I'm not convinced Glasgow or Dundee share more interests with Edinburgh than with Newcastle or Manchester.
Probably not, and I've no objection to a federal state of Scotland and Northern England. Scotland can't solve the problem of English small towns voting tory. We can (potentially) reduce its impact on us.
And good luck to you. Those towns are no doubt thinking of it in terms of reducing Scotland's impact on them.
Not being Scottish or English I don't have a dog in this particular fight, strictly speaking. But I'd love to know what complaints of undue Scottish impact on them small English towns who vote Tory can have! Tartan patterns on the shortbread tins too gaudy? Ir'n Bru too fizzy? In the des-res of the UK is Scotland bringing the property prices down?!
So, as I understand it, you mean that Scotland (largely) voted for the UK (as a whole) to remain in the EU.
Is that right, or have I missed the point?
Now, of course, with Brexshit on the doorstep, it's hardly surprising that the Remainers in Scotland (and possibly many of the now-regretful Leavers, too) are keen on the idea of independence and being part of the EU.
Those two concepts are not mutually incompatible...
Yes, that's what I said. In 2016 the vote in Scotland was strongly to remain. That's the whole f*cking point ... if Scotland had voted to Leave then we'd probably also not be talking about independence at this point. But the English government decided to drag Scotland out of the EU without a mandate to do so (I agree, however, that the 2019 election result could be seen as having gained a mandate from the UK, if not Scotland).
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
Given the uncertainty about whether Scotland's 2016 vote indicated a preference to be in the EU only if the rest of the UK was or a willingness to choose EU membership over the union with the rest of the UK a fresh referendum on independence is surely essential.
Yes, that's what I said. In 2016 the vote in Scotland was strongly to remain. That's the whole f*cking point ... if Scotland had voted to Leave then we'd probably also not be talking about independence at this point. But the English government decided to drag Scotland out of the EU without a mandate to do so (I agree, however, that the 2019 election result could be seen as having gained a mandate from the UK, if not Scotland).
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
Given the uncertainty about whether Scotland's 2016 vote indicated a preference to be in the EU only if the rest of the UK was or a willingness to choose EU membership over the union with the rest of the UK a fresh referendum on independence is surely essential.
I certainly agree that the situation has changed since 2014 and a referendum would be appropriate
You might as well say people should stop voting Green, LibDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, or any of the other parties who will never be the largest party in Parliament, or Independent, and go for the democratically deficient position of being an effectively two party system. In which case you'll be saying that the majority in Scotland who support independence don't have a party to represent their views.
I'd say that while you retain FPTP, you should decide between the candidates most likely to come in first and second in your electorate. That way you have some real say in the outcome, a say lacking should you vote for someone very unlikely to win.
You might as well say people should stop voting Green, LibDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, or any of the other parties who will never be the largest party in Parliament, or Independent, and go for the democratically deficient position of being an effectively two party system. In which case you'll be saying that the majority in Scotland who support independence don't have a party to represent their views.
I'd say that while you retain FPTP, you should decide between the candidates most likely to come in first and second in your electorate. That way you have some real say in the outcome, a say lacking should you vote for someone very unlikely to win.
I think it's a matter of game theory. What you say is true for an election in isolation (most of the time, the 2015 election results in Scotland where the SNP jumped from 3rd place to take many seats provides a counterpoint) but elections don't take place in isolation. A vote for a smaller party is an indicator to the larger parties that your vote is on offer if they move in that direction. If you give your vote unconditionally to the lesser of two evils then you eliminate any incentive for them to be anything but marginally less evil.
You might as well say people should stop voting Green, LibDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, or any of the other parties who will never be the largest party in Parliament, or Independent, and go for the democratically deficient position of being an effectively two party system. In which case you'll be saying that the majority in Scotland who support independence don't have a party to represent their views.
I'd say that while you retain FPTP, you should decide between the candidates most likely to come in first and second in your electorate. That way you have some real say in the outcome, a say lacking should you vote for someone very unlikely to win.
I think it's a matter of game theory. What you say is true for an election in isolation (most of the time, the 2015 election results in Scotland where the SNP jumped from 3rd place to take many seats provides a counterpoint) but elections don't take place in isolation. A vote for a smaller party is an indicator to the larger parties that your vote is on offer if they move in that direction. If you give your vote unconditionally to the lesser of two evils then you eliminate any incentive for them to be anything but marginally less evil.
