Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

We can argue whether the Tories would benefit or not from getting rid of FPTP, but I don't think it's up for debate that FPTP is not the most democratic of voting systems when it comes to representation. I remember in one election UKIP receiving a grand total of one seat despite bringing very strong numbers. That was particularly ridiculous even though personally I of course did not mind.

Yeah I think the question is whether that's the new norm or not. I think there's basically two othings democratic systems do on one side it's about representation and on the other choice/change.

Obviously the complication is that voting systems structure party and voter behaviour, but for most of the last 100 years the main two parties have won 75%+ of the vote:


For about thirty years after 1992 the shared vote of the two main parties fell. So in 2015 you have UKIP winning over 12%, but not a single seat. At the most extreme you have 2005 when Labour won 35% of the vote and the Tories 32.5%, but Labour had a 50 seat majority. I think when you're looking at those sort of figures then I think there is more of a democratic concern about under-representation.

On the other hand for most of the last 100 years - and for elections post-Brexit - Labour and the Tories are winning somewhere around 75-85% of the vote between them. I think the issue of representation is less of a problem in that situation. Instead in that situation I think the benefits of FPTP come to the fore more - that it is relatively clear how to remove the government/make a change, and that the choice/power comes from the 75-85% of voters not the politicians leading minority parties that, collectively, are only winning 15-25% of the vote.

Arguably the system that best captures both angles is PR with no threshold, but the parties basically form big coalitions ahead of the election to present voters with a clear choice. Unfortunately the first country that comes to mind with that sort of tradition is Israel which is maybe not a great example

But generally in Europe this goes against what I've heard. The big story in recent European elections, more so than the far right's steady rise, is the green wave largely resting on voters under 40.

I think the U shape is fairly common - it's present in France, Italy and also Germany where the AfD do best with, for want of a better phrase, working age people. The traditional, established parties (or, in Macron/LREM, their inheritor) tend to do better with older voters. I think it is also true that younger voters are more likely to go Green or populist or hard left.

Millenials are diverging from normal voting patterns in the English speaking west:


In Europe, not so much:

Is that nationalism though?
With China for sure nationalism seems the right word. Thats not the way China traditionally views the world and it seems ever clearer to me that modern Chinese don't particularly do so either. It seems to be more of a high-level civilization/ethnic based thing.

In India...its even weirder. With the Hindutva being described as ultra nationalists but when you look into it really they're quite opposed to the fundamental concepts of India and again have quite a civilizational-ethnic (-religious. But a religion tied to ethnicity) slant to things.

Also I disagree about the idea of the Chinese century et al. And with climate change.... I fear the 21st century will be one heavily defined by stuff happening to India rather than India doing stuff.

I agree I'm not convinced it'll be a Chinese century etc - but the rise of China is the single biggest fact in the world right now. Even in terms of climate, what China and India do matters more than what Europe and the US do (although there's an argument around historic fairness on that.

I'm not really sure what the distinction is when people talk about China, India and, to an extent, the US as "civilisation" states. It always feels slightly like special pleading that they're bigger than us and increasingly demanding a say commensurate to their populaltion and economy

What I don't see anywhere at the minute is a strengthening of the role or importance of international or transnational bodies. Just looking at the crises Europe is responding to: the invasion of Ukraine, the rise of China, American protectionism/IRA (but it's good for climate). These are fundamentally challenges from nation states/national politics. I don't see any reasons to think we're moving into a post-nationalist age.

As I say my instinct in a world of great power competition, competition over resources and production, increasingly significant climate events (so, to some extent, scarcity) - that seems more likely to be a world of nationalism and the national. Even in the basic level of economic outcomes being increasingly trumped by national security concerns.

Define worse.
For sure they were given a better starter position and chose to fuck things up for ideological reasons with those who followed simply reaping their mistakes. But I do think it bares remembering that this wasn't necessarily entirely born out of ideological moustache twirling. There were those who genuinely believed austerity was the only way forward.

The same applies to Brexit. I think austerity is the explanation for many of the issues we're facing now. Cutting capital expenditure, wiping out local government budgets (especially in the poorest regions) and cuts to public expenditure that supports working-age people while protecting (triple protecting) the elderly is a big part of the problems we're facing, in my view.

