Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
In history lessons in my school we were asked to predict the result of the election - I was closest - even closer than the Senior Master who was, apparently, always pretty much spot on (I don't think he ever forgot it - nor did my History teacher, his wife, who seemed to credit me with skills I didn't possess). My prize - a Mars bar, I don't like them!!
The majority was 4 but effectively 5 (as the Speaker traditionally does not vote, except, I believe, in a tie, when they vote against the motion, whatever it is). I know it wasn't three as that was my prediction, it just seemed like a good number.
Pride comes before a fall and I came unstuck in '66, predicting a Labour majority of twenty something (26 or 28, I believe), well out!
Sorry, but I don't think this is true:
28 February 1974 - 33 short of majority - minority government
10 October 1974 - majority of 3 (this is the 50-year potential anniversary being referred to)
no election then until
3 May 1979 - Conservative majority of 43
The Labour majority of 3 limped on with the Lib-Lab pact and so on until it ran out of steam and time. There is speculation that if Callaghan had called an election the previous year (before the "winter of discontent") he could have won.
Harold Wilson called a second election in 1974 to give him a small majority after failing to secure a majority in the first 1974 election.
EDIT The two-year gap you're thinking of is:
15 October 1964 - majority of 4
31 March 1966 - majority of 98
In history lessons in my school we were asked to predict the result of the election - I was closest - even closer than the Senior Master who was, apparently, always pretty much spot on (I don't think he ever forgot it - nor did my History teacher, his wife, who seemed to credit me with skills I didn't possess). My prize - a Mars bar, I don't like them!!
The majority was 4 but effectively 5 (as the Speaker traditionally does not vote, except, I believe, in a tie, when they vote against the motion, whatever it is). I know it wasn't three as that was my prediction, it just seemed like a good number.
Pride comes before a fall and I came unstuck in '66, predicting a Labour majority of twenty something (26 or 28, I believe), well out!
Extreme arrogance? I fear you're allowing your hatred of the Tories to get in the way of rationality again . In reality, if Sunak held off until autumn 2024, it would be no different from what every prime minister in living memory has done when faced with poor opinion polls. Was Gordon Brown displaying 'extreme arrogance' when he delayed the 2010 election until close to the last possible moment? How about John Major when he did the same thing in 1997? Or Jim Callaghan in 1979 when he tried to do exactly the same thing until that no-confidence vote forced his hand?
Well, to be honest I think Brown and Major left it too late too.
But at least those two held the election in the spring. Deviating from the spring and summer to a less-than-ideal time of year is not good, for the reasons I already stated.
But more generally I would abolish 5-year terms. While I don't like everything the USA does, there is presumably a good reason why they are allowed to ditch their President and their representatives after 4 years.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry, but I don't think this is true:
28 February 1974 - 33 short of majority - minority government
10 October 1974 - majority of 3 (this is the 50-year potential anniversary being referred to)
no election then until
3 May 1979 - Conservative majority of 43
Indeed, I've never heard of a 1976 election. Well, not in the UK, anyway.
What did happen is that Wilson stepped down in 1976 and was succeeded by Callaghan.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would guess fiscal, due to the "Labour picking up the pieces" comment.
If it was an internal Tory thing, i.e. personal misdemeanours from high-up Tories, then there would presumably be nothing for Labour to "pick up the pieces" from.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How is four years democratic but five years undemocratic?
Be careful what you wish for. About the only thing I can think of that is worse than politicians being stuck in a five year, short-term mindset is politicians being stuck in a four year, short term mindset.
If the government is bad, five years is a long time to have to stick with it. Other countries, including, but not restricted to, the USA, stipulate four. That's 20% less which is quite significant.
Look at the current lot. They fell from grace in late 2021 (well, for some of us, they were bad from day one, but trying to take a more middle-of-the-road view) but there is a threat of having to put up with them until late 2024. And what will they have done in those three years besides holding leadership elections, (Truss) wrecking the economy, and authoritarian right-wing nonsense such as the Policing Bill and the Illegal Migration Bill.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If Labour do so badly (i.e can't get a majority) during a period when the Tories have repeatedly screwed up, it will be very worrying indeed for UK democracy. It will suggest to me that Labour will hardly ever win outright again and that the Tories are utterly dominating UK politics. We will absolutely need a change in the electoral system if that happens, to allow parties other than the Tories to get a look in more than very occasionally, and I hope such a coalition government will introduce one properly this time. We are not all Tory supporters; 43% (a typical result for the Tories) is not 100% and other points of view absolutely need to have a say in government. I am utterly fed up of non-right-wing points of view having no say in the UK.
