Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Britain’s brittle stalemate

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Britain’s brittle stalemate

Interpreting by-election results is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some, it’s true, are unambiguous in their outcome for one party or another. Lewisham East is not one such.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Post referendum politics has left a bitter division again, it's a repeat of the Scotland situation.

    It's becoming less a matter of policy than one of identity

    The only way out of it is Brexit and time..
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks for the header, David.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Thanks David for another interesting article.

    O/T

    "Angela Merkel has 48 hours to save coalition from collapse"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/merkel-coalition-at-risk-of-collapse-in-immigration-row-zjx2jzgtl
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Post referendum politics has left a bitter division again, it's a repeat of the Scotland situation.

    It's becoming less a matter of policy than one of identity

    The only way out of it is Brexit and time..

    Followed by Breentry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited June 2018
    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    Yeahbut, he was a whiter-than-white, honest kinda guy.....

    The voters seem to have shelves unstocked of snake oil.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited June 2018
    Seventh, like For Britain.

    Good analysis. Issues for all parties. For "kitchen sink" read twelve pieces of general literature delivered to every house, in a relatively short campaign.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Broadly agree with Mr. Herdson's view.

    Mr. Observer, it can, but if both main parties were viewed equally negatively that'd help the Lib Dems/SNP.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876

    Good morning, everyone.

    Broadly agree with Mr. Herdson's view.

    Mr. Observer, it can, but if both main parties were viewed equally negatively that'd help the Lib Dems/SNP.

    The LibDems are also viewed negatively. A lot of lent votes they used to get are no longer available. The SNP is the main party in Scotland.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Good morning, everyone.

    Broadly agree with Mr. Herdson's view.

    Mr. Observer, it can, but if both main parties were viewed equally negatively that'd help the Lib Dems/SNP.

    The LibDems are also viewed negatively. A lot of lent votes they used to get are no longer available. The SNP is the main party in Scotland.

    Yep, we'd be like Italy if offered something marginally more credible than UKiP
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    The pro-EU fanaticism of what would otherwise be the mushy centre of British politics is a strange sight to behold.

    These Euroloons clearly don't carry much of the electorate with them, witness the lack of support for the LibDems.

    Centre-left and centre-right are broadly EU-ambivalent, with clearly more of a lean against to the right of centre and a lean in favour to the left of centre. It is only when you reach the more radical left and right that full-on anti-EU sentiment comes to the fore. For different reasons, yes, but a unity of purpose.

    All of this wibble shows that we currently need a different political axis. One that has Lord Adonis and Anna Soubry at one end, with the Moggster and Dennis Skinner at the other.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Jonathan said:

    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.

    Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales.
    However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    As has been pointed out FPTP makes it extremely hard for a new party to emerge in this country. However, there will be a tipping point somewhere. My personal worry is that what emerges may be a new populist party with extreme policies, rather than a centrist one.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    The pro-EU fanaticism of what would otherwise be the mushy centre of British politics is a strange sight to behold.

    These Euroloons clearly don't carry much of the electorate with them, witness the lack of support for the LibDems.

    Centre-left and centre-right are broadly EU-ambivalent, with clearly more of a lean against to the right of centre and a lean in favour to the left of centre. It is only when you reach the more radical left and right that full-on anti-EU sentiment comes to the fore. For different reasons, yes, but a unity of purpose.

    All of this wibble shows that we currently need a different political axis. One that has Lord Adonis and Anna Soubry at one end, with the Moggster and Dennis Skinner at the other.

    Seems an odd lesson to take on a Lewisham East themed thread.
    However, in order to achieve the 'different political axis', I guess you'd be in favour of PR?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.

    Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales.
    However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
    Will all three parties exist in their current form, with no splits, mergers, renames or repositioning in 10 years? I doubt it.

    The Conservative Party name will exist, but will it be the same party?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited June 2018
    IanB2 said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Broadly agree with Mr. Herdson's view.

    Mr. Observer, it can, but if both main parties were viewed equally negatively that'd help the Lib Dems/SNP.

    The LibDems are also viewed negatively. A lot of lent votes they used to get are no longer available. The SNP is the main party in Scotland.

    Yep, we'd be like Italy if offered something marginally more credible than UKiP

    Maybe more like Spain. A left, centre left, centre right and right party, with regional/separatist parties making up the numbers. I really don’t see why we don’t make the plunge, embrace PR and trust the people. FPTP is a disaster.

