When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[takno]

Oh, I couldn't agree more.

Whenever the voting system comes up, all I ever seem to hear is PR; my experience of that is I was represented by no-one in the European parliament.
I will not vote for a candidate I have a problem with (eg objectionable views/ actions, useless, inactive/ unsupportive in the constituency) no matter what party they represent. I want as my MP someone who will work in my interest, whether as an individual or as a community, even if it is at the expense of losing favour with the whips. If I can't call on my MP for assistance, who can I call upon? I have been fortunate that I have only had three MPs who have turned out to be a waste of space and I have never voted for them more than once. Above all, as far as I can remember, they have all lived in or near the constituency (even if not during the week) - the MP must understand the constituency, not be parachuted in 5 minutes before hand.
What parties need to remember whether it be Conservative, Labour, LibDem or SNP is that, particularly in the current climate, with people struggling, voter loyalty counts for nothing. It is no good saying 'we hear you' when you appear to have your fingers in your ears, or politicians rolling out the same trite answers because they don't have the skill or empathy to put together something meaningful. I would rather hear the realistic, if difficult, truth than the fanciful, if easy, lie because the lie will come out sooner or later. I agree with the statement about negativity - probably happens because it is so much easier than being positive (witness PMQs). Hopefully we, the voters, are tiring of it; once we discover that the sky doesn't fall in if we vote differently (it doesn't, I've tried it), hopefully politicians will have to up their game if we discover there is an alternative.

I am pleased that the new MP is focused; her future depends on doing a good job, I just hope that the constituency supports her when the time comes.

There are a lot of forms of PR. The EU used regional lists, which was a bit of a problem simply because the lists were so big. On the other hand, I don't think the previous constituency system for MEPs ever left anybody feeling particularly represented either - it's a level of politics most people simply never chose to engage with.

If regional lists were implemented at the GB level, the regions would likely be the size of 4-5 constituencies, which is far more manageable, and should still provide meaningful representation.

A Scottish-style combination of constituencies (probably double the size of current constituencies), with a slightly fewer list candidates elected at a regional level is good. It evens things up well but still leaves a good degree of local representation. It even provides access to localish representation via the list candidates if your constituency MP turns out to be a total flake.

All you hear is PR because it's pretty much used as the umbrella term for everything other than first-past-the-post

 

[Yew]

So personally, I'm a fan of "Super-constituencies", where areas of around 5-10 MP's are joined, with their MP's decided by the proportion of votes in the region. This allows a local connection, and for local people to "shop around" their MP's for local issues that if they could only talk to an MP from party X, might be ignored. Add in few "member list" seats, to make the number of MP's match up with the national vote percentage, and I feel it'd be a great balance of local representation and national proportionality.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So personally, I'm a fan of "Super-constituencies", where areas of around 5-10 MP's are joined, with their MP's decided by the proportion of votes in the region. This allows a local connection, and for local people to "shop around" their MP's for local issues that if they could only talk to an MP from party X, might be ignored. Add in few "member list" seats, to make the number of MP's match up with the national vote percentage, and I feel it'd be a great balance of local representation and national proportionality.

In what year, if ever, was that matter ever discussed officially?

 

[daodao]

In what year, if ever, was that matter ever discussed officially?

There was a referendum about 10 years ago on an alternative voting system, but this was rejected by the electorate, who took a conservative view with the clear majority of those voting preferring to stick with FPTP. The 2019 general election produced a clear result, and it won't go wrong for the Tories until at least 2024, and that is only if they lose the next general election. In the meantime, the Tories can rule as they wish, and one thing that Bojo could do is take a firm view vis-a-vis the railway trade unions and do to the railways and the rail unions what Mrs Thatcher did to the coal mines and the NUM nearly 40 years ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was a referendum about 10 years ago on an alternative voting system, but this was rejected by the electorate, who took a conservative view with the clear majority of those voting preferring to stick with FPTP.

Glad to hear it was the electorate and not the honourable members who made the decision. Sounds far more democratic.

 

[Yew]

In what year, if ever, was that matter ever discussed officially?

My specific proposal hasn't been in the UK, but elements of it are present in the EU and NZ voting systems.


Ten years ago, there was a referendum on an "Alternative Vote", but the system there was a form of "runnoff voting".

