Leadership

[UKHamlet]

Despite his many and obvious faults, Johnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men. He wasn't a good leader. In fact he was cack, but people followed him for better or for worse. Most political leaders have it, even Corbyn and Trump. They inspired their broader constituency.

I get the feeling that Truss doesn't. She is, at best, a placeholder until someone better emerges. Even her own MPs despise her and no-one is going over the ramparts for her any time soon. She's also an inveterate fuck up fairy. Someone observed that she's thrown Kwarteng under a bus, but the bus swerved and crashed into a party of pensioners wearing "We love Lizzo" t-shirts.

[Sandydragon]

Despite his many and obvious faults, Johnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men. He wasn't a good leader. In fact he was cack, but people followed him for better or for worse. Most political leaders have it, even Corbyn and Trump. They inspired their broader constituency.

I get the feeling that Truss doesn't. She is, at best, a placeholder until someone better emerges. Even her own MPs despise her and no-one is going over the ramparts for her any time soon. She's also an inveterate fuck up fairy. Someone observed that she's thrown Kwarteng under a bus, but the bus swerved and crashed into a party of pensioners wearing "We love Lizzo" t-shirts.

There is an element of personality and charisma needed in most leaders. Not all have necessarily had it, but in an age where we elect our leaders and tv is important, it’s hard to think of a politician who can do well without some charisma.

Starmer isn’t that charismatic but I think perversely that will be an advantage as he comes across as pragmatic and sensible. May had no charisma and neither does truss so both will struggle to communicate. Cameron and Blair were good communicators so it’s not necessarily a thing that charismatic politicians are completely off the wall, but then along comes Boris who was at least refreshingly honest in many ways. After years of spin doctored politicians Boris was seen as authentic (even if that was probably spin doctored as well).

Bottom line in a democracy is that you must be able to communicate your idea or get people excited
About something to be successful. I don’t sense that truss is going to be able to communicate her ideas and with the utter cockup of the mini budget I don’t think she will get a chance now.

[Zhivago]

Johnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men.

I agree Hammy... Bring Back Boris!

In all seriousness, this situation is mainly due to what I'd call attrition. The Tories have simply been in power too long. They lack new leaders and ideas. They've burnt through the highest quality of what they had, and now they're using the heaviest, dirtiest fuel at the bottom of the tank. No wonder it is so polluting.

[Which Tyler]

Of course, most of that "burning through" was in BJ's purge of competence ahead of the 2019 GE

[Zhivago]

Of course, most of that "burning through" was in BJ's purge of competence ahead of the 2019 GE

Yeah, they burnt off all the remainers (aka sensible people).

[Sandydragon]

Johnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men.

I agree Hammy... Bring Back Boris!

In all seriousness, this situation is mainly due to what I'd call attrition. The Tories have simply been in power too long. They lack new leaders and ideas. They've burnt through the highest quality of what they had, and now they're using the heaviest, dirtiest fuel at the bottom of the tank. No wonder it is so polluting.

That's a good way of putting it!

An I agree. Being in government is exhausting. Modern media makes it worse in my opinion but its hard to get your grand ideas through both the media and parliament. You use a lot of political capital and energy doing that and of course you have to respond to events all the time. Its really hard to take time out to reflect on what to do next when you are fire fighting all the time.

In opposition there is that time and space to think up new ideas and how they could be implemented.All governments run out of steam eventually and allied to that I think voters feel that its 'time for a change' after a while almost regardless of who is in power.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Of course, most of that "burning through" was in BJ's purge of competence ahead of the 2019 GE

Yeah, they burnt off all the remainers (aka sensible people).

That's the thing, they really have substantially become Ukip, in terms of the inclinations and competence of the MPs. It will take a while to return from the far right. Although losing most of their seats would help.

[UKHamlet]

Johnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men.

I agree Hammy... Bring Back Boris!

In all seriousness, this situation is mainly due to what I'd call attrition. The Tories have simply been in power too long. They lack new leaders and ideas. They've burnt through the highest quality of what they had, and now they're using the heaviest, dirtiest fuel at the bottom of the tank. No wonder it is so polluting.

TBF, as shit as Johnson was, Truss is making a real fist of being worse. She's obviously academically above average, but lacks the ability to get her troops motivated. Those that like her are tepid and those that don't, really dislike her.

[cashead]

A lot of these people also live inside bubbles, and often lack the capacity or empathy required to actually understand that people often don't have the same standard of living as they do.

