[Oldmanmatt]

This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.

Better to keep a representative, fptp, democracy, but reduce constituency size?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jaspersharpe]

This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.

As opposed to a fractious, ineffective Tory government that is horrific for the nation in the long run?

[i.munro]

from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory

Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.

It's only been 9 months! I know a week is a long time in politics but ...

[slackline]

This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.

This seems to strange in light of your earlier point...

 

It feels as though there is nothing but the clash of radical Right with radical Left and no room or interest in compromise and pragmatism.

FPTP with smaller constituencies does not address this, you still end up with lots of people who didn't vote for the government.  Proportional representation and the resulting coalitions by their nature tend to reach the middle ground as those on both sides have to make compromises and be pragmatic.

[Bonjoy]

To play devil’s advocate for a moment – you say that as if splitting the difference is a sound way of making policy. Is policy making by committee a good thing? I know in other spheres of life it tends to lead to mediocre decision making. Much of the reason for current political turmoil is that everyone piled into the supposed middleground to the extent that the electorate felt like there was no real choice as both main parties were too alike. Meanwhile opening up a vacuum to be filled by others.
John Michael Greer has an interesting take on this, which is challenging to conventional wisdom on both the right and left - http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/outside-hall-of-mirrors.html

[slackline]

No idea if policy by committee is a good thing or not as I've no experience of it in practise on which to base my judgement.  The Conservative Lib-Dem coalition isn't a good example, the Lib-Dems sacrificed much of their manifesto policies to have the AV referendum.  Current system is, in my opinion, not working very well at all and hasn't for some time.

Not sure how to judge decision making as good/bad/strong/weak/mediocre.  Number of people who like the result?


I try and use as a general guiding principle the idea that people should try and get along with each other, finding pragmatic compromise, the sort of thing I was bought up with, rather than fractious/ divisive selfishness.

Leaving work shortly to go climbing will try and find time to read the blog post in the next day or so.


 

[Bonjoy]

I think it depends on the sort of decision being made. I was thinking of decisions where there are two proposed credible solutions, either of which might work, but a fudge of the two will almost certainly produce a poor outcome. Like do we have curry for tea, or pizza?

[Johnny Brown]

This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.

Like Germany you mean? Yeah right fuckup that.

[galpinos]

That's part of my point. I feel as if  there is a malaise across the Liberal political middle ground.

It feels as though there is nothing but the clash of radical Right with radical Left and no room or interest in compromise and pragmatism.

That disparity has been growing since the dawn of socialism and has reached a point where (to me) it looks like the whole system is failing as both extremes argue for an opposite purity that is either entirely geared towards the wealthy or wholeheartedly for the working class.

Witnesses Labours' move (under Blair) to take that middle ground and the implosion now taking place because of it. The rise of the most radical, right wing, PM since Thatcher and the marginalisation of Tory moderates. All against the background of militant new parties promising sexy quick fixes to all of group x,y,z's ills; that drag the "mainstream" parties even further to the extremes in a desperate attempt to maintain membership.

The "middle ground" that everyone is chasing seem to be slowly sliding to the right though....

[Oldmanmatt]

This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.

Like Germany you mean? Yeah right fuckup that.

I posed it as a question.
I thought someone would bring up Germany.
Are we of a nature with the Germans?

Or are we more akin to the Southern Europeans, where it seems less effective.

Too much PR, too many plebiscites, surely would result in mayhem and faddish swings?
Anyone read Ben Eltons' "Blind Faith"? Fancy some "Wembley Laws"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory

Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.

Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?

[Johnny Brown]

Too much PR, too many plebiscites, surely would result in mayhem and faddish swings?

My main issue with Fptp is that voting habits have completely changed. We don't mostly vote for two parties any more. This needs to be represented. In my lifetime, all I've seen in british government is a swing one way for long enough to get fed up with them, then a swing back the other way. The two parties then spend most of first term undoing each other's work. Too much side to side and not enough forwards. A permanent coalition would require compromise and hopefully progress might be slower but it would at least be consistently forwards.

[i.munro]

Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?

Had the lib-dems gone into coalition with labour, as most of their voters expected, then we certainly wouldn't.

Instead to quote from Bonjoy's link above : "In the general election of 2010, voters blindsided pollsters and pundits alike by flocking to the Liberal Democratic party, until then a fringe party. That was an obvious demand for change, and if the Lib-Dems had stuck to their guns, it might have resulted in the eclipse of the Labour party within a few more years, but the Lib-Dems chose instead to cash in their ideals and form a coalition with the Tories. In the 2015 general election, as a direct result, the Lib-Dems were flung back out onto the fringes. "

[Oldmanmatt]

Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?

Had the lib-dems gone into coalition with labour, as most of their voters expected, then we certainly wouldn't.

