PETER HITCHENS: What is the point of tourists' checks and tests if migrants can just walk into Dover?

[Young Turk]

2 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Hartlepool was a sea change for me. In the way the Southern states in America switched from Democrat to Republican after the Civil Rights Act in 1964. 

But it's even more interesting than that. Hartlepool is 98% white. Yet they're terrified of something.

What makes you think they are terrified in Hartlepool?

It was a very low turnout. Conservatives didn't increase their votes much, but the Labour vote collapsed. Yes, some voters probably switched from Labour to Conservative, but most just didn't vote.

I don't think Conservative voters tend to be terrified; they tend to be comfortable. Neither were Leave voters. They were either comfortable or angry. Perhaps both. I think in the red wall they managed to add more anger (not just at the EU, but at London).

[Staffsknot]

59 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Not that large numbers of people voting for it were interested in Global Britain. How long it'll carry on being sustainable actually ignoring what the voters are saying... it's badly frayed already.

Again its impossible for you to even claim that on the basis Brexit was 'leaving the EU' after that it was promised as different things to different groups. Even what bits of EU legislation and functions would be junked was a moving target.

So again this is people bringing what they believe to be the case and always going to be let down.

What you wanted is probably different to said Unionists, farmers or fishermen. Probably different to many Brexit voters and yet here we are with claims of betrayal and not listening. It was never defined bar 'we won't be a member of the EU' and let others fill in the fine detail. That in a nutshell is why we are where we are.

 

[byron78]

4 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

What makes you think they are terrified in Hartlepool?

It was a very low turnout. Conservatives didn't increase their votes much, but the Labour vote collapsed. Yes, some voters probably switched from Labour to Conservative, but most just didn't vote.

I don't think Conservative voters tend to be terrified; they tend to be comfortable. Neither were Leave voters. They were either comfortable or angry. Perhaps both. I think in the red wall they managed to add more anger (not just at the EU, but at London).

Nobody in Hartlepool is comfortable. It's a giant Wetherspoons pub essentially now.

They're angry for sure. Angry at who? And why?

[Riedquat]

36 minutes ago, yelims said:

Because it leads to coalition’s of parties who have to represent the population, with constant bargaining and compromise 

 

something that doesn’t happen in uk where Tories far from represent most of population and of course compromise is a dirty word.
 

You also endup with 2 parties so many people might feel ignored 

while with prstv even the smallest parties and independents can potentially endup governing and hence represent people 

Whilst PR is more likely to result in coalitions did things massively improve when we did have a coalition government? At best it might've reduced some of the extremes but it did nothing to change the fundamental choices on offer and the nature of political outlook. There's no change of small parties and independents governing under any system, and neither should there be; if they had enough support they wouldn't be small.

People feel ignored because the general outlook from all the mainstream parties is actually pretty similar. There might be significant differences in the details, but is there really in the wider outlook? Having to compromise further certainly won't solve that.

Despite FPTP we have more than two parties often enough. The LibDems have had their moment in the sun (and blew it), the SNP is not insignificant these days.

The problem with FPTP is that it's unrepresentative and thus undemocratic, but I'm still not remotely convinced it'll actually give us all that much better politics. We need a variety of quality choices on offer - that's our biggest problem. Changing how we decide which shade of crap we get matters little when the red, blue, yellow etc. are really just different shades of brown.

[Riedquat]

29 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Again its impossible for you to even claim that on the basis Brexit was 'leaving the EU' after that it was promised as different things to different groups. Even what bits of EU legislation and functions would be junked was a moving target.

So again this is people bringing what they believe to be the case and always going to be let down.

What you wanted is probably different to said Unionists, farmers or fishermen. Probably different to many Brexit voters and yet here we are with claims of betrayal and not listening. It was never defined bar 'we won't be a member of the EU' and let others fill in the fine detail. That in a nutshell is why we are where we are.

Yep, but they all wanted to leave the EU. The problems were caused by the process being carried out by people who didn't and weren't professional enough to be prepared to carry out their responsibilities despite that.

[Young Turk]

22 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Nobody in Hartlepool is comfortable. It's a giant Wetherspoons pub essentially now.

I haven't been to Hartlepool. But it can be a boring and uninspiring place and 51.9% of the 42.7% who voted could be comfortable. 

29 minutes ago, byron78 said:

They're angry for sure. Angry at who? And why?

Who are you referring to? The people who have always voted Conservative, or the people who used to vote Labour but decided not to vote this time?

[yelims]

14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Whilst PR is more likely to result in coalitions did things massively improve when we did have a coalition government? At best it might've reduced some of the extremes but it did nothing to change the fundamental choices on offer and the nature of political outlook. There's no change of small parties and independents governing under any system, and neither should there be; if they had enough support they wouldn't be small.

