advertisement


The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022

Udtd8W9.jpg
 
Tony L said:
We first need to get to the point of dialogue. For the past 45 years Labour have been the stumbling block, they have fully supported a system designed to return Tories to absolute power most of the time. All the other non-Tory parties have grasped the system is flawed and stacked. The actual format is very much up for debate, but we can’t even start that debate as long as Labour remain handcuffed to a radiator in the Tories FPTP basement praising their captor.
Click to expand...
I would argue that if ordinary people are will to engage in the debate and help shape the dialogue, and debate will collapse in confusion in the ways I’ve described.

Like I say, just saying ‘we need PR’ is as meaningless as saying ‘we need better politics’. The answer is obviously that yes we do in both cases, but we also need to be able to answer the obvious secondary question about what sort of PR just as we need to answer what sort of politics.

If someone came on pfm and said that we need different politics, most people from left right and centre would say yes, but consensus would fall apart as soon as discussion got to what that difference would look like. If PR is going to be taken seriously, it will need better definition or it will get lost again.
 
matthewr said:
Which was broadly my view on PR until recently when the modern right emerged into politics in multiple places at once.
Click to expand...
I think this is an important consideration. What happened recently is that the right has started to game the system by peeling off elements of support from the opposing party by offering them something enticing, then effectively discarding their vote. Banks/Farage did it in red wall constituencies, IIRC. If you had a form of PR, you'd find it harder to do that effectively.
 
Alex S said:
I listened to PMQs and Starmer was so luke warm and lackluster he may as well have been a Tory plant, or just a plant. I guess he was desperate to avoid the misogynistic outcry from the Mail (irony alert). Truss was a lot better than I expected or hoped.
Click to expand...

At scoring 'debating points' yes. In terms of content, a disaster for us all.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
At scoring 'debating points' yes. In terms of content, a disaster for us all.
Click to expand...

He's not good on his feet. Her little jibe about "tax and spend" could have been bettered by retorting that her position appeared to be "don't tax but still spend."

There will be days after the first flush of novelty when the scrutiny approach will wear her down because what she says is so absurd and conflicted on just about everything, especially the most pressing matters.

Johnson's strategy was bluster and insults for a reason.
 
SteveS1 said:
He's not good on his feet. Her little jibe about "tax and spend" could have been bettered by retorting that her position appeared to be "don't tax but still spend."

There will be days after the first flush of novelty when the scrutiny approach will wear her down because what she says is so absurd and conflicted on just about everything, especially the most pressing matters.

Johnson's strategy was bluster and insults for a reason.
Click to expand...
He's a trained barrister, it's quite literally been his job to be good on his feet for all his career.
 
One thing to bear in mind about PR is that there are forms of this in which there is no longer any direct, local relationship between the voters and the people they elect. In which the Parties pick a list of candidates and, when the nation-wide votes are counted up each party gets its share of MPs. So the voters do not pick their representatives, they pick a party and that party decides who will represent them in parliament. Obviously the parties will try and make up a list of candidates that will be attractive to voters, but it can also lead to listing popular TV personalities, sports names, while the real power is managed within the smoke-filled rooms of the party committees.
 
Starmer IMO is light years better than the last two individuals that Labour designated as their leader. I certainly would not want to go back to the likes of 'ah jus dan agree', or, 'I have here a letter from ....'

Starmer may not be perfect, but I don't yet see any shining lights to succeed him. I don't think Labour will win the next election under Starmer, but that's more down to the size of the 2019 majority and the SNP seats. Might just be a hung parliament, but if Truss keeps kicking the electorate while they're down, repeating empty mantras over taxing the rich being evil and the con about people working hard and doing the right thing etc. (yeh, like since 2010), there's a good chance that same electorate will return her in 2024.
 
PaulMB said:
One thing to bear in mind about PR is that there are forms of this in which there is no longer any direct, local relationship between the voters and the people they elect. In which the Parties pick a list of candidates and, when the nation-wide votes are counted up each party gets its share of MPs. So the voters do not pick their representatives, they pick a party and that party decides who will represent them in parliament. Obviously the parties will try and make up a list of candidates that will be attractive to voters, but it can also lead to listing popular TV personalities, sports names, while the real power is managed within the smoke-filled rooms of the party committees.
Click to expand...
I hear this 'objection' voiced quite regularly but it's a bit of a straw man, I think.

Firstly, parties already decide which candidates will go on the ballot, and where. Secondly, parties are not averse to 'parachuting in' a candidate for an election, or by-election, if they want that person back in their ranks. So thirdly, any actual relationship between district and 'their' MP is something of a polite fiction anyway. And fourthly, even if I don't like or vote for 'my' MP, it's still their job to represent my interest or aid me as a constituent.
 