I know the USA has many problems but at least Democrats get a decent shot in power and the country isn't completely dominated by the GOP in the way that the Tories dominate the UK.
Well, to be honest I think Brown and Major left it too late too.
But at least those two held the election in the spring. Deviating from the spring and summer to a less-than-ideal time of year is not good, for the reasons I already stated.
But more generally I would abolish 5-year terms. While I don't like everything the USA does, there is presumably a good reason why they are allowed to ditch their President and their representatives after 4 years.
If the government is bad, five years is a long time to have to stick with it. Other countries, including, but not restricted to, the USA, stipulate four. That's 20% less which is quite significant.
Look at the current lot. They fell from grace in late 2021 (well, for some of us, they were bad from day one, but trying to take a more middle-of-the-road view) but there is a threat of having to put up with them until late 2024. And what will they have done in those three years besides holding leadership elections and (Truss) wrecking the economy?
The USA elects their Congress for 2 year terms and their Senators for 6 year terms. I don't think there's anything especially magic about 4 years.
Shorter term lengths mean there's more upheaval with a new administration coming in deciding to change everything from the previous one. (Even if it's the same party getting in, there's usually some sort of reshuffle).
Although it feels sometimes we're in permanent campaign mode, longer terms do also mean you've got more time for a government to actually achieve something before every decision becomes tainted by what's expedient for the upcoming election.
OK, sorry, thanks for clearing that up - I mistakenly thought that the Congress was in for 4 years, with a different set of representatives being elected each two years, rather like our councillors.
I'd say two years is too short, to be honest, for the reasons you've stated. However five is way too long, as I said it means being stuck with a government disliked by many, and trying to be objective here, that could include Brown and Major as well as JohnsonTrussSunak.
I got the impression that delaying the election actually worked against Brown and Major, and caused them to do worse than they would have done if they had gone to the polls in say 2009 and 1996, respectively.
But was it 'extreme arrogance' of them to do so? And ditto Callaghan, who appeared to planning to leave the 1979 election until the last possibie moment in the autumn? if not, why would it be 'extreme arrogance' for Sunak to do the same thing.
By the way, I really can't see that Spring or Autumn makes much difference. If it's - say - October, then the weather won't be that much colder than May, and these days a lot of campaigning is online and people can vote by post so the weather arguably isn't so important anyway. AIUI the main reason elections tend to be around May or June more often than not is that May is when the council elections are. So you can either save some work by having the general election on the same day. Or if the local election results are good for the Government, the Government will sometimes immediately call a general election while they think they are popular (although that strategy totally backfired for May in 2017!)
If Labour do so badly (i.e can't get a majority) during a period when the Tories have repeatedly screwed up, it will be very worrying indeed for UK democracy. It will suggest to me that Labour will hardly ever win outright again and that the Tories are utterly dominating UK politics.
Well personally I think Labour are more likely than not to get a majority. But if I'm wrong and Labour are unable to win next time because people choose not to vote for them, then I think the thing to ask would be not, What's wrong with our democracy?, but How have Labour got so out of touch with what voters want that they can't win even in current circumstances? And what should Labour do to put that right?
I actually agree with you that we really ought to have a more proportional electoral system. But I'd argue that we need one anyway for basic reasons of democracy and fairness - and I would change the system for that reason, even though it would probably be to the disadvantage of the party I prefer. You seem to be saying that you only think we should change the system if the election results don't go the way you want. So I think I'm being a bit more principled there
I think the importance of the time of year has been vastly over-stated here and is utterly irrelevant to me. It'll be far more important to line up the time with some relatively good news, coupled with a number of electoral bribes, and not whether or not it's likely to snow. Of course it will make a difference to some people who won't go out and vote but I think its impact will be minimal.