    EDIT - of course, I know exactly why we don’t.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392

    The pro-EU fanaticism of what would otherwise be the mushy centre of British politics is a strange sight to behold.

    These Euroloons clearly don't carry much of the electorate with them, witness the lack of support for the LibDems.

    Centre-left and centre-right are broadly EU-ambivalent, with clearly more of a lean against to the right of centre and a lean in favour to the left of centre. It is only when you reach the more radical left and right that full-on anti-EU sentiment comes to the fore. For different reasons, yes, but a unity of purpose.

    All of this wibble shows that we currently need a different political axis. One that has Lord Adonis and Anna Soubry at one end, with the Moggster and Dennis Skinner at the other.

    Seems an odd lesson to take on a Lewisham East themed thread.
    However, in order to achieve the 'different political axis', I guess you'd be in favour of PR?
    Yes, I am in favour of PR. It would give the voters a wider choice, eliminate wasted votes, the need for tactical voting/negative voting and produce a parliament that is representative of the views of the electorate. If such a system had resulted in 100 Kipper MPs and a Tory/UKIP coalition, so be it. Next time around it would be Labour*/Green/Fellow Travellers turn.

    *Probably two or three different left of centre parties under PR.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited June 2018
    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2018

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Roger, that's a rather melodramatic view. It also doesn't tally with polling posted the other day indicating that the percentage of Britons worried about migration was lower than the corresponding percentage in numerous other European countries, by quite a significant margin.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.

    Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales.
    However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
    Will all three parties exist in their current form, with no splits, mergers, renames or repositioning in 10 years? I doubt it.

    The Conservative Party name will exist, but will it be the same party?
    Labour is a different party now than it was 10 years ago.
    The Tories continually re-invent themselves as you suggest.
    Splits and mergers are discouraged by FPTP, change tends to be jerky and come about by internal changes within parties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    Authoritarian populism has little to do with PR, which is notably absent in Trump’s America.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Nigelb said:

    Authoritarian populism has little to do with PR, which is notably absent in Trump’s America.

    A -> B does not mean B -> A
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    Cool Britannia is well and truly moribund. There’s a new kid on the block:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44453310
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    Nigelb said:

    Authoritarian populism has little to do with PR, which is notably absent in Trump’s America.

    And Spain.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569

    Nigelb said:

    Authoritarian populism has little to do with PR, which is notably absent in Trump’s America.

    A -> B does not mean B -> A
    Since neither has been even half convincingly demonstrated, that’s rather irrelevant.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
    It really isn't like Germany in the 1930's. It's not even like Britain in the 1970's and early 1980's.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

    With PR, we will get a choice of 3 !!

    I think specifically the LibDems are wrong to think PR will benefit them.

    Look at the Welsh Assembly -- just one LibDem left.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    HR is very much not Hungary.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Z, ahem, my mistake :pensive:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

    With PR, we will get a choice of 3 !!

    I think specifically the LibDems are wrong to think PR will benefit them.

    Look at the Welsh Assembly -- just one LibDem left.
    Or perhaps to put it another way, just as FPTP benefits the Tories and the Labour Party, so it benefits the LibDems.

    FPTP cements the Tories and Labour as top two, but it also cemented the LibDems as third.

    The LibDems benefited from being the third party throughout the 1990s, as protest voters automatically chose them.

    The use of PR in Euro elections, Scotland and Wales gradually allowed a range of parties to grow and become stronger, and so provided a much greater choice of credible third party.

    I am personally in favour of PR, but I don't think it will produce a 25 per cent vote for the LibDems.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
    It really isn't like Germany in the 1930's. It's not even like Britain in the 1970's and early 1980's.
    Brexit's at least as bad as Hitler.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

    With PR, we will get a choice of 3 !!

    I think specifically the LibDems are wrong to think PR will benefit them.

    Look at the Welsh Assembly -- just one LibDem left.
    Same with the EU Parliament. A PR election for the UK in 2015 would have produced a Tory/UKIP coalition as the only possible government.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited June 2018

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    Whatever the merits of any system, pointing to a dislikeable party that did well under it is a very weak argument. It's true that FPTP discourages new parties and is therefore a bulwark against new extreme movements (or indeed new moderate movements). But it creates internal divisions in every party and a permanently quarrelsome atmosphere in all of them which gives politics in general a sour negative tone.

