Dominic Cummings

[CGR]

First past the post gave him that, with a minority of the votes cast.

That's our system, love it or loathe it. Under it we have elected both Conservative and Labour majority and minority governments. Mostly it serve its purpose of providing moderate stable government. Extreme parties that cannot build large followings don't win seats.

[oddoneout]

That's our system, love it or loathe it. Under it we have elected both Conservative and Labour majority and minority governments. Mostly it serve its purpose of providing moderate stable government. Extreme parties that cannot build large followings don't win seats.

It suits the two parties just fine. However when you have the situation that obtains now where the so-called Opposition Party is simply the party that sits opposite, then there is nothing to challenge the governing party. I don't see that something verging on oligarchy is desirable, and it's certainly not what the majority of voters opted for.

[DracoM]

It suits the two parties just fine. However when you have the situation that obtains now where the so-called Opposition Party is simply the party that sits opposite, then there is nothing to challenge the governing party. I don't see that something verging on oligarchy is desirable, and it's certainly not what the majority of voters opted for.

Spot on.

[Dave2002]

It suits the two parties just fine. However when you have the situation that obtains now where the so-called Opposition Party is simply the party that sits opposite, then there is nothing to challenge the governing party. I don't see that something verging on oligarchy is desirable, and it's certainly not what the majority of voters opted for.

And like dictatorships, which many of us in the UK don't like, the parties will try to increase their own power irrespective of what "the people" really want. Things like the fixed term Parliament act, which seemed to some like a good idea, but now guarantees far too long (5 years) by any party which gains a sufficient majority. Even the US President and his team have to face their electorate every four years.

It is also unfortunate that opposition is now by two significant parties - Labour and the SNP, so that unless they could ever get a combined vote or some sort of alliance, they would be unable to gain "power". Where is it written down that the UK has to have two main parties? That was probably just a historical accident.

I assume that despite the shenanigans of last year, and the years before, the circumventing of the fixed term act was just that - and apart from some temporary meddling, the act is still in force. How convenient.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's our system, love it or loathe it...

In which case, it needs to be changed. PR is long overdue. FPTP means governments can win with large parliamentary majorities, despite having only a minority of the votes cast. Worse than that, a party can win more seats than another party who had more votes. Ted Heath lost out to Harold Wilson with such a scenario in the 1970s.

[Serial_Apologist]

And like dictatorships, which many of us in the UK don't like, the parties will try to increase their own power irrespective of what "the people" really want. Things like the fixed term Parliament act, which seemed to some like a good idea, but now guarantees far too long (5 years) by any party which gains a sufficient majority. Even the US President and his team have to face their electorate every four years.

It is also unfortunate that opposition is now by two significant parties - Labour and the SNP, so that unless they could ever get a combined vote or some sort of alliance, they would be unable to gain "power". Where is it written down that the UK has to have two main parties? That was probably just a historical accident.

I assume that despite the shenanigans of last year, and the years before, the circumventing of the fixed term act was just that - and apart from some temporary meddling, the act is still in force. How convenient.

Four years would be preferable to five - and it has to be faced that getting rid of FPTP will (a) distance constituents from "their" local representative by spreading their responsibilities geographically thinner; (b) raise the possibility of minority, possibly extremist parties holding the balance of power; and (c) leave the final decision of who is to govern in the hands of post-election bargaining. But all that taken into account, the reality is that, whichever of the mainstream parties gets voted into government, big business will continue to dictate the fortunes and future(s) of the entire world's populations. Until people finally wake up to this truth in sufficient numbers - which with impending ecodestruction seems at last to be happening - let's hope good old divide-and-rule doesn't win the race first - goverments will just continue serving its interests, making minor legal mitigations to some but far from all its worst excesses, which in the end can amount to just upping and moving all operations where it decides it can make the most money, regardless of consequences to the locals.

[oddoneout]

(b) raise the possibility of minority, possibly extremist parties holding the balance of power;

Not so very different from what we currently have except that PR would better ensure a mix of effective opposing/alternative voices?
I don't think, looking at what we currently have, that I see any of a, b, c as sufficiently significantly worse than FPTP to warrant dismissing PR. I'm not sure I would be concerned about 'my' local representative's responsibilities being spread thinly; it would still be an improvement on being permanently unrepresented and voiceless.
Sadly I agree with you about big business and its unhealthy influence - even more of a problem when the party in charge puts its own interests(collectively and individually) before those of the country.

[ardcarp]

Boris's (and Cummings's) 'opposition' will be from inside the Tory Party. They'll see how things go for a while, but they have a way of removing leaders if they have to.

[eighthobstruction]

PHWHAT!!!!!....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51535367

[Bryn]

PHWHAT!!!!!....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51535367

For those with access to le livre de visage, https://www.facebook.com/bryn.harris...t=feed_comment

[eighthobstruction]

....saying not available Bryn....<<from another thread :

....one wonders whether the term right wing describes much, we have idealogues taking advantage of situations and state sponsored shenanikins blurring the lines.muddying waters so there can be no scrutiny....like what was Dominic Cummings saying on Twitter that encouraged a prospective political adviser to write such Fascist remarks,,,,At this moment all the advisers old writings will be being looked at with interest....The latest efforts to organise the BBC....worry the BBC lovers.....again avoiding scrutiny....is Putinesque or Erdoganesque....with their intentions being -they will lie and ofuscate, get state shadows to do the dirty work (Iran)....because they can - nobody is stopping them.... >>

[Bryn]

....saying not available Bryn....<<from another thread . . .

Do you have an account for the facility referred to in rough translation? If not, maybe that is the rationale for its non-availability to you. Are those with a relevant account able to see it?

[LMcD]

It's good to know that there is some opposition within the Conservative party to certain aspects and manifestations of Downing Street's general approach, because I suspect that the Labour party is going to be involved in navel-gazing for some considerable time and may well remain unelectable for a good few years. An 80-seat government majority may well mean that there is more, rather than less, scope for at least occasional dissent, especially as there quite a few on the Conservative back benches who have little if any prospect of advancement any time soon.

[Bryn]

Following the 'resignation' of a certain dilettante science groupie, it is interesting to consider the different coverage of the news story re recent research publication on brain size and criminality. Here's The Guardian's take: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ure-study-says and here's the BBC's: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51406572 I will leave it to readers to decide whether to seek out alternative presentations of the same research report.

[Dave2002]

Following the 'resignation' of a certain dilettante science groupie, it is interesting to consider the different coverage of the news story re recent research publication on brain size and criminality. Here's The Guardian's take: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ure-study-says and here's the BBC's: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51406572 I will leave it to readers to decide whether to seek out alternative presentations of the same research report.

The two representations are broadly similar, with the BBC version being more concise. However, the BBC headline title is immediately biased, and suggests a view of causality which the investigators were clear to avoid. The “damage” is done once one has read the catchy title.