Yes, but while you retain FPTP, your vote for a smaller party can be ignored to a much greater degree. The party that wins doesn't need to go chasing those extra votes. Maybe the 2nd-largest party does, but of course then that rather depends on your vote being in the direction, or on the wing, they can conceivably chase.
In a preferential system, the larger parties may have to pay a lot more attention to being somebody's 2nd preference. There are certainly a lot of electorates in Australia where it isn't the party with the largest 1st vote that wins. Plus there's simply not the same disincentive to vote for a smaller party in the way you suggest. There's no fear that you have to choose between that 'indicator' and actually having a say in the outcome this time around. You get both.
And in addition to what Orfeo says, is it a choice between the lesser of two evils? How often would that be an accurate description of the two front runners? What we are suggesting is that you give your vote to whatever party it is to which you'd give your second preference.
I'd like some form of PR, though I'd only want preferential voting if we had multi-member constituencies - the modelling suggests that AV alone would produce an even more polarised system.
As for "lesser of two evils", that's been the case for me in every general election apart from the last two. Blairite Labour had nothing to offer except not being the tories, and it's starting to look like Starmer's Labour is heading in the same direction.
I'd like some form of PR, though I'd only want preferential voting if we had multi-member constituencies - the modelling suggests that AV alone would produce an even more polarised system.
This has not been the experience in the Australian Parliament over recent years, where there has been increasing representation of minor parties and independents in the House of Representatives, where preferential voting for single-member constituencies applies. The current government only holds a one-seat majority, and there are already strong community movements threatening some of their sitting members following the defeat of former PM Tony Abbott by a community-based independent last year.
The NSW Parliament had multi-member constituencies after World War 1 for a period. It was a period of great instability and short-lived governments, and that seems to be a feature of many other similar systems.
In the Senate, where PR applies, neither major party has controlled the chamber for many years prior to 2004, or since 2007 . In that year, after a brief period of majority control of that house and an outbreak of hubris in the long-standing Howard ministry, the government was defeated at that year's general election and the PM lost his own seat.
I'm not convinced Glasgow or Dundee share more interests with Edinburgh than with Newcastle or Manchester.
Probably not, and I've no objection to a federal state of Scotland and Northern England. Scotland can't solve the problem of English small towns voting tory. We can (potentially) reduce its impact on us.
And good luck to you. Those towns are no doubt thinking of it in terms of reducing Scotland's impact on them.
Not being Scottish or English I don't have a dog in this particular fight, strictly speaking. But I'd love to know what complaints of undue Scottish impact on them small English towns who vote Tory can have!
Look up the West Lothian Question. Also, it stands to reason that if Scotland becoming independent would leave England dominated by the Tories (as many here claim) then Scotland being part of the UK is pulling England (which has no government other than that of the UK as a whole) further to the left than would otherwise be the case.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
You could console yourself that Scottish seats have enabled a Labour majority precisely twice since WW2.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
I think that longer term, the presence of a largely similar country to the north which manages its affairs differently may provide more of political change than the current arrangement of the odd Labour majority provided by Scottish seats.
The Scots are affected by the Tunbridge Wells Question far more often than the English are affected by the West Lothian Question. Almost all the time, in fact.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Our voting system is an outdated nonsense. The present government with its "massive mandate" was elected by a clear minority of voters.
This would not matter so much if modern governments moderated themselves to the size of their real mandate, but of course the never do or will.
In many, indeed most, constituencies one or the other party is "safe" and voting is, objectively, a waste of time and effort. No wonder so many don't bother.
If the people in a safe seat who support the majority candidate don't vote because it's a waste of time then it's not a safe seat anymore. (I don't think there's a name for this paradox.)
Not that there aren't a lot of problems with a first-past-the-post constituency system but I think that one is inevitable in any system that isn't a dictatorship.
If every seat is a safe seat then the same party always wins, which is obviously bad. But if every seat is a marginal then every election is won by a landslide, which is better but still bad. You want a mixture so that the proportion of seats won reflects the proportion of voters.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Our voting system is an outdated nonsense. The present government with its "massive mandate" was elected by a clear minority of voters.
