Leadership

[UKHamlet]

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.

FPTP chose the members of this government and enabled the 80 seat majority that allowed the governing party to impose it. The salient point for me is FPTP isn't democratic. PR is.

[UKHamlet]

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.

There is very little difference between the Golden Dawn and a clutch of Conservative MPs, who I'm loathe to mention by name because, you know, libel. People who retweet Tommy Robinson, have links to extremist groups on their Facebook pages, and use racist rhetoric, aren't run of the mill conservatives.

[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.

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.

As a former and senior (not boasting! I’ve just seen the raw data and met the majority of members, particularly as for a period I had to welcome new members to the party, ie what I’m about to say isnt completely anecdotal) member of my local Conservative party I can tell you that from my small patch of the U.K. the UKIP takeover only happened after the referendum. Others in other associations have told me the same. That is to say the UKIP take over began due to the post referendum shenanigans not any lack of representation post ge.

I wouldn’t say it’s an expensive waste of time, there is some serious brain power and experience in there. Sadly, there are numerous examples of expensive wastes of time but get rid of those and, imo, it’s a higher calibre of members than the Commons. The big worry, for me, of democratising the upper house is that it just becomes a Commons mkII and we lose the expertise it currently has.

[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

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.

Even if I thought there would be significant numbers of fascists in a PR UK parliament, I'm not sure that's a good reason to go on disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate. Hiding the nazis doesn't make them go away (and in fact may make them grow by increasing the number who think democracy is stupid because their vote doesn't count) - in fact a fair number are probably in the Conservative party, driving them rightwards!

That's not to mention the inflexibility of parties within FPtP. Okay, so it denies the BNP any representation, but it also denies the Green party much, despite them polling over the SNP and nearly as high as Lib Dems (depending on the poll). 6% of the vote should not equal 0.15% of the representation. It denies the opportunity for insurgent ideas to gain traction, "because it's a wasted vote" and any idea has to make its way through to the top of the massive vested interests of the entrenched parties or be utterly wasted. I don't really like Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative, but I've got very little other choice unless I want a meaningless protest vote.

Basically, I want a UK where the Lib Dem's entire pamphlet in my area isn't just "No-one else can win here, so vote us if you don't want the Tories" and I still vote for them anyway.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

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.

FPTP chose the members of this government and enabled the 80 seat majority that allowed the governing party to impose it. The salient point for me is FPTP isn't democratic. PR is.

The Conservative Party members chose this PM, sadly, and she chose this government.
I disagree with your salient point, as did thousands of Lib Dem voters in 2010.

[Mellsblue]

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.

There is very little difference between the Golden Dawn and a clutch of Conservative MPs, who I'm loathe to mention by name because, you know, libel. People who retweet Tommy Robinson, have links to extremist groups on their Facebook pages, and use racist rhetoric, aren't run of the mill conservatives.

Hence ‘more likely’ and ‘tend’. No system is full proof, both have negatives and positives. There is no democratic system in the world that would guarantee no extremists but my view is that fptp is more effective at it and more effective at keeping them away from the levers of power.

[Puja]

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.

FPTP chose the members of this government and enabled the 80 seat majority that allowed the governing party to impose it. The salient point for me is FPTP isn't democratic. PR is.

The Conservative Party members chose this PM, sadly, and she chose this government.
I disagree with your salient point, as did thousands of Lib Dem voters in 2010.

Ironically, a fair chunk of those Lib Dem voters only voted for them in 2010 because FPtP meant they had to vote tactically rather than for who they wanted.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

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.

Even if I thought there would be significant numbers of fascists in a PR UK parliament, I'm not sure that's a good reason to go on disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate. Hiding the nazis doesn't make them go away (and in fact may make them grow by increasing the number who think democracy is stupid because their vote doesn't count) - in fact a fair number are probably in the Conservative party, driving them rightwards!

That's not to mention the inflexibility of parties within FPtP. Okay, so it denies the BNP any representation, but it also denies the Green party much, despite them polling over the SNP and nearly as high as Lib Dems (depending on the poll). 6% of the vote should not equal 0.15% of the representation. It denies the opportunity for insurgent ideas to gain traction, "because it's a wasted vote" and any idea has to make its way through to the top of the massive vested interests of the entrenched parties or be utterly wasted. I don't really like Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative, but I've got very little other choice unless I want a meaningless protest vote.