I think they also probably had an impact on the Brexit vote. I think a referendum was always going to happen at some point because Britain's relationship with Europe was unstable and maybe always will be. I don't know that Leave wins without Cameron and Osborne's policies - I think it's probably about as important as the Syrian migrant crisis in 2015. Similarly I think the decisions made almost carelessly by the 2010-15 government had an impact on covid, I think it's behind a lot of the feeling of nothing working and run-downedness.

And the Lib Dems, in the quad signed off on every single decision of that government.

Democracy stripped to its bare bones is the majority decides the rules.  FPTP doesn't impede this.

Especially in Britain - that is exactly the theory. You have a coherent majority government that can implement its agenda with a coherent opposition party offering an alternative - and the people can choose which they prefer. So, if public opinion turns, you can kick the bums out and get a new government who will implement their agenda. They're not able to hang around because they're good at negotiating coalitions even after the public have rejected them.

Personally I think the decline of mass parties is maybe the bigger problem than the voting system - and it's something that's been observed across Europe regardless of voting system and I think is a problem across Europe. I think a lot of problems flow from losing the party as a place where millions of ordinary citizens did politics and were connected to their MPs, ministers etc.

[Josquius]

I think the U shape is fairly common - it's present in France, Italy and also Germany where the AfD do best with, for want of a better phrase, working age people. The traditional, established parties (or, in Macron/LREM, their inheritor) tend to do better with older voters. I think it is also true that younger voters are more likely to go Green or populist or hard left.

Certainly true they have a different spread of far right support. The AfD peaking in the middle rather than with the old.

These graphs are interesting but I do wonder how they're defining right and left here. I have heard that young people in Europe tend to be more liberal in outlook and less socialist, but this indicates more centrist  on balance than the far right.
Again an area where European countries being more democratic comes to the fore as you don't get them forced to choose between a vague left and right but do get more nuance in how to vote.
The heavy green lean we're seeing is certainly indicative of the left in my book. Pretty universally seen that they're less opposed to immigration too- an area where the far right is currently profiting from the decline of traditional industry.

I agree I'm not convinced it'll be a Chinese century etc - but the rise of China is the single biggest fact in the world right now. Even in terms of climate, what China and India do matters more than what Europe and the US do (although there's an argument around historic fairness on that.

I'm not really sure what the distinction is when people talk about China, India and, to an extent, the US as "civilisation" states. It always feels slightly like special pleading that they're bigger than us and increasingly demanding a say commensurate to their populaltion and economy

When a British person is a nationalist its all about the UK, the nation-state as we know it. You don't really get too many people, certainly not sane people with mainstream views (such nutters do exist), going on about the British race and claiming American accomplishments as our own.
From what I gather a lot of Chinese people however absolutely do see overseas non-PRC Chinese as Chinese.  Michelle Yeoh winning the Oscar is hailed as a Chinese win, not Malaysian. Almost like the old pre-opium war views are still having huge influence.

What I don't see anywhere at the minute is a strengthening of the role or importance of international or transnational bodies. Just looking at the crises Europe is responding to: the invasion of Ukraine, the rise of China, American protectionism/IRA (but it's good for climate). These are fundamentally challenges from nation states/national politics. I don't see any reasons to think we're moving into a post-nationalist age.

I see it in the way people are increasingly living across borders and the softening of attitudes to foreigners.  There's setbacks like brekshit of course, but increasingly the old ideas of a nation are withering.

The same applies to Brexit. I think austerity is the explanation for many of the issues we're facing now. Cutting capital expenditure, wiping out local government budgets (especially in the poorest regions) and cuts to public expenditure that supports working-age people while protecting (triple protecting) the elderly is a big part of the problems we're facing, in my view.

I think they also probably had an impact on the Brexit vote. I think a referendum was always going to happen at some point because Britain's relationship with Europe was unstable and maybe always will be. I don't know that Leave wins without Cameron and Osborne's policies - I think it's probably about as important as the Syrian migrant crisis in 2015. Similarly I think the decisions made almost carelessly by the 2010-15 government had an impact on covid, I think it's behind a lot of the feeling of nothing working and run-downedness.

