Election prediction time

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The one thing I’ll give them is they did fully introduce same sex marriage, instead of that “separate but equal” civil partnership crap beforehand. But that was way back in 2013 when they were in coalition with the more socially liberal LibDems who were the ones campaigning for it in the lead up to the 2010 election.
 

After that I’m struggling.

Taking environmental policy vaguely seriously under Boris (of all people).

 

Shame about everyone since.

[Raj]

4 minutes ago, BeardyFox said:

I feel less self conscious about my own dance moves now since dear Theresa. 

Love it 😁😁😁

[StanSP]

39 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The context of the clip was in relation to a woman in the audience who said due to long NHS waiting lists her relative died, which leads the presenter to ask if you had the money would you use private health. 
 

In an effort to align with the working man and to be relatable he tells us all the NHS runs through his DNA, tells us his Mrs works there again, just look at his flustered face while he blithers his answer. 

What's wrong with this, by the way? 

[Raj]

23 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The one thing I’ll give them is they did fully introduce same sex marriage, instead of that “separate but equal” civil partnership crap beforehand. But that was way back in 2013 when they were in coalition with the more socially liberal LibDems who were the ones campaigning for it in the lead up to the 2010 election.
 

After that I’m struggling.

 

20 minutes ago, BeardyFox said:

I feel less self conscious about my own dance moves now since dear Theresa. 

Apart from making us feel good about dancing and a part in the same sex marriage theres not much benefit of 14 years of these w1nkers

[Tommy G]

15 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What's wrong with this, by the way? 

Which bit, by the way?

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Je Suis Ed Davey. 
 

 

 

Having the time of his life and probably a welcome respite from other personal issues he has to think about. I can't blame him. He comes across as a very nice guy. Is he electable?

 

Genuinely nice guys don't do well in politics but he's going to get a lot of support just for being decent. 

 

I get the feeling he's just letting the big two get on with it.

 

Lib Dems still 3rd out of 3.

Edited 5 June by Parafox

[StanSP]

10 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Which bit, by the way?

The 2nd paragraph. The way you've written it makes it sound like it's a negative...? 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Dancing round the handbags a bit like Keir does. The context of the clip was in relation to a woman in the audience who said due to long NHS waiting lists her relative died, which leads the presenter to ask if you had the money would you use private health. 
 

In an effort to align with the working man and to be relatable he tells us all the NHS runs through his DNA, tells us his Mrs works there again, just look at his flustered face while he blithers his answer. 

 

People would respect his honesty more - and understand he has the means to and 99% of people would do the same. Even the biggest Labour cuck can see that surely. 

FOR BALANCE - Rishi talked up his points and was talking across Keir and the presenter - which was wrong, get a stronger anchor next time. 

I watched it back. That wasn't what she asked at all.

 

My previous post paraphrased as best I could what was actually asked, without transcribing it verbatim. Etchingham did make reference to the woman in the audience before asking the question, but from the way it was asked I'd highly doubt either candidate would have inferred that she was asking about a life or death scenario. I certainly didn't take it that way.

[sdb]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

All in context.
The crux of the scheme is send people to a safe country. 

You allow your waste to be exported to Malaysia and turkey to be burned and poison the local communities. You buy petrol that has been subject to flaring and kills kids in the area 

You make tens of thousands of pounds per year whilst billions around the world near die of hunger on c.$1 a day. You are not evil, neither is sunak. He’s just an incompetent idiot 

Nah I genuinely think he's evil. I've not dreamt up any of those things. He's at the very least allowed them. 

[LiberalFox]

Not specific to this election but my enthusiasm for PR is at an all time low. 

 

 

[Greg2607]

If this is true it's absolutely scandalous!!! Average wages have only gone up £200 per week since 2010, it's no wonder everyone is struggling. 

 

[David Hankey]

19 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Not specific to this election but my enthusiasm for PR is at an all time low. 

 

 

To mind mind, to get away from the normal two horse race, PR is the only fairer option but neither the Conservatives or Labour will agree to it.

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Not specific to this election but my enthusiasm for PR is at an all time low. 

