UK Politics

[The Flash]

First-past-the-post is the guardian of the two-party dominance in the US/UK. It lowers the representation different parties would have in a proportional model, not allowing them to make an impact, gain prominence and become a viable option in the electoral race. This results in people continuously voting tactically to avoid the less favorable candidate among the traditionally dominant parties, which allows said traditionally dominant parties to retain their dominance.

In my view, the 2011 AV referendum in the UK all but confirmed that first-past-the-post is perceived by the parties that dominate the vote as a guardian of the status quo. Conservatives headed the "No" vote and initiated a smear campaign on the Liberal Democrats who led the "Yes" vote, and Labour signed off on the Conservatives' preservation campaign by remaining neutral, which is no surprise, as they are the other beneficiary of first-past-the-post.

I am sick and tired of people having to vote for the less bad popular candidate instead of the candidate they actually prefer. I have an aversion to anything that incentivizes such an approach, which also includes electoral thresholds in proportional representation models. It's in violation of what makes democracy an appealing form of government.

 

[GhostofCain]

I do not know how many here might be in my situation, as I have experienced both systems: a more proportional one in Spain (based on the D’Hondt method) and the British one. The former has the advantage of being more proportional (although in Spain it did benefit the majority parties and the nationalist ones and penalised my favoured option, the left-wing Izquierda Unida, which used to be the third party and never ended being part of any government coalition with the socialist party), while the latter means that you have a person representing you. I would have never voted for the Tory MP in my constituency but she was a good MP: she did reply to me every time I wrote to her to complain or raise my concerns and the pressure from the constituents made her vote against the official party line more than once. You would only hear from the Spanish MPs every four years, the fortnight before an election...

In terms of every vote having the same value nothing beats a referendum. Oh, wait...

 

[bearfan]

First-past-the-post is the guardian of the two-party dominance in the US/UK. It lowers the representation different parties would have in a proportional model, not allowing them to make an impact, gain prominence and become a viable option in the electoral race. This results in people continuously voting tactically to avoid the less favorable candidate among the traditionally dominant parties, which allows said traditionally dominant parties to retain their dominance.

In my view, the 2011 AV referendum in the UK all but confirmed that first-past-the-post is perceived by the parties that dominate the vote as a guardian of the status quo. Conservatives headed the "No" vote and initiated a smear campaign on the Liberal Democrats who led the "Yes" vote, and Labour signed off on the Conservatives' preservation campaign by remaining neutral, which is no surprise, as they are the other beneficiary of first-past-the-post.

I am sick and tired of people having to vote for the less bad popular candidate instead of the candidate they actually prefer. I have an aversion to anything that incentivizes such an approach, which also includes electoral thresholds in proportional representation models. It's in violation of what makes democracy an appealing form of government.

I really do not disagree with any of that, particularly the vote for the lesser of two evils versus someone you actually like. But if you are just voting for a party, who are you really voting for beyond a political class .. similar to what you would see in US party conventions or things like Democratic Party Super Delegates and generally end up with (sometimes odd) coalition governments.

Not sure exactly how it works in the UK, but at least in the US, you have seen the parties somewhat make themselves over based on the results of the primaries and battles from the various party wings


Again, I think they both have big flaws, but in the spirit of the lesser of two evils, I prefer voting for a person who, at least in theory, is a representative of a smaller defined constituency who have different life experiences and trades versus essentially a career party member.

 

[bearfan]

I will add, I think ranked ballots are a good measure that is gaining some traction in some states that will help 3rd parties gain votes and take away some of the tactical voting. I think it worked fairly well in Maine

Essentials of how it works for the unfamiliar. You vote for your first and second choices. The top two vote getters are decided, then everyone's second choice for those outside of the top two are counted. Then you can vote Green, Libertarian, whatever and (most likely) pick a Dem or Republican as your second choice.

