news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

13 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

didn't Baker endorse Sunak?

that's an individual, i was talking ERG as a group. it's good that neither are right-wing enough for the ERG.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

He FabriCANT believe it. 

[Neil]

its good that spaffer's supporters feel betrayed again.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour left. How exciting.

[steviewevie]

 

[Kurosagi]

It's an interesting dilemma isn't it. [fast moving thread...I'm referring to stevewevie's PR refrence]

Both labour and tory parties would split (perhaps multiple splits) under a shift to PR. Personally I think that would be good/healthy/refreshing/needed.

But it raises the spectre of an extreme Farage type figure (from either end of the spectrum) becoming a king maker. However, we are already living in a post Farage influenced world where UKIP rocket-fueled the tories further to the right as they struggled to nullify the UKIP voting threat over Brexit.

Under PR, it's true that ideology generally becomes louder during elections (the splintered parties are more unified/pure) but the ideology gets significantly watered down during GOVERNING because the real politik of no one party having a majority means horse trading/compromise.

I would argue that a far right idealogue leading a broad coalition under PR is less damaging/toxic than the same person leading a majority party under FPTP. But I guess we can watch Italy and see whether that is true or not.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Kurosagi

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Geez. That’s not exactly ideal for him. 

[Kurosagi]

If Mordaunt scrapes over 100 then if the ComRes poll is anything to go by she could run Rishi close in a membership vote.

[lost]

Why star c*nt but not twat?

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Geez. That’s not exactly ideal for him. 

it mostly isn't that bad...and I don't know if being rich necessarily works against him or not...probably more so during an economic downturn.

Also, why isn't small not on there?

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

It's an interesting dilemma isn't it. [fast moving thread...I'm referring to stevewevie's PR refrence]

Both labour and tory parties would split (perhaps multiple splits) under a shift to PR. Personally I think that would be good/healthy/refreshing/needed.

But it raises the spectre of an extreme Farage type figure (from either end of the spectrum) becoming a king maker. However, we are already living in a post Farage influenced world where UKIP rocket-fueled the tories further to the right as they struggled to nullify the UKIP voting threat over Brexit.

Under PR, it's true that ideology generally becomes louder during elections (the splintered parties are more unified/pure) but the ideology gets significantly watered down during GOVERNING because the real politik of no one party having a majority means horse trading/compromise.

I would argue that a far right idealogue leading a broad coalition under PR is less damaging/toxic than the same person leading a majority party under FPTP. But I guess we can watch Italy and see whether that is true or not.

There's a lot of different forms of PR. Each would produce different results, and some can restrict the smallest parties (eg having a minimum threshold).

It's worth noting that while it gives rise to smaller parties, for a Farage figure to become king-maker, you'd have to have that party being comfortably 3rd with the 4th/5th largest being comfortably behind, and a fairly equivalent number from Labour + Tories.

The bigger concern would arguably be Lib Dems being the deciding force in elections for a generation, rather than a figure from a smaller party. That said, if there were to be the Labour + Tory splits you might anticipate, it'd probably typically end up being 3-point coalitions, between Lib Dem, and either 2 factions of Tories, 2 factions of Labour, or 1 from each. Maybe sometimes both post-Labour + the centre end of Tories and vice versa as well. Greens might end up eating one side of the left-fringe of Labour as well.

The big benefit of PR would be that you'd not see the factionalism within Tory/Labour dominating decisions about government in between elections.

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

Why star c*nt but not twat?

Because only one creates the meme value of Sc**thorpe being auto-censored.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it mostly isn't that bad...and I don't know if being rich necessarily works against him or not...probably more so during an economic downturn.

Also, why isn't small not on there?

When he has to make cuts along with telling the country about living with out means him being mega-rich will probably count against him. 

[Guest]

Anyone know any policies that Sunak will be carrying out once he’s in office? He hasn’t said anything about what he’ll do. 

[Kurosagi]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The bigger concern would arguably be Lib Dems being the deciding force in elections for a generation

Not sure there would be a compelling need for the Lib Dems in a PR future as there would now be a comfortable home for various members in some of the labour/tory split parties?

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The big benefit of PR would be that you'd not see the factionalism within Tory/Labour dominating decisions about government in between elections.

And that would be such a relief after seeing decades of it. But I guess the factional arguments would simply happen at the level of the coalition I guess fuelling instability...

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Not sure there would be a compelling need for the Lib Dems in a PR future as there would now be a comfortable home for various members in some of the labour/tory split parties?

I think there would be. Bear in mind the Lib Dems' position is to be economically centre-right, while being liberal on social issues.

Compared to say, Starmer's Labour, which is economically centre-left, and is so scared of the culture war that they're being fairly right-wing in social issues. Whereas Corbyn's Labour were economically far left, and quite-liberal on social issues.

 

4 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

And that would be such a relief after seeing decades of it. But I guess the factional arguments would simply happen at the level of the coalition I guess fuelling instability...

Not really, because a large part of the factional arguments are arguing that they are the "true" representatives of what it means to be in that party. Arguments about ideological purity, balance of responsibility to seek power, etc. If it's a coalition between different parties, then a compromise on policy is purely pragmatic, and can be done without sacrificing your own ideology for campaigning purposes.

[fraybentos1]

5 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Not sure there would be a compelling need for the Lib Dems in a PR future as there would now be a comfortable home for various members in some of the labour/tory split parties?

 

I think there is always room for a liberal party in PR systems. If PR did happen you'd probs have something like:

-Socialist Party

- Green Party

-Social Democrats 

-Liberal/ Centrist type thing

-Christian Democrats type thing 

-More right wing party but not total nut jobs

-Actual right wing nut jobs party 

[Zoo Music Girl]

I think w*nker is also given the asterisk treatment here.

[Guest]

Under Corbyn, Labour also suffered their worst election result since the 1930s so Labour had to closer to the electorate. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Ozanne

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Under Corbyn, Labour also suffered their worst election result since the 1930s so Labour had to closer to the electorate. 

[Guest]

Plus with the media so ready to jump down any Labour leaders throat over the smallest thing Labour have to be pragmatic and essentially play the game. They have to go closer to where the public to have any chance of winning an election.

Obviously under PR this would still happen but wouldn’t have the same effect as every vote would count and a Tory majority would be much harder for them to achieve so Labour wouldn’t have to worry as much (although there would be other issues to deal with).

[Kurosagi]

12 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think there would be. Bear in mind the Lib Dems' position is to be economically centre-right, while being liberal on social issues.

Actually I take your point. There will always be a centrist party that try to get a majority of their own. Yep, I get that.

13 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If it's a coalition between different parties, then a compromise on policy is purely pragmatic, and can be done without sacrificing your own ideology for campaigning purposes.

Except when it's a compromise between parties then *within* purist parties you'll have members arguing about the extent of being 'pragmatic' and how much it dilutes one of their purist policies versus getting another policy adopted. Parties will still need to make that balance between keeping their members happy versus selling their souls.

15 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I think there is always room for a liberal party in PR systems. If PR did happen you'd probs have something like:

-Socialist Party

There will definitely be more splinter groups than that on the left I reckon!