When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When Oliver Cromwell decided that the "Levellers" had served their purpose, we all know when he took action against them and the outcome of that.

Thinking of how the "levelling-up" might now fare, being a "Johnson pet-project", it will be interesting to see if there will be a precedent set by the posting above.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thinking of how the "levelling-up" might now fare, being a "Johnson pet-project", it will be interesting to see if there will be a precedent set by the posting above.

Presumably about as well as the "Northern Powerhouse" did after George Osborne was off the scene, that being his pet project.

 

[adrock1976]

Peter Hitchens talks sense as ever. PR would be a disaster for Westminster.

With progressive federalism combined with proportional representation, at least voters would actually get the government that has been voted for.

For example, the voting patterns in Scotland (and my native West Midlands) and the government returned since 1979 have been as follows under the FPTP system:

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)

1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was my former one of Glasgow North East from Speaker to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)

2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP

2019 - Mainly SNP (increased to 48 constituencies, including the unseating of the Lib Dem leader at the time Jo Swinson. Her lips moved with every single word she spoke which explains how Swinson lost her seat), got Conservatives

No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, but this topic would be better in a different thread rather than here.

 

[Enthusiast]

No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for.

Neither did Acacia Avenue, the next road to me. Whatever the voting system adopted, unless the vote is unanimous, there will always be people "not getting the government they voted for."

I followed the reaction on this thread to the midweek shenanigans with interest and amusement. It puzzled me to see so many different scenarios played out including one where Our Dear Queen might pop round to No.10 to dispense summary justice to her Prime Minister. The "crisis" was only ever going to end one way. A Prime Minister cannot continue in post without the support of the majority of his MPs (be they Ministers or back-benchers). The Prime Minister's position and power rests with them. If they want him out, out he will go.

 

[HST274]

There is little credible evidence to support this assertion.

Ok. I do support the PR system, but GCSE history lessons still stick in my brain

 

[najaB]

Neither did Acacia Avenue, the next road to me. Whatever the voting system adopted, unless the vote is unanimous, there will always be people "not getting the government they voted for."

True, but the issue is the size of the delta between the vote and the government that results. FPTP means that a party doesn't have to appeal to the majority of the people, just to a "large enough" block.

In the 2019 election for example, 57% of the vote was for parties other than the Tories, yet they form the government and have 100% of the power.

 

[Sorcerer]

Ok. I do support the PR system, but GCSE history lessons still stick in my brain

No problem. Most arguments against PR, I find, are just largely baseless or based on a small kernel of truth, including the one you raised. Apologies if I seemed a bit blunt in my initial comment though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Neither did Acacia Avenue, the next road to me.

Is that where Harry Worth used to live?

 

[DorkingMain]

True, but the issue is the size of the delta between the vote and the government that results. FPTP means that a party doesn't have to appeal to the majority of the people, just to a "large enough" block.

In the 2019 election for example, 57% of the vote was for parties other than the Tories, yet they form the government and have 100% of the power.

That's an issue for plenty of places though - it's not uniquely a Scotland problem.

 

[The Ham]

No problem. Most arguments against PR, I find, are just largely baseless or based on a small kernel of truth, including the one you raised. Apologies if I seemed a bit blunt in my initial comment though.

Which (i.e. largely baseless or based on a small kernel of truth) does the following fall into?

One of my concerns about PR is for those areas where they currently are listened to by their MP (or at least it is believable that they would be listened to), however by being a more rural area between more urban areas the MP's may seek to focus on the more populated areas to get the most votes.

For example 3 areas get merged, each with 100,000 people, however given that the middle one of the three is 4 times the area of the others. To make things worse that middle area has 50,000 in a final urban area. Now how much do you think that the focus will be in those remaining places with (say) 5,000 people when 250,000 people live in the 3 urban areas?

In all urban areas it would work (the desires of 300,000 in London wouldn't be so that different from each other), but some serious thought about rural areas, especially those close to significant towns, would need to be given.

Admittedly its probably not an issue for all that many places (much of, say, Cornwall would be fairly rural whilst much of, say, Reading or Milton Keynes would be urban and so PR could be sensible for those areas.

However is it something which does need to be dealt with, or at the very least discussed.

 

[Lost property]

So the only people who put their bags on the seat next to them are Daily Mail readers, and such people are automatically Tory voters too ? I hadn't realised that, thanks for the info from your rigorous and exhaustive study.

You are more than welcome, although I admit it's possible they aren't all Tory voters...the now defunct BNP would have held a distinct attraction as did UKIP. And let's be fair, with such a source of hypocrisy available on a daily basis to keep them happy, Mail readers are unlikely to vote for any other political party.