 

[windingroad]

So personally, I'm a fan of "Super-constituencies", where areas of around 5-10 MP's are joined, with their MP's decided by the proportion of votes in the region. This allows a local connection, and for local people to "shop around" their MP's for local issues that if they could only talk to an MP from party X, might be ignored. Add in few "member list" seats, to make the number of MP's match up with the national vote percentage, and I feel it'd be a great balance of local representation and national proportionality.

My concern here would be that if one MP was perceived as being more effective, you could end up in a situation where they receive most of the casework and the other MPs receive relatively little. Would you allocate extra funding to that MP to help them sift through it?

 

[py_megapixel]

There was a referendum about 10 years ago on an alternative voting system, but this was rejected by the electorate, who took a conservative view with the clear majority of those voting preferring to stick with FPTP.

This was of course mostly due to scaremongering by the Labour and Conservative parties, whose interest it is obviously in to keep FPTP in place, as it incentivises tactical voting and thus preserves the two-party system which allowed them to become so big.

 

[windingroad]

This was of course mostly due to scaremongering by the Labour and Conservative parties, whose interest it is obviously in to keep FPTP in place, as it incentivises tactical voting and thus preserves the two-party system which allowed them to become so big.

I was utterly exasperated by Labour's approach to this at the time, and remain so. Any genuinely progressive party should be in favour of a proportional system of some variety.

 

[Typhoon]

My concern here would be that if one MP was perceived as being more effective, you could end up in a situation where they receive most of the casework and the other MPs receive relatively little. Would you allocate extra funding to that MP to help them sift through it?

I can see it being more complicated than that. Near where I live, one MP is a (fairly junior) minister, the temptation might be for them to say that they don't have time just at the present. Constituents might start to go elsewhere. Now take an area where there might be a couple of senior ministers and a shadow minister and suddenly 2 or 3 members have got a double case load. We also have one Labour and all others are Conservative. If there was an issue where Labour had spoken out in favour of while the Conservatives had spoken against, constituents who needed help with that issue would turn to the Labour member simply because of their perceived stance (although at least some Conservatives would take it on and make an excellent job of it).

 

[windingroad]

I can see it being more complicated than that. Near where I live, one MP is a (fairly junior) minister, the temptation might be for them to say that they don't have time just at the present. Constituents might start to go elsewhere. Now take an area where there might be a couple of senior ministers and a shadow minister and suddenly 2 or 3 members have got a double case load. We also have one Labour and all others are Conservative. If there was an issue where Labour had spoken out in favour of while the Conservatives had spoken against, constituents who needed help with that issue would turn to the Labour member simply because of their perceived stance (although at least some Conservatives would take it on and make an excellent job of it).

All very true. On the flipside though, I suppose you could also argue that the current system means that if you do have an ineffective MP, you have nowhere else to go. At least with the above proposal you have other options.

 

[py_megapixel]

My concern here would be that if one MP was perceived as being more effective, you could end up in a situation where they receive most of the casework and the other MPs receive relatively little. Would you allocate extra funding to that MP to help them sift through it?

Isn't that already the case under the current system though? An MP who never does any local work except sending preformulated responses to letters will get the same pay as one who is much more active in the local community and responsive to constinuents' concerns.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't that already the case under the current system though? An MP who never does any local work except sending preformulated responses to letters will get the same pay as one who is much more active in the local community and responsive to constinuents' concerns.

Only of course even worse as you have no one else to write to at that level in the current system...

 

[py_megapixel]

Only of course even worse as you have no one else to write to at that level in the current system...

Well, quite...

 

[317 forever]

Given Greater Manchester remained predominantly Labour, albeit Rishi's altruism came to the fore when he helpfully bunged one of the UK's most deprived areas, Tory Cheadle, along with his own destitute constituency, Richmond N.Yorks, a few quid, I would say the area doesn't really come under the "red wall " seats in terms of voter demographics.

Moving away to the leafy lanes of Cheshire, starting at Altrincham and Sale, and thence to Tatton, Wilmslow, Macclesfield Congleton etc whilst they always have, and will, vote for anything with a blue rosette stuck on any part of the anatomy you care to name, what will be interesting is the size of the majority in these seats at the next GE...that will offer a more telling view of how the current manifestation of the Boris party are perceived in the heartlands

I think seats the poster had in mind include the likes of Bury North, Leigh and Heywood & Middleton. Also Don Valley, Stocksbridge and (likely to be lost next week) Wakefield for example.