Also, she's a bean-counter who seems to think that this means she has the tools to talk about educational theory, so she can fuck off. For extra hilarity points, it's funny how she's singled out Media Studies for criticism - a subject that is fundamentally built on critical thinking and reading. Get fucked, Liz - if that is, indeed, even your real name.

[Stom]

I think you're being too kind.

No, seriously.

At this point in time, anyone who believes in trickle down is so dogmatic in their view that they are incapable of examining data and making decisions for the good of the country. Once that happens, you should not be said to be anything other than unfit for office.

The simple fact is that this Tory party have been propped up by the modern inability of the centrists/centre-left - because there aren't really any left-wingers left - to actually put up a fight, get their act together, and win an election. And it's a global phenomenon, suggesting that, yes, there is more to it than that, but the simple fact of the matter is that they don't know what they're doing. Politics is so full of career politicians nowadays that it just stinks.

[UKHamlet]

I'd hardly call Starmer a "career politician". He sacrificed a very lucrative career as a leading barrister to go into politics.

[Stom]

I'd hardly call Starmer a "career politician". He sacrificed a very lucrative career as a leading barrister to go into politics.

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

[Sandydragon]

I'd hardly call Starmer a "career politician". He sacrificed a very lucrative career as a leading barrister to go into politics.

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

[UKHamlet]

I'd hardly call Starmer a "career politician". He sacrificed a very lucrative career as a leading barrister to go into politics.

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

Isn't it odd how people who have never studied Politics and Government often seem to hold this opinion?

The smartest politician since the fifties was probably Harold Wilson - PPE Oxford.
The best marketing politician since the fifties was arguably either Tony Blair or David Cameron. Jurisprudence and PPE.

[Mellsblue]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

[Sandydragon]

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

Isn't it odd how people who have never studied Politics and Government often seem to hold this opinion?

The smartest politician since the fifties was probably Harold Wilson - PPE Oxford.
The best marketing politician since the fifties was arguably either Tony Blair or David Cameron. Jurisprudence and PPE.

But theres truth to it. Ive worked in government and whilst there are lots of pragmatic people, theres plenty who are wedded to various theories. That's normally where the ideology of the SpAD and minister meet the reality of the civil servant and the outcome is a bit more logical. Sadly, this government is determined to destroy the civil service.

[Sandydragon]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

There is the risk of a communist or a BNP MP in government which isnt an outcome Id be happy with. That said, UKIP managed to take over the conservatives when they realised that their voting share wasn't resulting in their own MPs.UKIP aren't BNP by a long stretch, but they hold views that are firmly to the right. Even a coalition between the Conservatives and UKIP would have kept the integrity of the party after Brexit.

There is definitely a debate on the future of the upper house. At the moment its an expensive waste of time. My preference is for a federal UK government with English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments subordinate to that.

[Banquo]

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

Isn't it odd how people who have never studied Politics and Government often seem to hold this opinion?

The smartest politician since the fifties was probably Harold Wilson - PPE Oxford.
The best marketing politician since the fifties was arguably either Tony Blair or David Cameron. Jurisprudence and PPE.

Wilson was canny, but his legacy and track record was pretty iffy tbh.

[Banquo]

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

Isn't it odd how people who have never studied Politics and Government often seem to hold this opinion?

The smartest politician since the fifties was probably Harold Wilson - PPE Oxford.
The best marketing politician since the fifties was arguably either Tony Blair or David Cameron. Jurisprudence and PPE.

But theres truth to it. Ive worked in government and whilst there are lots of pragmatic people, theres plenty who are wedded to various theories. That's normally where the ideology of the SpAD and minister meet the reality of the civil servant and the outcome is a bit more logical. Sadly, this government is determined to destroy the civil service.

I think there is another issue.....this may be chicken and egg....but I don't think the civil service are any cop frankly. Looking at the parties in Downing Street- yes, Boris- that was all civil servants. Now this could be years of being eroded by the politicians, but either way....

[UKHamlet]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

PR is definitely the solution. We have extremists in government right now. The ERG are UKIP by a different name and the Campaign Group are Leninists. FPTP decidedly does not drag the parties to the centre ground, which is why we have a fairly extreme right wing government right now, which relies on the support of very extreme right wing elements.