Oh certainly. The brexit ref was an absolute perfect storm that gave us the freak result it did. So many things going slightly differently would have at least reversed things- just different weather on the vote day might have kept enough of the 'leave because I hate tories' casuals at home.
And yep. Austerity really boosted the brexit vote which is just supreme irony and a perfect example of how so many voted for the thing they claimed to oppose.

Again though I'd say its a complex one of defining worse. Is it the guy who set us on the path to doom (whatever the intentions) or the one who at the bottom of the pit decided to pull the pin on a grenade.

And the Lib Dems, in the quad signed off on every single decision of that government.

They really do need to properly take account of this its true. But I'd still rather have the tagged along group who signed things off than the true culprits.

[Sheilbh]

Certainly true they have a different spread of far right support. The AfD peaking in the middle rather than with the old.

Yeah it is fairly common in Europe. I'm not sure why it is so different in the English speaking world - I think the common thing may be older people having more loyalty to the established mass parties of their youth and less likely to experiment with new parties.

I wonder if the English speaking world has a stronger generational divide on higher education or because housing has become a bigger issue in the English speaking world than most of Europe (obviously there are exceptions)? That would maybe mean that culturally and economically those voters are more likely to go left in the English speaking world - if those factors are less present maybe the divide happens less along age lines?

Also within Europe there are divides. So that's just looking at the non English-speaking West which are generally all established traditions with, like the UK, a tradition of mass party politics. Looking at CEE and you get very decent results - I think the strongest parties in Slovakia with the youth vote are a far right populist party, followed by neo-fascists. Even in Italy I think the FdI and Lega do well with younger voters and better than the more establishment right. Similarly there's vastly different opinions among the young on, say gay marriage, (majority opposition in Poland and Hungary about 75% opposition in Latvia and Lithuania) or immigration.

I think it's a bit swings and roudabouts whether it's better to have big tent, pre-election coalitions which is basically what FPTP forces the main parties to be, or having each of those as individual parties negotiating coalitions after the vote. Either way you typically end up with a vague left or vague right government.

The heavy green lean we're seeing is certainly indicative of the left in my book. Pretty universally seen that they're less opposed to immigration too- an area where the far right is currently profiting from the decline of traditional industry.

Again, though, it needs to be qualified. There are certain countries where the Greens have had incredible success, like Germany. There are others where so far they haven't had a real breakthrough, France and Italy spring to mind. In a lot of Europe I think the success of the Greens has actually been as more of a magnet, forcing other parties to adjust and place more emphasis on climate - for example in the Netherlands the GroenLinks lost half their MPs and the big winner seems to have been the socially liberal party which placed a far bigger emphasis on green issues.

And the Greens haven't had a great success in CEE. I think it's a fairly mixed picture but green ideas are transforming politics even if they're not achieving breakthroughs and cabinet roles all over - in many ways a bit like the radical right before them.

From what I gather a lot of Chinese people however absolutely do see overseas non-PRC Chinese as Chinese.  Michelle Yeoh winning the Oscar is hailed as a Chinese win, not Malaysian. Almost like the old pre-opium war views are still having huge influence.

Okay, interesting. Although I wonder how much of that is shaped by how the PRC behaves which is that it absolutely has the rights to police, monitor and "lead" Chinese diaspora as well. If, in fact, it's not a reflelction of modern rather than ancient China?

I see it in the way people are increasingly living across borders and the softening of attitudes to foreigners.  There's setbacks like brekshit of course, but increasingly the old ideas of a nation are withering.

I think it's fair that maybe there's less "blood and soil" nationalism around - although I'd be inclined to carve out India nad China and a statement feels inadequate if I need to exclude the two biggest nations in the world and probably two of the most consequential.

The other side of that is that nations are being re-made/re-constituted. So no-one would dispute that Rishi Sunak is British because British identity now is clearly multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural. I think that's happening across Europe. I'm not convinced the boundary between us/the "nation and them is weakening though - as evidenced by British policies on the Channel or European policies in the Med. That seems to be a line that is still quite clearly demarcated even if our sense of who or what is German/British/French has changed. So, ironically, unless you have a "blood and soil" view of national identity I'm not sure people increasingly living across borders is necessarily indicative of that.

