agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,625
Likes: 4,195
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 15, 2020 19:58:06 GMT
So Momentum are looking to 'further the democatisation' of the party (whatever that means) rather than the unions tipping in x million votes. Reminds me of a Mac cartoon from many years ago.
Trade union leader Len Murray was sat in a deckchair on the beach with a knotted hankie on his head, eating an ice cream. One of his minions approached him and said comrade we need you to return to conference to cast your million votes
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 15, 2020 21:45:13 GMT
The SNP is for PR actually. From their constitution: "We will continue to call for the first past the post voting system to be replaced at Westminster with proportional representation, so that every vote and every part of the country counts." Good for them Labour soon will be too Which will leave only the Tories. So as soon as they lose (could be a long wait!), we will likely get reform. Unless Labour changes its mind after winning again, as it did last time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_%28UK%29I don't know a great deal of the workings of the Labour party and in particular the 'left' (Momentum and other affiliates) but I thought RLB's stance on PR (sitting on the fence worked well for Corbyn, didn't it?!) was because of a lack of support for PR from her principal backers on the left? IIRC Blair was heavily in favour of PR but gave way (compromised, there's a word that could do with a resurgence in 2020 ) to the left (Prescott et al). One wonders if Blair with a stonking majority in 1997 couldn't force it through then this current lot have not a hope in hell. Unless the penny finally drops with the left that without electoral pacts/alliances they'll be perma-opposition... that penny maybe proceeded by a near wipe-out at the next election (30% vote share probably reflects the dislike of Johnson more than anything). Ho hum, same old, same old.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 15, 2020 23:50:41 GMT
I don't know a great deal of the workings of the Labour party and in particular the 'left' (Momentum and other affiliates) but I thought RLB's stance on PR (sitting on the fence worked well for Corbyn, didn't it?!) was because of a lack of support for PR from her principal backers on the left? Long-Bailey is probably closest to McDonnell, and he's for PR. The Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform has asked candidates for their official position, although at the moment it says response not yet received for all except Jess Phillips. Make Votes Matter also has a nice map with all MPs and their position on PR.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 17, 2020 0:56:16 GMT
I cannot believe the appetite on this thread for PR government. We just experienced a horrible foretaste of it in the closing stages pre-election. It was the most frustrating parliament I can ever remember. There was no appetite to agree to any policy whatsoever, however trivial it may have been. There was just no way Labour could ever be seen to agree to anything the Tories would put forward, and the kingmaker parties holding the balance of power like the SNP and Lib Dems would never agree with either side. Pure log-jam, it was simply impossible to make any progress until finally Labour eventually conceded to an election when they thought they might chance a win. You can surely remember the frustration it caused during that period and the sheer despair in the air? Remember how sick to death of politics and politicians the country became in a few short weeks?
How anyone would want to return to that shambles is beyond me.
You may not agree with the majority party's policies, but at least parliament is now unblocked. They can finally get on with business unimpeded by every blowhard wanting their 10 minutes in front of camera to state their grievance and how they plan to stop the machinery of government.
FPTP may not be perfect, but it beats PR hands down.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 17, 2020 9:31:33 GMT
I cannot believe the appetite on this thread for PR government. We just experienced a horrible foretaste of it in the closing stages pre-election. It was the most frustrating parliament I can ever remember. There was no appetite to agree to any policy whatsoever, however trivial it may have been. There was just no way Labour could ever be seen to agree to anything the Tories would put forward, and the kingmaker parties holding the balance of power like the SNP and Lib Dems would never agree with either side. Pure log-jam, it was simply impossible to make any progress until finally Labour eventually conceded to an election when they thought they might chance a win. You can surely remember the frustration it caused during that period and the sheer despair in the air? Remember how sick to death of politics and politicians the country became in a few short weeks? How anyone would want to return to that shambles is beyond me. You may not agree with the majority party's policies, but at least parliament is now unblocked. They can finally get on with business unimpeded by every blowhard wanting their 10 minutes in front of camera to state their grievance and how they plan to stop the machinery of government. FPTP may not be perfect, but it beats PR hands down. If all you want is "unimpeded parliament", dictatorship is hard to beat. The log jam was because 1) that reflected the way people voted (kind of the point of a democratic system) 2) the culture here is still stuck on FPTP winner takes all 3) you forgot 2010-15 where there was 5 years of a stable coalition and 4) the log jam you refer to happened under a FPTP system not a PR system - how can you blame it on PR! What you saw as a broken parliament others saw as parliament holding to account a wannabe authoritarian government that was refusing to make any compromises and acting as if it had a majority and could do what it wanted.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 17, 2020 9:51:47 GMT