And so the " I feel your pain ", as would any millionaire former Chancellor, Rishi as he kicks off the race to replace one rat with another.

 

[yorksrob]

For all of his faults, Johnson had one important check on his policy decisions - that he wanted to be popular.

The worry for me is that he's replaced by some over-ideological small state loon, in which case we may end up rueing the day we got rid of him.

 

[Annetts key]

One of the big problems with PR is the rise of extremist parties.

What, like the Conservative governments that this country has had? Most recent Conservative governments have been hell bent on at least one extremist policy, if not multiple extremist policies.

For example, the poll tax (community charge). Brexit (it did not have to extremist, but BJ wanted a hard brexit). Trying to move so called illegal immigrants to other countries. A PM trying to hold on to power when it was clear he had lost the support of a significant number of his MPs…

Which (i.e. largely baseless or based on a small kernel of truth) does the following fall into?

One of my concerns about PR is for those areas where they currently are listened to by their MP (or at least it is believable that they would be listened to), however by being a more rural area between more urban areas the MP's may seek to focus on the more populated areas to get the most votes.

For example 3 areas get merged, each with 100,000 people, however given that the middle one of the three is 4 times the area of the others. To make things worse that middle area has 50,000 in a final urban area. Now how much do you think that the focus will be in those remaining places with (say) 5,000 people when 250,000 people live in the 3 urban areas?

In all urban areas it would work (the desires of 300,000 in London wouldn't be so that different from each other), but some serious thought about rural areas, especially those close to significant towns, would need to be given.

Admittedly its probably not an issue for all that many places (much of, say, Cornwall would be fairly rural whilst much of, say, Reading or Milton Keynes would be urban and so PR could be sensible for those areas.

However is it something which does need to be dealt with, or at the very least discussed.

Well, under the current system, about the only interaction my road gets, is occasionally from the Liberal Democratics. We are mostly ignored by the Conservatives (it’s a just about safe Conservative seat) and Labour, with us only getting the odd leaflet or two from each.

Although a general election may have a different PR system, the (now defunct) elections for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) seemed to work quite well. Although the constituencies were large, I did get a choice of three MEPs to write to about issues. Which was better than getting standard replies from my ‘loyal’ Conservatives MP (that’s loyal to the government line, not to me)…

 

[Falcon1200]

No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for.

Given that the SNP won less than 50% of the votes in the last Scottish Government election, it can be argued that Scotland did not get the devolved administration it voted for either ! But despite the fact that I never have, and never will, vote for them, I recognise their right to form, if necessary with assistance, the Scottish Government.

Which was better than getting standard replies from my ‘loyal’ Conservatives MP (that’s loyal to the government line, not to me)…

I have only once had to seek assistance from my MP, who was a Conservative, to deal with utter incompetence by the local authority, and he sorted the matter straight away.

 

[matacaster]

Then why was it the Tory-supporting press that was pushing the matter?

1. Trying to take some heat off Boris
2. If found not guilty (as he was), then Starmer and his deputy won't be replaced by anyone more electable.

 

[nw1]

I was quite ok with the idea of Ben Wallace right up until I read he's been quite anti-LGBT with his voting and opinions over the years.

That's not good. We really shouldn't be having someone with any hints whatsoever of anti-LGBT views as PM.

Wallace has however been touted as the next Secretary General of NATO when Jens Stoltenburg steps down in October. I honestly think, given his handing of Ukraine he'd be a far better fit and use to the world in that position.

If defence is his strong point, that would probably be a better fit for him.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

Presumably about as well as the "Northern Powerhouse" did after George Osborne was off the scene, that being his pet project.

"Northern Powerhouse featuring George Osborne". Sounds like a 90s dance act.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I’ve noticed most PR supporters are on the left, but that assumes that voters don’t respond and that parties on the right don’t emerge. Changes don’t happen in a vacuum and I think it’s naive to think it would result in a lifetime of left wing governments; for the same reason that Scottish independence wouldn’t lead to a lifetime of Tory governments.

Parties on the right will emerge, of course, but they may have a different 'take' on right-wing politics to the Conservatives. Some of the right-wing parties might 'fit' with more liberal, centrist parties, others might not. For example there might be a pro-EU, pro-business, socially liberal, economically right-wing party. Such a party would govern in coalition with, say, the Lib Dems quite easily.