    I think it'd be healthier if we had half a dozen significant parties frankly espousing what they actually think, rather than effectively saying "vote for us because the others are even worse".
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Jonathan said:

    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.

    Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales.
    However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
    I'm sceptical but I wasn't involved in the by-election. For those who were, anecdotally, did the EU come up much as a factor in deciding who to support?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
    It really isn't like Germany in the 1930's. It's not even like Britain in the 1970's and early 1980's.
    Brexit's at least as bad as Hitler.
    At least.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited June 2018

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    Whatever the merits of any system, pointing to a dislikeable party that did well under it is a very weak argument. It's true that FPTP discourages new parties and is therefore a bulwark against new extreme movements (or indeed new moderate movements). But it creates internal divisions in every party and a permanently quarrelsome atmosphere in all of them which gives politics in general a sour negative tone.

    I think it'd be healthier if we had half a dozen significant parties frankly espousing what they actually think, rather than effectively saying "vote for us because the others are even worse".
    I am in favour of PR because it is more representative.

    It is just a great irony for the LibDems that Brexit is a consequence of PR.

    And I don't think the LibDems will be a beneficiary under PR. Being a LibDem is like being fond of jazz. Most people in the country aren't.

    I liked the argument about FPTP producing "a sour negative tone" in politics. But, I don't believe it ! There is sourness and negativity throughout politics in the West.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2018

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    The country of the twitching curtains. It takes a secet ballot for us to admit to our prejudices. We like euphemisms like 'sovereignty'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    And Mike Godwin rears his head unexpectedly early.

    I blame the weather.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Does anyone else think that Roger might have voted for Brexit, while nobody was watching?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Roger, how many of the people polled can you name in that migration table? I suspect the answer is zero, because the names aren't released publicly, if they're even known.

    Our referendum was on leaving or remaining in the EU. Immigration is seen as a pressing issue in 21/28 current EU members, and only three of them have lower ratings of concern than the UK.

    You're being a silly sausage, clinging to your beliefs in the face of evidence and reason.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Roger said:

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    The country of the twitching curtains. It takes a secet ballot for us to admit to our prejudices. We like euphemisms like 'sovereignty'
    Be careful what you wish for. A country in which people were openly and unashamedly bigoted would be far worse.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    Does anyone else think that Roger might have voted for Brexit, while nobody was watching?

    If I'm totally honest the ones I wonder about are ScottP and William Glenn.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    Thanks David for another interesting article.

    O/T

    "Angela Merkel has 48 hours to save coalition from collapse"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/merkel-coalition-at-risk-of-collapse-in-immigration-row-zjx2jzgtl

    The row is serious and the CSU is partly driven by the upcoming elections in Bavaria, so can't risk losing too much face. Nonetheless, the idea of an actual CDU-CSU split is still being discussed very hypothetically, a bit like the talk of a new centre party in Britain. Nobody is really prepared for it and the Times, like all newspapers, likes to portray things as more immediate than they are. I think we'll see some fudge next week.

    The tweet that we were debating last week which announced that the split was happening turns out to have been from a satirical periodical as a joke. The AfD deputy leader has attracted some derision for taking it up in the Bundestag:

    https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/fauxpas-im-bundestag-afd-vize-von-storch-faellt-auf-satire-tweet-rein-30627032
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    Whatever the merits of any system, pointing to a dislikeable party that did well under it is a very weak argument. It's true that FPTP discourages new parties and is therefore a bulwark against new extreme movements (or indeed new moderate movements). But it creates internal divisions in every party and a permanently quarrelsome atmosphere in all of them which gives politics in general a sour negative tone.

    I think it'd be healthier if we had half a dozen significant parties frankly espousing what they actually think, rather than effectively saying "vote for us because the others are even worse".
    I am in favour of PR because it is more representative.

    It is just a great irony for the LibDems that Brexit is a consequence of PR.

    And I don't think the LibDems will be a beneficiary under PR. Being a LibDem is like being fond of jazz. Most people in the country aren't.

    I liked the argument about FPTP producing "a sour negative tone" in politics. But, I don't believe it ! There is sourness and negativity throughout politics in the West.
    Nevertheless it magnifies the disenchantment by giving us a caste of politicians essentially divorced from electoral pressure, and leaving many voters feeling that political competition passes them and their community by. Significant strands of opinion go un- or inadequately represented. All of this shows, for example, in our lower turnouts.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Does anyone else think that Roger might have voted for Brexit, while nobody was watching?