 

[GhostofCain]

In spite of the positives of having an MP as a point of contact, I would prefer a more representative system:

This is what the general election results would have looked like if we used a PR system

Tories would have won only 288 seats – the largest party in a hung parliament

www.independent.co.uk

 

[bearfan]

In spite of the positives of having an MP as a point of contact, I would prefer a more representative system:

This is what the general election results would have looked like if we used a PR system

Tories would have won only 288 seats – the largest party in a hung parliament

www.independent.co.uk

I would have 2 comments

1) I think it is a bit foolish to say you want a different election system due to not liking an outcome of a particular election. Not saying this is what you specifically are doing, but certainly some (saw plenty of that in the US after the last Presidential election)

2) Those would not have been the results as the campaigns would have been different .. rather than trying spending time and resources to eek out an extra 10 or 100 votes in a close district, campaigns would be more geared towards running up totals in areas of larger support and minimizing the margins in places they would normally not do well.

 

[GhostofCain]

I would have 2 comments

1) I think it is a bit foolish to say you want a different election system due to not liking an outcome of a particular election. Not saying this is what you specifically are doing, but certainly some (saw plenty of that in the US after the last Presidential election)

2) Those would not have been the results as the campaigns would have been different .. rather than trying spending time and resources to eek out an extra 10 or 100 votes in a close district, campaigns would be more geared towards running up totals in areas of larger support and minimizing the margins in places they would normally not do well.

I am definitely not saying I want other system because I do not like the result of the current one; I am only saying I would prefer a system that is more representative than the one we have in the UK whilst at the same time retaining a close contact with your MP.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

There are pluses and minuses to both, but I prefer smaller constituencies and an individual responsible that the US/UK system has.

In the US, where voting against the party line is common, it makes sense. In the UK my impression is that the party whip is used much more extensively and that MPs voting against the party line is the exception. (In the Brexit debacle, there's been plenty of uproar due to some MPs going against the party line, so I doubt it will become common in the future either).

Whenever that's the case, you as a voter are voting for a party's program more than for an individual MP, and in that case it makes more sense to use a proportional system.

I get the idea that each congress member/MP is responsible to his/her constituency. But with a strong enforcement of the party line, the MP will be working for the party more than for the constituency anyway.

Edit: Bah, I wasn't replying to the latest post and all my points have been discussed later on ...

 

[bearfan]

In the US, where voting against the party line is common, it makes sense. In the UK my impression is that the party whip is used much more extensively and that MPs voting against the party line is the exception. (In the Brexit debacle, there's been plenty of uproar due to some MPs going against the party line, so I doubt it will become common in the future either).

Whenever that's the case, you as a voter are voting for a party's program more than for an individual MP, and in that case it makes more sense to use a proportional system.

I get the idea that each congress member/MP is responsible to his/her constituency. But with a strong enforcement of the party line, the MP will be working for the party more than for the constituency anyway.

Yeah, that is a problem for sure. But isbthat not really up to the voters to vote against a representative that does not really represent a given district?

 

[LooseCannon]

I am definitely not saying I want other system because I do not like the result of the current one; I am only saying I would prefer a system that is more representative than the one we have in the UK whilst at the same time retaining a close contact with your MP.

That's why I like mixed-member plurality with ranked ballots. Everywhere gets their representative and additional representatives are added "at large" to balance out the regions via proportional representation.

 

[srfc]

I am definitely not saying I want other system because I do not like the result of the current one; I am only saying I would prefer a system that is more representative than the one we have in the UK whilst at the same time retaining a close contact with your MP.

PR STV does that, constituencies are small usually electing 3, 4 or 5 representatives, so you still have the effect of the representative needing to look after the interests of their constituents.

 

[Brigantium]

In the US, where voting against the party line is common, it makes sense. In the UK my impression is that the party whip is used much more extensively and that MPs voting against the party line is the exception. (In the Brexit debacle, there's been plenty of uproar due to some MPs going against the party line, so I doubt it will become common in the future either).

Whenever that's the case, you as a voter are voting for a party's program more than for an individual MP, and in that case it makes more sense to use a proportional system.

I get the idea that each congress member/MP is responsible to his/her constituency. But with a strong enforcement of the party line, the MP will be working for the party more than for the constituency anyway.

Edit: Bah, I wasn't replying to the latest post and all my points have been discussed later on ...

