Westminster Politics

This is the problem with Politicians aren't prosecuted for their actions, these bunch of criminals simply keep burning down the protections and laws that protect us. They just keep getting away with it with minimum fuss.
 
Braverman is dumb as a rock

No she isn’t and this is the error most make with these people.

They're not thick, daft, morons or any other antonym, they are lightweight Champaign fascists, deliberately eroding the integrity and validity of institutions and procedures designed to scrutinise the actions of the sitting government.
 
No she isn’t and this is the error most make with these people.

They're not thick, daft, morons or any other antonym, they are lightweight Champaign fascists, deliberately eroding the integrity and validity of institutions and procedures designed to scrutinise the actions of the sitting government.

She really is. She’s not a smart woman.

These people are not smart. They are well educated. That’s it. If we collectively woke up to that fact we’d all be a lot better off.

They believe despicable things and pursue agendas and policy based on them. There are no original thoughts. They’re not creative. They’re not solving problems. They’re just shitty people doing shitty things.
 
She really is. She’s not a smart woman.

These people are not smart. They are well educated. That’s it. If we collectively woke up to that fact we’d all be a lot better off.

They believe despicable things and pursue agendas and policy based on them. There are no original thoughts. They’re not creative. They’re not solving problems. They’re just shitty people doing shitty things.

Yes, but that makes them cnuts, not idiots. They have had a mandate over the last 40-50yrs of othering, pushing RW agendas, and squeezing every drop out of the workers whilst systematically destroying systems of oversight and scrutiny.

And we as a nation keep voting them in to power…

So who is the greater fool?
 
Yes, but that makes them cnuts, not idiots. They have had a mandate over the last 40-50yrs of othering, pushing RW agendas, and squeezing every drop out of the workers whilst systematically destroying systems of oversight and scrutiny.

And we as a nation keep voting them in to power…

So who is the greater fool?

First past the post doesn't help one bit.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote at the last election on a 67.3% turnout.

My useless maths aside, that''s what, 30% of the entire electorate voting Blue?

The reason they hate electoral reform is that they know it all but guarantees a progressive majority in this country.
 


So if your cancer isn't caught early, it is the fault of nurses for asking for enough money to eat. Not the £37 BILLION wasted on test and trace.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-test-trace-dido-harding-report-b1814714.html


It’s happening across the public sector with the 5% pay rise.

Staff are getting the pay rise but no new money is being given to the institutions to pay for it. So that means either staff redundancies and / or reduction of services.
 
First past the post doesn't help one bit.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote at the last election on a 67.3% turnout.

My useless maths aside, that''s what, 30% of the entire electorate voting Blue?

The reason they hate electoral reform is that they know it all but guarantees a progressive majority in this country.

But again that’s a product of Tory, RW rhetoric. They and their media partners constantly push narratives about ‘Labour causing the 2008 crash’ and ‘the perils of proportional representation’ in order to keep themselves in power.

They are smart, malignant forces who hide behind images of incompetence in order to appear relatable.
 
But again that’s a product of Tory, RW rhetoric. They and their media partners constantly push narratives about ‘Labour causing the 2008 crash’ and ‘the perils of proportional representation’ in order to keep themselves in power.

They are smart, malignant forces who hide behind images of incompetence in order to appear relatable.

I agree with that, but I would just add that Labour were very, very naive after the 2010 election. Both Milibands spent a good few months discussing the Iraq War (the vote on which would not have been won without Tory support), and allowed Cameron to create and substantiate that media narrative.
 
First past the post doesn't help one bit.

It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.
 
Last edited:
It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.

To be fair, we already had two parties scratching around and making a deal behind closed doors after the 2010 election.

And in terms of smoke filled rooms, the electorate don't get to decide on the manifestos, which are agreed in private, and we already have a bunch of electoral deals in FPTP which operate today. The UKIP/Brexit Party/Tory deals, especially in 2019, and the Lib Dems and Labour basically field paper candidates and don't campaign when they are in a constituency where one of the two can beat the Tories but not the other.

Electoral reform is nothing without constitutional reform to ensure that the excesses of the Johnson era (and others!) are constrained by statute which will also give the courts power to ensure they are not repeated. We already rely far too much on partisan MPs putting the country's interests above their own in contraining executive power.

PR would ensure voices across the spectrum have a say in government. One of the main issues of Brexit was that 30% of the electorate in the centre could decide who would rule for the 100% and we had a lot of disaffected voices.
 
I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”
 
I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”

David Cameron in June 2010 promising to deal with Britain''s massive national debt of £770 billion: https://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/601466

At the end of 2021 UK general government gross debt was £2,382.8 billion, equivalent to 102.8% of gross domestic product (GDP).