This would not matter so much if modern governments moderated themselves to the size of their real mandate, but of course the never do or will.
In many, indeed most, constituencies one or the other party is "safe" and voting is, objectively, a waste of time and effort. No wonder so many don't bother.
Perhaps they should bother. Perhaps all those moaning about the system should support the party that supports PR
If the people in a safe seat who support the majority candidate don't vote because it's a waste of time then it's not a safe seat anymore. (I don't think there's a name for this paradox.)
Not that there aren't a lot of problems with a first-past-the-post constituency system but I think that one is inevitable in any system that isn't a dictatorship.
If every seat is a safe seat then the same party always wins, which is obviously bad. But if every seat is a marginal then every election is won by a landslide, which is better but still bad. You want a mixture so that the proportion of seats won reflects the proportion of voters.
Safe seats only exist because the voters in the seat prefer a certain party
In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Probably "natural party of non-government" on current form. And certainly in recent decades have tended to want to reduce the power of government, handing that over to assorted semi-private quangos and big business.
By my count ... Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair makes four.
In many, indeed most, constituencies one or the other party is "safe" and voting is, objectively, a waste of time and effort. No wonder so many don't bother.
But then there's the vote for the Senate (or the State equivalent) where your vote may very well help the party you support.
Safe seats only exist because the voters in the seat prefer a certain party
Voter preference is a funny thing. There are probably only a small number of voters who genuinely prefer one candidate and don't want anyone else elected. The vast majority probably consider most candidates fairly similar; probably some they'd never support in a month of Sundays, possibly one that they prefer a little bit above the others but would be happy with any of the rest. What then often seems to happen is a feedback loop which combines notions of a "wasted vote" with "wanting to back a winner" so that whoever is perceived as the likely winner picks up most of those voters who don't really mind or even have a slight preference for someone else. Add in the advantages a sitting MP has of name recognition and being able to say "this is what I've done as your MP", or if not standing again giving support to the new candidate with the candidate saying "I'll continue the good work". It's not impossible for safe seats to flip, but (by definition) harder than for marginals. Fewer safe seats would be good for democracy as all those seats would be fought, you're less likely to have situations where there aren't even hustings organised.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
If the Conservatives are the natural party for the UK they would not have lost at all. Labour tends to win when people get fed up of Conservatives making wrecking things. Labour fixes things and the people decide they want a change and Conservatives get in again and it circles round and round. Sometimes things interfere, like Brexit but that is the general idea
In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Probably "natural party of non-government" on current form. And certainly in recent decades have tended to want to reduce the power of government, handing that over to assorted semi-private quangos and big business.
By my count ... Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair makes four.
MacDonald was allowed to become PM but he never actually won any elections.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
If the Conservatives are the natural party for the UK they would not have lost at all. Labour tends to win when people get fed up of Conservatives making wrecking things. Labour fixes things and the people decide they want a change and Conservatives get in again and it circles round and round. Sometimes things interfere, like Brexit but that is the general idea
Labour get in when the people want a change. Don't assume that the Conservatives always wreck things and Labour always fixes things. In the 75 years since the end of WW2 Labour have been in power for 32 years and Conservatives 43 years with at least another 4 years on top of that. The other thing to remember is that the Consrvatives can only get elected with the support of the working class.
In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Probably "natural party of non-government" on current form. And certainly in recent decades have tended to want to reduce the power of government, handing that over to assorted semi-private quangos and big business.
By my count ... Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair makes four.
MacDonald was allowed to become PM but he never actually won any elections.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
If the Conservatives are the natural party for the UK they would not have lost at all. Labour tends to win when people get fed up of Conservatives making wrecking things. Labour fixes things and the people decide they want a change and Conservatives get in again and it circles round and round. Sometimes things interfere, like Brexit but that is the general idea
Labour get in when the people want a change. Don't assume that the Conservatives always wreck things and Labour always fixes things. In the 75 years since the end of WW2 Labour have been in power for 32 years and Conservatives 43 years with at least another 4 years on top of that. The other thing to remember is that the Consrvatives can only get elected with the support of the working class.