Party whip is used extensively, but there's also a culture of being 'on message' first and representing the constituency second. Some MPs don't care and put principles first. They're also the ones risking deselection next time there's an election.

 

[Cat Milk Supreme]

A question for @Black Wizard or anyone else who has an insight. What do you think the result* in Scotland means for an independence referendum? Was a vote for the SNP a pro-remain vote or a vote for independence? Both? Neither?
How would a referendum go, in your opinion?

*SNP are pro-remain and pro-independence, they won 48 seats to the Conservatives 6 in Scotland. They want a referendum on independence, Boris is not keen.

 

[Brigantium]

I know a few Scots (ex Labour voters) who are staunch SNP voters now. They favour independence, but I get the impression that they simply feel no other party had the best interests of the (Scottish) population at heart.

 

[Xennon]

My pro-UK and pro-EU friends (sadly) think that a new referendum is inevitable as a consequence of the elections. They will have to choose between the difficulties of independence and the difficulties of staying in the UK.

 

[LooseCannon]

I'm going to be changing this to the British Politics thread sometime soon. In the meantime, read this excellent editorial about Corbynism and why a viable electoral path is important in politics:

This is a repudiation of Corbynism. Labour needs to ditch the politics of the sect | Jonathan Freedland

A 1970s hard-left clique led the party into a dead end – and it’s the poor and vulnerable who will pay the price, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

I am a progressive son of a bitch, but even I know that extremely left wing ideas can only be introduced in times of national crisis, which the UK didn't have, no matter how much Brexit has been portrayed as such. If they had a hard Brexit....but there wasn't one. There won't be one.

Specifically, this:

For the last four years, Labour has been in thrall to the notion that it’s better to have a manifesto you can feel proud of, a programme that calls itself radical, than to devise one that might have a chance of winning. Some even argued that, “win or lose”, Corbyn achieved much simply by offering a genuinely socialist plan – in contrast with Labour’s 1997 offer, which was so boringly modest and incremental.

Well, guess what. Labour’s “radical” manifesto of 2019 achieved precisely nothing. Not one proposal in it will be implemented, not one pound in it will be spent. It is worthless. And if judged not by the academic standard of “expanding the discourse”, but by the hard, practical measure of improving actual people’s actual lives, those hate figures of Corbynism – Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – achieved more in four hours than Corbyn achieved in four years. Why? Because they did what it took to win power.

That’s what a political party is for. It’s not a hobby; it’s not a pressure group that exists to open the Overton window a little wider; it’s not an association for making friends or hosting stimulating conversations and seminars; it’s not “a 30-year project”. Its purpose is to win and exercise power in the here and now. It is either a plausible vehicle for government or it is nothing.

In short, politics is not some fucking game where you come away with a participation medal and feel happy. Labour lost. That means the working class lost. That means people who rely on the NHS lost. That means the vulnerable lost. And there are so many people who are still defending Corbyn for giving - handing - Boris the biggest Tory majority in a generation.

 

[The Flash]

Choosing blind idealism over realistic pragmatism makes you a loser. The art of sustainable change lies in compromise and the introduction of gradual reform with that ability to compromise, not ideological showmanship and ineffective rhetoric.

Many on the left, and I mean the actual left and not centre-left, chronically suffer from an infatuation with romanticized visions of revolution, utopia and ideological purity that makes them unable to grasp this concept. I'd argue they suffer from romanticized visions period, but that's a different debate.

 

[bearfan]

Labour lost. That means the working class lost.

They lost because they lost the working class vote
It really comes down to

1) convoluted and unpopular platform overall
2) Not having any kind of clear plan on the most prominent issue in the campaign (Brexit)
3) Very unpopular leader
4) The anti-Semitism charges hurt, but what hurt more was the failure to decisively address them

All dangers of living in a bubble.

 

[Black Wizard]

A question for @Black Wizard or anyone else who has an insight. What do you think the result* in Scotland means for an independence referendum? Was a vote for the SNP a pro-remain vote or a vote for independence? Both? Neither?
How would a referendum go, in your opinion?

