Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

The lack of an effective opposition is a problem, especially since it is the split in the right wing vote that will give Labour the enormous majority...not a lack of right wing voters.

[Josquius]

Slightly wondering if this is how the UK gets electoral reform. Massive landslide, all parties call for it and Labour feel embarrassed with their obviously ridiculous 480 MPs?

Certainly more likely with them than with the tories.

It'll be also interesting in a position where the right stand to benefit and can't just spew shit like they did in the av ref.

But I don't see it as being on the immediate horizon sadly.

Though I do suppose this recent boundary review seems to have had a lot more impacts than the last. What they've landed on is better than the original proposals which had some truly insane American gerrymandering looking constituencies, but still, the constituency link is becoming ever less relevant.

[Sheilbh]

Certainly more likely with them than with the tories.

This is why the Tories dominate for 100 years

In all seriousness I broadly, in principle support some form of PR. But I find my enthusiasm wane the closer we get to a landslide Labour majority

It'll be also interesting in a position where the right stand to benefit and can't just spew shit like they did in the av ref.

It's not a right v left thing, it's a turkeys and Christmas thing. Farage and UKIP/Brexit/Reform have backed electoral reform (particularly PR) for 30 years, as have the Lib Dems and Greens for very obvious reasons.

The parties opposed have been Labour and the Tories - also for very obvious reasons. And on AV, Labour didn't take a stance (like the Tories on Brexit) and allowed politicians to campaign on both sides.

But I don't see it as being on the immediate horizon sadly.

Constitutional noodling would be a tragic waste of a 200 seat majority....

Though I do suppose this recent boundary review seems to have had a lot more impacts than the last. What they've landed on is better than the original proposals which had some truly insane American gerrymandering looking constituencies, but still, the constituency link is becoming ever less relevant.

It literally wasn't gerrymandering and I think that's pretty important in how our system works and trust in it. The boundaries were reviewed by independent commissions in exactly the same way as always happens.

In terms of this boundary review it happened as usual. The commissioners have their statutory mandate, they put out an initial proposal for consultation and then release a response of hundreds of pages to that consultation explaining what their final decisions were. Then it was presented to the Commons and implemented as secondary legislation. No gerrymandering and not American style.

[Josquius]

Certainly more likely with them than with the tories.

This is why the Tories dominate for 100 years

In all seriousness I broadly, in principle support some form of PR. But I find my enthusiasm wane the closer we get to a landslide Labour majority

That's good hope for this government.
There's a chance they could be great and really deliver.
But at the same time it would be good to have some other left wing options to keep them in line.
This was a big problem during new labour

It's not a right v left thing, it's a turkeys and Christmas thing. Farage and UKIP/Brexit/Reform have backed electoral reform (particularly PR) for 30 years, as have the Lib Dems and Greens for very obvious reasons.

The parties opposed have been Labour and the Tories - also for very obvious reasons. And on AV, Labour didn't take a stance (like the Tories on Brexit) and allowed politicians to campaign on both sides.

Labour aren't particularly opposed. Last (I think? 2 ago?) conference saw some pretty big moves on that.
Things have shifted interestingly since Blair. Back then the leadership wanted it whilst the membership said no. Today the push is the other way.

Constitutional noodling would be a tragic waste of a 200 seat majority....

There's plenty of short term patching up needs doing no doubt, and planning could do with a kicking. But making the uk a 21st democracy is beyond doubt in my mind one of the major things that needs doing to give this moist land a future.

Though I do suppose this recent boundary review seems to have had a lot more impacts than the last. What they've landed on is better than the original proposals which had some truly insane American gerrymandering looking constituencies, but still, the constituency link is becoming ever less relevant.

It literally wasn't gerrymandering and I think that's pretty important in how our system works and trust in it. The boundaries were reviewed by independent commissions in exactly the same way as always happens.

In terms of this boundary review it happened as usual. The commissioners have their statutory mandate, they put out an initial proposal for consultation and then release a response of hundreds of pages to that consultation explaining what their final decisions were. Then it was presented to the Commons and implemented as secondary legislation. No gerrymandering and not American style.
[/quote]

I said American gerrymandering looking. Not it was gerrymandering.
There was one I recall, Jarrow, snaked weirdly down to a poor neighbourhood in sw Sunderland for no discernsble reason.
Some pre review were just bizare.

Maybe it followed the same pattern as always. But the effects seem greater. Perhaps due to shifting population patterns and some places growing far more than others.
Additionally people far less often live their lives in one constituency these days. The idea of merging several constituencies into multi member constituencies seems increasingly decent

[Sheilbh]

But at the same time it would be good to have some other left wing options to keep them in line.

Can't think of a more left-wing thought than that. All we need to do is split the left more to keep it honest (and out of power)

Labour aren't particularly opposed. Last (I think? 2 ago?) conference saw some pretty big moves on that.
Things have shifted interestingly since Blair. Back then the leadership wanted it whilst the membership said no. Today the push is the other way.

Party conference backed it (reason #1784 why activists shouldn't be allowed to decide anything) and most of the big unions have moved from opposition to neutrality.