Basically, I want a UK where the Lib Dem's entire pamphlet in my area isn't just "No-one else can win here, so vote us if you don't want the Tories" and I still vote for them anyway.

Puja

But we’re both suggesting virtually the same system: a mixture of fptp and PR?!?!?

Again, you pick your poison as both have negatives and positives. My poison is the same as yours, a mixture of both, but I have two bottles and you have one. I’m honestly not sure why you and I are having this argument/debate.

[Mellsblue]

FPTP chose the members of this government and enabled the 80 seat majority that allowed the governing party to impose it. The salient point for me is FPTP isn't democratic. PR is.

The Conservative Party members chose this PM, sadly, and she chose this government.
I disagree with your salient point, as did thousands of Lib Dem voters in 2010.

Ironically, a fair chunk of those Lib Dem voters only voted for them in 2010 because FPtP meant they had to vote tactically rather than for who they wanted.

Puja

Assuming that’s true, and given the huge swings towards the Lib Dems came during the debates I’m not sure it is, it was a harsh lesson that coalition governments aren’t the promised land.

[Mellsblue]

Ahh, I do love posting on here given the political make up of my fellow posters. Make one post and end up debating with numerous posters who all disagree with you whilst forgetting which points you made and to whom. God bless the internet.

[Banquo]

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.

He had a pretty sizeable majority- er 96- 66-70 and his list of achievements seem to be mostly not doing things (he sat in the fence on nationalisation for example). By 1970 industry and industrial relations were poor, leading to the terrible Heath govt which made it worse, and we had the terrible 70's of minority govts. Those seeds were laid before Wilson, but his powerful administration of 66-70 did not really do enough, and the troubles in Ireland also started under his watch. You could also argue that the conversion of grammar schools into comps was not very well done- maybe that was unfinished business.
The legacy of both his administrations, even granted achievements, was Britain in a poor state.
(I'm a bit biased over Wilson's govts- very personal and a bit irrational. My dad worked really hard as a civil engineer, progressed through his company, and made it to the top just as Wilson's govt introduced huge income taxes, for even not very high earners like my dad. He felt he couldn't afford to stay in the UK, and in a country penalising ambition as he saw it; so we emigrated, and the stress of it all likely killed him at the age of 47 (it could have been the smoking of course ) and we came back. But all that is seared in my memory).

[Sandydragon]

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....

The civil service is a big beast and there are some truly awful civil servants. Plus some working very long days trying to deliver output with not enough resource. Morale is terrible as a result of constant bashing by this government and anyone else with an agenda. Plus, Cameron's reforms buggered the career structure. Now the civil service has to advertise all permanent vacancies externally, but in reality, anyone can go for them. Because most of the wages are shyte in comparison to other similar roles, that means that many civil servants who wouldn't get promoted are applying for roles after very limited time in post because they are allowed to do that and the recruiters may not know them that well. This is leading to some terrible appointments but also a lack of expertise in areas as (due to the removal of the pay spines) theres no incentive to stay in post.

There are some direct recruits from outside (I was one) but not all of them are that good and it takes a while to pick up on the department and civil service way of doing business which reduces efficiency.

Regarding the No 10 parties some people let themselves down badly. That said, all of the No10 staff tend to be moved into there on request. Some are SpADs and thus temporary civil servants others are on a fast track. I can totally understand why they joined in, even if morally and legally it was the wrong thing to do.

[Banquo]

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....

The civil service is a big beast and there are some truly awful civil servants. Plus some working very long days trying to deliver output with not enough resource. Morale is terrible as a result of constant bashing by this government and anyone else with an agenda. Plus, Cameron's reforms buggered the career structure. Now the civil service has to advertise all permanent vacancies externally, but in reality, anyone can go for them. Because most of the wages are shyte in comparison to other similar roles, that means that many civil servants who wouldn't get promoted are applying for roles after very limited time in post because they are allowed to do that and the recruiters may not know them that well. This is leading to some terrible appointments but also a lack of expertise in areas as (due to the removal of the pay spines) theres no incentive to stay in post.