I cannot believe the appetite on this thread for PR government. We just experienced a horrible foretaste of it in the closing stages pre-election. It was the most frustrating parliament I can ever remember. There was no appetite to agree to any policy whatsoever, however trivial it may have been. There was just no way Labour could ever be seen to agree to anything the Tories would put forward, and the kingmaker parties holding the balance of power like the SNP and Lib Dems would never agree with either side. Pure log-jam, it was simply impossible to make any progress until finally Labour eventually conceded to an election when they thought they might chance a win. You can surely remember the frustration it caused during that period and the sheer despair in the air? Remember how sick to death of politics and politicians the country became in a few short weeks? How anyone would want to return to that shambles is beyond me. You may not agree with the majority party's policies, but at least parliament is now unblocked. They can finally get on with business unimpeded by every blowhard wanting their 10 minutes in front of camera to state their grievance and how they plan to stop the machinery of government. FPTP may not be perfect, but it beats PR hands down. The crisis in parliament was manufactured for political gain, a strategy that has been employed throughout history. The Reichstag fire is the example that comes to mind and just to be clear I am in no way equating the current Tory govt with that regime. The strategy taps into loss aversion, we focus more on losses than on gains. This forum is a case in point.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 18, 2020 9:45:32 GMT
I cannot believe the appetite on this thread for PR government. We just experienced a horrible foretaste of it in the closing stages pre-election. It was the most frustrating parliament I can ever remember. There was no appetite to agree to any policy whatsoever, however trivial it may have been. Only because nobody wanted to even consider any kind of negotiated consensus. The voices shouting all belonged to extremists who refused to consider any kind of compromise. How come it works well in so many other countries?
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 18, 2020 15:50:28 GMT
I cannot believe the appetite on this thread for PR government. We just experienced a horrible foretaste of it in the closing stages pre-election. It was the most frustrating parliament I can ever remember. There was no appetite to agree to any policy whatsoever, however trivial it may have been. Only because nobody wanted to even consider any kind of negotiated consensus. The voices shouting all belonged to extremists who refused to consider any kind of compromise. How come it works well in so many other countries? Or does it? If the wealth of a nation is any reflection of its electoral system (and I'm musing whether there might be some correlation), it is interesting to note that the top three net contributors to the EU's coffers are Germany, UK and France, none of which is full PR (Germany has a part PR, mixed system). The remainder of Europe is almost entirely PR. Some of those PR nations do still contribute, but to a much lesser extent. By far most are net beneficiaries. Hungary & Lithuania are the only non-PR net beneficiaries, and by inspection of the weightings involved, there does appear to be a minor correlation. Random, or does PR indeed lead to a slightly worse off country? I did read somewhere that PR countries tend to spend more on themselves. I'm sure a stats/politics PhD somewhere will have already published the full research... I appreciate this is lazy thinking, skimming the surface, but I don't have the time or inclination to delve deeper. Too busy rebalancing my funds and p2p portfolio before they bankrupt me... 😁
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 18, 2020 16:08:51 GMT
Both Berny and IFS have opposing views on the subject and I must admit to both arguments being powerful.
I hated the logjam of last year but I think on balance I would still rather PR on the grounds that the way we as a country make decisions is more important than the decisions themselves.
FPTP rewards very small numbers of voters in marginals and also rewards those who pay (like me) about £2 a month to have a vote on which candidate is going to represent their party. Where I live, only one party has ever won the constituency so the real vote takes place when a new candidate is selected by that candidate and not at the election itself. As Berny says the end result is often preferable but here the "means" is more important than the "end" (otherwise as someone said why not have a dictatorship).
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 18, 2020 17:01:50 GMT
Looking for some common ground here, at least we can all agree (I hope!) that we'd never want a dictatorship!