EDIT And, yes, I vote by post, as do something like 15% to 20% of the electorate, but I'd always go and vote in a general election even if I had to do it in person, it's what I've always done anyway.
Well personally I think Labour are more likely than not to get a majority. But if I'm wrong and Labour are unable to win next time because people choose not to vote for them, then I think the thing to ask would be not, What's wrong with our democracy?, but How have Labour got so out of touch with what voters want that they can't win even in current circumstances? And what should Labour do to put that right?
I would more ask questions about the extreme bias of the printed media, and how that influences voters.
I can't see how Starmer's middle-of-the-road party is "out of touch". He's not promising anything controversial like rejoining the EU or a quick re-introduction of freedom of movement, for instance. And he's taking a tough line against anti-Semitism, which was one of Labour's problems last time. All seems very middle-of-the-road to me, and not offputting to voters (well, in the case of the EU fence-sitting, only offputting to people who will probably vote for them anyway, and therefore of no real consequence to them).
I actually agree with you that we really ought to have a more proportional electoral system. But I'd argue that we need one anyway for basic reasons of democracy and fairness - and I would change the system for that reason, even though it would probably be to the disadvantage of the party I prefer. You seem to be saying that you only think we should change the system if the election results don't go the way you want. So I think I'm being a bit more principled there
No, I actually want one for general fairness reasons, but the Tories have, during my lifetime, been the prime beneficiary of FPTP, which might motivate me to change things more than a Tory supporter who has had their wishes granted for most of the period since 1979. It scarcely seems fair that a party can get around 43% of the vote yet be in power 70% of the time.
Labour majorities could be seen as unfair too: I think a mixed government with some Labour and some Tories (plus a few Lib Dems), in varying proportions, each time would actually be fair enough, and would prevent any party throwing their weight around too much.
I actually agree with you that we really ought to have a more proportional electoral system. But I'd argue that we need one anyway for basic reasons of democracy and fairness - and I would change the system for that reason, even though it would probably be to the disadvantage of the party I prefer. You seem to be saying that you only think we should change the system if the election results don't go the way you want. So I think I'm being a bit more principled there
Proportional representation would get the Tories out of their current dilemma of being held hostage by Reform UK and forced to adopt relatively extreme right-wing policies that won't appeal to centrist floating voters. That only works because Reform UK doesn't care about winning seats itself, just threatening to divert Tory votes and deny them any power. Under a PR system I'd expect both Tories and Labour to split into a centrist and a more radical party, so voters would have the choice they are currently denied because supporters of a particular party may be asked to elect candidates with views that may diverge significantly from their own.
Proportional representation would get the Tories out of their current dilemma of being held hostage by Reform UK and forced to adopt relatively extreme right-wing policies that won't appeal to centrist floating voters.
I actually agree with you that we really ought to have a more proportional electoral system. But I'd argue that we need one anyway for basic reasons of democracy and fairness - and I would change the system for that reason, even though it would probably be to the disadvantage of the party I prefer. You seem to be saying that you only think we should change the system if the election results don't go the way you want. So I think I'm being a bit more principled there
Probably strong case fo changing, and if constituencites are important could always have first past the post, get 50% or more you are elected, but all the other constiuencies not reaching 50% winner end up in a proportional allocation. Not perfect but much more realistic.
One thing that is potentially interesting is if call a general election soon, will be done with current constituencies, if wait until late summer will almost certainly be based on fairer (as in roughly same size) new constituencies per the boundary review.
Probably strong case fo changing, and if constituencites are important could always have first past the post, get 50% or more you are elected, but all the other constiuencies not reaching 50% winner end up in a proportional allocation. Not perfect but much more realistic.
That was most of the idea behind the Alternative Vote referendum. Use transferable vote within a constituency so you end up with someone the majority has voted for (even if they were the 2nd/3rd/etc choice), but keep the ties of a constituency MP.
One thing that is potentially interesting is if call a general election soon, will be done with current constituencies, if wait until late summer will almost certainly be based on fairer (as in roughly same size) new constituencies per the boundary review.
I've read that although the new boundaries were expected to favour the Conservatives (as they correct the bias of the current ones towards Labour), the Red Wall successes of 2019 actually counteract that somewhat.