There are some direct recruits from outside (I was one) but not all of them are that good and it takes a while to pick up on the department and civil service way of doing business which reduces efficiency.

Regarding the No 10 parties some people let themselves down badly. That said, all of the No10 staff tend to be moved into there on request. Some are SpADs and thus temporary civil servants others are on a fast track. I can totally understand why they joined in, even if morally and legally it was the wrong thing to do.

So in other words, not very good

On the latter point, the bigger parties were organised by permanent secretaries and the like, so not great for anyone really.

[Sandydragon]

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....

The civil service is a big beast and there are some truly awful civil servants. Plus some working very long days trying to deliver output with not enough resource. Morale is terrible as a result of constant bashing by this government and anyone else with an agenda. Plus, Cameron's reforms buggered the career structure. Now the civil service has to advertise all permanent vacancies externally, but in reality, anyone can go for them. Because most of the wages are shyte in comparison to other similar roles, that means that many civil servants who wouldn't get promoted are applying for roles after very limited time in post because they are allowed to do that and the recruiters may not know them that well. This is leading to some terrible appointments but also a lack of expertise in areas as (due to the removal of the pay spines) theres no incentive to stay in post.

There are some direct recruits from outside (I was one) but not all of them are that good and it takes a while to pick up on the department and civil service way of doing business which reduces efficiency.

Regarding the No 10 parties some people let themselves down badly. That said, all of the No10 staff tend to be moved into there on request. Some are SpADs and thus temporary civil servants others are on a fast track. I can totally understand why they joined in, even if morally and legally it was the wrong thing to do.

So in other words, not very good

On the latter point, the bigger parties were organised by permanent secretaries and the like, so not great for anyone really.

Definitely room for improvement, but equally not the shit show that the Daily Mail or Rees-Mogg would make out.

Sadly many of the senior leadership have lost their moral courage along the way. The military can be very political at the top but nothing like the civil service which is incredible, and very elitist.

The CS needs to ensure that it recruits and retains genuine experts in certain fields. That means paying more and brining back incremental pay increases. It also needs to bring back the civil service college to train people properly.

Some departments are completely unmanageable given the differences between the core department and the various arms length bodies which don't see themselves as accountable to anyone. Cutting numbers isnt the answer. There is some merit in making it easier to get rid of underperforming staff of whom there are a number and managing them is a real problem.

but many of the problems with the CS result from politicians who have no realism and won't listed to expert advice. Instead they rely on their SpAD who could be a 22 year old graduate with very little life experience.

[Banquo]

The civil service is a big beast and there are some truly awful civil servants. Plus some working very long days trying to deliver output with not enough resource. Morale is terrible as a result of constant bashing by this government and anyone else with an agenda. Plus, Cameron's reforms buggered the career structure. Now the civil service has to advertise all permanent vacancies externally, but in reality, anyone can go for them. Because most of the wages are shyte in comparison to other similar roles, that means that many civil servants who wouldn't get promoted are applying for roles after very limited time in post because they are allowed to do that and the recruiters may not know them that well. This is leading to some terrible appointments but also a lack of expertise in areas as (due to the removal of the pay spines) theres no incentive to stay in post.

There are some direct recruits from outside (I was one) but not all of them are that good and it takes a while to pick up on the department and civil service way of doing business which reduces efficiency.

Regarding the No 10 parties some people let themselves down badly. That said, all of the No10 staff tend to be moved into there on request. Some are SpADs and thus temporary civil servants others are on a fast track. I can totally understand why they joined in, even if morally and legally it was the wrong thing to do.

So in other words, not very good

On the latter point, the bigger parties were organised by permanent secretaries and the like, so not great for anyone really.

Definitely room for improvement, but equally not the shit show that the Daily Mail or Rees-Mogg would make out.

Sadly many of the senior leadership have lost their moral courage along the way. The military can be very political at the top but nothing like the civil service which is incredible, and very elitist.

The CS needs to ensure that it recruits and retains genuine experts in certain fields. That means paying more and brining back incremental pay increases. It also needs to bring back the civil service college to train people properly.

