Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

So if Starmer has to stiffle the whole left wing of his own party in order to succeed, why should left wing voters give him their vote if he's going to be a middle of the road moderate while claiming to represent them?

Because beating the Tories matters more - and Labour governments can be radical and achieve a huge amount. They all have. But they've all campaigned from the centre because, in a two party system, that's where elections are won. We experimented with the left feeling good about itself and having wonderful protests and enthusiastic Twitterstorms under Corbyn and it left Labour with its worst result since 1935. Many of Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters are now spending their time writing articles trying to tear down a leadership that might actually win.

And I don't think he has to stifle them - bu I think he probably does have to make them visibly uncomfortable. It's the Labour side of Cameron's "hug a hoodie", "Vote Blue, Go Green" detoxification phase which the Tories did after 8 years of losing elections and Labour started after 10 years of losing elections (or what Labour did under New Labour before that).

Personally I think a start would be having Ed Miliband nowhere near the front benches, but that's just me

Is the UK so reactionary that even a whiff of the softest leftism scares the whole voting populace into the warm embrace of the Tories?

They need to win back people who've been voting Tory at any of the four elections in the last 13 years to win.

The core for Labour winning elections is to convince Tory-to-Labour swing voters to back them and vice versa. For the last 13 years the Tories have been far better at attracting Labour voters than vice versa - I think the leadership has been a huge part of that and it needs those voters back.

[The Larch]

Just ditch FPTP already, it's a toxic electoral system.

[Sheilbh]

Just ditch FPTP already, it's a toxic electoral system.

Yeah I support moving to the Scottish (or German - but I understand it's being reformed so I'm not sure if that's still right) style system - not sure that's saved Scotland from toxic politics though. Or something like Australia's system (ditto on the toxic politics).

Also once Labour have a 100 seat majority and books like 'The Strange Death of Conservative England' are being published again I'll obviously fully back FPTP Until the polls turn.

[Richard Hakluyt]

One way of looking at it is that coalition-forming occurs within the two parties prior to the general election. the electorate is then given a choice between the two coalitions presented by the leading parties. In the various continental systems you often get to vote for the party you actually like but don't have input into coalition forming; it is the reverse in the UK due to the electoral system.

By that reasoning 2019 was a choice between two very unpopular coalitions hence the general dissatisfaction, very few people are getting what they politically want right now.

[Admiral Yi]

One way of looking at it is that coalition-forming occurs within the two parties prior to the general election. the electorate is then given a choice between the two coalitions presented by the leading parties. In the various continental systems you often get to vote for the party you actually like but don't have input into coalition forming; it is the reverse in the UK due to the electoral system.

By that reasoning 2019 was a choice between two very unpopular coalitions hence the general dissatisfaction, very few people are getting what they politically want right now.

Exactly.  To extend a bit, in the US system the primary is when you get your say about what you want the coalition to look like.

I would not be happy with the continental system because as you point out Tricky, what you are voting for is not what you will end up with.

[Josquius]

Not sure I'd agree with that.
The "coalitions" of labour and the tories are all firmly of one side and even if not a core part of a government, every other shade of left/right is part of this.

Missing is the capability for say a centre left - centre right coalition, which many around the centre would prefer to going too far to either side.

I'd say in the UK its less coalitions formed within parties and more a dual system of control of the party overall being a contest and then various special interest groups wanting a particular thing trading their support for this.

The continental system is far better. Is expected you won't have your favoured party in supreme control. However you do want them with a seat at the table.
 And if by some freak situation once in power the left wing greens turn into pro oil industry pseudo fascists then that party isn't long for this world. But luckily there will be another similar alternative so it's previous supporters aren't left afloat.

This is another reason I prefer AV however. If there is solid data that a majority of a parties supporters see party b as a good choice too and party c as not worth even considering then that informs the coalition making.

[Tamas]

But in continental parties of bigger size you also fairly often get internal struggles between factions. Having a more democratic voting system than FPTP won't save you from turning into an autocracy or such, but I think its healthier.

[Richard Hakluyt]

But there are many systems of PR and if we decide to go down that route we need to bear my point in mind to avoid potential pitfalls.

In Austria, for example, grand coalitions have been in charge for the majority of the post-war period...I wouldn't be too happy about that.

Conversely, in Israel, we often see loony fringe parties getting disproportionate influence on governments; to a worrying extent right now I'd say.

[Tamas]

Sure but then again what about the Republicans or to a slightly lesser extent the Tories who have been in the grip of fringe loonies for years now?

[Sheilbh]

But there are many systems of PR and if we decide to go down that route we need to bear my point in mind to avoid potential pitfalls.

In Austria, for example, grand coalitions have been in charge for the majority of the post-war period...I wouldn't be too happy about that.

Conversely, in Israel, we often see loony fringe parties getting disproportionate influence on governments; to a worrying extent right now I'd say.