Let’s see. Ok in recent times Conservatives under Thatcher and Major had a boom and bust economy. Labour worked hard to sort that out. Since Brown lost the Conservatives have given us Austerity which has lead to job losses businesses losing prophets and struggling, job losses, an up surge in food bank use, more zero hours contracts, the government subbing people’s wages, full time workers not being able to afford to provide for themselves/family and that is all before Covid and Brexit. So I would say the evidence in recent times has been on my side. Also in my post I said there will be exceptions but it was a general trend, so I did not say that the Conservatives always ruined the Country
Making the rich richer, especially the super rich. While at the same time pandering to ordinary people’s fears of the ‘other’. Aided and abetted by the Murdoch press.
That’s conservatism.
True social democracy raises taxes fairly and uses them for excellent services. In this context taxes are a GOOD thing. Yet, somehow, no party will articulate this fact.
I blame Thatcher and her popularising of the ‘market forces’ of fear and greed. The conservatives lost all care for society from Thatcher onwards.
Now they destroy they U.K.
I dearly hope they destroy themselves in the process.
Look up the West Lothian Question. Also, it stands to reason that if Scotland becoming independent would leave England dominated by the Tories (as many here claim) then Scotland being part of the UK is pulling England (which has no government other than that of the UK as a whole) further to the left than would otherwise be the case.
'England which has no government other than that of the UK as a whole' is a rather coy way of referring to the ultimate national presiding governmental authority in the UK! Kind of when that one person who holds a 51% share in a company complains about the way the combined shareholders who hold the other 49% sometimes go their own way on a vote in the shareholders' meeting.
I don't really understand the contention you make in your last sentence. Scotland was a loyal Conservative-voting nation, in the main, till nationalism became stronger (late 80's and beyond?). And nationalism and left-leaning politics don't always make good bed-fellows as Brexit is teaching us in spades.
In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Probably "natural party of non-government" on current form. And certainly in recent decades have tended to want to reduce the power of government, handing that over to assorted semi-private quangos and big business.
By my count ... Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair makes four.
MacDonald was allowed to become PM but he never actually won any elections.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
If the Conservatives are the natural party for the UK they would not have lost at all. Labour tends to win when people get fed up of Conservatives making wrecking things. Labour fixes things and the people decide they want a change and Conservatives get in again and it circles round and round. Sometimes things interfere, like Brexit but that is the general idea
Labour get in when the people want a change. Don't assume that the Conservatives always wreck things and Labour always fixes things. In the 75 years since the end of WW2 Labour have been in power for 32 years and Conservatives 43 years with at least another 4 years on top of that. The other thing to remember is that the Consrvatives can only get elected with the support of the working class.
Let’s see. Ok in recent times Conservatives under Thatcher and Major had a boom and bust economy. Labour worked hard to sort that out. Since Brown lost the Conservatives have given us Austerity which has lead to job losses businesses losing prophets and struggling, job losses, an up surge in food bank use, more zero hours contracts, the government subbing people’s wages, full time workers not being able to afford to provide for themselves/family and that is all before Covid and Brexit. So I would say the evidence in recent times has been on my side. Also in my post I said there will be exceptions but it was a general trend, so I did not say that the Conservatives always ruined the Country
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I must admit that, though I favour the idea of Scottish independence (being of Scottish ancestry myself), I abhor the thought of *England* (in which benighted country I live) being left in the hands of the tories for ever and ever...
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
That's democracy for you. What's your alternative - only letting people vote for "good" governments? Imposition of a "good" government whether the people want it or not?
The Scots are affected by the Tunbridge Wells Question far more often than the English are affected by the West Lothian Question. Almost all the time, in fact.
I don't really understand the contention you make in your last sentence. Scotland was a loyal Conservative-voting nation, in the main, till nationalism became stronger (late 80's and beyond?). And nationalism and left-leaning politics don't always make good bed-fellows as Brexit is teaching us in spades.
The primary reason given for Scotland wanting independence is that it's currently governed by the Tories even though it wants to be governed by a more left-wing Party. Hence the conclusion that Scotland is to the left of England.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence.
Austerity was a policy enacted by the 2010 coalition government. Gordon Brown had nothing to do with it. He'd spent the previous year competently guiding the country out of the impact of a global financial crisis, and though a few UK banks failed (and, were bailed out) that was something caused primarily by banking practices in the US and other nations.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
FACT: The 2008 recession was caused by banks in the US overlending and engaging in dubious accounting practices to disguise the fact. It was not Brown's fault.