Apparently adding £1.6 trillion to the national debt whilst hollowing out public services and overseeing stagnant growth for 12 years is the last Labour Government's fault.
 
I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”
Bloody hell! This kind of thing should be in double pages in the tabloids or plastered over bill boards by led by donkeys. Utterly disgrace every point.
 
And in terms of smoke filled rooms, the electorate don't get to decide on the manifestos,

Yes they do, they get to vote for them (or not) at the election.
However what voters are not told at the election is that when parties have to negotiate for power/seat at the table (whether in smoke-filled rooms or not) about the terms of the 'horse trading' that goes on and so nobody outside the room knows the real price paid. How many of the Lib-Dem voters would have changed their minds if they knew their prize policy on University fees was to be scuppered, so their leaders got a seat at the Government table.
 
Yes they do, they get to vote for them (or not) at the election.
However what voters are not told at the election is that when parties have to negotiate for power/seat at the table (whether in smoke-filled rooms or not) about the terms of the 'horse trading' that goes on and so nobody outside the room knows the real price paid. How many of the Lib-Dem voters would have changed their minds if they knew their prize policy on University fees was to be scuppered, so their leaders got a seat at the Government table.

I appreciate the response. However, you and I have no say about manifestos when they are drafted. We get a choice at a FPTP election, and very often we have to compromise. You can see the impacts of that in the Keir Starmer thread. I suspect there are many there who may vote for Labour whilst holding their noses.

But FPTP does not prevent backroom deals.

We had the Tory-Lib Dem coalition for 5 years, but also the Tory-DUP pact in 2017, which no-one voted for or had a say in. Major's government was a minority one in the 90s for several years and had to strike backroom deals with the Ulster Unionists on a number of votes. Wilson and Callaghan's Governments in the 1970s were propped up by Liberals and Nationalists, and again many deals were struck. Not to mention the two wartime coalitions we had, and the decade long National Government of the 1930s, again based on loose coalitions, as was Lloyd George's post-WW2 Government.

I also suspect that many Lib Dem voters vote on principle, but are you saying the party shouldn't have accepted their one change at Government in a century? If we accept that FPTP does not eliminate backroom deals (not to mention the fact that every government decides not to pursue some manifesto commitments, as well as introducing legislation which wasn't on the manifesto, both examples of which involve backroom arrangements), then it is not so different than PR.

Except that the PR coalitions may represent more of the electorate than the 30% that voted Tory in 2019, or the 25% that voted Labour in 2005.

But that isn't enough. We need dedicated civics classes from an early age so we have an educated citizenry, not just understanding our electoral system, but also how taxes work, what the constitution is and how it is supposed to operate, and how to vote and what local and central government is. They do so in the USA. Ireland and Switzerland are also countries with a lot more general awareness in the population, allowing them to undertake direct democracy.

Voting should also be made compulsory, like Australia, with a dedicated option on the ballot saying "none of you bastards".

Finally, we already fund opposition parties through Short money. I would like to see a proper clampdown on the external funding of political parties, with taxpayer funding set through statute.

Hopefully with those pipe dreams, if we ever have another electoral national vote on voting systems or (god forbid) the EU, hopefully we will be in a slightly less of a clusterfeck when the outcome is announced.
 
Voting should also be made compulsory, like Australia, with a dedicated option on the ballot saying "none of you bastards".

This is the crux of the matter.

Throughout my life (working and social) I have sat on numerous committees, those that are designed/meant to represent a wide scope of interests usually managed to agree on very little, just the 'tit-bits' that no one really agreed or disagreed with. Numerous opportunities went begging, because of this type of decision making and the usual "A horse designed by a committee results in a camel" outcomes applied, in many instances.

Because of the lack of compulsion to vote, many can't be bothered, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for such a constituency. I do agree some sort of PR might help, in achieving 'balance' but at the end of the day my feeling that if we believe in democracy then it is that the majority view that should hold sway, even when its a tiny one. Limits can be put on voting rules/matters to stop excesses, but that must not allow minorities to hold the majority to ransom.

Of course there is 'horse trading' after the event (elections), but manifestos should have a coding attached to the policies, A= Policy that will go through as is, if we win; B= Policies we are willing to discuss alterations/minor changes with others if they are willing; C= Policies we prefer, but we are open to suggestions on modifications.

I also agree there is a need for constitutional change as well as political; however I fear that is so heavily 'geared' in the UK to retaining an unwritten constitution, based on 'precedence', its unlikely ever to occur.
 
JRM's summer vibes.