What has absolutely broken down though is the international/transnational policies and institutions designed to help manage displaced people, which were functioning for most of the cold war.

The arguable exception of where something approaching a post-national state exists is Europe - but even there there's an irony, because in my view the leap the EU needs to make is actually to become a lot more like a nation state in its capabilities, politics and democracy

They really do need to properly take account of this its true. But I'd still rather have the tagged along group who signed things off than the true culprits.

I think this lets them get away with it

The Tories didn't have a majority. They couldn't do anything, certainly not any of that, without Lib Dem votes. but for the Lib Dems, almost none of those policies happen.

[mongers]

The Tories are literally covering the country in shit.

My proof, the water company sewage pollution scandal, they've allowed them to get away with this for the past dozen years.

Also on that subject a fun and interesting podcast featuring the water campaigner and sometime Undertones front man, Feargal Sharkey:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mblt

[Jacob]

Democracy stripped to its bare bones is the majority decides the rules.  FPTP doesn't impede this.

A person stripped to their bare bones is dead.

In any case, FPTP does in fact impede your reductionist "the majority decides the rules". In FPTP typically it's the largest plurality that decides the rules.

Largest plurality != majority

[Jacob]

I think it's a bit swings and roudabouts whether it's better to have big tent, pre-election coalitions which is basically what FPTP forces the main parties to be, or having each of those as individual parties negotiating coalitions after the vote. Either way you typically end up with a vague left or vague right government.

The democratic deficit in FPTP is not that the coalition building and negotiation happens inside the big-tent parties. That's fine. The issue is that "big-tent" parties can easily end up with absolute power, even though they represent a plurality that's quite short of a majority.

The other issue IMO is that in FPTP the majority (or governing plurality, more usually) has power on all issues for the governing period, meaning that on any given issue the decision-making power rests with a majority within a plurality (or sometimes a plurality within a plurality, or even an intransigent minority within a plurality - i.e. weaponized applications of the Hastert rule). In the PR system with, the government has more scope to assemble and reassemble majority coaltions on an issue by issue basis resulting in decisions that reflect the declared interests of larger shares the voting public on a regular basis.

... and I think that there's more the the quality of a democracy than zooming out to "vague left or vague right, it's more or less the same."

[Sheilbh]

The democratic deficit in FPTP is not that the coalition building and negotiation happens inside the big-tent parties. That's fine. The issue is that "big-tent" parties can easily end up with absolute power, even though they represent a plurality that's quite short of a majority.

The other issue IMO is that in FPTP the majority (or governing plurality, more usually) has power on all issues for the governing period, meaning that on any given issue the decision-making power rests with a majority within a plurality (or sometimes a plurality within a plurality, or even an intransigent minority within a plurality - i.e. weaponized applications of the Hastert rule). In the PR system with, the government has more scope to assemble and reassemble majority coaltions on an issue by issue basis resulting in decisions that reflect the declared interests of larger shares the voting public on a regular basis.

... and I think that there's more the the quality of a democracy than zooming out to "vague left or vague right, it's more or less the same."

I don't disagree. And you're right I'm being a bit flippant on Jos' point that in a PR system you can vote for neo-fascists and Stalinists as well as post-68 social liberals and old school social democrats rather than just vague left or vague right.

I think the democratic deficit in FPTP is as you say and the lack of representation. Power rests with a plurality but that voting system forces the creation of big tent parties.

My counter would be that the democratic deficit in PR is a lack of control and accountability by voters and I think it incentivises just turning out your base strategies. The great current example is Mark Rutte who is, I think, the leader in Europe with the lowest approval rating and whose party always wins about 20-25% - but has been PM for 17 years because he's really really good at coalition building. So one of the issues is how do you get rid of a leader like that - or many of the post-war Italian PMs who were also great coalition negotiaters.

Generally in a FPTP system the parties run on a manifesto and the party that wins the most votes forms a government and can be held accountable for the delivery of that manifesto. The downside is a plurality decides and it often goes with majority power. Again the counter on the PR side is that the policies a government follows are based on negotiations after the voters have had their say. So you could be a single issue voter and your issue gets negotiated away in coalition negotiations - I think of the Lib Dems running in 2010 on abolishing tuition fees and then voting to triple them as part of the coalition deal. At its best and most democratic parties put the coalition deal to a vote of the party membership (the Lib Dems needed to do a special conference to approve entering into coalition). I think that's more representative, but I think it comes at a cost of popular control and accountability. There is no expectation that parties will deliver their manifesto because they are in a way opening bids in negotiations and voters aren't necessarily involved in choosing priorities.