FACT: even allowing for the recession Brown and Darling left the economy in better shape than Brown found it.
FACT: the economy was starting to recover by the time Labour left office.
FACT: Osborne's incompetence and austerity stamped the recovery out.
The media is biased to the right and on these points most of it uncritically repeats the Tory lies and propaganda.
(The claim that there have never been so many people in employment in this country only holds up if you don't take into account the considerable reclassification of the figures, and of what counts as 'employment'.)
It's amazing how many people hold Brown's, 'No more Tory boom and bust' comment against him, while they're willing to forget howlers by other politicians that have far less truth to them. There is much less hyperbole to Brown's comment than most politicians gets away with: Brown had already presided over one of the longest sustained periods of steady economic improvement in the post-war history when he said it, and he continued to do so, whereas the Tories had presided over three recessions in the same time period. What the Tories cannot forgive about the 'Tory boom and bust' comment is not that it was mostly false, but that it was mostly true.
Osborne solved the problem by getting rid of the boom and persuading most people to get used to continual bust.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
He can teach the current lot a bit about taking control if he managed to control other nations and the following government, and the current lot are happily handing control of our fisheries to French businesses and mis-management of test and trace to private business.
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
That's a bit obtuse, isn't it? Scottish voters voted to remain in the EU. Scotland expressed the opinion, on a 62:38 split, that the UK (and by construction Scotland) would be better off remaining in the EU. But I can pretty much guarantee that the average Scottish voter wasn't thinking of whether EU membership was good for the people of Hartlepool or Hertfordshire when they voted, any more than the English leave voters had the welfare of the people of Scotland at the forefront of their minds.
If Scotland chooses independence from the UK, then Scotland will seek entry into the EU, and that move will have widespread public support. It's reasonable to assume at least that 62:38 split, although I suspect the numbers have moved a little further in favour of the EU.
The thing that I find hardest to predict is that, given Brexit, Scotland has to make a choice between being part of the EU and part of the UK. The leading choice at the time of the last IndyRef (remain in the UK to remain in the EU) is no longer available.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
That's a bit obtuse, isn't it? Scottish voters voted to remain in the EU. Scotland expressed the opinion, on a 62:38 split, that the UK (and by construction Scotland) would be better off remaining in the EU. But I can pretty much guarantee that the average Scottish voter wasn't thinking of whether EU membership was good for the people of Hartlepool or Hertfordshire when they voted, any more than the English leave voters had the welfare of the people of Scotland at the forefront of their minds.
If Scotland chooses independence from the UK, then Scotland will seek entry into the EU, and that move will have widespread public support. It's reasonable to assume at least that 62:38 split, although I suspect the numbers have moved a little further in favour of the EU.
The thing that I find hardest to predict is that, given Brexit, Scotland has to make a choice between being part of the EU and part of the UK. The leading choice at the time of the last IndyRef (remain in the UK to remain in the EU) is no longer available.
It's not obtuse at all. Every voter in the UK had to make a decision about the future of the UK, not their part of the UK.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
It was short, sharpe and to the point.
Brevity is good. But, being accurate is better. The damage caused by austerity most definitely did not happen under Gordon Brown. Even if his policies influenced US banks and international finance sufficiently to cause the 2008 crash, it was the policies of the coalition government elected in 2010 that resulted in the damage of austerity - it was the Conservatives peculiar economic policy (unopposed by the LibDems) that starved the nation of the investment that would have lifted us out of the economic downturn and instead left millions on low pay, just about managing, and reliant on food banks. The introduction of Universal Credit and other benefit reforms to create a 'hostile environment' for claimants added misery on top of that caused by austerity.
Comments
Not being Scottish or English I don't have a dog in this particular fight, strictly speaking. But I'd love to know what complaints of undue Scottish impact on them small English towns who vote Tory can have! Tartan patterns on the shortbread tins too gaudy? Ir'n Bru too fizzy? In the des-res of the UK is Scotland bringing the property prices down?!
Is that right, or have I missed the point?