Some departments are completely unmanageable given the differences between the core department and the various arms length bodies which don't see themselves as accountable to anyone. Cutting numbers isnt the answer. There is some merit in making it easier to get rid of underperforming staff of whom there are a number and managing them is a real problem.

but many of the problems with the CS result from politicians who have no realism and won't listed to expert advice. Instead they rely on their SpAD who could be a 22 year old graduate with very little life experience.

Messy mcmessy. Though it does sound like the top is a bit toxic too

[Sandydragon]

Essentially the political leadership in this country has devised a system over the past few decades where they can make a lot of noise but not actually be responsible for anything. ALBs are everywhere (you know this from the NHS which isnt one body but a collection of, what, hundreds?

This means that the Permanent Secretary in any given government department can't control their affairs to the level expected but instead has to consult and advise. Its a proper mess and makes leadership very difficult even when its competent.

[Puja]

Even if I thought there would be significant numbers of fascists in a PR UK parliament, I'm not sure that's a good reason to go on disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate. Hiding the nazis doesn't make them go away (and in fact may make them grow by increasing the number who think democracy is stupid because their vote doesn't count) - in fact a fair number are probably in the Conservative party, driving them rightwards!

That's not to mention the inflexibility of parties within FPtP. Okay, so it denies the BNP any representation, but it also denies the Green party much, despite them polling over the SNP and nearly as high as Lib Dems (depending on the poll). 6% of the vote should not equal 0.15% of the representation. It denies the opportunity for insurgent ideas to gain traction, "because it's a wasted vote" and any idea has to make its way through to the top of the massive vested interests of the entrenched parties or be utterly wasted. I don't really like Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative, but I've got very little other choice unless I want a meaningless protest vote.

Basically, I want a UK where the Lib Dem's entire pamphlet in my area isn't just "No-one else can win here, so vote us if you don't want the Tories" and I still vote for them anyway.

Puja

But we’re both suggesting virtually the same system: a mixture of fptp and PR?!?!?

Again, you pick your poison as both have negatives and positives. My poison is the same as yours, a mixture of both, but I have two bottles and you have one. I’m honestly not sure why you and I are having this argument/debate.

I would say the major difference is that you would still have your main legislative chamber and government be FPtP, with your deliberative and checking chamber being PR, whereas I would have the government and main legislative chamber makeup being decided by PR, with the only FPtP element being to keep a constituency link, without affecting the makeup of government.

For the upper chamber, I'd prefer a federalist system, with English, Scots, Welsh, NIrish parliaments sitting below a long-term upper chamber (say 10 year terms). Don't know what mechanism I'd use to fill that chamber yet, but I suspect it wouldn't be bishops, cronies, and inherited titles.

Puja

[Stom]

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.

There is very little difference between the Golden Dawn and a clutch of Conservative MPs, who I'm loathe to mention by name because, you know, libel. People who retweet Tommy Robinson, have links to extremist groups on their Facebook pages, and use racist rhetoric, aren't run of the mill conservatives.

Hence ‘more likely’ and ‘tend’. No system is full proof, both have negatives and positives. There is no democratic system in the world that would guarantee no extremists but my view is that fptp is more effective at it and more effective at keeping them away from the levers of power.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here

In Hungary, we have a form of alternative vote. It's a system that I think works wonderfully on paper, but in reality has delivered a fascist government massive majorities.

So why has it not worked, could it be different in the UK, and what are the learnings?

1) Massive gerrymandering. We can escape this in the UK with a robust electoral commission. The constituency next to ours is a really odd shape to pick up a load of Fidesz voting areas.
On top of that, the government subdues votes in some places and in major cities abroad, by having very few numbers of voting booths. Queues in London, Bucharest, Amsterdam, New York, etc., were up to half a day wait to vote. Meanwhile in Transylvania, voters were given free bus rides to polling sites to ensure they voted. This couldn't happen in the UK.

2) A population who see themselves as different and special, but also have an inferiority complex. Yeah...this is one reason why I see Hungary and the UK as so similar. Hungary is like an extremist version of the UK. While British racists mutter and curse, but say that Sanjeev from down the road is a nice guy, the Hungarians will probably abuse him. Or at least a good portion of them. There is also a larger population of liberal minded people in the UK.