I can't see how Starmer's middle-of-the-road party is "out of touch". He's not promising anything controversial like rejoining the EU or a quick re-introduction of freedom of movement, for instance. And he's taking a tough line against anti-Semitism, which was one of Labour's problems last time. All seems very middle-of-the-road to me, and not offputting to voters (well, in the case of the EU fence-sitting, only offputting to people who will probably vote for them anyway, and therefore of no real consequence to them).
Yes I think you're correct that Starmer does seem to be ditching a lot of the left wing stuff that would have put people off last time, and I think that should help Labour's chances in 2024. There are still things that I can imagine could put a lot of people off. Most obviously, things like not being willing to say what a woman is, and Labour's views on immigration and small boats. I think the Tories are closer to what most people think on those kinds of issues, but those are arguably not likely to be many people's most important concerns. We'll see what happens next year...
I would just find it strange that people would still prefer the Tories to Labour given the current circumstances, and, looking at the headlines the Mail/Sun/Express seem to feature every day, it's very easy to see how people can be influenced by this constant push of pro-Tory and anti-Labour propaganda.
Yes I think you're correct that Starmer does seem to be ditching a lot of the left wing stuff that would have put people off last time, and I think that should help Labour's chances in 2024. There are still things that I can imagine could put a lot of people off. Most obviously, things like not being willing to say what a woman is, and Labour's views on immigration and small boats. I think the Tories are closer to what most people think on those kinds of issues,
Not sure about that, in the sense that I believe that immigration is a split issue. I'm not convinced that "most people" take a hardline stance on immigration; some do, some don't. And certainly a lot of people are pro-trans-rights. Both issues, I would say, split the population pretty evenly.
For example with the people I associate with, most tend to be on the pro-immigration and pro-trans side, so I wouldn't class these as minority views. And I don't think I associate with a strange group of people; they're not what I would class as "far-left", for instance.
I would certainly agree there. I suspect the cost of living, the state of the NHS, and the economy are most people's concerns, and that together with the (IMO) arrogance and borderline corruption of recent Tory governments will swing people away from them - rightly or wrongly, the image, to me, of this government is one which appears out-of-touch and keener to fight "woke" issues than do anything to improve people's lives. The appointment of Anderson and Braverman, for me, speaks volumes; could Sunak not have gone for more middle-of-the-road characters for each post? People like Theresa May, or similar, for instance?
Yes I think you're correct that Starmer does seem to be ditching a lot of the left wing stuff that would have put people off last time, and I think that should help Labour's chances in 2024.
I'm not sure. Corbyn's 'gamble' was that there were more votes to be gained from the disillusioned left than there were to be lost from moving off the centre. And in 2017 that was shown to be a reasonable argument with some basis. (2019 was different, but that was solely a Brexit election in all but name). Conversely, you only have to glance at the below-the-line comments on today's Guardian politics liveblog to see how little enthusiasm there is for Starmer and his continual policy u-turns. Labour at the next election will not have the get-out-the-vote enthusiasm that Corbyn had, and many on the left may well sit on their hands rather than vote for Starmer. In my view Starmer risks being a Miliband - does anyone remember anything about the deeply dull 2015 Labour manifesto or campaign, apart from the 'Ed-stone'?
(As a single point of data, I voted Labour in 2017 and 2019, I didn't in 2015 and won't be at the next election).
Personally, I think the public (in many countries) are crying out for something different, not 'more of the same that got us into this mess, but with new faces that are hopefully a bit more competent and a bit less corrupt'. Hence Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, Meloni, etc. etc. If Labour don't offer that, the Tories may well do well by default - better the devil you know.
This country is lacking education in critical thinking. I would suggest the two things that will help the country with relation to this are both providing more widespread critical thinking education and banning foreign ownership of domestic media outlets.
Conversely, you only have to glance at the below-the-line comments on today's Guardian politics liveblog to see how little enthusiasm there is for Starmer and his continual policy u-turns. Labour at the next election will not have the get-out-the-vote enthusiasm that Corbyn had, and many on the left may well sit on their hands rather than vote for Starmer. In my view Starmer risks being a Miliband - does anyone remember anything about the deeply dull 2015 Labour manifesto or campaign, apart from the 'Ed-stone'?