A 6,000 majority… that’s not very secure at all in the current climate. I think Altrincham & Sale West is for the taking.

I think a few Remain leaning seats are likely to be lost next time, even if they stayed Tory in 1997. This is indeed an example. Others are Chipping Barnet, Chingford & Woodford Green and Wycombe.

Fully agree. His main power base seems to be in Ripponden, Rishworth, Barkisland, Brighouse and Rastrick. I believe that he lives in the latter village, although he used to be a parish councillor in Heptonstall.

I bet he enjoys doing the Floral Dance

 

[daodao]

I think a few Remain leaning seats are likely to be lost next time, even if they stayed Tory in 1997. This is indeed an example.

Brexit is done, so will not be a major issue at the next general election. I really don't expect any swing to Labour to be sufficient to topple Sir Graham Brady in Altrincham & Sale West. He is a good constituency MP,

 

[317 forever]

Brexit is done, so will not be a major issue at the next general election. I really don't expect any swing to Labour to be sufficient to topple Sir Graham Brady in Altrincham & Sale West. He is a good constituency MP,

His popularity may well help safeguard his position as their MP.

Sure, Brexit is done, but what I am referring to is that the current brand of Conservatism will appeal rather less in these constituencies, making them less safe and more likely to change hands next time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the 1997 General Election, the Conservatives only won 165 seats. Reading through recent postings on this thread, do the majority of contributors to this thread feel a somewhat likely figure will occur at the time of the next General Election?

 

[Lost property]

Brexit is done, so will not be a major issue at the next general election. I really don't expect any swing to Labour to be sufficient to topple Sir Graham Brady in Altrincham & Sale West. He is a good constituency MP,

Brexit is only done by virtue of Boris putting his grubby thumb print on the paperwork, whilst ignoring the details. The ramifications of Brexit are an insidious process which will continue to emerge and with them, the growing realisation, that, leaving a prominent trading bloc located in the same geographical area as the UK in the vain hope the rest of the world will coming flocking to our shores will duly adversely affect the already deteriorating UK economy .

"Got Brexit done !" will no doubt feature prominently in the electioneering propaganda however, as spouted by Boris as he attempts to save his now irrevocably destroyed image.

 

[daodao]

leaving a prominent trading bloc

The problem for the majority of the people in the UK (when they were asked for their opinion on 23/6/16) was that the EU is not merely "a trading block" but a political union, with the aim of ever closer political integration. Many in Europe also felt that the UK was out of place in the EU and damaging it, for example read the views in 2014 of the late Michel Rocard, ex-prime minister of France.

A French message to Britain: get out of Europe before you wreck it​

A French message to Britain: get out of Europe before you wreck it | Michel Rocard

Michel Rocard: The European Union is on its knees but you, the British, want to block even small steps to democratic legitimacy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gloster]

Brexit is only done by virtue of Boris putting his grubby thumb print on the paperwork, whilst ignoring the details. The ramifications of Brexit are an insidious process which will continue to emerge and with them, the growing realisation, that, leaving a prominent trading bloc located in the same geographical area as the UK in the vain hope the rest of the world will coming flocking to our shores will duly adversely affect the already deteriorating UK economy .

I do agree that the negative effects of Brexit will slowly become more and more obvious to all but those who bury their heads in the sand. Prices will rise and it will become more and difficulty for the government to push the blame on what is already looking like being a worse economic performance that the rest of Europe on to Covid, Putin, etc. (Yes, they are playing their part in the problems, but it looks as though the country that chose Brexit will be lagging well behind the others.) Jobs will be lost, take home pay will be reduced, services may be in difficulty because of a shortage of staff, etc. It may not directly affect everybody, but there will be few who don’t see some evidence of such problems. It will be beyond the capabilities of the Daily M**l to persuade people that the negative effects they are seeing aren’t a result of Brexit.

 

[Typhoon]

Only of course even worse as you have no one else to write to at that level in the current system...

