And now the next kerfuffle - the Labour Leadership

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With regards to the post - it's somewhere along the line between wrong post and correct post. There are parallels to be drawn between the two political systems but not so much in this case.

I don't see how a Democrat adopting the rhetoric of a failed Conservative Prime Minister has anything to do with the Labour Leadership election. This is not a "general" UK politics thread and most of us agreed a few years ago that those "mega-threads" aren't really very useful - they're just a mess.

I read a well balanced article recently in GQ UK about this - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politi...neral-election

So, I read that entire article. The author seems extremely harsh on both sides, and it's worth noting that they reduce both to being essentially morally bankrupt husks. It reads very much like a "call to action" for the moderate Left and centre-Left.

Speaking of Corbyn's supporters, it looks like Len McClusky is trying to have his cake and eat it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51255529

Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr McCluskey said: "I'm absolutely convinced that there were those individuals who opposed Jeremy Corbyn's election right from the beginning, used the anti-Semitism issue - which I think is quite despicable that they did this on such an important subject - to undermine Corbyn, there's no doubt about that."

But he said that the party had "never handled the anti-Semitism issue correctly", adding: "We should have done things quicker."

Now that he's in Power Boris Johnson is going to be rather difficult to remove - he's not unpopular, he's not stupid and he's not a bad political campaigner. None of which makes him necessarily the right person to by Prime Minister, though I think he probably was the right person to handle Brexit. Kier Stammer is the centrist candidate with the best chance of beating Johnson, but he's a bit boring and therefore difficult o differentiate from, well, anything else.

[Montmorency]

I don't see how a Democrat adopting the rhetoric of a failed Conservative Prime Minister has anything to do with the Labour Leadership election. This is not a "general" UK politics thread and most of us agreed a few years ago that those "mega-threads" aren't really very useful - they're just a mess.

I should have posted it in the general thread.

[edyzmedieval]

So, I read that entire article. The author seems extremely harsh on both sides, and it's worth noting that they reduce both to being essentially morally bankrupt husks. It reads very much like a "call to action" for the moderate Left and centre-Left.

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

True, although if people refuse to mobalise there's not a lot you can do. Boris Johnson is really a centre-right politician who has pivoted more to the right because that's where the votes are - rather like Mitt Rommey in 2012. That being said, if Labour continue towards the hard left the Conservatives will become more moderate as people turned off from Labour gravitate to the "other" party and exert an intellectual gravity that drags them back to the centre. Eventually Labour will either concede to a new, more moderate, left-wing party or they will become more moderate themselves.

Ramsey Macdonald and Clem Attlee must be ashamed, though.

[Furunculus]

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

which is what FPTP is supposed to achieve, because you can't achieve power without appealing broadly across the geographic and political divide.
the 'common ground' in short (which is a different thing to the centre ground).

[Beskar]

which is what FPTP is supposed to achieve, because you can't achieve power without appealing broadly across the geographic and political divide.
the 'common ground' in short (which is a different thing to the centre ground).

Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.

This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.

So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interestingly, 14388 votes on the Telegraph website but Stammer and Long-Bailey level on 42%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rophic-defeat/

[Furunculus]

Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.

This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.

So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.

i accept this benefit, but id want to weigh stv against my dislike of coalition politics.
i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

[Beskar]

i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

Well, the best system of government is a benign but competent Tyrant, as originally expounded by Aristotle and demonstrated by Terry Pratchett. So, anything else is a compromise designed to prevent the ascension of a malign Tyrant.

It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.

Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.

[Furunculus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.

As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.

There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.