I personally support it, but don’t see how it could happen for two reasons:

1. It would be seen as anti-democratic to do so without a referendum (given the precedent set by the first one), which is likely to be negative given the complexity of explaining PR and the large margin against in the AV referendum

I don't think everything potentially controversial has to go to a referendum. For example, (on the one hand, things I personally consider 'good') reducing the gay age of consent to 18 and then 16, the ban on fox hunting, and the right to roam and (on the other hand, things I personally consider 'bad') the poll tax and joining the Iraq war did not.

1. If a coalition imposed it without a referendum, I expect the backlash at the subsequent general election would be so large as to oust them (even under PR); it wouldn’t be forgotten either as the election itself would make it the central issue. Labour especially would know this, as the party most likely to suffer the long term consequences of being perceived to have breached voters’ trust, and they aren’t even clear gainers from PR anyway.

I'm not convinced of this at all. Would people really resent PR? I suspect more people resent the unfair and pseudo-democratic FPTP than would resent PR. How is it at all fair that one party can govern the country, either alone or as the overwhelmingly dominant partner in a coalition, for 71% of the 45-year period starting 1979, when that party has never even had as much as 45% of the vote during that period? That really is worthy of anger and resentment.

Would PR really cause problems to many people other than those who want the Conservatives to completely dominate UK politics?

 

[Yew]

That's an issue for plenty of places though - it's not uniquely a Scotland problem.

I agree, but I feel that Scotland has a convenient name to rally around. Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria was a long time ago.

 

[nw1]

My MP, Derek Thomas, is a brexiteer Tory and enthusiast for P.R. Many UKIP types also support some form of P.R. for the Commons.

Indeed, as it would give people like UKIP more representation. While that might seem bad, in reality even if 15% of the MPs were UKIP, they would be voted down if they tried to push through anything too outrageous. Perhaps they could team up with the foaming-at-the-mouth Tory types (Bone, Cash, Chope etc) but even still it's doubtful they would add up to 50%.

With PR you'd have less of the mindless follow-the-leader puppet waste-of-public-money may-as-well-be-replaced-by-a-robot variety of Tory MP, I suspect. Such people are the main people that have slavishly supported Johnson in the past three years.

 

[jfollows]

The Times proposes the following epitaph for Boris Johnson, which is from Tacitus and says "everyone thought him capable of governing until he did it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capax_imperii_nisi_imperasset):

omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset

Jeremy Paxman used it to describe Boris Johnson, says Wikipedia, and it had previously been used to describe Gordon Brown.

 

[takno]

The Times proposes the following epitaph for Boris Johnson, which is from Tacitus and says "everyone thought him capable of governing until he did it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capax_imperii_nisi_imperasset):

Jeremy Paxman used it to describe Boris Johnson, says Wikipedia, and it had previously been used to describe Gordon Brown.

That's a cheek from the Times. It was blatantly obvious to a huge number of people that he would be incapable of governing

 

[nw1]

One of the big problems with PR is the rise of extremist parties. By only giving seats to parties > 5% of the vote they (I believe) fixed this in Western Gemrnay after the war. Also it took the wall street crash for the Nazis to actually reach power with PR.

Possibly, but would such extreme parties actually be able to push through extreme policies? Even a non-extreme hard-right party like UKIP has only managed to achieve, what, 15% support - so anything more extreme than that would a) be unlikely to get much public support and b) be unlikely to push through their policies without support of MPs from other parties.

I would imagine that (thankfully) we've learnt from the 1930s and there are limits as to what level of fringe politics would be tolerated by the public. UKIP yes, neo-Nazis no.

 

[jfollows]

That's a cheek from the Times. It was blatantly obvious to a huge number of people that he would be incapable of governing

How true, I certainly count myself as one of this huge number. His undoing was not necessarily what he did, but the way in which he did it, and I don't think I need to re-hash my views on this. But I guess a bit of poetic license is needed to spout Tacitus now.

 

[nw1]

Peter Bone - Deputy Leader of the House of Commons - joke appointment to reward him for his constant and consistent sycophancy from the back benches. To a post which has been invented because it's unnecessary and didn't exist until now anyway.

And Mogg is the Leader, isn't he?

What is the point of Johnson appointing a hard-right fringe figure like Bone? Is he determined to stamp his authority on Parliament until the very end, even though (unless things go very wrong) he will lose this post when Johnson goes. It seems to show a very dark side to Johnson's character, almost spite.

 

[jfollows]

And Mogg is the Leader, isn't he?