    I wonder if some of the grief-stricken Remainers actually feel so grief-stricken because they are guilty they did not canvass.

    Whilst pb.com had a number of very enthusiastic Leavers canvassing, I can only really remember rottenborough mentioning he was canvassing for Remain (& he was subsequently pessimistic that Remain would win, if memory serves).

    Most of the prominent grief-stricken Remainers on pb.com seem to have assumed the result was in the bag, and were too busy counting their money or their houses to do anything for the campaign.

    Now they find what was done cannot be undone ... and wonder guiltily if they perhaps should have done more.

    Is it really regretfulness at themselves that is at the heart of all this screaming about "Xenophobia" ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Post referendum politics has left a bitter division again, it's a repeat of the Scotland situation.

    It's becoming less a matter of policy than one of identity

    The only way out of it is Brexit and time..

    Brexit and Thyme. sounds like a gravy mix not a national disgrace....A prescient ad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saL3fHsKCrQ
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. F, an actual liberal party (I know technically it still exists) that was pro-business, socially liberal, pro-free speech and sceptical of the EU would be in a very good position to try and make gains.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Apologies for the delay but here is Friday's Tesco Strawberry score:

    Aberdeenshire
    Perthshire
    Fife
    Nottinghamshire
    Staffordshire
    Herefordshire
    Somerset
    Surrey
    Kent

    The nine being a gain of three since Thursday with the return of Perthshire, fife and Nottinghamshire.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    Jo Grimond's focus as leader after 1956 was on building up local bases. That had the advantage of making the Liberals more resilient in a small number of areas and enabled their survival when squeezes were on (as in 1970). It had the major disadvantage (never quite resolved) that for all later claims that Grimond's principled stands were what attracted voters, it made them all things to all men.

    Under Clegg, the Liberal Democrats seemed to lose that relentless focus on holding what they had and targeting what they could win that Kennedy managed so successfully, and the coalition forced them to make choices - some of them very poor choices (tuition fees). For a third party, with hindsight, he was not a good leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    Why? The networking opportunities are little different, the control processes are much more relaxed for Opposition parties and perhaps above all the press are much less interested in opposition than government. This means there's less chance of being weeded out by an early scandal.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Does anyone else think that Roger might have voted for Brexit, while nobody was watching?

    I wonder if some of the grief-stricken Remainers actually feel so grief-stricken because they are guilty they did not canvass.

    Whilst pb.com had a number of very enthusiastic Leavers canvassing, I can only really remember rottenborough mentioning he was canvassing for Remain (& he was subsequently pessimistic that Remain would win, if memory serves).

    Most of the prominent grief-stricken Remainers on pb.com seem to have assumed the result was in the bag, and were too busy counting their money or their houses to do anything for the campaign.

    Now they find what was done cannot be undone ... and wonder guiltily if they perhaps should have done more.

    Is it really regretfulness at themselves that is at the heart of all this screaming about "Xenophobia" ?
    Or is it that like most of the country, there was little interest in Brexit as an issue or its technicalities but a misplaced confidence that the government would make a decent fist of it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    I think you'll always get people who prefer to be a big fish in a small pond than the reverse. All three of the MP's I mentioned got far more publicity as Liberals than they would have done in other parties.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    There doesn't seem to be a 'health service' option on those questions.

    As we know the NHS always features near the top when the 'most important issue in Britain' questions are asked.

    Now look at the combined score of the three top UK answers - only Romania has a lower one.

    That suggests that other European countries have not created a fake religion from their health care systems.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,053
    edited June 2018
    Sandpit said:

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

    With PR, we will get a choice of 3 !!

    I think specifically the LibDems are wrong to think PR will benefit them.

    Look at the Welsh Assembly -- just one LibDem left.
    Same with the EU Parliament. A PR election for the UK in 2015 would have produced a Tory/UKIP coalition as the only possible government.
    In effect that is what we got, but within one party and in hoc to the voters of another.

    Has this turned out to be more successful than a formal Tory/Kipper coalition?. It is at the very least arguable. In practice a large part of the Brexit problem comes down to that uncomfortable internal Tory coalition.

    You also make the rash assumption that people would have voted the same way, if we had a different electoral system.

    Personally I rather like the hybrid system of constituencies and party lists in use in Scotland.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited June 2018

    Does anyone else think that Roger might have voted for Brexit, while nobody was watching?

