Not a great advert ....

[LMcD]

There is that, but at a much simpler level it meant far more people, across a wide spectrum of demographics, knew he and his party existed. Actions speak louder than words and a picture is even better... especially if it is shared, as they are relentlessly these days. If no-one knows you exist they can't even begin considering casting a vote in that direction.

Some of his stunts may have been regarded as 'wet'. but may have also attracted a fair few floating voters.

[french frank]

There is that, but at a much simpler level it meant far more people, across a wide spectrum of demographics, knew he and his party existed. Actions speak louder than words and a picture is even better... especially if it is shared, as they are relentlessly these days. If no-one knows you exist they can't even begin considering casting a vote in that direction.

Yes, they were unapologetic publicity stunts because otherwise the news agendas of the media would ignore them. Government, opposition, Farage fill the available news stories.

[oddoneout]

Some of his stunts may have been regarded as 'wet'. but may have also attracted a fair few floating voters.

Preferable to voting floaters?

[french frank]

The Scottish parliament is I believe elected by a form of PR - curious though it is - and the SNP has tried to manipulate it so that they get "absolute" power.

Could you explain how they have tried to do it?

[Dave2002]

Could you explain how they have tried to do it?

Difficult - but they tend to make different claims before and after elections.

Example: Before: This election is about Brexit -or something else - such as the Cost of Living Crisis
After: This election gives a clear mandate in favour of indpendence - or sometimes a vote for [or on] indpendence.

The temporary alliance with the Green Party - also taken to be be in favour of independence - was also used to bolster claims - such as :

A majority of elected representatives are in favour of independence.

The behaviour of the SNP members does look very similar to the way winning parties in the FPTP system try to manipulate that system in their favour.
It has perhaps taken some while for the parties involved to have worked out how to gain and expand their power within the Scottish system - which was apparently designed with the deliberate intention of not allowing any one party to gain control.

[french frank]

Difficult - but they tend to make different claims before and after elections.
[...] The behaviour of the SNP members does look very similar to the way winning parties in the FPTP system try to manipulate that system in their favour.

In that case you're not talking about the PR system: you're talking abiout how politicians 'behave'.

Another point: you mentioned earlier the composition of the Knesset as an argument against PR. That's wrong. The composition of the Knesset was the result of the majority of Israeli voters voting for right wing candidates, if not for Netanyahu himself for candidates to the right of him.

Compare that with what has just happened in France. If they had had FPTP, the RN would have swept to power a week ago. Because the French system is a form of preferential voting, the electorate was able to assess the result of the "first preferences" and unite accordingly to prevent RN taking power. The first round 'winners' were shown to be the party that most voters didn't want.

Then look at the UK and its FPTP: when was the last time we didn't end up with a government which the majority of the country didn't want?

[Dave2002]

In that case you're not talking about the PR system: you're talking about how politicians 'behave'.

So how are you going to stop bad behaviour by politicians?

Another point: you mentioned earlier the composition of the Knesset as an argument against PR. That's wrong. The composition of the Knesset was the result of the majority of Israeli voters voting for right wing candidates, if not for Netanyahu himself for candidates to the right of him.

Indeed - but the current state of ongoing violence has been perpetuated by Netanyahu knowing that he doesn't have the full support to keep him in power without the extreme right wingers. Those extreme right wingers seem happy enough to continue the violence.

Actually we do sometimes have similar - though perhaps not so extreme - situations in the UK. When Theresa May was running out of support she looked to some MPs from Northern Ireland - and no doubt did some undesirable "deals" to buy those people so that they would vote with the Cons. I don't feel that tails wagging dogs for rewards is a good way to get results, but it happens.

Compare that with what has just happened in France. If they had had FPTP, the RN would have swept to power a week ago. Because the French system is a form of preferential voting, the electorate was able to assess the result of the "first preferences" and unite accordingly to prevent RN taking power. The first round 'winners' were shown to be the party that most voters didn't want.

Second or third round voting does seem to focus the minds, and seems to have pulled France back from the brink. That kind of system may indeed be something which would help us in the UK, but it won't happen if the ruling parties and members don't want it to.

Then look at the UK and its FPTP: when was the last time we didn't end up with a government which the majority of the country didn't want?

Possibly never - do you know the answer?

[oddoneout]

So how are you going to stop bad behaviour by politicians?

A start would be to enforce such processes as already exist. The Owen Paterson affair was a glaring example(among very many) of actively manipulating to ensure that sanctions were not applied to a known transgression, to avoid a potential difficulty for the Conservative government - ironically it didn't in the end achieve that since the by-election happened anyway due to resignation.
I gather it is high on the Starmer agenda as part of the drive to restore trust in political process.