3) A relative free press. Hungarian press is government controlled. The few places that aren't are under massive pressure constantly. They cannot legally accept funding from outside the country, and any richer person who does not have connections to Fidesz finds themselves losing money or in court on a made up charge. So, yeah, a lot worse.

The system, on paper, is great. It can provide a perfect way to get both representation for minority groups and put in the government in power that the people voted for. There are rules around minority parties that guarantee representation, which is a good thing. I think it could work in the UK, as all the problems are Hungary specific, imo.

[Stom]

Ahh, I do love posting on here given the political make up of my fellow posters. Make one post and end up debating with numerous posters who all disagree with you whilst forgetting which points you made and to whom. God bless the internet.

TBF, you weren't clear.

[Sandydragon]

There is very little difference between the Golden Dawn and a clutch of Conservative MPs, who I'm loathe to mention by name because, you know, libel. People who retweet Tommy Robinson, have links to extremist groups on their Facebook pages, and use racist rhetoric, aren't run of the mill conservatives.

Hence ‘more likely’ and ‘tend’. No system is full proof, both have negatives and positives. There is no democratic system in the world that would guarantee no extremists but my view is that fptp is more effective at it and more effective at keeping them away from the levers of power.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here

In Hungary, we have a form of alternative vote. It's a system that I think works wonderfully on paper, but in reality has delivered a fascist government massive majorities.

So why has it not worked, could it be different in the UK, and what are the learnings?

1) Massive gerrymandering. We can escape this in the UK with a robust electoral commission. The constituency next to ours is a really odd shape to pick up a load of Fidesz voting areas.
On top of that, the government subdues votes in some places and in major cities abroad, by having very few numbers of voting booths. Queues in London, Bucharest, Amsterdam, New York, etc., were up to half a day wait to vote. Meanwhile in Transylvania, voters were given free bus rides to polling sites to ensure they voted. This couldn't happen in the UK.

2) A population who see themselves as different and special, but also have an inferiority complex. Yeah...this is one reason why I see Hungary and the UK as so similar. Hungary is like an extremist version of the UK. While British racists mutter and curse, but say that Sanjeev from down the road is a nice guy, the Hungarians will probably abuse him. Or at least a good portion of them. There is also a larger population of liberal minded people in the UK.

3) A relative free press. Hungarian press is government controlled. The few places that aren't are under massive pressure constantly. They cannot legally accept funding from outside the country, and any richer person who does not have connections to Fidesz finds themselves losing money or in court on a made up charge. So, yeah, a lot worse.

The system, on paper, is great. It can provide a perfect way to get both representation for minority groups and put in the government in power that the people voted for. There are rules around minority parties that guarantee representation, which is a good thing. I think it could work in the UK, as all the problems are Hungary specific, imo.

If the vote is effectively being fixed then the system is almost irrelevant. On paper, Russia is a democracy but I think most of us would agree that it isnt in practice.

[Stom]

Hence ‘more likely’ and ‘tend’. No system is full proof, both have negatives and positives. There is no democratic system in the world that would guarantee no extremists but my view is that fptp is more effective at it and more effective at keeping them away from the levers of power.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here

In Hungary, we have a form of alternative vote. It's a system that I think works wonderfully on paper, but in reality has delivered a fascist government massive majorities.

So why has it not worked, could it be different in the UK, and what are the learnings?

1) Massive gerrymandering. We can escape this in the UK with a robust electoral commission. The constituency next to ours is a really odd shape to pick up a load of Fidesz voting areas.
On top of that, the government subdues votes in some places and in major cities abroad, by having very few numbers of voting booths. Queues in London, Bucharest, Amsterdam, New York, etc., were up to half a day wait to vote. Meanwhile in Transylvania, voters were given free bus rides to polling sites to ensure they voted. This couldn't happen in the UK.

2) A population who see themselves as different and special, but also have an inferiority complex. Yeah...this is one reason why I see Hungary and the UK as so similar. Hungary is like an extremist version of the UK. While British racists mutter and curse, but say that Sanjeev from down the road is a nice guy, the Hungarians will probably abuse him. Or at least a good portion of them. There is also a larger population of liberal minded people in the UK.

3) A relative free press. Hungarian press is government controlled. The few places that aren't are under massive pressure constantly. They cannot legally accept funding from outside the country, and any richer person who does not have connections to Fidesz finds themselves losing money or in court on a made up charge. So, yeah, a lot worse.