 

 

 

Why's that? Are you becoming Illiberal Fox? 

[urban.spaceman]

Ditto.

 

 

I'm at the "1-0 vs Newcastle" stage.

[Sampson]

After Reform UK announced Farage as leader, I hear behind the scenes they’ve thought of new policies for the country including:

 

1. Nigel Farage needs to be louder, angrier and have access to a Time Machine.

 

2. Whenever Nigel Farage is not on our tv screens, all the other people should be asking “where’s Nigel?”

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Why's that? Are you becoming Illiberal Fox? 

I feel like PR would make politics less stable and benefit the far right more than anyone else. 

 

To add a bit to this I look at how the LDs and the Greens are currently expanding and that involves building up strength at local level and putting together local campaigns that can actually win seats under FPTP. 

 

Then you look at Reform and they are pretty much a classic far right protest party centred around being anti immigration and they have barely a handful of councillors. It's touch and go whether they can win a seat or two in deprived heavily Brexit constituencies. 

 

All things equal a PR system would massively favour Reform and parties like that. 

 

So that makes me think actually it might be preferable to keep the system as is. I'd like STV or AV to create more seats where the winner as won the support of a majority and to avoid odd scenarios where a candidate wins with a tiny share of the vote. 

 

 

Edited 5 June by LiberalFox

[Paninistickers]

39 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I feel like PR would make politics less stable and benefit the far right more than anyone else. 

 

To add a bit to this I look at how the LDs and the Greens are currently expanding and that involves building up strength at local level and putting together local campaigns that can actually win seats under FPTP. 

 

Then you look at Reform and they are pretty much a classic far right protest party centred around being anti immigration and they have barely a handful of councillors. It's touch and go whether they can win a seat or two in deprived heavily Brexit constituencies. 

 

All things equal a PR system would massively favour Reform and parties like that. 

 

So that makes me think actually it might be preferable to keep the system as is. I'd like STV or AV to create more seats where the winner as won the support of a majority and to avoid odd scenarios where a candidate wins with a tiny share of the vote. 

 

 

Mate, I find this an appalling take. 

 

Liberals have campaigned for decades for PR and now it doesn't suit you, you don't want it. You can't have democracy only when it suits. 

 

I'm vastly in favour of PR. Always have been. And that means accepting a chunk of the population have nationalist views. These views should have representation, irrelevant if I agree. Likewise, there's be a campaigning Islamic voice in the houses of parliament too with PR. The far left with Corbyn would have seats. We'd have a strong Green Party. 

 

Btw, we've had 'extremists' in parliament for decades with the unionist parties. The world still turns. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Ditto.

 

 

I'm at the "1-0 vs Newcastle" stage.

 

It's starting to look possible - a joyous prospect in the short-term.

Still time for things to change (events, media, Reform UK impact, exceptionally low turnout etc.), but it's looking like a major "change" election - and potentially a big realignment on the right (post-election, Tory-Reform electoral pact seems unlikely).

 

If the Tories do lose as badly as the polls are suggesting, Farage's idea of a "reverse takeover" of the Tory party (or some sort of right-wing merger) could be feasible.

Not least as many of the saner Tory leadership contenders, like Hunt & Mordaunt, would almost certainly lose their seats - whereas the likes of Truss, Braverman & Badenoch are more likely to hold their seats (though Rees-Mogg is a likely loser).

 

That's a sobering prospect for 2029, if Labour do win and there's a "reverse takeover" of the Tories or the Tories simply become even more Trumpian.

Given the state of the nation's economy and debt, plus structural factors like an aging population, low growth, AI & climate change, it will be enormously hard for the next govt to retain popularity in 2029, even IF they govern very wisely.

If lives aren't made noticeably better within 5 years, there's every chance that voters could turn to the Hard Right or Populist Right in 2029, whatever form that takes.

 

If you think I'm just a doom-monger, I remember post-2019 debating with MattP on here and saying that, contrary to expectations, Labour might come back to win in 2024 (though I didn't anticipate a possible Tory collapse on this scale) and the SNP might collapse to Labour's benefit, given their time in power and inability to  secure independence.