(As a single point of data, I voted Labour in 2017 and 2019, I didn't in 2015 and won't be at the next election).
The key thing about Starmer though is he is middle-of-the-road while JohnsonTrussSunak are not. After the last few years I suspect many, or even most, people actually want something middle-of-the-road and inoffensive.
Personally, I think the public (in many countries) are crying out for something different, not 'more of the same that got us into this mess, but with new faces that are hopefully a bit more competent and a bit less corrupt'. Hence Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, Meloni, etc. etc. If Labour don't offer that, the Tories may well do well by default - better the devil you know.
Except I wouldn't call Johnson, Trump and Meloni "a bit more competent" nor Brexit something which improves most people's lives.
In any case, as I said, I think people are fed up of Trump/Johnson figures now, certainly here, and would actually welcome grey, dull and traditional. I certainly have disliked the trend since 2016 and its lineup of reactionary clowns compared to any point in recent history before that - including even the Thatcher years.
Plus, "crying out for something different" is probably true, but not in the way you describe. If people vote Tory again, it would be more of the same politics which has dominated UK politics since 2019, or even 2016. Surely "something different" would, now, be the alternative to that.
Johnson (in theory, at least) and Truss, I'd agree. Sunak however seems very middle-of-the-road to me. What's his vision? Where does he want the country to go? (and indeed, the same questions could and should be asked of Starmer).
After the last few years I suspect many, or even most, people actually want something middle-of-the-road and inoffensive.
But I'm not sure they do. What we have at the moment clearly isn't working for many/most people, and I don't think a slightly more competent version of much the same is at all appealing. We need change, whether that is Truss-onomics or Corbyn-omics or whatever, I'm not sure, but we need an alternative.
Except I wouldn't call Johnson, Trump and Meloni "a bit more competent"
No, I think I phrased that badly - I meant that they were the 'something different', and that is why they got support despite clearly not being suitable for the offices they were going for (at least in the first two cases, I've no idea how competent Meloni is). Same for Brexit - I'd argue much of the reason for Brexit is that people wanted a change from the status quo, because the status quo wasn't working for them, so they felt they had little to lose by going for something different.
Johnson (in theory, at least) and Truss, I'd agree. Sunak however seems very middle-of-the-road to me. What's his vision? Where does he want the country to go? (and indeed, the same questions could and should be asked of Starmer).
Sunak's vision is probably absolutely nothing besides keeping in power (and in that respect he's actually very similar to Johnson), but as I said, the appointment of Anderson and Braverman tells me all I need to know.
But I'm not sure they do. What we have at the moment clearly isn't working for many/most people, and I don't think a slightly more competent version of much the same is at all appealing. We need change, whether that is Truss-onomics or Corbyn-omics or whatever, I'm not sure, but we need an alternative.
What we have "at the moment", yes. But remember we essentially still have a Johnsonist government.
I'd like to see something more left-of-centre and pro-EU, personally. But I recognise that trying to do that in one hop is a bit much. So let's get the bland and inoffensive fence-sitters in first, as at least it's a step in the right direction.
Personally, I think the public (in many countries) are crying out for something different, not 'more of the same that got us into this mess, but with new faces that are hopefully a bit more competent and a bit less corrupt'. Hence Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, Meloni, etc. etc. If Labour don't offer that, the Tories may well do well by default - better the devil you know.
I think there's too much of this - I feel there's a general fallacy that "change" for "something different" is something that attracts voters, and the problem is that it's not the nirvana that it's been promised. I mean, I now live in a unitary authority, Cheshire East, and we had some kind of referendum on this more than ten years ago, I voted against but the "change" thing won, and now we have two unitary authorities. But, guess what, people are now saying "let's change back to what we had before". No, let's not. Let's do the best with what we have.
Same with "Brexit", it wasn't a good idea, but some people voted for the promised nirvana because it was "something different".
I'd like to get away from this, and go back to voting for the boring old familiar stuff, and if the "something different" is "back to what we had before" then so much the better.
Sunak's vision is probably absolutely nothing besides keeping in power (and in that respect he's actually very similar to Johnson), but as I said, the appointment of Anderson and Braverman tells me all I need to know.