I'm not exactly sure what is being proposed. If it is that we vote for a party then the number of MPs are divvied up according to the number of votes cast for that party in the super constituency allocated according to a list, then there is no guarantee that we will get quality (more likely, party loyalty).
Looking at my area, we have the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. seemingly promoted following car-crash after car-crash interviews as Care Minister (lots of them, and not just with Piers Morgan); an MP who blames the French for almost everything (she hasn't yet found a way to tar them with the P&O sackings) and her neighbour, who is almost as bad; and one who will doubtless emerge from hibernation just in time for the summer recess. There are a couple of others who are pretty good, conscientious with casework, considered with arguments, (usually) moderate in their opinions. They are the only two I would consider voting for. Unfortunately they are not likely to feature near the top of any lists as they are May loyalists. If I could rank the candidates within each party list, I would support the change but it would mean that the count would take days. Otherwise, I fear a response to a query about beach contamination is that it is down to President Macron!

 

[Yew]

The problem for the majority of the people in the UK (when they were asked for their opinion on 23/6/16) was that the EU is not merely "a trading block" but a political union, with the aim of ever closer political integration.

In which case, we could have remained in the European Economic Area, which is the trading block. Unfortunately it seems that our Glorious leader decided to follow the drivel spewing out from Nigel Farrage, then the actual question on the ballot sheet.

I can see it being more complicated than that. Near where I live, one MP is a (fairly junior) minister, the temptation might be for them to say that they don't have time just at the present. Constituents might start to go elsewhere. Now take an area where there might be a couple of senior ministers and a shadow minister and suddenly 2 or 3 members have got a double case load. We also have one Labour and all others are Conservative. If there was an issue where Labour had spoken out in favour of while the Conservatives had spoken against, constituents who needed help with that issue would turn to the Labour member simply because of their perceived stance (although at least some Conservatives would take it on and make an excellent job of it).

You have multiple local councillors to speak to, and it seems like this is not generally a problem. By definition, if you have lots of voters from party X, you will have lots of MP's to handle their casework.



I agree there is a issue with Ministers continuing to function as MP's, which often ends up with their constituency responsibilities being put on the backburner, but that's no different to as present.

 

[brad465]

Brexit is only done by virtue of Boris putting his grubby thumb print on the paperwork, whilst ignoring the details. The ramifications of Brexit are an insidious process which will continue to emerge and with them, the growing realisation, that, leaving a prominent trading bloc located in the same geographical area as the UK in the vain hope the rest of the world will coming flocking to our shores will duly adversely affect the already deteriorating UK economy .

"Got Brexit done !" will no doubt feature prominently in the electioneering propaganda however, as spouted by Boris as he attempts to save his now irrevocably destroyed image.

Brexit is not done, for two major reasons: firstly the Government keep trying to trash the NI Protocol they signed up to, and secondly because the TCA has to be reviewed every 5 years, where as the deal started at the beginning of 2021, it should be reviewed in 2026, meaning whoever wins the next election will have to do something about it.

And that's without the implications you outline above.

 

[takno]

I'm not exactly sure what is being proposed. If it is that we vote for a party then the number of MPs are divvied up according to the number of votes cast for that party in the super constituency allocated according to a list, then there is no guarantee that we will get quality (more likely, party loyalty).
Looking at my area, we have the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. seemingly promoted following car-crash after car-crash interviews as Care Minister (lots of them, and not just with Piers Morgan); an MP who blames the French for almost everything (she hasn't yet found a way to tar them with the P&O sackings) and her neighbour, who is almost as bad; and one who will doubtless emerge from hibernation just in time for the summer recess. There are a couple of others who are pretty good, conscientious with casework, considered with arguments, (usually) moderate in their opinions. They are the only two I would consider voting for. Unfortunately they are not likely to feature near the top of any lists as they are May loyalists. If I could rank the candidates within each party list, I would support the change but it would mean that the count would take days. Otherwise, I fear a response to a query about beach contamination is that it is down to President Macron!

In normal times parties usually select the list as an open contest amongst the membership in the region. This tends to result in largely reasonable lists.

The big risk as with FPTP is unscheduled elections, where the membership of parties are often excluded and incompetent or toxic candidates are parachuted in at the last minute because there "isn't time" for an internal contest. This has unfortunately been a significant factor at both the last two elections.