IMG-20220731-WA0000.jpg
 
Octopus Energy asks government for £1bn to buy Bulb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62367992

Octopus Energy is seeking £1bn in taxpayer funding to take over collapsed rival Bulb from the UK government.

Bulb, which went bust last November, is currently being run by the state through the energy regulator Ofgem.

The £1bn funding is part of a package being discussed where Octopus would also pay more than £100m for Bulb's customers as well as entering a profit-sharing deal with the government.

The government declined to comment "due to commercial sensitivity".

The state bailout of Bulb is already expected to cost the taxpayer around £2bn by next year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government's independent forecaster, said in March: "Given the volatility in global energy markets, there remains uncertainty around the final cost."

It is understood that the additional £1bn being sought by Octopus, which was first reported by Sky News, would be paid back in full over time.

It would be used to purchase energy in advance through a practice known as hedging.

Octopus Energy declined to comment.

Since Bulb's collapse in November, the price of wholesale gas has jumped by 78%, exacerbated by Russia's war in Ukraine and the Kremlin's decision to reduce energy supplies to Europe.

------------------------

Nationalisation, British style.
 
Octopus Energy asks government for £1bn to buy Bulb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62367992

Octopus Energy is seeking £1bn in taxpayer funding to take over collapsed rival Bulb from the UK government.

Bulb, which went bust last November, is currently being run by the state through the energy regulator Ofgem.

The £1bn funding is part of a package being discussed where Octopus would also pay more than £100m for Bulb's customers as well as entering a profit-sharing deal with the government.

The government declined to comment "due to commercial sensitivity".

The state bailout of Bulb is already expected to cost the taxpayer around £2bn by next year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government's independent forecaster, said in March: "Given the volatility in global energy markets, there remains uncertainty around the final cost."

It is understood that the additional £1bn being sought by Octopus, which was first reported by Sky News, would be paid back in full over time.

It would be used to purchase energy in advance through a practice known as hedging.

Octopus Energy declined to comment.

Since Bulb's collapse in November, the price of wholesale gas has jumped by 78%, exacerbated by Russia's war in Ukraine and the Kremlin's decision to reduce energy supplies to Europe.

------------------------

Nationalisation, British style.

Absolutely in favour of this as long as Octopus agree to pay interest on the loan within a minimum period and the Gov get a share of future profits.

Anything else is pitiful.
 
Absolutely in favour of this as long as Octopus agree to pay interest on the loan within a minimum period and the Gov get a share of future profits.

Anything else is pitiful.
Will probably be sold under valuation, with no interest on loan, and no stake of future profit, so Government friends and donors can make a nice profit.
 
It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.
If you truly believe the bolded then you've not been paying attention.

FPTP is barely democratic at all. It is an antiquated system which by design keeps the power swinging to the right for the majority of elections. When a more progressive party do finally get a chance at government PR would be a much more representative system.
 
It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

But it isn't at all is it? Because FPTP doesn't deliver governments which represent the majority of voters.

In extreme cases, like in 1951, it's possible for FPTP to deliver majority governments to parties which received fewer votes than the 'losers'. In most cases it delivers majorities to parties who received a plurality of the vote, even when those parties received nowhere near 50% of the vote. For example, Labour in 2005 and the Tories in 2015 both formed majority governments on 35% and 36.8% of the popular vote respectively.

In the latter case, that 36.8% handed Cameron the mandate he required to call the Brexit referendum.
 
Last edited:
It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.

I have to smile a little at this discussion about how a PR-based system would work, as if conjecture based on personal experience of committee work and general speculation was the only way to answer that question. Most democracies have PR, so possibly one could judge how a PR-based system works on the basis of their experience instead?

It is a question of some complexity that a lot of things play into though - it's how the different elements of a country's whole political culture and institutional and legal setup come together that gives us the observable result, and it's hard to pick out precisely how the mode of representation plays into it. So, to some extent what works in a certain way in one country might not work in the same way in another. But I do think some valid general points can be made.

FPTP and PR causes political parties to become very different things. In a PR system, parties tend to become highly representational tribes - built around a shared general political vision, or sometimes other things (regional or ethnic identity, defining single issues etc). Generally speaking, if there's a sizeable group or constituency of opinion that isn't well reflected by one of the existing parties, this will tend to generate a new party. This means that political parties tend to be genuine communities of shared views or shared interests in a way that is not the case in a FPTP system - if there's too much tension within an existing party, one wing will tend to peel off.