Agree re. Sunak, but what is Starmer's vision? Love him or loathe him, Tony Blair somehow managed to articulate that well - in retrospect, in very empty and meaningless words, but at the time it sounded fairly inspiring against John Major. Starmer isn't doing that, quite possibly because it seems all he is interested in is gaining power and, rather like Johnson, doesn't appear to know what he then wants to do with it.
What we have "at the moment", yes. But remember we essentially still have a Johnsonist government.
I've no idea what a 'Johnsonist' government actually is, and I suspect Johnson didn't ever know either. As Andrew Bridgen was saying at the weekend, there doesn't appear to be any correlation whatever between what the government is currently doing in policy terms, or indeed its general direction, with the 2019 manifesto.
I think there's too much of this - I feel there's a general fallacy that "change" for "something different" is something that attracts voters, and the problem is that it's not the nirvana that it's been promised.
I think 'change' inevitably attracts voters when the majority of voters are unhappy with the general direction of things. Thatcher, for all her many issues, knew that if you keep 60% of the people thinking things are going well *for them*, then it doesn't matter how much you screw over the other 40% - and hence stayed in power for a long time. Blair knew that too. But now the majority of people are unhappy and think things are going badly and getting worse. That is precisely when people look for something different (and indeed, often more extreme, either to the left or the right).
I think 'change' inevitably attracts voters when the majority of voters are unhappy with the general direction of things. Thatcher, for all her many issues, knew that if you keep 60% of the people thinking things are going well *for them*, then it doesn't matter how much you screw over the other 40% - and hence stayed in power for a long time. Blair knew that too. But now the majority of people are unhappy and think things are going badly and getting worse. That is precisely when people look for something different (and indeed, often more extreme, either to the left or the right).
Yes, I can see that I worded my last post badly also - I don't disagree that there's an appetite for "something different", that isn't a fallacy as I said, sadly it's that when the "something different" gets voted for it turns out to be a unicorn. I agree with you that "change" is attractive especially when people aren't happy with the status quo.
I'm just pretty sure myself that the promised change from Labour will be as evanescent as the changes promised by others have been in the recent past.
Agree re. Sunak, but what is Starmer's vision? Love him or loathe him, Tony Blair somehow managed to articulate that well - in retrospect, in very empty and meaningless words, but at the time it sounded fairly inspiring against John Major. Starmer isn't doing that, quite possibly because it seems all he is interested in is gaining power and, rather like Johnson, doesn't appear to know what he then wants to do with it.
I'd interpret Starmer's vision as bringing back middle-of-the-road politics (using a broad definition, I'd include all PMs from Major to Cameron inclusive in here).
I've no idea what a 'Johnsonist' government actually is, and I suspect Johnson didn't ever know either. As Andrew Bridgen was saying at the weekend, there doesn't appear to be any correlation whatever between what the government is currently doing in policy terms, or indeed its general direction, with the 2019 manifesto.
If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say "right-wing populism, with an arrogant twist and a hint of ethically-dubious behaviour at times". See: Johnson himself, Raab, Zahawi, Hancock, the defence of Paterson and Pincher, etc.
I've no idea what a 'Johnsonist' government actually is, and I suspect Johnson didn't ever know either. As Andrew Bridgen was saying at the weekend, there doesn't appear to be any correlation whatever between what the government is currently doing in policy terms, or indeed its general direction, with the 2019 manifesto.
If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say "right-wing populism, with an arrogant twist and a hint of ethically-dubious behaviour at times". See: Johnson himself, Raab, Zahawi, Hancock, the defence of Paterson and Pincher, etc.
I would say, do whatever it takes to get to the end of a given day, and when things are going wrong, throw everyone else under a bus to save yourself. As for political alignment, it varies by day of the week, and may even at times be left, right and centre all at once.
I'd interpret Starmer's vision as bringing back middle-of-the-road politics (using a broad definition, I'd include all PMs from Major to Cameron inclusive in here).
But to what aim? Such middle-of-the-road politics has given us the economic situation and the society we have today, which I'd think most of us would argue is no longer working well for the majority of us.