    I wonder if some of the grief-stricken Remainers actually feel so grief-stricken because they are guilty they did not canvass.

    Whilst pb.com had a number of very enthusiastic Leavers canvassing, I can only really remember rottenborough mentioning he was canvassing for Remain (& he was subsequently pessimistic that Remain would win, if memory serves).

    Most of the prominent grief-stricken Remainers on pb.com seem to have assumed the result was in the bag, and were too busy counting their money or their houses to do anything for the campaign.

    Now they find what was done cannot be undone ... and wonder guiltily if they perhaps should have done more.

    Is it really regretfulness at themselves that is at the heart of all this screaming about "Xenophobia" ?
    Or is it that like most of the country, there was little interest in Brexit as an issue or its technicalities but a misplaced confidence that the government would make a decent fist of it?
    I don't think most of the country is screaming "Xenophobia" at Brexiteers, and invoking Godwins Law at 8:13 am (as YDoethur mentions, unreasonably early).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    Why? The networking opportunities are little different, the control processes are much more relaxed for Opposition parties and perhaps above all the press are much less interested in opposition than government. This means there's less chance of being weeded out by an early scandal.

    Does the same hold true for other small parties -- like the Frees in Germany or Plaid Cymru or the SNP (prior to 2015) ?

    I think the Liberals in the 1970s were petty unique in the criminality of their MPs.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    The Conservatives had Reginald Maudling, John Cordle, Peter Morrison, Lord Boothby, and Ray Mawby. Labour had Tom Driberg, John Stonehouse, Greville Janner. But, there must have been other crooks.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    They had something. From the Orpington by election onwards until 2010 they had an indefinable momentum that kept them going. Maybe things would have fallen out differently had the maths of the Coalition given them a bit more room to exert themselves. I have a feeling whatever it was they had back then has now gone and won't be coming back though.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,053

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.

    It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    The Conservatives had Reginald Maudling, John Cordle, Peter Morrison, Lord Boothby, and Ray Mawby. Labour had Tom Driberg, John Stonehouse, Greville Janner. But, there must have been other crooks.
    But to get the same percentage (say 4 out of a party of 12 MPs, roughly) , you need a third of the MPs of the Labour and Tory parties to be criminals, fraudsters, deviants.

    We need to get the numbers up to the hundreds.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    IanB2 said:

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    Whatever the merits of any system, pointing to a dislikeable party that did well under it is a very weak argument. It's true that FPTP discourages new parties and is therefore a bulwark against new extreme movements (or indeed new moderate movements). But it creates internal divisions in every party and a permanently quarrelsome atmosphere in all of them which gives politics in general a sour negative tone.

    I think it'd be healthier if we had half a dozen significant parties frankly espousing what they actually think, rather than effectively saying "vote for us because the others are even worse".
    I am in favour of PR because it is more representative.

    It is just a great irony for the LibDems that Brexit is a consequence of PR.

    And I don't think the LibDems will be a beneficiary under PR. Being a LibDem is like being fond of jazz. Most people in the country aren't.

    I liked the argument about FPTP producing "a sour negative tone" in politics. But, I don't believe it ! There is sourness and negativity throughout politics in the West.
    Nevertheless it magnifies the disenchantment by giving us a caste of politicians essentially divorced from electoral pressure, and leaving many voters feeling that political competition passes them and their community by. Significant strands of opinion go un- or inadequately represented. All of this shows, for example, in our lower turnouts.
    Short of being a Lord there’s not much more divorced from electoral pressure than being at the top of a PR list for a major party. No defenestrations a la Portillo or Benn.

    That said I think I would prefer a version of the Scottish/Welsh hybrid system to go national ( as long as majorities were achievable in really strong years like 83,87,97,01).

    Blair getting a big majority on 36% of the vote and a lead under 3% ( and coming second in votes in England if I recall), was nuts, and ultimately bad for the country. A bit of Vince tugging at Brown’s wallet opening tendencies might’ve served us well in 2005-8. Might’ve even got a referendum on Lisbon, and the world would be very different......
  • RobCRobC Posts: 398
    The Lib Dems missed a trick when no-one felt able to challenge Vince for the leadership.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Dancer,

    "an actual liberal party (I know technically it still exists) that was pro-business, socially liberal, pro-free speech and sceptical of the EU would be in a very good position to try and make gains. "

    Sign me up.