The system, on paper, is great. It can provide a perfect way to get both representation for minority groups and put in the government in power that the people voted for. There are rules around minority parties that guarantee representation, which is a good thing. I think it could work in the UK, as all the problems are Hungary specific, imo.

If the vote is effectively being fixed then the system is almost irrelevant. On paper, Russia is a democracy but I think most of us would agree that it isnt in practice.

I don't think the Hungarian system is as bad as that. It's more like the American system in red states...which says a lot about American democracy - it isn't.

[Sandydragon]

Even if I thought there would be significant numbers of fascists in a PR UK parliament, I'm not sure that's a good reason to go on disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate. Hiding the nazis doesn't make them go away (and in fact may make them grow by increasing the number who think democracy is stupid because their vote doesn't count) - in fact a fair number are probably in the Conservative party, driving them rightwards!

That's not to mention the inflexibility of parties within FPtP. Okay, so it denies the BNP any representation, but it also denies the Green party much, despite them polling over the SNP and nearly as high as Lib Dems (depending on the poll). 6% of the vote should not equal 0.15% of the representation. It denies the opportunity for insurgent ideas to gain traction, "because it's a wasted vote" and any idea has to make its way through to the top of the massive vested interests of the entrenched parties or be utterly wasted. I don't really like Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative, but I've got very little other choice unless I want a meaningless protest vote.

Basically, I want a UK where the Lib Dem's entire pamphlet in my area isn't just "No-one else can win here, so vote us if you don't want the Tories" and I still vote for them anyway.

Puja

But we’re both suggesting virtually the same system: a mixture of fptp and PR?!?!?

Again, you pick your poison as both have negatives and positives. My poison is the same as yours, a mixture of both, but I have two bottles and you have one. I’m honestly not sure why you and I are having this argument/debate.

I would say the major difference is that you would still have your main legislative chamber and government be FPtP, with your deliberative and checking chamber being PR, whereas I would have the government and main legislative chamber makeup being decided by PR, with the only FPtP element being to keep a constituency link, without affecting the makeup of government.

For the upper chamber, I'd prefer a federalist system, with English, Scots, Welsh, NIrish parliaments sitting below a long-term upper chamber (say 10 year terms). Don't know what mechanism I'd use to fill that chamber yet, but I suspect it wouldn't be bishops, cronies, and inherited titles.

Puja

If you go for a federal system then effectively the commons becomes the English parliament and the Lords is the British parliament, which would have to be elected. You would either elect to it based on % of the population or by some other mechanism to give individual entities within the federal system a leveller playing field (although even being Welsh I'd say that would be unfair on the English). Unless there are regional parliaments instead of an English one in which case it makes far more sense.

One of the defences for the current arrangement is that the HoL brings a lot of expertise who can be more honest in their criticism than elected MPs. There is some truth in this, but I'd struggle to suggest that all of the HoL members are experts in anything. I would look to keep a small review organisation which would provide honest feedback on legislation and to which experts are appointed for a period of 10 years. No voting or delaying powers.

[Sandydragon]

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here

In Hungary, we have a form of alternative vote. It's a system that I think works wonderfully on paper, but in reality has delivered a fascist government massive majorities.

So why has it not worked, could it be different in the UK, and what are the learnings?

1) Massive gerrymandering. We can escape this in the UK with a robust electoral commission. The constituency next to ours is a really odd shape to pick up a load of Fidesz voting areas.
On top of that, the government subdues votes in some places and in major cities abroad, by having very few numbers of voting booths. Queues in London, Bucharest, Amsterdam, New York, etc., were up to half a day wait to vote. Meanwhile in Transylvania, voters were given free bus rides to polling sites to ensure they voted. This couldn't happen in the UK.

2) A population who see themselves as different and special, but also have an inferiority complex. Yeah...this is one reason why I see Hungary and the UK as so similar. Hungary is like an extremist version of the UK. While British racists mutter and curse, but say that Sanjeev from down the road is a nice guy, the Hungarians will probably abuse him. Or at least a good portion of them. There is also a larger population of liberal minded people in the UK.