If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say "right-wing populism, with an arrogant twist and a hint of ethically-dubious behaviour at times". See: Johnson himself, Raab, Zahawi, Hancock, the defence of Paterson and Pincher, etc.
They're pretty poor at right-wing populism though - right-wingers are terribly unhappy with this government, and don't think it is doing what they voted for, along with everyone else. Watch GBNews or dip into the Telegraph for a bit and that's brutally obvious.
But to what aim? Such middle-of-the-road politics has given us the economic situation and the society we have today, which I'd think most of us would argue is no longer working well for the majority of us.
But surely it's got to be better than reactionary politics.
Is it the MOR politics that caused our current problems? I'd say the main drivers for the economic problems are Covid after-effects, the Ukraine war, Brexit, and Truss's fun and games (in roughly that order but with Covid and Ukraine in joint first position).
What disturbs me about the current politics is that it's actually too extreme at both wings. The right-wing is the most problematic, as it's in power, but there are also elements of the hard-left which disturb me a bit too, such as inflexible thinking on some issues, an intolerance of compromise, and what I call "inverse prejudice" (such as anti-male sexism, when surely equality should be the aim).
I think Labour will win in 2024 because there is fatigue over the current Government. In Australia, their Labour Party is now running the Federal Government as well as all but one state Governments and part of that is due to how the Liberals, the Tory equivalent were running things.
I think Labour will win in 2024 because there is fatigue over the current Government. In Australia, their Labour Party is now running the Federal Government as well as all but one state Governments and part of that is due to how the Liberals, the Tory equivalent were running things.
I would agree that's a good point. "Time for a change" would include time for a change in political party, and by next year, the Tories will have been in power for 14 years. Remember that if they win again, that could be 19.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Probably strong case fo changing, and if constituencites are important could always have first past the post, get 50% or more you are elected, but all the other constiuencies not reaching 50% winner end up in a proportional allocation. Not perfect but much more realistic.
One thing that is potentially interesting is if call a general election soon, will be done with current constituencies, if wait until late summer will almost certainly be based on fairer (as in roughly same size) new constituencies per the boundary review.
In some countries they appear to have a county constituency system, where each county has, say, 5-10 MPs, which are divided up proportionally according to percentage of vote. This means that your constituency is almost certain to have a representative from your preferred, or least-disliked, parties.
In some UK counties such as Hampshire that would have a big effect. Currently Hampshire has just two non-Tories, the members for Southampton Test and Portsmouth South, and 16 Tories (New Forest East and West, Romsey and Southampton North, Southampton Itchen, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, NW Hampshire, Hampshire E, Hampshire NE, Havant, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth North, Meon Valley, Aldershot). Don't think I've missed any constituency out. Even if we assume Tory losses in Winchester and Southampton Itchen next time (which I think is likely) the Tories would still have an overwhelming majority of 14 versus 4 others.
Move to a county system, and those 18 MPs for Hampshire might be just 9 Tories (if we assume the Tories have about 50% of the Hampshire vote) then maybe 5 Labour and 4 Lib Dem, meaning a more realistic proportion of MPs.
So the 9 "best" Tories would get in (i.e. the 9 Tories with the highest number of votes across Hampshire) and the 7 also-rans (including Braverman, hopefully, in the case of Hampshire) would not.
But surely it's got to be better than reactionary extremism.
Is it the MOR politics that caused our current problems? I'd say the main drivers for the economic problems are Covid after-effects, the Ukraine war, Brexit, and Truss's fun and games (in roughly that order but with Covid and Ukraine in joint first position).
I'd agree with that. There was no mitigation in place for Covid and Ukraine because both were a relative surprise for the West. Brexit caught the establishment out even though a leave vote was always a fair possibility. Did they plan for it and have they executed it well? Probably not. Truss's budget was definitely not MOR politics.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
. In reality, if Sunak held off until autumn 2024, it would be no different from what every prime minister in living memory has done when faced with poor opinion polls. Was Gordon Brown displaying 'extreme arrogance' when he delayed the 2010 election until close to the last possible moment? How about John Major when he did the same thing in 1997? Or Jim Callaghan in 1979 when he tried to do exactly the same thing until that no-confidence vote forced his hand?