With FPTP, the threshold of meaningful success for a new party is so high that this generally does not happen, because there's not much point. Instead, you get huge parties that really are not communities of shared belief in any meaningful sense, but rather either organisational machines built to pursue power on the basis of politics that are really very vague and shifting, or broad church confederacies of various groups that really do not agree on enough things to co-exist constructively, but who have nowhere else to go. In both cases, where parties stand politically tends to reflect which particular faction is currently on top, rather than any broader consensus in the party (let alone its voters).

Generally speaking, a FPTP system tends to foster a polarised and oppositional political culture, whereas PR tends to foster a political culture much more oriented towards co-operation and consensus. It's not straightforward, and is affected by lots of things: For instance, other traits of the US system has traditionally stimulated cross-party co-operation despite a FPTP system, though this is by now showing signs of breaking down. Whereas France has a highly polarised political tradition despite having at least partially a PR system (and it was arguably even more so back when they had a much clearer PR system than they have now).

It's an easy temptation to think that the advantage of FPTP is that it results in more efficient governments that can get things done more easily, while the advantage of PR is, more nebulously, that views are represented more fairly. But this I would argue is not necessarily so. Because societies really aren't built and shaped by individual decisions, or in four years. If you want to build and shape something, and not just end up with whatever's the net result of a jumble of disjointed and, over time, contradictory decisions, it requires a consistent sense of general direction and design over decades. This requires that there is some degree of shared thinking among the major political parties, and also that there is an ability to sit down and agree on a long-term arrangement occasionally. Certain things - pension or tax reform, defence investment, large infrastructure programs - simply cannot be solved well on the basis on one group of people doing their thing for a few years and then another group of people doing a different thing for a few years. Most places, you get broad consensus agreements in place for such things, but that simply does not happen in the UK. And if you can't do that when you really need to, it hurts you.

My point here is that every democratic system actually needs to be able to do cross-party policy making and consensus-based politics, at least occasionally. A system that can't, or doesn't even try to, is simply dysfunctional. It will be faced with problems it can't solve well, or at all. Given that, is it really an efficiency advantage to have an electoral system that allows the ruling party to just ignore cross-party co-operation, in many cases? At the very least, that means that when you do end up with a situation that requires this, the system isn't really equipped to handle it. In a PR system, this is a matter of day-to-day necessity, and the whole apparatus of government evolves around that. Clearly, it is quite feasible to govern well and solve problems efficiently on that basis. Indeed, if you look around the Western world and ask yourself who seems to have gotten things more or less right and have a political system few regards as being in a state of crisis, most of those you'd name have PR. On the other hand, if you're picking the ones that are obviously in deep trouble, a couple of big FPTP countries are well ahead in that queue.

I'd question your use of the term "back-room" deals here. What does that mean, exactly? If we're talking about shady dealings of various kinds that does not stand the light of day, I really do not think a FPTP system make those less likely or common - if anything, the opposite. If you're talking about agreements between political parties, then I think your terminology is weird, and also that there's little reason to think there is less of this in an FPTP system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CassiusClaymore
Octopus Energy asks government for £1bn to buy Bulb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62367992

Octopus Energy is seeking £1bn in taxpayer funding to take over collapsed rival Bulb from the UK government.

Bulb, which went bust last November, is currently being run by the state through the energy regulator Ofgem.

The £1bn funding is part of a package being discussed where Octopus would also pay more than £100m for Bulb's customers as well as entering a profit-sharing deal with the government.

The government declined to comment "due to commercial sensitivity".

The state bailout of Bulb is already expected to cost the taxpayer around £2bn by next year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government's independent forecaster, said in March: "Given the volatility in global energy markets, there remains uncertainty around the final cost."

It is understood that the additional £1bn being sought by Octopus, which was first reported by Sky News, would be paid back in full over time.

It would be used to purchase energy in advance through a practice known as hedging.

Octopus Energy declined to comment.

Since Bulb's collapse in November, the price of wholesale gas has jumped by 78%, exacerbated by Russia's war in Ukraine and the Kremlin's decision to reduce energy supplies to Europe.

------------------------

Nationalisation, British style.
So the plan is to use the money to hedge future gas supplies now, right at the top of the market? That sounds a surefire way to need a further taxpayer bailout in a year or two.
 
So the plan is to use the money to hedge future gas supplies now, right at the top of the market? That sounds a surefire way to need a further taxpayer bailout in a year or two.

Yep, and it is such a good idea that apparently they can get no private investment for it, meaning it will be all of us that cover the failure.
 
Yep, and it is such a good idea that apparently they can get no private investment for it, meaning it will be all of us that cover the failure.
Privatise profits, nationalise losses. Tory socialism.
 
If you truly believe the bolded then you've not been paying attention.