On an issue by issue basis - surely that only applies if you've got a minority government? If you have a coalition which is, I thin more normal, under PR systems then don't the parties normally negotiate their agenda rather than assemble coalitions on an issue-by-issue basis?

As I say I think it depends what you want out of a democratic system and what it's supposed to do/deliver. There are different forms but I'm not sure one is more or less democratic than the other. The risk of FPTP is the tyranny of a plurality and the risk of PR is that voters are reduced to stakeholders. I am also aware that the solution I quite like (PR but parties form coalitions before the election so voters know what their legislative priorites will be) is broadly what happens in Israel and Italy where it's not been a roaring success

Given that - and that I think the constituency link is important) - I'm more in favour of a ranked vote system and, although Jos disagrees, mandatory voting like Australia.

And the downside you've mentioned on FPTP is part of its appeal for me - I don't think we would have the NHS, for example, without FPTP delivering a strong majority for a reforming, radical Labour government. But I think I have to take the rough of unfortunate Tory governments with the smooth of Labour governments being able to fully implement their manifestos.

Edit: And it is worth flagging that it's been really striking that in recent years even as we've reverted to normal FPTP, with two main parties winning the vast majority of votes, on both sides there have been fairly massive, fairly regular revolts - which have been a growing feature in British democracy in the last 20 years or so. It's odd just because I feel like I don't often read about major revolts by party's MPs in other legislatures - not sure how common it is or how much it's becoming a weird quirk of the British system.

[Sheilbh]

Yikes interview with the Lib Dem candidate in the Somerton and Frome by-election, from the Guardian. It's not a gotcha question at all and should be something a local councillor, and cabinet member for environment and climate change on the county council, is able to answer - she was selected as Lib Dem candidate for the next election over a year ago:
https://twitter.com/KaneEmerson/status/1671872494624550914

I really can't work out what went wrong and John Harris is not a hostile interviewer.

Feels not implausible that the one seat the Tories retain is the one they should be odds on to lose

[Josquius]

What even happened there? Seemed to be given a standard politician answer then  seemed to start talking to someone else and started mumbling about coffee?

[Sheilbh]

Always like John Harris and think this is particularly interested because it's where he lives:
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/politics-weekly-uk/id136697472?i=1000617921895

Interview with the Lib Dem starts at about 11.30 and it basically feels that she's only really able to talk about local issues being a local campaigner (possibly with the press officer). Only really comfortable on very, very local issues. It gets really bad at about 17th minute. Admittedly that's how the Lib Dems are so great at local campaigns in by-elections but I think this is a little bit the risk with so many councillors becoming MPs.

Also not thrilled by the Green candidate referring to "indigenous people" to mean local people from Frome v incoming Londoners, Bristolians etc. Not sure there are many rules but I just don't think any European politician should be talking about "indigenous people"

Edit: Inevitably the one coherent answer the Lib Dem candidate has is on too many developments/housing being built in Frome

[Sheilbh]

Also just saw someone sharing graphics from elections past, and one very real virtue of FPTP that I would miss is watching politicians you hate lose their seat. It's been a while but I'm expecting a few this time round

Sadly Raab and Johnson who were both potential Portillo moments won't be available - but I'm sure there's still a few left.

[Sheilbh]

The Tories are literally covering the country in shit.

My proof, the water company sewage pollution scandal, they've allowed them to get away with this for the past dozen years.

Also on that subject a fun and interesting podcast featuring the water campaigner and sometime Undertones front man, Feargal Sharkey:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mblt

I have no issue with it because I think it's a very effective campaign and within legitimate spin - but it is probably worth flagging that this isn't really true

[Valmy]

Patrick Boyle, my favorite capitalist youtuber, talks about Britain's mortgage crisis:

Seems grim y'all.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...yet another example of American socialism in action 

[Admiral Yi]

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...yet another example of American socialism in action 

Perhaps not the poster child for socialist success.