My view is if you have an electoral system that doesn't reflect the views of the electorate, you don't have a democracy. Full stop. That's what FPTP does. It has very rarely produced a government that represents the will of the majority and more often than not produces a Conservative government on a minority vote. It was designed to do that.

[Stom]

Yes, I agree. And Labour are doing better than they have in years.

They're a lot smarter than they were, but I see it over here much worse than in the UK. I have friends in politics, and they just have no clue when it comes to basic sales and marketing, which is the core of political campaigning. They're too caught up in political and economic theory. Which is rich coming from me...

Boom.

Exactly the problem. Many theories are great in the lab, but crap in reality. Politicians have to realise that they are operating in the 'real world' and whatever ideology they have, they will have to be flexible. Politics means making compromises to get stuff done, but too many in politics have the view of activists where purity to an ideal makes compromise impossible. Traditionally a stick with which to beat the left, but I would level the same charge at the ERG.

This is exacerbated by our punch and judy style of politics. Everything is about opposition and its a concern that we are heading down the same lines as the US where a victory for the other party means the end of the world for someone. But perhaps if politicians remembered that there are plenty of areas of common ground out there and were prepared to compromise more then we would achieve more, especially in the long term. Potentially PR is the answer to that, but its unlikely to be on the table whilst both Labour and the Conservatives have the ability to form a single party government.

Isn't it odd how people who have never studied Politics and Government often seem to hold this opinion?

The smartest politician since the fifties was probably Harold Wilson - PPE Oxford.
The best marketing politician since the fifties was arguably either Tony Blair or David Cameron. Jurisprudence and PPE.

TBF, I was talking about the politicians over here when talking marketing The Spads et al. don't seem to have much in the way of actual political will, except getting into power, so yes, they would be more focused on the sales and marketing part. But Labour had a series of poor decisions.

Brown was too much of a change from Blair. Then there was Milliband...and then Corbyn. I can understand the switch to Starmer, and it's the only thing that makes sense unless a canny more socially minded politicians arrives.

[Puja]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

I don't get the argument about "PR leads to extremists in government". Firstly, look at what FPtP has currently delivered to us and tell me it's not extreme - not just Truss, but Johnson's reign as well. Secondly, I don't know that it does "drag the parties towards the centre" because so many of the votes in this country just completely don't count and very rarely ever will, so parties know they only have to court certain areas, who might hold more extreme views. Thirdly, a significant majority is an invitation to ram through whatever you like, with no further democratic input than "we have a mandate", which leads to more extreme things happening. It's not helping the polarisation of the British public to have two opposing teams who, based around one getting a slightly higher share of the vote, results in them getting whatever they want for 5 years and completely disenfranchising the people who voted for the other team.

I do understand that UKIP and BNP etc may get an MP or two under PR. However, that will be (hopefully) under 10 nutter MPs and, if it ends up being more than that, that's a problem with the UK, not with the voting system. Rather have that out in the open than just bury it and pretend that we don't have fascists (or worse, let them vote in the Conservative leadership elections!).

Personally I'm in favour of the Kiwi system of MMP. You vote twice - once for the national party of choice and once for your local MP (which can be the same party or for completely different). Half the seats are for local MPs, which are done FPtP, but the rest of the seats are doled out based on the national vote - so in Scotland where the SNP won 48 or the 59 seats on FPtP, with 45% of the vote, they'd get those seats and then the rest would be doled out so that SNP had 45%, Conservative had 25%, Labour had 19% and Lib Dem had 9.5%. Obviously we'd need to redraw constituencies into larger areas to make it work (assuming that no-one's in faovur of doubling the number of MPs), but it seems the fairest and best way to me.

Puja

[UKHamlet]

Wilson was canny, but his legacy and track record was pretty iffy tbh.

Wilson had very poor majorities throughout his career and consequently couldn't carry out a programme to the fullest extent. Even when he did have a good working majority, his administration was bedevilled either by his left wing, or poor economic circumstances not of his doing.

He did, however, achieve quite a lot:

Outlawing capital punishment
Averting UDI by Rhodesia's white minority
Avoiding involvement in Vietnam
Establishing the OU
Winning the referendum on the EEC
Slightly mor nebulous but an achiement nevertheless, the move into "A New Britain" - concentrating on science and tech
Proper economic planning at a time when the world was in a turbulent state by establishing the DEA
An increase in exports by 40%
Average growth of 2.7% after years of it floundering near 1%
Reforms in social security, civil liberties, hosuing, health, education, and worker's rights,
especially the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, abortion rights, liberalisation of censorship, reducing the voting age, and outlawing racial discrimination.
In education, it wasn't just the OU, but also a huge expansion of tertiary education and conversion of grammars into comprehensives.