Now, of course, with Brexshit on the doorstep, it's hardly surprising that the Remainers in Scotland (and possibly many of the now-regretful Leavers, too) are keen on the idea of independence and being part of the EU.
Those two concepts are not mutually incompatible...
Given the uncertainty about whether Scotland's 2016 vote indicated a preference to be in the EU only if the rest of the UK was or a willingness to choose EU membership over the union with the rest of the UK a fresh referendum on independence is surely essential.
I certainly agree that the situation has changed since 2014 and a referendum would be appropriate
I'd say that while you retain FPTP, you should decide between the candidates most likely to come in first and second in your electorate. That way you have some real say in the outcome, a say lacking should you vote for someone very unlikely to win.
I think it's a matter of game theory. What you say is true for an election in isolation (most of the time, the 2015 election results in Scotland where the SNP jumped from 3rd place to take many seats provides a counterpoint) but elections don't take place in isolation. A vote for a smaller party is an indicator to the larger parties that your vote is on offer if they move in that direction. If you give your vote unconditionally to the lesser of two evils then you eliminate any incentive for them to be anything but marginally less evil.
Yes, but while you retain FPTP, your vote for a smaller party can be ignored to a much greater degree. The party that wins doesn't need to go chasing those extra votes. Maybe the 2nd-largest party does, but of course then that rather depends on your vote being in the direction, or on the wing, they can conceivably chase.
In a preferential system, the larger parties may have to pay a lot more attention to being somebody's 2nd preference. There are certainly a lot of electorates in Australia where it isn't the party with the largest 1st vote that wins. Plus there's simply not the same disincentive to vote for a smaller party in the way you suggest. There's no fear that you have to choose between that 'indicator' and actually having a say in the outcome this time around. You get both.
As for "lesser of two evils", that's been the case for me in every general election apart from the last two. Blairite Labour had nothing to offer except not being the tories, and it's starting to look like Starmer's Labour is heading in the same direction.
This has not been the experience in the Australian Parliament over recent years, where there has been increasing representation of minor parties and independents in the House of Representatives, where preferential voting for single-member constituencies applies. The current government only holds a one-seat majority, and there are already strong community movements threatening some of their sitting members following the defeat of former PM Tony Abbott by a community-based independent last year.
The NSW Parliament had multi-member constituencies after World War 1 for a period. It was a period of great instability and short-lived governments, and that seems to be a feature of many other similar systems.
In the Senate, where PR applies, neither major party has controlled the chamber for many years prior to 2004, or since 2007 . In that year, after a brief period of majority control of that house and an outbreak of hubris in the long-standing Howard ministry, the government was defeated at that year's general election and the PM lost his own seat.
Look up the West Lothian Question. Also, it stands to reason that if Scotland becoming independent would leave England dominated by the Tories (as many here claim) then Scotland being part of the UK is pulling England (which has no government other than that of the UK as a whole) further to the left than would otherwise be the case.
You could console yourself that Scottish seats have enabled a Labour majority precisely twice since WW2.
I think that longer term, the presence of a largely similar country to the north which manages its affairs differently may provide more of political change than the current arrangement of the odd Labour majority provided by Scottish seats.
If this occured it would be because the people had voted for it so I don't see the problem
You don't see people choosing a bad government as a problem?
This would not matter so much if modern governments moderated themselves to the size of their real mandate, but of course the never do or will.
In many, indeed most, constituencies one or the other party is "safe" and voting is, objectively, a waste of time and effort. No wonder so many don't bother.
Not that there aren't a lot of problems with a first-past-the-post constituency system but I think that one is inevitable in any system that isn't a dictatorship.
If every seat is a safe seat then the same party always wins, which is obviously bad. But if every seat is a marginal then every election is won by a landslide, which is better but still bad. You want a mixture so that the proportion of seats won reflects the proportion of voters.
Your words, not mine. In the UK, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Only 3 Labour leaders have won general elections
Safe seats only exist because the voters in the seat prefer a certain party
By my count ... Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair makes four.
But then there's the vote for the Senate (or the State equivalent) where your vote may very well help the party you support.