Yeah this is right and arguably one of the big benefits of FPTP. The choice is ultimately, broadly in the hands of voters to choose between two coalitions not politicians bartering away their electoral manifesto to form a coalition afterwards.

Also there's almost always a lack of representation - you should, I think, choose a threshold which institutionalises that.

It's why I think the Scottish or Australian systems would work in the UK, and with our broader political culture.

By that reasoning 2019 was a choice between two very unpopular coalitions hence the general dissatisfaction, very few people are getting what they politically want right now.

Yeah it was, I think, probably the worst choice ever presented to British voters.

Missing is the capability for say a centre left - centre right coalition, which many around the centre would prefer to going too far to either side.

No. Ideological difference and choice is really important. I think the centre having to cling together increases the strength of the extremes because that's the place you need to go to express dissatisfaction, or want change from a government of the centre (see France with Macron's party).

But in continental parties of bigger size you also fairly often get internal struggles between factions. Having a more democratic voting system than FPTP won't save you from turning into an autocracy or such, but I think its healthier.

I don't think it's more democratic - again I think it depends what democracy is for. It's more representative.

Sure but then again what about the Republicans or to a slightly lesser extent the Tories who have been in the grip of fringe loonies for years now?

I don't really agree on the Tories - except for Truss. Their strategy has been to win over the 52% who voted Leave, particularly in Labour areas.

Almost definitionally that's not a fringe loonie opinion.

[Tamas]

If the members of government since 2019 are not a fringe we are in deep, deep trouble.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think they are at all.

There's some - for example Jacob Rees-Mogg under Johnson - who definitely are. There's others who have been promoted higher than I think they would have ordinarily like Braverman - but I think with her that's a big tent party coalition, she didn't challenge Sunak for the leadership from the right or back Johnson and I think there was a quid pro-quo.

But looking at the minister in Johnson's cabinet: Javid, Raab, Gove, Buckland, Wallace, Hancock, Leadsom, Truss, Sunak, Patel. If they were around Parliament in 2010-2016, they were all junior or cabinet ministers under Cameron - if they weren't (like Sunak) I expect they would have become ministers under Cameron. Johnson himself was, obviouisly, a two-term Mayor of London - and it was his record of delivering a Tory victory in a left-wing, Labour-leaning city that got him the leadership. He was perceived (I think incorrectly) as a potential leader who could win/reach voters other Tories couldn't.

I think that also gives the contrast with Labour at the same time. John McDonnell has been an MP since 1997 - he has never been a minister or shadow minister until Corbyn's victory when he became shadow chancellor. I'm fairly sure he won't serve in any future Labour cabinet or shadow cabinet (unless the hard left win again) - same goes for, say, Richard Burgon who is a relatively new MP but will be the next generation of backbench hard left member of the Socialist Campaign Group/Campaign for Labour Democracy etc. The Tory equivalent isn't the government but Mark Francois and Peter Bone.

[Tamas]

OK but then let me turn that around. If the best the two party system can bring to the top is that lot, that's definitely not an argument for keeping it. :p

[Sheilbh]

Fair. Although I don't necessarily think it's a two-party system/electoral system issue.

I'm aware that there's a risk of nostalgia. But I don't think the backbenches of either party are overflowing with talent and overlooked heavyweights.

I think there's a broader problem in our politics about who's becoming an MP - Isabel Hardman's done a really good book on it, Why We Get The Wrong Politicians.

In part I think it is counter-intuitively that since 2010 at least MPs have become better at and more focused on being good constituency MPs, acting as an emergency service/social services for distressed constituents - but the time that takes and the skills for that are very different from what would make them effective legislators. I think for depth of talent this will be a real problem for Labour if they win the next election because there's some very interesting people running in the next election (Miatta Fahnbulleh, for example), but a huge number of local councillors too which I think is more the "good constituency MP" model.

Suggesting MPs should spend less time at surgeries and working for their constituents and more time probably in London mastering policy, intervening in debates and working on legislation is about as popular as arguing that they should be paid more.

[Josquius]

I would go more the opposite. A problem with modern politics is it has become too big. Too much of a rock star this is how you win at life sort of thing.
This has led to huge numbers of people from the top schools deciding it's the path for them from an early age and naturally out connecting anyone from a modest background who at 40 decides they want to go into politics and make a change.

This is another area where PR has an advantage. Regular people do have more of a chance.

He was perceived (I think incorrectly) as a potential leader who could win/reach voters other Tories couldn't.

Not sure I'd agree there. Johnson did this for sure. A lot of working class and sub working class people eager to doff their cap for him in a way they weren't for a typical tory. His "tells it like it is" image really sells to some as much as it apalls others.

I don't really agree on the Tories - except for Truss. Their strategy has been to win over the 52% who voted Leave, particularly in Labour areas.

Almost definitionally that's not a fringe loonie opinion.

Ish? By definition believing the world is on the back of a tortoise isn't a fringe loony position if 17 million start believing it....
It' would still be quite the fringe loony position despite not being confined to a fringe of the population any more.