What is the point of Johnson appointing a hard-right fringe figure like Bone? Is he determined to stamp his authority on Parliament until the very end, even though (unless things go very wrong) he will lose this post when Johnson goes. It seems to show a very dark side to Johnson's character, almost spite.

My guess is that he's rewarding Bone for his loyalty with a non-job which won't involve him having to do very much, perhaps a couple of turns at the dispatch box when Rees-Mogg is doing something elsewhere, and knowing - as you say - that nobody would think of giving Bone any position of responsibility in the real world or in a future government.

 

[nw1]

Neither did Acacia Avenue, the next road to me. Whatever the voting system adopted, unless the vote is unanimous, there will always be people "not getting the government they voted for."

But with some sort of PR, more people are more likely to be semi-happy with the government that they get and coalitions would be the normal outcome unless one party gets more than 50%, which has not happened for a very long time.

Majority governments are fundamentally a bad thing because they only represent the will of one party, and arguably (as we have seen in the past three years) the will of the leader and his or her immediate cabal of sycophants.

Governments comprised of many parties (as long as one party isn't over-dominant, as was the case 2010-15 which was basically a Tory government with token Lib Dems) means that policies will have to be agreed by different parties, meaning it's much less likely anything controversial will be pushed through.

 

[jfollows]

And Mogg is the Leader, isn't he?

Actually, I forgot, he used to be, it's just that he went from this non-job to another non-job, something to do with "Brexit Opportunities". Mark Spencer is currently Leader of the House of Commons (yes, he's clearly not made much of an impression on you or me since taking the job in February 2022).

 

[Typhoon]

With PR you'd have less of the mindless follow-the-leader puppet waste-of-public-money may-as-well-be-replaced-by-a-robot variety of Tory MP, I suspect. Such people are the main people that have slavishly supported Johnson in the past three years.

Why? In pure PR, unless voters have a way of ranking those on the party list, we are likely to end up with those who are quite happy to sit chanting the number of police officers/ nurses/ doctors/ teachers they are going to appoint until the cows come home. I want an MP who is willing to stand up for the constituency area I live in and these are sometimes the rebels.

Throughout this thread, I think we need to acknowledge that there are stacks of alternatives between 'First past the post' and pure 'PR'. I started reading about them but it has given me a headache (true). I am sure we can come up with something better than what we have now. despite the cries of Hitchens.

And Mogg is the Leader, isn't he?

What is the point of Johnson appointing a hard-right fringe figure like Bone? Is he determined to stamp his authority on Parliament until the very end, even though (unless things go very wrong) his replacement wouldn't dare appoint the likes of Bone to anything remotely resembling a position of responsibility.

No, it is Mark Spencer. You won't have noticed him, he has made zero impact. Rees-Mogg is in charge of sacking civil servants and identifying why we are better off under Brexit. You won't have noticed that either, I think he has come up with one of the latter, so important, I've forgotten it. Still he has only been in the job since February and those pesky advantages are so hard to find.

Edit: Sorry, someone has beaten me to it!

 

[jfollows]

Edit: Sorry, someone has beaten me to it!

Don't apologise, it's not a race ... and it was good to see that you said just about the same as I did about the impact of the new Leader etc.

 

[Yew]

Why? In pure PR, unless voters have a way of ranking those on the party list, we are likely to end up with those who are quite happy to sit chanting the number of police officers/ nurses/ doctors/ teachers they are going to appoint until the cows come home. I want an MP who is willing to stand up for the constituency area I live in and these are sometimes the rebels.

Throughout this thread, I think we need to acknowledge that there are stacks of alternatives between 'First past the post' and pure 'PR'. I started reading about them but it has given me a headache (true). I am sure we can come up with something better than what we have now. despite the cries of Hitchens.

I feel there is an issue here, when PR is used in contemporaneous speech to refer to "one of the many forms of PR that are available" and is often then misinterpreted by some (perhaps intentionally) to point to a specific implementation of a proportional system.

This is an example, you've specifically referenced member lists, when I'm not aware of any posters mentioning the idea of having them recently.

 

[jfollows]

Jacob Rees-Mogg is unlikely to get a government post if Rishi Sunak is the next PM, after Jacob said on Channel 4

.... that Rishi Sunak was “not a successful chancellor”. The Minister for Brexit Opportunities said: “We are facing internationally the greatest crisis in relation to inflation and I'm afraid the Treasury has not been tackling that properly… Rishi Sunak was not a successful chancellor. He was a high tax chancellor, and he was a chancellor who was not alert to the inflationary problem.”.

I suspect that Jacob Rees-Mogg has sufficient self-awareness to know this.