People feel ignored because the general outlook from all the mainstream parties is actually pretty similar. There might be significant differences in the details, but is there really in the wider outlook? Having to compromise further certainly won't solve that.

Despite FPTP we have more than two parties often enough. The LibDems have had their moment in the sun (and blew it), the SNP is not insignificant these days.

The problem with FPTP is that it's unrepresentative and thus undemocratic, but I'm still not remotely convinced it'll actually give us all that much better politics. We need a variety of quality choices on offer - that's our biggest problem. Changing how we decide which shade of crap we get matters little when the red, blue, yellow etc. are really just different shades of brown.

And there you are mistaken, you just need to look to country next door to see that there isn’t extreme bipolarisation and better representation, or for that matter examine the list of countries posted by someone on previous page, notice the countries on top and bottom and ask what’s different 

[Young Turk]

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

There's no change of small parties and independents governing under any system, and neither should there be; if they had enough support they wouldn't be small.

How much support a party receives depends in part on the system. People are more likely to consider voting for a currently small party a wasted vote under FPTP. 

13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The problem with FPTP is that it's unrepresentative and thus undemocratic, but I'm still not remotely convinced it'll actually give us all that much better politics. We need a variety of quality choices on offer - that's our biggest problem. Changing how we decide which shade of crap we get matters little when the red, blue, yellow etc. are really just different shades of brown.

Some people may disagree with you - they may consider that some of the existing small parties do differ significantly from the major ones.

 

Additionally, there would almost certainly be new parties. Politicians have left Labour and the Conservatives in recent years - SDP, UKIP, Change group or whatever Soubrey, Umana et al called themselves. Outsiders have set up no-hope parties (Referendum, Veritas, Reclaim, probably loads I've forgotten) These were almost certain to fail. Imagine how many would there would be if they had a chance of success.

18 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

People feel ignored because the general outlook from all the mainstream parties is actually pretty similar. There might be significant differences in the details, but is there really in the wider outlook? Having to compromise further certainly won't solve that.

It will be much easier for people to find an outlook they like, or stand for office themselves. It's possible for a politician to be popular despite being unrepresentative. In the Democratic Primaries, voters said they were voting Biden because they considered him more electable than his opponents (everyone was basing their decision on what they expected everyone else to do). But with more options this should be much less likely.

[Young Turk]

15 minutes ago, yelims said:

And there you are mistaken, you just need to look to country next door to see that there isn’t extreme bipolarisation and better representation, or for that matter examine the list of countries posted by someone on previous page, notice the countries on top and bottom and ask what’s different 

But there are examples of countries where that isn't the case. I think there are a lot of extremists in European parliaments, and sometimes they enter coalitions: Golden Dawn in Greece, Communists in Italy?

[pig]

33 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Yep, but they all wanted to leave the EU. The problems were caused by the process being carried out by people who didn't and weren't professional enough to be prepared to carry out their responsibilities despite that.

No that’s the equivalent of shooting the messenger.

It was a clusterfeck as a matter of principle not delivery.

[yelims]

3 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

But there are examples of countries where that isn't the case. I think there are a lot of extremists in European parliaments, and sometimes they enter coalitions: Golden Dawn in Greece, Communists in Italy?

Of course there are loonies as the population has loonies itself, hell we have Sinn Fein here (literally criminals) but often they are not able to form coalitions or of they do they quickly fall apart 

if anything the result is a drive to center in PR politics not wild swings between left and right, or worse ever shifting move to far right we see in us and uk 

[Riedquat]

34 minutes ago, yelims said:

And there you are mistaken, you just need to look to country next door to see that there isn’t extreme bipolarisation and better representation, or for that matter examine the list of countries posted by someone on previous page, notice the countries on top and bottom and ask what’s different 

That's quite a chasm you've leapt to conclude that the link is PR.

[Riedquat]

14 minutes ago, pig said:

No that’s the equivalent of shooting the messenger.

It was a clusterfeck as a matter of principle not delivery.

Nope, totally wrong, sorry. You're trying to shape it viewed through the prism of your prejudice.

[Riedquat]

22 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

How much support a party receives depends in part on the system. People are more likely to consider voting for a currently small party a wasted vote under FPTP. 

Some people may disagree with you - they may consider that some of the existing small parties do differ significantly from the major ones.

Some of the small parties do but they're small parties and would remain small parties even under PR.

[yelims]

Just now, Riedquat said:

That's quite a chasm you've leapt to conclude that the link is PR.

Why would it be such a leap to assume that countries where population wishes are better represented and have democratic systems with more check and balances lead to better outcomes in life for said population?

[Riedquat]

Just now, yelims said:

Why would it be such a leap to assume that countries where population wishes are better represented and have democratic systems with more check and balances lead to better outcomes in life for said population?