 

Still, I'll enjoy the Tory massacre if it happens - though with some trepidation about the difficulties ahead for any govt.

 

15 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I feel like PR would make politics less stable and benefit the far right more than anyone else. 

 

 

There are certain forms of PR that I'd oppose for reasons like that: e.g. the national system in Israel that allows extremist religious elements excessive influence.

 

On the contrary, I think the saner forms of PR, like STV in multi-member constituencies, would be more likely to stabilise politics - and improve our quality of governance. Though no system is perfect.

 

I think the instability in politics and the rise of the far right in many countries is due to multiple factors (growing inequality, economic insecurity, rapid social change, alienation from modern politics esp. given social media & the dishonesty and manipulation often needed to win elections etc.).

 

If anything, I think forms of PR have prevented the Far Right from gaining power in some countries (e.g. Netherlands). 

In multiple countries, the Far Right has achieved 25-35%+ of the vote, but more mainstream parties have refused to form coalitions with it.

Yet, in 2029, if a hypothetical Labour govt was unpopular, it's by no means impossible that a Farage-led party of the Far/Populist Right could win 30-35% of the vote......and, under FPTP, gain an absolute majority over a highly centralised nation.

 

That's partly why I think Labour would be wise to legislate for PR, even if they do win big in 2024. Though I do see other benefits: better quality of governance and more stability through shifting coalitions, less of a narrow focus on swing voters in marginal seats, plus simple democratic fairness - it's an outrage that the SNP can win 95% of Scottish seats with 45% of the vote or that the Greens or, yes, UKIP/Reform have lacked parliamentary representation despite their sizeable vote.

 

Keeping the Far Right out of parliament via FPTP doesn't prevent its influence - as we saw with UKIP influence over Tory policy for the past 10-15 years, not least the Brexit referendum.

 

In the last 20 years, FPTP has given us the "stability" of Blair's support for the Iraq War, years of Tory austerity, public service decay & low growth, the Brexit referendum/negotiations fiasco, Johnson, Truss etc......  

[ozleicester]

this just came up in my memories from 2017  

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Mate, I find this an appalling take. 

 

Liberals have campaigned for decades for PR and now it doesn't suit you, you don't want it. You can't have democracy only when it suits. 

 

I'm vastly in favour of PR. Always have been. And that means accepting a chunk of the population have nationalist views. These views should have representation, irrelevant if I agree. Likewise, there's be a campaigning Islamic voice in the houses of parliament too with PR. The far left with Corbyn would have seats. We'd have a strong Green Party. 

 

Btw, we've had 'extremists' in parliament for decades with the unionist parties. The world still turns. 

 

 

I get that perspective. Also what @Alf Bentley says is reasonable.

 

Still your supposed benefits are an Islamic party, the far left, the greens and the far right getting more power. 

 

I find that hard to feel excited about. 

 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I get that perspective. Also what @Alf Bentley says is reasonable.

 

Still your supposed benefits are an Islamic party, the far left, the greens and the far right getting more power. 

 

I find that hard to feel excited about. 

 

 

 

I suppose that depends on whether you think having a few MPs constitutes having power.

[Voll Blau]

Remember running an STV electoral calculator a few years ago (god, I was bored) on what would have happened if Leicestershire was a 10-seat multi-member constituency in recent elections. It actually tended to deliver pretty representative results (Labour and Tory generally taking eight or nine between them, with other parties taking the remaining one or two).

 

A regionalised PR system like that could work as it'd keep the local link, give people greater local representation from the party they voted for and encourage cross-party collaboration on regional issues.

 

Edited 6 June by Voll Blau

[leicsmac]

Interesting debate on this, it always is.

 

In theory, I'm all for some form of PR because encouraging the representation of all views is the essence of a free society.

 

In practice, it's going to be that some of those views that will be represented are going to involve using that freedom to destroy the political process - or much worse. So you'd better be ready for that and hope those views don't get enough traction to be enacted, because horrible acts aren't better simply because they're a product of a democratic vote.

[Sampson]

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

 

The "readers add context" section of a lot of Twitter posts are an absolute goldmine.