    Isn't that the real problem? We have to concentrate on which ones we dislike most, and the LDs thrived on the NOTAs. Now they are extremist with respect to Europe, so that pool has reduced by 52% .
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Foxy said:

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.

    It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
    Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Some good news, not least because there seems to be some 'joined up government' for once:

    ' An East Yorkshire factory has won a £1.5bn contract to build new Tube trains for London Underground.

    Transport for London (TfL) said the 94 trains will be designed and built by Siemens Mobility at its planned £200m facility in Goole.

    The new trains are expected to start running on the Piccadilly Line from 2023.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-44496526
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    welshowl said:

    Short of being a Lord there’s not much more divorced from electoral pressure than being at the top of a PR list for a major party. No defenestrations a la Portillo or Benn.

    That said I think I would prefer a version of the Scottish/Welsh hybrid system to go national ( as long as majorities were achievable in really strong years like 83,87,97,01).

    Blair getting a big majority on 36% of the vote and a lead under 3% ( and coming second in votes in England if I recall), was nuts, and ultimately bad for the country. A bit of Vince tugging at Brown’s wallet opening tendencies might’ve served us well in 2005-8. Might’ve even got a referendum on Lisbon, and the world would be very different......

    It seems most unlikely the Liberal Democrats would have made a Lisbon referendum a red line on coalition talks!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,721
    There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties


    A common myth.


    People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO

    Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties


    A common myth.


    People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO

    Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah

    A modern Blair would not be an early nineties Blair. He'd be eurosceptic and critical of globalisation, while seeking to reassure current Conservative voters that his economic policies would be moderate.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    AndyJS said:

    Thanks David for another interesting article.

    O/T

    "Angela Merkel has 48 hours to save coalition from collapse"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/merkel-coalition-at-risk-of-collapse-in-immigration-row-zjx2jzgtl

    The row is serious and the CSU is partly driven by the upcoming elections in Bavaria, so can't risk losing too much face. Nonetheless, the idea of an actual CDU-CSU split is still being discussed very hypothetically, a bit like the talk of a new centre party in Britain. Nobody is really prepared for it and the Times, like all newspapers, likes to portray things as more immediate than they are. I think we'll see some fudge next week.

    The tweet that we were debating last week which announced that the split was happening turns out to have been from a satirical periodical as a joke. The AfD deputy leader has attracted some derision for taking it up in the Bundestag:

    https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/fauxpas-im-bundestag-afd-vize-von-storch-faellt-auf-satire-tweet-rein-30627032
    It might be being discussed in hypothetical terms but it'd be far easier to accomplish than setting up a new centre party in Britain, given that all the pieces are already in place in Germany.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties


    A common myth.


    People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO

    Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah

    The Jezziah, not the Messiah.

    And he's not the Jezziah, he's a very naughty boy.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    Whatever the merits of any system, pointing to a dislikeable party that did well under it is a very weak argument. It's true that FPTP discourages new parties and is therefore a bulwark against new extreme movements (or indeed new moderate movements). But it creates internal divisions in every party and a permanently quarrelsome atmosphere in all of them which gives politics in general a sour negative tone.

    I think it'd be healthier if we had half a dozen significant parties frankly espousing what they actually think, rather than effectively saying "vote for us because the others are even worse".
    I am in favour of PR because it is more representative.

    It is just a great irony for the LibDems that Brexit is a consequence of PR.

    And I don't think the LibDems will be a beneficiary under PR. Being a LibDem is like being fond of jazz. Most people in the country aren't.

    I liked the argument about FPTP producing "a sour negative tone" in politics. But, I don't believe it ! There is sourness and negativity throughout politics in the West.
    The Lib Dems would be a beneficiary of PR in terms of seats but not in votes. See the 1999 Euro-elections, for example.

    That said, they're at the level where for some forms of PR, their share is so low that they would still be substantially under-represented (as in Wales, mentioned earlier).
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Roger said:

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    The country of the twitching curtains. It takes a secet ballot for us to admit to our prejudices. We like euphemisms like 'sovereignty'
    An idiotic comment bordering on racism.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    The Conservatives had Reginald Maudling, John Cordle, Peter Morrison, Lord Boothby, and Ray Mawby. Labour had Tom Driberg, John Stonehouse, Greville Janner. But, there must have been other crooks.
    Robert Maxwell for Labour. Then there were all those local Labour politicians in the North East linked to the corruption around the planning process there.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I see libertarian anti government interference down with the nanny state Christopher Chope voted against allowing Sunday trading.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    edited June 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    The Conservatives had Reginald Maudling, John Cordle, Peter Morrison, Lord Boothby, and Ray Mawby. Labour had Tom Driberg, John Stonehouse, Greville Janner. But, there must have been other crooks.
    Robert Maxwell for Labour. Then there were all those local Labour politicians in the North East linked to the corruption around the planning process there.
    How could I forget Maxwell?

