Government & Post Election Discussion

I like how you speak as if you have knowledge of how/why people wanted to leave the EU.

Clue - you don't.

I have wanted to leave the EU for over a decade, so don't come up with rubbish about Brexit being a scapegoat for crap government and or a protest vote - though I don't doubt there were protest votes, I actually believe people voted for Brexit en-masse, because, um, they actually do want to leave the EU.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Brexit was the result of the government not really listening to the electorate. [SEPH]: That doesn't make sense. In absolute terms Brexit was/is the result of the electorate's decision in the Referendum. If the government hadn't listened to the electorate, what was that about? What had the electorate told government (and how)?

People voted to leave as much in protest at the government as any other reason, despite the total leave assumption by those who took the voting options at face value. May compounded this with a bizarre set of manifesto pledges which ended up leaving them with no clear majority. [SEPH]: This is pure fantasy; you seem to be saying that people were fed up with Cameron's government (why?) and took it out on Cameron in this specific Referendum. Or maybe they were disappointed with Cameron being able to bring back better concessions in his relationship negotiation - which was always doomed as Brexit negotiations have been.

I see no further point in trying to change a closed mind regarding our undemocratic electoral system. Disillusionment with the governments we get lumped with will continue. [SEPH]: As it happens, I voted FOR the Alternative Single Transferable Vote proposition. But I don't find first past the post undemocratic; only Lib-Dems and other also ran generally feel that way. As to disillusionment with governments we get - PR wouldn't change that; it would be wrangling central as the Tory/Lib coalition more or less proved.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Mick

I like how you speak as if you have knowledge of how/why people wanted to leave the EU.

Clue - you don't.

I have wanted to leave the EU for over a decade, so don't come up with rubbish about Brexit being a scapegoat for crap government and or a protest vote - though I don't doubt there were protest votes, I actually believe people voted for Brexit en-masse, because, um, they actually do want to leave the EU.

No I don't, but then neither do you.

There were a whole load of reasons why people voted to leave. The insistence on this only being the simplistic options given on the ballot paper is and will continue to be the problem.

---------- Post added at 08:48 ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 ----------

@Sephiroth Please explain why genuine PR would not change anything?

What was offered was little different to FPTP, so I m not surprised the majority voted to keep the known undemocratic system rather than switch to a similarly undemocratic electoral system.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

No I don't, but then neither do you.

There were a whole load of reasons why people voted to leave. The insistence on this only being the simplistic options given on the ballot paper is and will continue to be the problem.

---------- Post added at 08:48 ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 ----------



@Sephiroth Please explain why genuine PR would not change anything?

What was offered was little different to FPTP, so I m not surprised the majority voted to keep the known undemocratic system rather than switch to a similarly undemocratic electoral system.

Well, of course, it would change something. Parliament would be as huge a mess as it is now with parties raging against each other, coalitions being strained and so on. The UK doesn't have a tradition of PR so people's thought processes don't gravitate towards that kind of governance. As I say about Europe, we look alike but don't think alike.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well, of course, it would change something. Parliament would be as huge a mess as it is now with parties raging against each other, coalitions being strained and so on. The UK doesn't have a tradition of PR so people's thought processes don't gravitate towards that kind of governance. As I say about Europe, we look alike but don't think alike.

"Europe" doesn’t think alike - the Nordic countries think differently from the Central European countries, who think differently from the Med countries, and even within those areas there are different ways of thinking/approaches.

Conflating “Europe" as one group thinking the same way is a fallacy, and used to support a "us vs them" approach.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well, of course, it would change something. Parliament would be as huge a mess as it is now with parties raging against each other, coalitions being strained and so on. The UK doesn't have a tradition of PR so people's thought processes don't gravitate towards that kind of governance. As I say about Europe, we look alike but don't think alike.

