Fun and games with ballot papers

[vinteuil]

Why free health service?
...

... free electricity, free gas, free water, free accommodation, free central heating, free concerts, free car hire, free bicycles, free hot air balloons, free meursault...

.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... free meursault...

But only in Summer.

[Richard Barrett]

free meursault

I'm not sure I agree with that, he is after all guilty by his own admission.

[vinteuil]

I'm not sure I agree with that, he is after all guilty by his own admission.

.



.

[greenilex]

At least we don’t have an Electoral College.

[burning dog]

Jenkins WAS a social liberal, but the 1974 labour Manifstos were, if not hard left socialist, more dirigeste than the latest Labour proposals. The present Labour campaign could be criticised for being too populist and not being focussed enough. The policies seemed like a shopping list of aspirations for the next ten years. eg. free Broadband is not as important as staffing the NHS properly IMO. The Tories are guilty of this as well though (40 New Hospitals!!). This election seemed to have been won and lost over Brexit and the party leaders (alleged) characters only, to a great extent . Tax and Spend aspects of the Labour v Tory manifestos were investigated even less adequately than usual.

[LMcD]

Well done Bella for getting this thread back on track! No, I cast my vote using my heart even though it was completely pointless. So well done also LHC for posting the PR list:



Question. In the unlikely event of the UK ever adopting a fair PR system, would the leader of the largest party (i.e. CON in your list above) automatically be given first shot at choosing a coalition partner to form a government? Or could any combination of the others team up to form the magic 326 ?

No party or combination of parties is going to replace a system under which it won.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No party or combination of parties is going to replace a system under which it won.

(Before the 1997 election, Blair was an enthusiast for changing the voting system.)

[LMcD]

(Before the 1997 election, Blair was an enthusiast for changing the voting system.)

Before the 1997 election, he was doubtless a lot of things, and I'm sure BoJo will similarly 'refine' his views as and when it suits him or when he's sure people have forgotten what he said.

[burning dog]

Before the 1997 election, he was doubtless a lot of things, and I'm sure BoJo will similarly 'refine' his views as and when it suits him or when he's sure people have forgotten what he said.

If he really is a one nation Tory as is claimed, Priti Patel and Dominic Raab are strange bed-fellows.

[vinteuil]

If he really is a one nation Tory as is claimed, Priti Patel and Dominic Raab are strange bed-fellows.

,... and it'll be interesting to see if there is any place for Mr Rees-Mogg.

.

[LMcD]

,... and it'll be interesting to see if there is any place for Mr Rees-Mogg.

.

Possibly not, now that the ERG can no longer hold the government to ransom.

[muzzer]

Mogg was unpersoned over his disgraceful remarks, it would be even more disgraceful if he were reinstated, though nothing’s impossible now. I think on balance it’s more likely Johnson will attempt a veneer of respectability whilst tacitly condoning nastiness from those ordinary people he’s fleecing to try and distract their attention. It’s anyone’s guess really.

[Pulcinella]

Some encouraging news here (albeit shocking that such support is clearly felt to be going to be in ever increasing demand under a Tory government):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/14/housing-charities-and-food-banks-report-spike-in-donations-after-tory-win

[Serial_Apologist]

No party or combination of parties is going to replace a system under which it won.

The economic model is central to the relationship between voting system and democracy. A PR system would work fine in a more egalitarian and socially and economically inclusive system - which capitalism cannot by its very nature be, as becomes ever more self-evident to even the most wilfully ignorant - because the range of differences would be narrowed down to disagreements over relatively paltry matters of planning and resources allocation, and would likely be more permeable to external accountability. Under the present system the current argument is between FPTP, in which any political party standing has theoretically an equal chance to win the largest number of votes within a geographically transparent system of accountabilty for constituents, or some form of PR, leading to distancing (= alienation) of constituent from representative, and the modern equivalent of post-election jockeying in smoke-filled rooms.

While it might be such paradoxes that lead some to advocate extreme anti-democratic substitutionism for mass extra-parlimentary pressure - ie terrorism - in the end whichever is better, FPTP or PR, does all boil down to the underlying question of power, who has it, how they hang onto it, and how they got it in the first place; because power means money means influence and in the end getting ones way by force if necessary. Who for example elects the mass media bosses hasn't entered this discussion, but it's crucial.