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 18, 2020 17:05:31 GMT
Both Berny and IFS have opposing views on the subject and I must admit to both arguments being powerful. I hated the logjam of last year but I think on balance I would still rather PR on the grounds that the way we as a country make decisions is more important than the decisions themselves. The old grey matter is no longer as sharp as it was, but I'm inclined to think the decisions themselves are probably more important than the way they are made, no? Should we nuke Iran tomorrow? The correct decision matters far more than whether it was taken by a FPTP government or a PR government.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 18, 2020 18:01:26 GMT
Only because nobody wanted to even consider any kind of negotiated consensus. The voices shouting all belonged to extremists who refused to consider any kind of compromise. How come it works well in so many other countries? Or does it? If the wealth of a nation is any reflection of its electoral system (and I'm musing whether there might be some correlation), it is interesting to note that the top three net contributors to the EU's coffers are Germany, UK and France, none of which is full PR (Germany has a part PR, mixed system). The remainder of Europe is almost entirely PR. Some of those PR nations do still contribute, but to a much lesser extent. By far most are net beneficiaries. Hungary & Lithuania are the only non-PR net beneficiaries, and by inspection of the weightings involved, there does appear to be a minor correlation. Random, or does PR indeed lead to a slightly worse off country? I did read somewhere that PR countries tend to spend more on themselves. I'm sure a stats/politics PhD somewhere will have already published the full research... I appreciate this is lazy thinking, skimming the surface, but I don't have the time or inclination to delve deeper. Too busy rebalancing my funds and p2p portfolio before they bankrupt me... 😁 The German system is basically PR - and it is similar the the system Jenkins proposed for the UK, and to the ones used in Scotland and Wales - with some MPs elected by constituency on first past the post plurality, and a top up via second party vote to make it proportional in the final makeup (with a 5% threshold). I wouldn't call it a "part PR" system - it's PR as the outcome is proportional to the vote - probably more so than the Scottish and Welsh systems as the ratio of top up seats to constituency seats is higher in the German system. So, counter to your thesis, Germany is the richest nation in Europe and has PR (and a history of stable government).
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 18, 2020 20:26:16 GMT
Point taken about Germany. Luckily, I didn't submit the thesis... Back to our own parliament though, we seem to have bred the most argumentative and confrontational politicians. Quoting adrianc, " nobody wanted to even consider any kind of negotiated consensus. The voices shouting all belonged to extremists who refused to consider any kind of compromise." The problem for PR here in the UK is negotiated consensus and compromise are pretty much the fundamental bedrock of PR, so could we ever make it work here? Perhaps there's something peculiar to the British psyche which rules it out for us! A separate consideration: once PR is in place, it is very difficult to throw it out and go back to the two predominant party FPTP. Has that ever been achieved anywhere in the world? Germany once tried and failed. The minority parties would never vote to give up their power. I may have misunderstood, but I believe Italy's PR parliament has pretty much ground to a halt, mirroring what we saw here pre-election, yet there's no way to escape the logjam PR has landed them in.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 18, 2020 20:35:36 GMT
Or does it? If the wealth of a nation is any reflection of its electoral system (and I'm musing whether there might be some correlation), it is interesting to note that the top three net contributors to the EU's coffers are Germany, UK and France, none of which is full PR (Germany has a part PR, mixed system). The remainder of Europe is almost entirely PR. Some of those PR nations do still contribute, but to a much lesser extent. By far most are net beneficiaries. Hungary & Lithuania are the only non-PR net beneficiaries, and by inspection of the weightings involved, there does appear to be a minor correlation. Random, or does PR indeed lead to a slightly worse off country? I did read somewhere that PR countries tend to spend more on themselves. I'm sure a stats/politics PhD somewhere will have already published the full research... I appreciate this is lazy thinking, skimming the surface, but I don't have the time or inclination to delve deeper. Too busy rebalancing my funds and p2p portfolio before they bankrupt me... 😁 The German system is basically PR - and it is similar the the system Jenkins proposed for the UK, and to the ones used in Scotland and Wales - with some MPs elected by constituency on first past the post plurality, and a top up via second party vote to make it proportional in the final makeup (with a 5% threshold). I wouldn't call it a "part PR" system - it's PR as the outcome is proportional to the vote - probably more so than the Scottish and Welsh systems as the ratio of top up seats to constituency seats is higher in the German system. So, counter to your thesis, Germany is the richest nation in Europe and has PR (and a history of stable government). I think Germany is 7th.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 18, 2020 21:32:43 GMT
The German system is basically PR - and it is similar the the system Jenkins proposed for the UK, and to the ones used in Scotland and Wales - with some MPs elected by constituency on first past the post plurality, and a top up via second party vote to make it proportional in the final makeup (with a 5% threshold). I wouldn't call it a "part PR" system - it's PR as the outcome is proportional to the vote - probably more so than the Scottish and Welsh systems as the ratio of top up seats to constituency seats is higher in the German system. So, counter to your thesis, Germany is the richest nation in Europe and has PR (and a history of stable government). I think Germany is 7th. Germany is 7th by GDP per capita. On that measure the UK isn't even in the top ten and explains our comparative standard of living given the strength of our economy on the global stage. I'm not sure any of us would describe Luxemberg as the richest county in Europe. On the standard GDP measure Germany is the top dog in Europe followed by the UK with France very close behind.
|
|