No, parliament would reflect the wishes of the voters. Parties would have to negotiate and plan for the longer term, rather than be dogmatic, tunnel visioned and out of touch with the electorate.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

No, parliament would reflect the wishes of the voters. Parties would have to negotiate and plan for the longer term, rather than be dogmatic, tunnel visioned and out of touch with the electorate.

In an ideal world, yes. But to take the Brexit example, the 52/48 split is broadly reflected in parliament. And those useless whatsits can’t “negotiate and plan for the longer term...”.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

In an ideal world, yes. But to take the Brexit example, the 52/48 split is broadly reflected in parliament. And those useless whatsits can’t “negotiate and plan for the longer term...”.

FPTP only works with a binary choice. Parliament has not had the support of the majority of voters since 1935 - apart from 2010 when we had the Con/Lib coalition, which despite people disapproving at least the majority supported the coalition in terms of votes.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

FPTP only works with a binary choice. Parliament has not had the support of the majority of voters since 1935 - apart from 2010 when we had the Con/Lib coalition, which despite people disapproving at least the majority supported the coalition in terms of votes.

FPTP works better if there is STV sitting behind it. I’m a democrat at heart and I don’t want a fractious parliament that is paralysed like at present.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

FPTP works better if there is STV sitting behind it. I’m a democrat at heart and I don’t want a fractious parliament that is paralysed like at present.

It is paralysed because it does not have the support of the majority of the population. In reality around 36% of the votes made any impact on the result. PR forces coalitions with majority support of the voters.

Voters are not buying into the Tory or Labour manifesto pledges in sufficient numbers for them to do the job unhindered. As the Libs got burned last time by little more than lip service coalition, they are not going to jump in again without a decent negotiation and guarantees, neither of which May was prepared to offer. Instead of which, a party no one on the mainland can vote for, is holding the Tories to ransom.

People vote X because it is better than Y, rather than voting for Z whose policies they actually support. PR gives people the choice to vote for what they actually support, rather than the negative voting of the current system.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

It is paralysed because it does not have the support of the majority of the population. In reality around 36% of the votes made any impact on the result. PR forces coalitions with majority support of the voters.

Voters are not buying into the Tory or Labour manifesto pledges in sufficient numbers for them to do the job unhindered. As the Libs got burned last time by little more than lip service coalition, they are not going to jump in again without a decent negotiation and guarantees, neither of which May was prepared to offer. Instead of which, a party no one on the mainland can vote for, is holding the Tories to ransom.

People vote X because it is better than Y, rather than voting for Z whose policies they actually support. PR gives people the choice to vote for what they actually support, rather than the negative voting of the current system.

Well, partly correct. However, you may have a coalition which has the support of the majority of the population, but is as weak as the current government because although the numbers add up, every decision has to be put off, diluted or abandoned to get cross party support.

Look at the series of weak governments Italy has had to put up with over the years. We don't want that here.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, partly correct. However, you may have a coalition which has the support of the majority of the population, but is as weak as the current government because although the numbers add up, every decision has to be put off, diluted or abandoned to get cross party support.

Look at the series of weak governments Italy has had to put up with over the years. We don't want that here.

No it does not have the support of the majority of the population. 43.3% of those who voted did so for either the Tories or the DUP. 42.4% Tory, 0.9% DUP.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

No it does not have the support of the majority of the population. 43.3% of those who voted did so for either the Tories or the DUP. 42.4% Tory, 0.9% DUP.

That might be a somewhat naïve view. It isn't 100% true that people who voted one way oppose everything done by the other party in power.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That might be a somewhat naïve view. It isn't 100% true that people who voted one way oppose everything done by the other party in power.

It’s also isn’t 100% true people who voted one way at a point in time would consistently vote the same way again...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, partly correct. However, you may have a coalition which has the support of the majority of the population, but is as weak as the current government because although the numbers add up, every decision has to be put off, diluted or abandoned to get cross party support.

Look at the series of weak governments Italy has had to put up with over the years. We don't want that here.

Don't be surprised if that is what we get for the couple of fixed terms unless a Thatcher or Blair comes along.