Instead to quote from Bonjoy's link above : "In the general election of 2010, voters blindsided pollsters and pundits alike by flocking to the Liberal Democratic party, until then a fringe party. That was an obvious demand for change, and if the Lib-Dems had stuck to their guns, it might have resulted in the eclipse of the Labour party within a few more years, but the Lib-Dems chose instead to cash in their ideals and form a coalition with the Tories. In the 2015 general election, as a direct result, the Lib-Dems were flung back out onto the fringes. "

This.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

This depends on your opinion of whether a left coalition was a realistic choice. Given the numbers, it wasn't. It's a cliche that parties don't win elections, they lose them. Labour emphatically lost the election - voters defecting to the lib dems 'an obvious demand for change' is further proof of this. The options were a tory government, or a tory government slightly reined in by Clegg and co. The latter for me was the better option, and has been borne out by what has happened in the last year. Had the lib-dems forced the left coalition it would have lasted months tops immediately followed by a tory landslide. They knew that, and labour knew that, which is why they didn't.

If anything good comes of the current debacle, I'd like to see the parties split (as is already being discussed) - the tories can go further right and absorb ukip, plus a centrist party of blairites and tory remainers, corbynites and the 'green' socialists, none of whom have a hope of getting a majority alone. So permanent coalition government, real and constant need to compromise and none of this kindergarten red team blue team tribal  go left go right bullshit. PR would help, obviously.

However given the way the tories have pulled themselves together, and labour haven't , I think the best we can hope is for a rainbow coalition to fight for the centre and left. My impression from the stats is that a larger proportion of 'out' voters do not normally vote, so I think a swing away from brexit is likely. Shame it didn't rain on the 23rd really.

[a dense loner]

Labour haven't pulled themselves together because the leader who very few people want to lead refuses to go. So who is looking after number one here?

Its surely been shown that coalitions don't work?

A swing away from brexit is likely? What do you mean? Are you still thinking we won't be leaving?

It did rain on the 23rd, floods in London. We'd have stayed in europe if all the London voters could have been bothered to go.

[rich d]

I still think a vote for Brexit has in the perception of the political parties shown a shift in the voting public towards the right, they will probably shift that way to try and gain this perceived voter shift. I also think they will see that the Sun and the Mail rightly or wrongly predicted/swayed public opinion and therefore pander back to the right leaning Murdoc owned press.

[Johnny Brown]

No idea where labour will go, I think the reality is they have split but are fighting over who gets labour and who makes the new party.

Coalitions are the norm in many countries. The last one seemed to work fine, I certainly preferred it to this government.

The referendum was not binding. If it had been, it would have required a higher threshold than 1.9%. All the leave tories have walked away. May is saying brexit means brexit because it is the sensible thing to do now; they are still in a stand-off with Europe over what deal they might get. Both sides know this; we say we're going, they say go then. But we're still here aren't we?

Turnout was low in rainy London but overwhelmingly remain. Dry in the north, high turnout, more leave voters.

[a dense loner]

Yeh thought so.

The last coalition seemed to work fine? Sorry I thought I read very differently off others earlier. I love this not binding stuff, goes well with the self defecating prophecy.

[Oldmanmatt]

No idea where labour will go, I think the reality is they have split but are fighting over who gets labour and who makes the new party.

Coalitions are the norm in many countries. The last one seemed to work fine, I certainly preferred it to this government.

The referendum was not binding. If it had been, it would have required a higher threshold than 1.9%. All the leave tories have walked away. May is saying brexit means brexit because it is the sensible thing to do now; they are still in a stand-off with Europe over what deal they might get. Both sides know this; we say we're going, they say go then. But we're still here aren't we?

Turnout was low in rainy London but overwhelmingly remain. Dry in the north, high turnout, more leave voters.

Still here(in).

That might change before the week is out.
Reckon this is another lady, not for turning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

I'll believe it when it happens.

[a dense loner]

That's probably the first right thing you've said on this thread omm 

[Oldmanmatt]

That's probably the first right thing you've said on this thread omm 

Well, ta.

Puts me one ahead of you.
[emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

I think it depends on the sort of decision being made. I was thinking of decisions where there are two proposed credible solutions, either of which might work, but a fudge of the two will almost certainly produce a poor outcome. Like do we have curry for tea, or pizza?

Curried pizza sounds great.

Could one person not have pizza and the other curry?  Bit more work but no one ever said compromises were easier.

(Not read the blog post yet, but had a good night climbing).

[tomtom]

I think it depends on the sort of decision being made. I was thinking of decisions where there are two proposed credible solutions, either of which might work, but a fudge of the two will almost certainly produce a poor outcome. Like do we have curry for tea, or pizza?

Curried pizza sounds great.

Could one person not have pizza and the other curry?  Bit more work but no one ever said compromises were easier.

(Not read the blog post yet, but had a good night climbing).

Most rule is by some form of consent - unless you are Castro or that fat Korean person (oh most wonderful leader in case the army of Internet watchers is watching). Most government policies start with a white paper - a proposal - that's then floated around and bits are changed until it's suitable. Of course some get through but most have many edits/changes to ensure enough MP's will vote for them.

Though possibly a better way to frame the curry pizza issue is: if you are starving either will do - you won't care. If you are not starving then you are capable enough of developing a policy where you can have either - though maybe incentivise one over the other through taxation