PaulMB said:
One thing to bear in mind about PR is that there are forms of this in which there is no longer any direct, local relationship between the voters and the people they elect.
Click to expand...

As someone who has spent a life disenfranchised by FPTP I don’t see this as an issue. No way in hell would I ask a Tory MP I’d not vote for in a million years for help, I’d not ever set foot in their surgery as they do not represent me and never could do ideologically. I’ve little more respect for Labour, so wouldn’t go there either. If I cast my vote for a Green, LD or whoever that is who I want to speak to. Certainly not some bloody Tory who is likely the root cause of whatever the issue being faced. As such I’d argue the current system simply isn’t representative as the MP in any given seat is usually elected by a minority of those who live in that area, plus ‘safe seats’ prevent huge numbers from voting at all.
 
matthewr said:
I am not suggesting that we make this the dividing line but that we exclude the new populist right from power have the dividing line between the current centrist and progressive parties. I do sometimes wonder if there was the same debate in Poland and Hungary.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you don't get to choose where the dividing line is. Once you've lined up a coalition of unpopular middle-management types against a single popular party, that's where the dividing line is, whether you like it or not. Subsequently almost anything the single popular party does becomes the Authentic Will of the People just by virtue of the fact that people actually voted for that party, and the Suits are trying to thwart them.

Beyond that I honestly don't think that you can "exclude the new populist right from power" with what will almost certainly be seen as electoral shenanigans without very serious consequences, not when that populist right *is actually popular* - the most popular single* political identity in the country, in fact, and well-funded to boot, with a massive mainstream media operation shaping and maintaining it. The populist right in this country is also not at all new: it's dominated British politics since Thatcher co-opted Powellism and it has a great deal of establishment support. It's unthinkable that such a force would *allow* itself to be excluded from power in the way you suggest, but if it did happen then things could *really* get nasty.

matthewr said:
Which was also the view when Trump came along, not least on PFM, and what started me on this change of view.
Click to expand...

On the coalition of arseholes I think the parallels with Trump can be overstated. My impression was that when Trump hit, the whole liberal political-media establishment came together to fight back and resist the normalisation of that kind of politics. That is the exact opposite to what happened here: our *liberal* media, never mind the right wing press, have been normalising Faragism for decades, and when it reached its climax - proroguing, rock hard Brexit, an election campaign built on pure lies - our progressives, in the media and in politics, came together *to make sure it succeeded*, as the acceptable cost of excluding the left from power. I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing to that as a symptom of our really very messed up politics: "Trumpism" is embedded in the British establishment in a way it isn't in the States' and our establishment progressives are *exceptionally* self-serving, obtuse and compromised, with the result that dividing lines are much harder to draw.

As I say I'm all in favour of constitutional reform but it can't be imposed from above and it's not going to fix anything by itself, even in the short term. If you want to beat the right there just are no shortcuts to developing a political programme that will attract popular support.
 
Voters thought Liz Truss’ Downing St speech was ‘strong’, ‘confident’ - Shown PMQs clip, one said she ‘blew Starmer away’

-health warning, poll by ex-May Downing St hack. No doubt slavered all over the Brit tabloid rags tomorrow
 
Tony L said:
As someone who has spent a life disenfranchised by FPTP I don’t see this as an issue. No way in hell would I ask a Tory MP I’d not vote for in a million years for help, I’d not ever set foot in their surgery as they do not represent me and never could do ideologically. I’ve little more respect for Labour, so wouldn’t go there either. If I cast my vote for a Green, LD or whoever that is who I want to speak to. Certainly not some bloody Tory who is likely the root cause of whatever the issue being faced. As such I’d argue the current system simply isn’t representative as the MP in any given seat is usually elected by a minority of those who live in that area, plus ‘safe seats’ prevent huge numbers from voting at all.
Click to expand...
With respect, isn't this potentially cutting off one's nose to spite the face somewhat Tony?

I live in an area that's been a Tory safe seat since it was formed in the 90s - a friend of mine who'd never vote Tory had a problem that she contacted our MP about. He was actually incredibly helpful and she achieved a positive outcome ultimately.

An MP's job is to work for all their constituents, regardless of whether they voted for them or not; surely the outcome is what matters, not who achieves it? Refusing to make an MP work for you (as a result of their party affiliation) just gives them an easier life and could potentially only make your own life more difficult?
 
TheDecameron said:
Voters thought Liz Truss’ Downing St speech was ‘strong’, ‘confident’ - Shown PMQs clip, one said she ‘blew Starmer away’

-health warning, poll by ex-May Downing St hack. No doubt slavered all over the Brit tabloid rags tomorrow
Click to expand...
Voters will give her the benefit of the doubt for a month or two. I can't see it lasting though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top