Because there are masses of things that affect quality of life outcome. It's a possibility, perhaps a factor, but a million miles from being a conclusive one, and to concentrate on it is to overlook the considerably greater problems in our political system in recent-ish past up to the present.

[yelims]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Because there are masses of things that affect quality of life outcome. It's a possibility, perhaps a factor, but a million miles from being a conclusive one, and to concentrate on it is to overlook the considerably greater problems in our political system in recent-ish past up to the present.

What problems are you referring too?

[byron78]

1 hour ago, Young Turk said:

I haven't been to Hartlepool. But it can be a boring and uninspiring place and 51.9% of the 42.7% who voted could be comfortable. 

They aren't. Hartlepool has runaway obesity, poverty (3rd highest in Northeast, which is already bad for it), plunging life expectancy etc. What it doesn't have is a metric that suggests people are richer and happier this past decade. Quite the opposite if anything. Hartlepool had the highest unemployment rate in the country before the pandemic etc.

It's the perfect storm for us Tories. People voting for us DESPITE things getting worse economically for them etc etc. Very much like how it's gone in America. 

Quote

Who are you referring to? The people who have always voted Conservative, or the people who used to vote Labour but decided not to vote this time?

The latter. Tory base will always be 30%. Old people and old money like me. 

The new Tory voters in Hartlepool are the "Monkey Hangers" of this generation. I mean, how thick must they be???

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by byron78

[Riedquat]

39 minutes ago, yelims said:

What problems are you referring too?

Do you seriously need to ask?

[yelims]

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Do you seriously need to ask?

Let’s go through them I would bet they are related to fptp. Brexit is first one to spring to mind.

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, yelims said:

Let’s go through them I would bet they are related to fptp. Brexit is first one to spring to mind.

If Brexit is then so was joining in the first place. So just undoing a past mistake.

Do you agree that politics in Britain is, right now, in a sorry state, with most or all of the key figures being hopeless? And has that got better, worse, or unchanged since, let's say post WWII? And what's not changed in that time? The first past the post system. The ups and downs of the modern UK are not correlated to any change in the voting system, because there's not been one.

Whilst FPTP is an issue that needs addressing labelling it as the cause of all our political ills smacks of looking for a simple one problem, one solution silver bullet. Once again, life isn't anywhere near that black and white.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Riedquat

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Yep, but they all wanted to leave the EU. The problems were caused by the process being carried out by people who didn't and weren't professional enough to be prepared to carry out their responsibilities despite that.

But why did they want to leave the EU is the question that is interesting - for many it was being repeatedly ( disingenuously) told all the unpopular decision taken at Westminster were because of Europe. It was a popular theme. Now that particular fantasy has been slain and there is no big bad wolf its coming back that the Gov has to answer for all the stuff it does... with predictable results.

There were S asians wanting out so no more priority immigration to EU, so more from India... there were also groups of white folks believing it would stop all immigration, even from outside the EU. Square that.

There was even a lovely interview with a woman in S Wales where she claimed the EU takes our money and gives nothing back. They walked her to the sign saying funded by EU 10 mins up road. She said - well its our money anyway, when asked who told her all this it was someone handing out leaflets for elections.

Same place farmer was saying they'd get more money as subsidies setup for the French.

Yet another was against the subsidies for farmers and wanted money spent on green initiatives.

Another said the others made Hammerite unusable because they banned stuff

All promised something else by politicians eager to blame EU.

In a nutshell that is the game we've played

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Staffsknot

[yelims]

24 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If Brexit is then so was joining in the first place. So just undoing a past mistake.

Do you agree that politics in Britain is, right now, in a sorry state, with most or all of the key figures being hopeless? And has that got better, worse, or unchanged since, let's say post WWII? And what's not changed in that time? The first past the post system. The ups and downs of the modern UK are not correlated to any change in the voting system, because there's not been one.

Whilst FPTP is an issue that needs addressing labelling it as the cause of all our political ills smacks of looking for a simple one problem, one solution silver bullet. Once again, life isn't anywhere near that black and white.

Fptp is one aspect, no constitution, rabid media, society thats stratified and still stuck with feudal thinking(monarchy and all that), uneducated plebs and so on are other issues 

 

Replacing fptp is one step in right direction imho but that’s not even on cards

[Confusion of VIs]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Not that large numbers of people voting for it were interested in Global Britain. How long it'll carry on being sustainable actually ignoring what the voters are saying... it's badly frayed already.

What were the voters saying?

 

 

[Riedquat]

33 minutes ago, yelims said:

Fptp is one aspect, no constitution, rabid media, society thats stratified and still stuck with feudal thinking(monarchy and all that), uneducated plebs and so on are other issues 

 

Replacing fptp is one step in right direction imho but that’s not even on cards

I agree with replacing it but I also don't see any reason to think it's a significant contribution to the state of British politics. Changing the voting system won't change that.