There were downsides, like devaluation and struggling to keep a leash on the unions, but they would have been faced by any government.

[Mellsblue]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

PR is definitely the solution. We have extremists in government right now. The ERG are UKIP by a different name and the Campaign Group are Leninists. FPTP decidedly does not drag the parties to the centre ground, which is why we have a fairly extreme right wing government right now, which relies on the support of very extreme right wing elements.

My view is if you have an electoral system that doesn't reflect the views of the electorate, you don't have a democracy. Full stop. That's what FPTP does. It has very rarely produced a government that represents the will of the majority and more often than not produces a Conservative government on a minority vote. It was designed to do that.

But fptp didn’t produce this govt… Happy to discuss whether party members should choose the leader of a party mid-term but that’s a completely separate to fptp v pr.
No system is perfect. You can list negatives for fptp and I can list negatives for PR, any variation of. It’s a case of picking your poison.

[Mellsblue]

Nothing I hate more than blindly following ideology and it does, as you say, tend to be those at either extreme. Which leads me on to my next point…

PR isn’t the panacea. It can and does lead to extremists in govt. and is far more likely to see them in Parliament (and the exposure and funding that brings), whereas fptp does tend to drag the major parties towards the centre ground. We’d also need to mature as an electorate. Coalition govts. have compromise at their very core, as you say, so people would have to get used to voting for a party and then watching them renege on manifesto commitments, see the reaction when Lib Dems dropped their stance on tuition fees.
For me, the answer is PR in the upper chamber to act as a check and balance on fptp in the Commons… but that’s a completely different thread.

I don't get the argument about "PR leads to extremists in government". Firstly, look at what FPtP has currently delivered to us and tell me it's not extreme - not just Truss, but Johnson's reign as well. Secondly, I don't know that it does "drag the parties towards the centre" because so many of the votes in this country just completely don't count and very rarely ever will, so parties know they only have to court certain areas, who might hold more extreme views. Thirdly, a significant majority is an invitation to ram through whatever you like, with no further democratic input than "we have a mandate", which leads to more extreme things happening. It's not helping the polarisation of the British public to have two opposing teams who, based around one getting a slightly higher share of the vote, results in them getting whatever they want for 5 years and completely disenfranchising the people who voted for the other team.

I do understand that UKIP and BNP etc may get an MP or two under PR. However, that will be (hopefully) under 10 nutter MPs and, if it ends up being more than that, that's a problem with the UK, not with the voting system. Rather have that out in the open than just bury it and pretend that we don't have fascists (or worse, let them vote in the Conservative leadership elections!).

Personally I'm in favour of the Kiwi system of MMP. You vote twice - once for the national party of choice and once for your local MP (which can be the same party or for completely different). Half the seats are for local MPs, which are done FPtP, but the rest of the seats are doled out based on the national vote - so in Scotland where the SNP won 48 or the 59 seats on FPtP, with 45% of the vote, they'd get those seats and then the rest would be doled out so that SNP had 45%, Conservative had 25%, Labour had 19% and Lib Dem had 9.5%. Obviously we'd need to redraw constituencies into larger areas to make it work (assuming that no-one's in faovur of doubling the number of MPs), but it seems the fairest and best way to me.

Puja

Firstly: see my response to UKH plus, as you’ve said yourself many times, Boris’s govt was a reaction to Brexit, ie not usual/normal circumstances. I’d also argue his govt wasn’t that extreme if you look at it dispassionately across its entire remit. Even if you do think Boris’s govt extreme, I didn’t state my reasoning in black and white terms: ‘far more likely’ and ‘tend’ are in my post for a reason.
Secondly: don’t agree in the slightest.
Thirdly: there are very few significant majorities and I do say I’d like to see pr in the upper chamber as a check and balance.

Second para: far more extremist MPs in European parliaments than here. There was a lovely decade when Golden Dawn, the Greek nazi party, had 7% of the seats in Parliament. Also see the recent elections in Sweden and Italy.

Third para: same as my idea only not split across Lords (would obvs need a new name) and Commons (would probs need a new name). Peak RR: long and winding posts when differing only over the minutiae.