There's plenty of short term patching up needs doing no doubt, and planning could do with a kicking. But making the uk a 21st democracy is beyond doubt in my mind one of the major things that needs doing to give this moist land a future.

As I say I think it is in general, in principle probably a good idea. But I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's more democratic. And I don't think it should be a priority and I certainly don't think it's that important

I said American gerrymandering looking. Not it was gerrymandering.
There was one I recall, Jarrow, snaked weirdly down to a poor neighbourhood in sw Sunderland for no discernsble reason.
Some pre review were just bizare.

Maybe it followed the same pattern as always. But the effects seem greater. Perhaps due to shifting population patterns and some places growing far more than others.

This is normally it. Population shifts and broadly speaking over the last hundred years that has generally favoured the Tories. Generally people have moved out of the cities and into the countryside and suburbs and, generally, there's been population movement from the north to the south. That's starting to have less of an effect now mainly because cities aren't shrinking in the same way - and lots of the Tory won Red Wall seats were getting too small and needed pretty drastic boundary changes. But you could still see the effect - the average Tory seat has about 2,500 more people in it than the average Labour seat.

The mid-2010s review was different because it was tied to reducing the number of MPs to 600 (a bad idea) - but the conditions and method were exactly the same.

Additionally people far less often live their lives in one constituency these days. The idea of merging several constituencies into multi member constituencies seems increasingly decent

My preference would be that - the German model (until recently) and the one used in Wales and Scotland. A constituency MP and a regional list.

[Josquius]

Can't think of a more left-wing thought than that. All we need to do is split the left more to keep it honest (and out of power)

That's why democracy is necessary. So a split left is represented properly rather than just letting a united right creep through with a minority of votes.

As I say I think it is in general, in principle probably a good idea. But I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's more democratic. And I don't think it should be a priority and I certainly don't think it's that important

Argue if you like that fptp is better because powerful government et al. But it's undoubtedly a far less democratic means of government than a setup where millions or votes count for nothing.
That isn't to say more democracy is instantly better. The UK becoming Switzerland would be hell. But a properly representative democracy is a good place to aim for.
After the past 14 years fixing British democracy seems foundational for fixing everything.

Additionally people far less often live their lives in one constituency these days. The idea of merging several constituencies into multi member constituencies seems increasingly decent

My preference would be that - the German model (until recently) and the one used in Wales and Scotland. A constituency MP and a regional list.
[/quote]

More reasons for fixing regional inequality and building low income housing around rural stations :p

My preference would be that - the German model (until recently) and the one used in Wales and Scotland. A constituency MP and a regional list.

That isn't how i would go. I don't like this idea of two classes of MP.
I'd more just merge constituencies. Clumping together maybe half a dozen. Variable depending on local circumstances.
Then seats are given out depending on share of the vote within this uber constituency.

Regional lists i would have for the lords.
Along with impossible madness of 20 year no reelection allowed other than fighting recalls terms.

[Tamas]

There is a very answer to this: prepare the electoral reform bill, see the polls a year before the election, and if they look iffy, make it into law.

[Josquius]

There is a very answer to this: prepare the electoral reform bill, see the polls a year before the election, and if they look iffy, make it into law.

 

A bit too transparent I'd say though. It would carry far more credibility done by a party comfortably in power.

[Sheilbh]

There is a very answer to this: prepare the electoral reform bill, see the polls a year before the election, and if they look iffy, make it into law.

Yes

[Barrister]

There is a very answer to this: prepare the electoral reform bill, see the polls a year before the election, and if they look iffy, make it into law.

 

A bit too transparent I'd say though. It would carry far more credibility done by a party comfortably in power.

We went through this in Canada 8 years ago.

Trudeau comes to power in 2015 promising that it would be the "last election under first past the post".  But once he comes to power it became clear that the Liberals had only one choice - they wanted to move to ranked-choice balloting.  Which, naturally, would be most beneficial to a centrist party like the Liberals.

The NDP on the other hand wanted nothing to do with ranked-choice balloting and were all in favour of proportional representation - which naturally would be most beneficial to a leftist party like the NDP.

Conservatives, on the other hand, didn't take an official position but seemed most comfortable with FPTP - which again has historically benefitted the Conservatives.

Anyways - with no consensus whatsoever Trudeau threw up his hands and it turns out that 2015 was not, in fact, the last election under FPTP.

[Josquius]

Preaching to the choir here obs. But well put

[Tamas]

Preaching to the choir here obs. But well put

"... and bombing Iraq" 

[Sheilbh]

On weirdness around age and the things you're allowed to do when, Labour proposing to ban energy drinks for the under 16s. Votes, energy drinks, smartphones and social media at 16?

Although on energy drinks I'd actually do the opposite and ban them for the over 16s, because you should grow up and drink tea or coffee

[Duque de Bragança]

Ban milk with tea (and coffee) for the over 16s in the UK while you are at it. 

[HVC]

Indeed. Your cups are now sufficiently strong enough to handle hot beverages