Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

The government are making it a vote of no confidence.....

No they're not.

 

There's a fixed term act anyway and single votes on one part of a broader act don't lead to PMs falling. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

'tis a possibility, yes.

 

Though that's more a judgement on the people voting in such a system than the system itself IMO.

It's both. 

 

If you allow a system where a tiny percentage of politicians hold the balance of power in a house you'll often get what you deserved.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Knesset is the perfect example.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

No they're not.

 

There's a fixed term act anyway and single votes on one part of a broader act don't lead to PMs falling. 

It means MPs will be deselected if they vote against the government. And then the government will call for a vote of no confidence, she will have too if defeated on it.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's both. 

 

If you allow a system where a tiny percentage of politicians hold the balance of power in a house you'll often get what you deserved.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Knesset is the perfect example.

Like the DUP. Bought and paid for by taxpayers everywhere.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Like the DUP. Bought and paid for by taxpayers everywhere.

Given the alternative, probably the greatest ever use of taxpayers money in the history of this great nation. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It means MPs will be deselected if they vote against the government. And then the government will call for a vote of no confidence, she will have too if defeated on it.

I'm surprised downing street aren't being a little more naunced around the issue but still would be amazed if she resigned. She's varied on despite the GE result, I can't see her stopping voluntarily. They won't and can't make it a leadership issue. And votes of no confidence in parliament aren't what they used to be with the fixed term act. That won't be happening.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm surprised downing street aren't being a little more naunced around the issue but still would be amazed if she resigned. She's varied on despite the GE result, I can't see her stopping voluntarily. They won't and can't make it a leadership issue. And votes of no confidence in parliament aren't what they used to be with the fixed term act. That won't be happening.

We will see, will these rebels pick their jobs or the EU. I think a few like Clarke or Soubry might but most will bottle it.

[Rogstanley]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Given the alternative, probably the greatest ever use of taxpayers money in the history of this great nation. 

So much for valuing democracy huh

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

So much for valuing democracy huh

What part is undemocratic?

[Rogstanley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

What part is undemocratic?

The bit where we didn't vote for a Tory majority but effectively got one because May spent tax payer money on bribing the DUP. Surprised that needs to be explained tbf.

[Milo]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So much for valuing democracy huh

What, like remoaners valuing the democratic vote to leave the EU?

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The bit where we didn't vote for a Tory majority but effectively got one because May spent tax payer money on bribing the DUP. Surprised that needs to be explained tbf.

All the tory mps were elected, as were all the DUP mps.It's democratic.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The bit where we didn't vote for a Tory majority but effectively got one because May spent tax payer money on bribing the DUP. Surprised that needs to be explained tbf.

It still needs explaining how it’s undemocratic or how it’s any different from any other coalition? The money wasn’t given too the DUP just allocated for Northern Ireland. In your world we can just borrow that foc and it pays itself back and more. So in reality that’s a good deal for the taxpayers right?

[thebartonfox]

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So much for valuing democracy huh

So would a Tory minority government be your preferred alternative? I guess it's either that or a Labour government propped up by other parties, which would also be be no better for democracy given that the Tories got the most votes.

[Rogstanley]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It still needs explaining how it’s undemocratic or how it’s any different from any other coalition? The money wasn’t given too the DUP just allocated for Northern Ireland. In your world we can just borrow that foc and it pays itself back and more. So in reality that’s a good deal for the taxpayers right?

In british politics I believe we've only had one coalition that was formed after the election (previous coalitions having gone to the polls already formed), at least in the last several decades, and that was the recent tory/lib-dem coalition and I would argue that wasn't particularly democratic given that not a single person in the country voted for it. The tory/dup deal is even less democratic because the DUP effectively sold their right to have a genuine say, which again nobody voted for.

[Rogstanley]

20 minutes ago, thebartonfox said:

So would a Tory minority government be your preferred alternative? I guess it's either that or a Labour government propped up by other parties, which would also be be no better for democracy given that the Tories got the most votes.

You just go back to the polls. The Tories could for example say they are going to buy off the DUP using tax payer money, explain why that's good for the tax payer and let the people decide if that's an arrangement they would be satisfied with.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

It's both. 

 

If you allow a system where a tiny percentage of politicians hold the balance of power in a house you'll often get what you deserved.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Knesset is the perfect example.

Fair, though one way or another (like with the Knesset) those with power need to be held accountable - I'm not a fan of a system that gives near-zero accountable power to one ideology for a fixed number of years (no matter what that system is), unless it's shown to be necessary (crises of one kind or another). Power does corrupt, after all.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Fair, though one way or another (like with the Knesset) those with power need to be held accountable - I'm not a fan of a system that gives near-zero accountable power to one ideology for a fixed number of years (no matter what that system is), unless it's shown to be necessary (crises of one kind or another). Power does corrupt, after all.

This. We should have a PR system but don't. The fixed term act is an affront to democracy. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This. We should have a PR system but don't. The fixed term act is an affront to democracy. 

TBH there are some areas - environmental and space policy to name two where the effects and projects are both incredibly important and long-term and concern everyones future - whose policymaking shouldn't be subject to a revolving door of politicians chopping and changing things around and should be more bipartisan and autonomous...but broadly speaking, yes, accountability should be fast and easy for most policy areas.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH there are some areas - environmental and space policy to name two where the effects and projects are both incredibly important and long-term and concern everyones future - whose policymaking shouldn't be subject to a revolving door of politicians chopping and changing things around and should be more bipartisan and autonomous...but broadly speaking, yes, accountability should be fast and easy for most policy areas.

