RugbyRebels

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:18 pm 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.

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:18 pmJohnson had that indefinable quality of being a leader of men.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:40 am Of course, most of that "burning through" was in BJ's purge of competence ahead of the 2019 GE

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:31 am

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:18 pmJohnson 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.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:42 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:40 am 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).

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:31 am

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:18 pmJohnson 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.

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:49 am I'd hardly call Starmer a "career politician". He sacrificed a very lucrative career as a leading barrister to go into politics.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:49 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:31 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:49 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:31 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am

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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 pm 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.

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:31 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am

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.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:10 pm

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:31 am

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.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 pm 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.

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:31 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am

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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 pm 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.

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:25 pm Wilson was canny, but his legacy and track record was pretty iffy tbh.

UKHamlet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:29 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 pm 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.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:45 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 pm 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