If the Conservatives are the natural party for the UK they would not have lost at all. Labour tends to win when people get fed up of Conservatives making wrecking things. Labour fixes things and the people decide they want a change and Conservatives get in again and it circles round and round. Sometimes things interfere, like Brexit but that is the general idea
Labour get in when the people want a change. Don't assume that the Conservatives always wreck things and Labour always fixes things. In the 75 years since the end of WW2 Labour have been in power for 32 years and Conservatives 43 years with at least another 4 years on top of that. The other thing to remember is that the Consrvatives can only get elected with the support of the working class.
Let’s see. Ok in recent times Conservatives under Thatcher and Major had a boom and bust economy. Labour worked hard to sort that out. Since Brown lost the Conservatives have given us Austerity which has lead to job losses businesses losing prophets and struggling, job losses, an up surge in food bank use, more zero hours contracts, the government subbing people’s wages, full time workers not being able to afford to provide for themselves/family and that is all before Covid and Brexit. So I would say the evidence in recent times has been on my side. Also in my post I said there will be exceptions but it was a general trend, so I did not say that the Conservatives always ruined the Country
That’s conservatism.
True social democracy raises taxes fairly and uses them for excellent services. In this context taxes are a GOOD thing. Yet, somehow, no party will articulate this fact.
I blame Thatcher and her popularising of the ‘market forces’ of fear and greed. The conservatives lost all care for society from Thatcher onwards.
Now they destroy they U.K.
I dearly hope they destroy themselves in the process.
'England which has no government other than that of the UK as a whole' is a rather coy way of referring to the ultimate national presiding governmental authority in the UK! Kind of when that one person who holds a 51% share in a company complains about the way the combined shareholders who hold the other 49% sometimes go their own way on a vote in the shareholders' meeting.
I don't really understand the contention you make in your last sentence. Scotland was a loyal Conservative-voting nation, in the main, till nationalism became stronger (late 80's and beyond?). And nationalism and left-leaning politics don't always make good bed-fellows as Brexit is teaching us in spades.
The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.
That's democracy for you. What's your alternative - only letting people vote for "good" governments? Imposition of a "good" government whether the people want it or not?
Nothing in what I said implied otherwise.
The primary reason given for Scotland wanting independence is that it's currently governed by the Tories even though it wants to be governed by a more left-wing Party. Hence the conclusion that Scotland is to the left of England.
FACT: even allowing for the recession Brown and Darling left the economy in better shape than Brown found it.
FACT: the economy was starting to recover by the time Labour left office.
FACT: Osborne's incompetence and austerity stamped the recovery out.
The media is biased to the right and on these points most of it uncritically repeats the Tory lies and propaganda.
(The claim that there have never been so many people in employment in this country only holds up if you don't take into account the considerable reclassification of the figures, and of what counts as 'employment'.)
It's amazing how many people hold Brown's, 'No more Tory boom and bust' comment against him, while they're willing to forget howlers by other politicians that have far less truth to them. There is much less hyperbole to Brown's comment than most politicians gets away with: Brown had already presided over one of the longest sustained periods of steady economic improvement in the post-war history when he said it, and he continued to do so, whereas the Tories had presided over three recessions in the same time period. What the Tories cannot forgive about the 'Tory boom and bust' comment is not that it was mostly false, but that it was mostly true.
Osborne solved the problem by getting rid of the boom and persuading most people to get used to continual bust.
I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.
That's a bit obtuse, isn't it? Scottish voters voted to remain in the EU. Scotland expressed the opinion, on a 62:38 split, that the UK (and by construction Scotland) would be better off remaining in the EU. But I can pretty much guarantee that the average Scottish voter wasn't thinking of whether EU membership was good for the people of Hartlepool or Hertfordshire when they voted, any more than the English leave voters had the welfare of the people of Scotland at the forefront of their minds.
If Scotland chooses independence from the UK, then Scotland will seek entry into the EU, and that move will have widespread public support. It's reasonable to assume at least that 62:38 split, although I suspect the numbers have moved a little further in favour of the EU.
The thing that I find hardest to predict is that, given Brexit, Scotland has to make a choice between being part of the EU and part of the UK. The leading choice at the time of the last IndyRef (remain in the UK to remain in the EU) is no longer available.
The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
It's not obtuse at all. Every voter in the UK had to make a decision about the future of the UK, not their part of the UK.
If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
and that sums up what you are all about.