    Corruption is probably more common in local than in national government, where planning and construction projects offer considerable opportunities for money-making. Doncaster Council had an appalling reputation in the Nineties. 21 councillors, including two council leaders, were convicted of a variety of offences.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Alistair said:

    I see libertarian anti government interference down with the nanny state Christopher Chope voted against allowing Sunday trading.

    His coherent ideology is to be wrong about absolutely everything. He that "Male Online" cartoon made flesh. Gammon in his case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Dura_Ace said:

    Alistair said:

    I see libertarian anti government interference down with the nanny state Christopher Chope voted against allowing Sunday trading.

    His coherent ideology is to be wrong about absolutely everything. He that "Male Online" cartoon made flesh. Gammon in his case.
    Gammon may be his face, but what comes out of his mouth is spinach.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    Some good news, not least because there seems to be some 'joined up government' for once:

    ' An East Yorkshire factory has won a £1.5bn contract to build new Tube trains for London Underground.

    Transport for London (TfL) said the 94 trains will be designed and built by Siemens Mobility at its planned £200m facility in Goole.

    The new trains are expected to start running on the Piccadilly Line from 2023.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-44496526

    Ah! That good old British company Siemens, British manufacturing and management at it's finest, makes you proud....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens
  • RobCRobC Posts: 398
    edited June 2018
    Alistair said:

    I see libertarian anti government interference down with the nanny state Christopher Chope voted against allowing Sunday trading.

    I used to oppose extending Sunday trading hours as it gave small shops a few hours without big boy competition. The rise of online has changed my mind as high street retailing as a whole now needs all the help it can get
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: good news, with Spa remaining on the calendar until at least 2021.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Jonathan said:

    Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.

    Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales.
    However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
    I question that view. This result rather suggests that Brexit is far from being the main issue in voters' minds when they enter the polling station - or contemplate doing so. Two thirds did not bother to vote at all! How can that be reconciled with a burning desire in a strong Remain area to protest against Brexit and the policy currently being pursued? Political anoraks - and the commentariat more widely - have read this wrong.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    Some good news, not least because there seems to be some 'joined up government' for once:

    ' An East Yorkshire factory has won a £1.5bn contract to build new Tube trains for London Underground.

    Transport for London (TfL) said the 94 trains will be designed and built by Siemens Mobility at its planned £200m facility in Goole.

    The new trains are expected to start running on the Piccadilly Line from 2023.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-44496526

    Very good news!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
    I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RobC said:

    Alistair said:

    I see libertarian anti government interference down with the nanny state Christopher Chope voted against allowing Sunday trading.

    I used to oppose extending Sunday trading hours as it gave small shops a few hours without big boy competition. The rise of online has changed my mind as high street retailing as a whole now needs all the help it can get
    There's lots of reasons to oppose Sunday Trading but if you make being "anti government interference" the corner stone of your public political ideology then you look a right berk voting in favour of the government interfering in when shops can open.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sean_F said:

    There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties


    A common myth.


    People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO

    Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah

    A modern Blair would not be an early nineties Blair. He'd be eurosceptic and critical of globalisation, while seeking to reassure current Conservative voters that his economic policies would be moderate.
    Blairs are created, not born. So, it is an interesting exercise to create the next Blair (who will disappoint, after election victory after election victory)

    The Blair for 2022 would be no fan of the EU, but very critical of the way Brexit has been implemented by the Tories and how it has affected "my constituents".

    He would be very critical of globalisation and of the global elite. He would be outspoken on corporate tax avoiders -- maybe he'd have another windfall tax to fund the NHS on tax avoiding companies.

    He would be against second-home owners & mansion-owners such as expatriate oligarchs. He would find obvious & visible targets to scapegoat without causing any real change in the inequalities of the housing market, or worry the owners of London homes that they might have to pay more.

    He would have a softer side on refugees. He would have words like "my country has a long history of helping people in trouble" -- but in practice he would be swiftly on with the bovver boots (much like dear old Emmanuel Macron).