Id agree re long term projects. I've got a degree in physics myself so the sciences are very high in my thinking - particularly environmental sciences which should be leading everything we do as a country - and planet - at this point. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Id agree re long term projects. I've got a degree in physics myself so the sciences are very high in my thinking - particularly environmental sciences which should be leading everything we do as a country - and planet - at this point. 

I'd think that a general rule of thumb should be that projects that will benefit everyone in due course - and a fair amount of science projects come under that heading - should be pretty politically neutral. However, polarisation does tend to get into everything right now.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Claridge said:

I think a far right group with a charastmatic leader would do really well under PR.Certainly hold the balance of power I should think.

Careful what you wish for

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

If you allow a system where a tiny percentage of politicians hold the balance of power in a house you'll often get what you deserved.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Knesset is the perfect example.

 

The greater likelihood of a small, extremist party holding the balance of power is partly why I oppose national "pure PR" with parties getting a % of MPs to match their national vote %.

Israel is an example of that - though they do have a minimum threshold. So, no Israeli party can hold the balance of power with less than 3.25% of the vote....whereas in the UK, the DUP holds the balance with 0.9% of the national vote!

 

But there are ways of having a proportional system without that risk. Under the German PR system, a party doesn't get any seats unless it gets 5% of the vote across a region (or wins a constituency outright).

 

I prefer Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies - similar to the system used to elect MEPs.

That way, you'd elect 7-10 MPs for a much larger constituency (e.g. Leicestershire, Birmingham). Votes would be counted proportionally, so any party with about 7%-12% in that constituency would get at least 1 MP.

 

Advantages of that system:

- Much fairer, more proportional reflection of votes cast

- The big parties would have MPs nationwide, not just in their heartlands: Tory MPs in big cities/industrial areas, Labour MPs in rural areas/small towns, unlike now -> giving them better understanding of the country as a whole

- Smaller parties (e.g. UKIP, Greens) could get fairer representation and a few MPs, provided they had decent support in a large city or county

- Tiny extremist parties would not get any MPs on a small national percentage of votes, so little chance of them holding balance of power

- Parties with strongly localised support (e.g. SNP, Plaid, N. Irish parties) would still get representation in their heartlands

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

The greater likelihood of a small, extremist party holding the balance of power is partly why I oppose national "pure PR" with parties getting a % of MPs to match their national vote %.

Israel is an example of that - though they do have a minimum threshold. So, no Israeli party can hold the balance of power with less than 3.25% of the vote....whereas in the UK, the DUP holds the balance with 0.9% of the national vote!

 

But there are ways of having a proportional system without that risk. Under the German PR system, a party doesn't get any seats unless it gets 5% of the vote across a region (or wins a constituency outright).

 

I prefer Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies - similar to the system used to elect MEPs.

That way, you'd elect 7-10 MPs for a much larger constituency (e.g. Leicestershire, Birmingham). Votes would be counted proportionally, so any party with about 7%-12% in that constituency would get at least 1 MP.

 

Advantages of that system:

- Much fairer, more proportional reflection of votes cast

- The big parties would have MPs nationwide, not just in their heartlands: Tory MPs in big cities/industrial areas, Labour MPs in rural areas/small towns, unlike now -> giving them better understanding of the country as a whole

- Smaller parties (e.g. UKIP, Greens) could get fairer representation and a few MPs, provided they had decent support in a large city or county

- Tiny extremist parties would not get any MPs on a small national percentage of votes, so little chance of them holding balance of power

- Parties with strongly localised support (e.g. SNP, Plaid, N. Irish parties) would still get representation in their heartlands

 

This would be spot on.

 

I'd love to hear any arguments about why this wouldn't be a good idea.

[theessexfox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This would be spot on.

 

I'd love to hear any arguments about why this wouldn't be a good idea.

I think a typical argument against it is that it doesn't produce majority government, and so is less stable and efficient. Though examples like Germany employing it reasonably successfully and FPTP failing two out of the last three times to produce a majority government undermines that somewhat.

 

Another argument against it would be the severance of the MP-constituency link, with one MP accountable to a single electorate for raising their concerns, holding surgeries, etc. This would still be possible with multi-member constituencies but it would be much easier for the MPs to pass the buck, and much harder to directly represent a more homogenous area.

 

I am probably in favour though, it does seem to combine third party representation with an inability for fringe parties to hold the balance of power.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, theessexfox said:

I think a typical argument against it is that it doesn't produce majority government, and so is less stable and efficient. Though examples like Germany employing it reasonably successfully and FPTP failing two out of the last three times to produce a majority government undermines that somewhat.

 

Another argument against it would be the severance of the MP-constituency link, with one MP accountable to a single electorate for raising their concerns, holding surgeries, etc. This would still be possible with multi-member constituencies but it would be much easier for the MPs to pass the buck, and much harder to directly represent a more homogenous area.

 

I am probably in favour though, it does seem to combine third party representation with an inability for fringe parties to hold the balance of power.

Thanks for the cogent counterarguments - as you say though, it works well enough in many places and FPTP has enough drawbacks of its own to give it careful thought.

 

Regarding the local link, TBH at least in the UK, it's overstated IMO - when was the last time you had a widespread example of an MP choosing the will of their local constituents rather than their party whips over any particular issue? Of course, you get MP's raising local issues written in by their constituents in Parliament, but it seldom goes further than that gesture, in my experience. With how small the UK is compared to other countries and how interconnected things are now, I think the "local link" doesn't mean nearly as much as it once did.

 

PR or a STV system does have its own attendant difficulties, but I honestly would still prefer a system like Alf suggests above over FPTP any day of the week or twice on Sunday in terms of accountability across the board.