3) A relative free press. Hungarian press is government controlled. The few places that aren't are under massive pressure constantly. They cannot legally accept funding from outside the country, and any richer person who does not have connections to Fidesz finds themselves losing money or in court on a made up charge. So, yeah, a lot worse.

The system, on paper, is great. It can provide a perfect way to get both representation for minority groups and put in the government in power that the people voted for. There are rules around minority parties that guarantee representation, which is a good thing. I think it could work in the UK, as all the problems are Hungary specific, imo.

If the vote is effectively being fixed then the system is almost irrelevant. On paper, Russia is a democracy but I think most of us would agree that it isnt in practice.

I don't think the Hungarian system is as bad as that. It's more like the American system in red states...which says a lot about American democracy - it isn't.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that Hungary is as bad as Russia, just that on paper anything can look democratic until you take note of how its being managed.

[Mellsblue]

Even if I thought there would be significant numbers of fascists in a PR UK parliament, I'm not sure that's a good reason to go on disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate. Hiding the nazis doesn't make them go away (and in fact may make them grow by increasing the number who think democracy is stupid because their vote doesn't count) - in fact a fair number are probably in the Conservative party, driving them rightwards!

That's not to mention the inflexibility of parties within FPtP. Okay, so it denies the BNP any representation, but it also denies the Green party much, despite them polling over the SNP and nearly as high as Lib Dems (depending on the poll). 6% of the vote should not equal 0.15% of the representation. It denies the opportunity for insurgent ideas to gain traction, "because it's a wasted vote" and any idea has to make its way through to the top of the massive vested interests of the entrenched parties or be utterly wasted. I don't really like Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative, but I've got very little other choice unless I want a meaningless protest vote.

Basically, I want a UK where the Lib Dem's entire pamphlet in my area isn't just "No-one else can win here, so vote us if you don't want the Tories" and I still vote for them anyway.

Puja

But we’re both suggesting virtually the same system: a mixture of fptp and PR?!?!?

Again, you pick your poison as both have negatives and positives. My poison is the same as yours, a mixture of both, but I have two bottles and you have one. I’m honestly not sure why you and I are having this argument/debate.

I would say the major difference is that you would still have your main legislative chamber and government be FPtP, with your deliberative and checking chamber being PR, whereas I would have the government and main legislative chamber makeup being decided by PR, with the only FPtP element being to keep a constituency link, without affecting the makeup of government.

For the upper chamber, I'd prefer a federalist system, with English, Scots, Welsh, NIrish parliaments sitting below a long-term upper chamber (say 10 year terms). Don't know what mechanism I'd use to fill that chamber yet, but I suspect it wouldn't be bishops, cronies, and inherited titles.

Puja

We’re closer than we both think.
I would have an upper chamber via PR with 10 year terms with a % limit on professional politicians, ie anyone who has ever received money for an elected role, and a % limit on anyone who has been on a political party’s payroll, advisors, pr etc, making their party’s list. I’ve no idea of that %, I’d let someone who knows what they’re talking about chair a committee on that, but I’d like to keep it as low as possible. The idea behind this is the chamber doesn’t become overly politicised thereby losing pretty much the only redeeming feature it currently has.
I’d keep the Commons as is, other than a new title, and then below I’d have a federal system but would go with fptp as, in my experience, the more local it becomes the more nutters you get and, more importantly, I’d like a local rep for Westminster remit/powers and a local rep for devolved remit/powers. I also believe/hope/think you’d get to a point where people could vote for one party for the Commons and a different party for the federal parliament. Different constituency boundaries, covering smaller areas, would also help with this.
English Parliament to be somewhere on HS3/NPR. That should get it built!
This back and forth has actually helped me refine my all conquering plan to reform the structure of U.K. politics. It’s good to talk

[Mellsblue]

If the vote is effectively being fixed then the system is almost irrelevant. On paper, Russia is a democracy but I think most of us would agree that it isnt in practice.

I don't think the Hungarian system is as bad as that. It's more like the American system in red states...which says a lot about American democracy - it isn't.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that Hungary is as bad as Russia, just that on paper anything can look democratic until you take note of how its being managed.

Hang on a minute. Are you trying to tell me the referendums in eastern Ukraine weren’t democratic!