    His softer side would be visible on welfare, he would be railing against the "distress caused to my constituents" by Universal Credit, but it would be nicely balanced with warnings against chisellers and fraudsters.

    Maybe we wouldn't fall for it all again -- but I expect we would.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The LibDems -- like the Bourbons -- appear to have learnt nothing & forgotten nothing.

    It is amazing that they are still screaming about PR.

    We are leaving Europe because of a phenomenally successful party, UKIP. It drew its energy and resources from PR.

    It is PR that took the ugly, straggling baby of UKIP and let it grow to an ugly, strapping giant.

    PR for the European elections provided UKIP with money, a platform, elected MEPs -- the base from which Brexit was planned.

    If we introduced PR, the LibDems would not benefit (except marginally).

    But we would have a new populist party on 30 per cent within a few months.

    We have two with 80%+ of the vote between them now.

    With PR, we will get a choice of 3 !!

    I think specifically the LibDems are wrong to think PR will benefit them.

    Look at the Welsh Assembly -- just one LibDem left.
    Same with the EU Parliament. A PR election for the UK in 2015 would have produced a Tory/UKIP coalition as the only possible government.
    In effect that is what we got, but within one party and in hoc to the voters of another.

    Has this turned out to be more successful than a formal Tory/Kipper coalition?. It is at the very least arguable. In practice a large part of the Brexit problem comes down to that uncomfortable internal Tory coalition.

    You also make the rash assumption that people would have voted the same way, if we had a different electoral system.

    Personally I rather like the hybrid system of constituencies and party lists in use in Scotland.

    Don’t like party lists, they reward those who suck up and show loyalty to the party rather than the electorate. Some sort of primary system would be useful in eliminating the safe seats, so for example it should be possible to vote for a Conservative in Christchurch withouout voting for Christopher Chope.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    Bessell had stood down in 1970 though.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    edited June 2018
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    And the fraudster Bessell was in their ranks.

    It was a remarkable collection of rogues and deviants and criminals for such a tiny party.

    Not least, because you would expect rogues and criminals to be attracted to a party which has some realistic chance of power !
    The Conservatives had Reginald Maudling, John Cordle, Peter Morrison, Lord Boothby, and Ray Mawby. Labour had Tom Driberg, John Stonehouse, Greville Janner. But, there must have been other crooks.
    Robert Maxwell for Labour. Then there were all those local Labour politicians in the North East linked to the corruption around the planning process there.
    How could I forget Maxwell?

    Corruption is probably more common in local than in national government, where planning and construction projects offer considerable opportunities for money-making. Doncaster Council had an appalling reputation in the Nineties. 21 councillors, including two council leaders, were convicted of a variety of offences.
    And, on that note, who can forget Ken Richardson, the "benefactor" of Doncaster Rovers FC, who hired a bunch of clowns to burn down the football stadium? The chief clown, Alan Kristiansen, managed to get himself filmed on CCTV filling up cans of petrol, left his mobile phone at the site, and left a message on Richardson's answerphone an hour later, saying 'I've done that job for you, Ken.' The whole thing was about as efficiently carried out as the plot to murder, I mean, frighten, Norman Scott.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    That migration table:
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1007714095716556800

    29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.

    I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.

    It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
    Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
    But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)

    But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.

    If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    justin124 said:

    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.

    First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.

    Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .

    Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.

    Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.

    This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.

    The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
    I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
    I thought - I may be wrong - that Labour wanted to reverse all the Thatcher anti-union legislation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    The GE2017 really shat the bed.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I wonder how the Liberals actually managed to survive (and at times even thrive) in the 1970's. Thorpe, Freud, and Smith were ticking time bombs, and vast amounts of time were spent trying to deal with Norman Scott.

    They had something. From the Orpington by election onwards until 2010 they had an indefinable momentum that kept them going. Maybe things would have fallen out differently had the maths of the Coalition given them a bit more room to exert themselves. I have a feeling whatever it was they had back then has now gone and won't be coming back though.
    Much of their success was down to disillusionment with the two main parties - tomany people they were seen as a NOTA option. That ceased to be the case from 2010 - and proved very helpful to UKIP and to a lesser extent the Greens.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    F1: good news, with Spa remaining on the calendar until at least 2021.

    Good news indeed. They seem to be treading quite well the line between old classic circuits and modern destination city street races.
This discussion has been closed.