If Boris had been around for the run up to the next GE, we would have seen not only the 'low hanging fruit' gathered in by him and his pals, but the trees would be ripped up as well! Some Tories feared they were heading towards a colossal defeat at the next GE (some still believe that) and they would have used Boris to activate a 'scorched earth' departure.

Ben Wallace with his military background knows there is a time to fight and a time to retreat, that's why he didn't enter the race to replace Boris.

Starmer keeps his nerve, he should scrape in, if he can find a few good clearly costed policies to get us through for the next few years, and he can get something in Scotland, then he could have the highest number of Labour seats at Westminster in years.

But it isn't at all is it? Because FPTP doesn't deliver governments which represent the majority of voters.

No but it generally delivers the majority of votes needed to govern

as if conjecture based on personal experience of committee work and general speculation was the only way to answer that question

Of course not, but its one way to answer that question!

This means that political parties tend to be genuine communities of shared views or shared interests in a way that is not the case in a FPTP system -

Yes, but who decides which community is on the 'front row' and who is on the 'back row' when the 'goodies' are handout,?'Leveling' up of any kind would be practicably impossible(probably is now, given where we are) also how this country thinks e.g." every Englishman's home is his castle" would create even more local divisions. People tend to band together in large political parties like the Tories and Labour, because these are the 'heavyweights' who have a chance of getting something done, lots of smaller minority groups scrambling to reach a consensus would be potentially disastrous, we would finish up having more changes of governments than in Italy (Scusi!)
 
If Boris had been around for the run up to the next GE, we would have seen not only the 'low hanging fruit' gathered in by him and his pals, but the trees would be ripped up as well! Some Tories feared they were heading towards a colossal defeat at the next GE (some still believe that) and they would have used Boris to activate a 'scorched earth' departure.

Ben Wallace with his military background knows there is a time to fight and a time to retreat, that's why he didn't enter the race to replace Boris.

Starmer keeps his nerve, he should scrape in, if he can find a few good clearly costed policies to get us through for the next few years, and he can get something in Scotland, then he could have the highest number of Labour seats at Westminster in years.



No but it generally delivers the majority of votes needed to govern



Of course not, but its one way to answer that question!



Yes, but who decides which community is on the 'front row' and who is on the 'back row' when the 'goodies' are handout,?'Leveling' up of any kind would be practicably impossible(probably is now, given where we are) also how this country thinks e.g." every Englishman's home is his castle" would create even more local divisions. People tend to band together in large political parties like the Tories and Labour, because these are the 'heavyweights' who have a chance of getting something done, lots of smaller minority groups scrambling to reach a consensus would be potentially disastrous, we would finish up having more changes of governments than in Italy (Scusi!)

1. You don't have any fewer or less influential minority interest groups just because you have fewer parties. What you have is minority groups scrambling to control one of the big parties. Which leads to things like Corbynites ruling the Labor party, and 160,000 mostly well-established elderly landowners now getting to decide what the tens of millions of people who voted conservative at the last election actually turned out to vote for.

2. Sorry, but I see little to no evidence that you're actually getting anything more done, or getting it done better, than most countries with a PR system.

3. Neither FPTP nor PR is a guarantee of a well-functioning political system. But Italy is hardly typical of a PR-based system. You may want to consider f.e. Germany or the Scandinavian countries as examples of PR systems that generally have been getting things done over the past couple of decades.

4. Unless you simply ignore the wider picture around Europe, there's no basis for assuming that a more consensus-oriented form of politics leads to chaos and an inability to get things done. Rather the opposite, actually. A key part of consensus-oriented politics however is that it is not approached by the parties as a blind scramble for sectional interest, but rather on the basis that a good solution is one where everyone's interests are considered, and where no one is left too unhappy. In which case you start thinking of "compromise" as something good, rather than as being forced to accept an inferior solution - in other words a form of failure, which in my experience is how people tend to think of it in the UK. :) Also, it's centred on some sort of notion of it being in everyone's interest that society as a whole ends up better off, as opposed to it all being about which particular group gets to stand in the front row for handouts.

All this being said, I'm not arguing that switching to a PR system would instantly transform the UKs political culture. On a comparative basis, it seems obvious to me that that culture is extremely oppositional, and while the electoral system is an obvious part of the reason why it is, there are also many others, shaped and strengthened by centuries of political institutions evolving on this basis. Including how Britons fundamentally think about politics and society. It seems to me very possible that a PR-based electoral system applied to such a political culture won't necessarily be very functional either. But if I were you, I'd worry about the limitations that clearly imposes on UK politics and its ability to address and solve hard problems - as well as how well it'll withstand the new form of politics driven by social media and other factors that is in itself driving all democratic systems in a more polarised direction.