[LMcD]

Then look at the UK and its FPTP: when was the last time we didn't end up with a government which the majority of the country didn't want?

Labour came close in 1945, with 49.7% of the popular vote.

[french frank]

Labour came close in 1945, with 49.7% of the popular vote.

That would be 79 years ago, then, which makes my point about FPTP. It may deliver 'strong' government but it has still meant 'strong government' with only minority support from the electorate.

Indeed - but the current state of ongoing violence has been perpetuated by Netanyahu knowing that he doesn't have the full support to keep him in power without the extreme right wingers. Those extreme right wingers seem happy enough to continue the violence.

But you seemed to be suggesting that PR had resulted in 'the tail wagging the dog'. Netanyahu is in the same political camp as the ultra-Orthodox and he's in power because a majority of the Israeli voters wanted a strong right-wing government. It comes in two flavours: lemon and bitter lemon.

[LMcD]

That would be 79 years ago, then, which makes my point about FPTP. It may deliver 'strong' government but it has still meant 'strong government' with only minority support from the electorate.



But you seemed to be suggesting that PR had resulted in 'the tail wagging the dog'. Netanyahu is in the same political camp as the ultra-Orthodox and he's in power because a majority of the Israeli voters wanted a strong right-wing government. It comes in two flavours: lemon and bitter lemon.

In 1931 the Conservatives won 55.5% of the vote and their allies in the national government a further 5.3%.
(Source: House of Commons Library)

[french frank]

In 1931 the Conservatives won 55.5% of the vote and their allies in the national government a further 5.3%.
(Source: House of Commons Library)

Though perhaps citing that single example over a period of almost 100 years doesn't prove a rule - or even a probability. As the last election shows, the 'smaller' parties won something like 40% of the vote between them - that's excluding the Lib Dems who are now in the top three. So the likelihood of FPTP delivering a 'majority' government nowadays, even with alliances/coalitions, is decreasing. So Labour has won an enormous majority on barely a third of the votes.

[Serial_Apologist]

Though perhaps citing that single example over a period of almost 100 years doesn't prove a rule - or even a probability. As the last election shows, the 'smaller' parties won something like 40% of the vote between them - that's excluding the Lib Dems who are now in the top three. So the likelihood of FPTP delivering a 'majority' government nowadays, even with alliances/coalitions, is decreasing. So Labour has won an enormous majority on barely a third of the votes.

In an exchange on a TV discussion programme yesterday, it was interesting to observe a left-winger arguing for some form of PR, even though it had been pointed out to her that such a system was as likely to deliver far-right votes as those for the far-left. Things have definitely moved on from the days when we, on the far-left, argued for "no platform for racists and fascists", insisting that Hitler and the Nazis would not have achieved power had they been denied publicity for their views. A more, shall we say, "grown up" attitude now seems general to the left of social democracy, one that has been forced to acknowledge the issue of legitimacy parliamentary (in the broadest sense) democracy has acquired over many centuries in "first world" countries as the final defining contesting ground for determining governmental exercise of power. This, as anyone who has followed the historical legacy of left-wing politics will know, marks a qualitative change in all but the most fundamentalist adherents to anarchism ("No government") and the variants of Marxism represented by revolutionary insurrectionists from the time of the Second International (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-International), when voices against standing candidates for parliamentary office from lands with little or no experience of "bourgeois democracy" had prominence over the debate on national strategies for achieving socialism. And it should naturally be remembered that at the time not all citizens yet had the right to vote, even in countries such as Britain. Our left wing advocate on the programme argued that yes, PR opened up the chances for those diametrically opposed to her views, but also opened the opportunities for broader-based and more informed debate than of the kind circumscribed by FPTP.

[french frank]

I agree with Serial :-)

[Dave2002]

That would be 79 years ago, then, which makes my point about FPTP. It may deliver 'strong' government but it has still meant 'strong government' with only minority support from the electorate.



But you seemed to be suggesting that PR had resulted in 'the tail wagging the dog'. Netanyahu is in the same political camp as the ultra-Orthodox and he's in power because a majority of the Israeli voters wanted a strong right-wing government. It comes in two flavours: lemon and bitter lemon.

No. You re perhaps right that PR by itself doesn’t lead to dog wagging, but it would appear now that it’s Netanyahu’s determination to stay in power which “requires” him to seek support from extremists in the government. Clearly I don’t know all the details but my impression is that now there are more moderate voices in Israel who would now perhaps like to see different behaviour from the government as a whole. You might say that opinion has shifted slightly in the electorate [I’m not sure] but the “leaders” can’t change direction or be ousted as long as there is right wing support from just a few members.