somehow manage to be both pragmatic and dogmatic. All the Conservative leader candidates are repeating the low taxation dogma, which is a great way of making richer people richer, and poorer people poorer. This is called “levelling up” ...

Yup…
Socialism for the Rich
Capitalism for the Poor

[the_anticlough]

In my subjective opinion this tends to affect left wing parties more as they are more likely to break up on points of principle while right wing parties tend to be more cynical.

Can't disagree with any of your post, apart from suggesting a rewording of your middle paragraph, hope you don't mind

A 5% threshold would hopefully instill some discipline and compromise.
Also, I'd like to think the left has grown out of the ridiculous splinter groups based on events in a far away country 100+ years ago...The People's Front of Judea type groups should be an irrelevance anyway. We'd have to see.

More ominous for the left might be disagreements around those liberal/cultural issues as you say. If those ever found expression in a political party, my guess would be that it wouldn't do well at all - that would then bust the myths that the likes of the Daily Mail pedal.

[BanjoPie]

If we must have a Tory as PM, out of the last 5 candidates standing I’m interested to know who most of you on here would prefer (I know that not many want a tory PM at all but it is what it is) - My choice would be Penny Mordaunt , interesting read on her Wiki page. “No Eton lass”

[i961pie]

If we must have a Tory as PM, out of the last 5 candidates standing I’m interested to know who most of you on here would prefer (I know that not many want a tory PM at all but it is what it is) - My choice would be Penny Mordaunt , interesting read on her Wiki page. “No Eton lass”

It's more than likely that the people who respond on here to political threads don't want a Tory prime minister but what about the silent majority?

[Frigiliana Pie 1]

If we must have a Tory as PM, out of the last 5 candidates standing I’m interested to know who most of you on here would prefer (I know that not many want a tory PM at all but it is what it is) - My choice would be Penny Mordaunt , interesting read on her Wiki page. “No Eton lass”

I don’t want any of them, but at the moment I’m thinking that Sunak might be the least worst option. At least there would be a bit of a delay in the proposed reckless tax cuts and consequent reductions in public expenditure (which they’re all avoiding talking about).

[BanjoPie]

It's more than likely that the people who respond on here to political threads don't want a Tory prime minister but what about the silent majority?

Everyone’s opinion welcome (you didn’t say who think may be the least worst option)