The alternative is to do full AV with multi-member constituencies, but in addition to being fiddly to count (unless you trust magical electronic voting), that tends to result in some weird anomalies, and ultimately still doesn't stop the central party stuffing in largely terrible candidates in snap elections

 

[317 forever]

In the 1997 General Election, the Conservatives only won 165 seats. Reading through recent postings on this thread, do the majority of contributors to this thread feel a somewhat likely figure will occur at the time of the next General Election?

Given that Labour are less far ahead in the polls and performed less spectacularly in this year's local elections than in 1995 - plus the LibDems are still below their 90s/00s peaks - I doubt they will hang on to so few seats.

Even 265 seats would mean 100 losses. I think they will hold around 270-300 seats in the end.

 

[Typhoon]

Given that Labour are less far ahead in the polls and performed less spectacularly in this year's local elections than in 1995 - plus the LibDems are still below their 90s/00s peaks - I doubt they will hang on to so few seats.

Even 265 seats would mean 100 losses. I think they will hold around 270-300 seats in the end.

I would say you are on the right lines but more like 280 to 315, there will be a tax cutting budget just before the election although we can't afford it, most Conservatives will forget all about being fiscally prudent. We (the electors) will just be so happy that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, we will vote many of them back in. The real problem will come after the election when we are likely to need austerity measures in spades.

In 1997 Labour had Blair, whatever we might think about him now, Blair had the country with him, we hadn't had a leader like him before (and given what we know, I'm not sure Blair mark II is what we need right now). Blair even had some of the right wing press on his side.
The Conservatives had Major, not only did he appear to be a personality free zone, but he was around at peak Spitting Image, who amplified these defects. No programme will ever have the same impact again. And there was so much vitriol from some Conservatives towards Major. That towards Johnson has been relatively muted simply because the rebels this time present arguments not venom.

Much might depend on whether Johnson is still in place (and, to a lesser extent, Starmer)

 

[brad465]

In 1997 Labour had Blair, whatever we might think about him now, Blair had the country with him, we hadn't had a leader like him before (and given what we know, I'm not sure Blair mark II is what we need right now). Blair even had some of the right wing press on his side.
The Conservatives had Major, not only did he appear to be a personality free zone, but he was around at peak Spitting Image, who amplified these defects. No programme will ever have the same impact again. And there was so much vitriol from some Conservatives towards Major. That towards Johnson has been relatively muted simply because the rebels this time present arguments not venom.

Much might depend on whether Johnson is still in place (and, to a lesser extent, Starmer)

I think if Johnson is replaced and Starmer hasn't been, then I don't see Starmer's dull personality being as much as an issue as it seems to be now. Given the high enthusiasm/charisma in Johnson's, a very stark contrast exists between the two. Should he be replaced, none of the main contenders have a personality anywhere near as charismatic as Johnson's, so there would be a much lesser contrast. That doesn't mean Starmer's personality stops being an issue, although personally I care more about what politicians say and do, not how they come across.

 

[windingroad]

That doesn't mean Starmer's personality stops being an issue, although personally I care more about what politicians say and do, not how they come across.

I'd argue that charisma is an essential skill for any politician, but even if that weren't the case, do you find the things he says and does particularly compelling? I get no sense that he has a vision for government or a theory of the world other than "those Tories are a bit distasteful". When I lived in Scotland, Labour's main message was "we're not the SNP" and now that I live in England their main message is "we're not the Tories". Okay, fine, but who are you?

 

[brad465]

I'd argue that charisma is an essential skill for any politician, but even if that weren't the case, do you find the things he says and does particularly compelling? I get no sense that he has a vision for government or a theory of the world other than "those Tories are a bit distasteful". When I lived in Scotland, Labour's main message was "we're not the SNP" and now that I live in England their main message is "we're not the Tories". Okay, fine, but who are you?

This is another fault of the current voting system, it makes voters vote for what they least oppose, not what they most want, and ultimately politicians end up acting in the same way. We also saw this with Biden winning on being "not Trump", in 2019 the argument was more Corbyn lost than Johnson won, and more recently in France Macron won more off of opposing Le Pen than wanting him. If we want our politicians to state what they are and be better overall we have to have systems in place that make them, including a form of PR voting (personally I think any form of PR system used somewhere in the world right now is better than FPTP, although D'Hondt is my top preference).