*SNP are pro-remain and pro-independence, they won 48 seats to the Conservatives 6 in Scotland. They want a referendum on independence, Boris is not keen.

I reckon it's a combination of pro-independence, pro-remain and anti-Westminster all mixed up together. If another referendum does happen then I'm certain that the UK is done for, but there's no way that Boris will allow it to happen. He won't want to be known as the man who delivered Brexit but stained his legacy by breaking up the UK. Sturgeon will ask for one soon enough and be rebuffed, then she'll go to court and the legal experts say she has no chance of winning because of how the law is written. That's fine by me. I would have been unhappy with either Boris or Corbyn becoming PM, with the latter in thrall to the SNP. As long as there's not another referendum in Scotland then I don't care who the PM is. I'm glad to see that some Scottish Conservatives have held on though so that there will be Scottish representation in government from someone other than Michael Gove with his English accent. A couple of the Scottish Conservatives who lost their seats were actually good local MPs who did a lot in their constituencies, so political views aside it's sad to see them lose to the SNP.

The SNP aren't much different from the Conservatives themselves, in fact you could legitimately call them Yellow Tories (or Tartan Tories). Local councils controlled by the nationalists have introduced austerity measures which have taken their toll on poor families. Many of their donors are wealthy businessmen and they are not keen on taxing big businesses. The SNP's record in government is actually pretty poor but they've been able to hide behind it by becoming a one-policy party. Education standards have slipped badly under the SNP and many health-related targets have been missed. All the things that are going badly in Scotland are devolved issues and big bad Westminster and the evil Tories can't be blamed for them. Economic experts have also recently said that the SNPs plans for Scotland would lead to further austerity. Brexit was a gift to them from David Cameron. If he hadn't wasted everyone's time with this a few years ago then we might be seeing the last days of the SNP-dominated administration, but sadly the other parties are all too weak in Scotland to mount a serious challenge. The Conservatives have become the second biggest party by opposing more independence referenda, and may also have gained some support from the one-third of Scots who supported Brexit in 2016 (and that's not a proportion of the population who should be ignored). Labour have gone from being the dominant party in Scotland to barely clinging on. It's shameful for them to be lagging behind the Conservatives considering that they had 40 MPs in the 2010 General Election when Gordon Brown was still Labour leader. Labour will never have a majority government in Westminster again until they start to recoup their losses in Scotland. And the Lib Dems are the Lib Dems.


The worst thing about the Conservative majority for me is not that Brexit will get done as I never cared much for the EU anyway, but it's that there won't be any discussion about electoral reform, an elected upper chamber of parliament or a written constitution. The Conservatives have managed to successfully game the system and make it work for them so they won't countenance any change. So we're stuck with two party politics in England, the SNP unfairly dominating the seats in Scotland, a bunch of unelected pensioners having oversight of the House of Commons and an unwritten constitution set by precedent and interpretation.

 

[GhostofCain]

I'm going to be changing this to the British Politics thread sometime soon. In the meantime, read this excellent editorial about Corbynism and why a viable electoral path is important in politics:

This is a repudiation of Corbynism. Labour needs to ditch the politics of the sect | Jonathan Freedland

A 1970s hard-left clique led the party into a dead end – and it’s the poor and vulnerable who will pay the price, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

I am a progressive son of a bitch, but even I know that extremely left wing ideas can only be introduced in times of national crisis, which the UK didn't have, no matter how much Brexit has been portrayed as such. If they had a hard Brexit....but there wasn't one. There won't be one.

Specifically, this:



In short, politics is not some fucking game where you come away with a participation medal and feel happy. Labour lost. That means the working class lost. That means people who rely on the NHS lost. That means the vulnerable lost. And there are so many people who are still defending Corbyn for giving - handing - Boris the biggest Tory majority in a generation.

That editorial from The Guardian presents many valid points. Bottom line is us progressive types have lost as a combination of many factors. Blue Christmas indeed.

What I find somewhat ironic is that some of the measures from the Labour Party manifesto have been demonised as going back to a socialist state while if implemented would not make the size of the British state any bigger than the French or German ones!