Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The planned new boundaries give CON 40 more seats than LAB for

1235»

Comments

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
    I dunno though. One of the defining characteristics of Boris is total political cowardice. Trump is many things, but he's not a coward.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Regardless, I think these schools of thought are quite distinctive and poorly distinguished by our rigid FPTP-driven party system.

    Oh, absolutely. However, given the political layout we see here, the end result of PR isn't a political system dominated by a wonderful and near-permanent left-wing rainbow coalition, who can promise the earth to the electorate and then drop it all in the backroom negotiations required to put together a workable government. The result seems most likely to be a political scene dominated by UKIP on steroids.

    As I strongly suspect that isn't what the advocates of PR are hoping for, I feel obliged to point it out to them where I can. All credit to them if they both accept the evidence and maintain their principles in the light of it, of course.
    I've no such illusions, and still support PR. I think that this will result in periods of right-wing government, but they will suffer the usual difficulties when they encounter reality, and I think the Common Sense bloc, which just doesn't feel that strongly, will then tend to peel off.

    But I'm a democrat. If I'm wrong, and it's popular, so be it.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793


    Oh, absolutely. However, given the political layout we see here, the end result of PR isn't a political system dominated by a wonderful and near-permanent left-wing rainbow coalition, who can promise the earth to the electorate and then drop it all in the backroom negotiations required to put together a workable government. The result seems most likely to be a political scene dominated by UKIP on steroids.

    As I strongly suspect that isn't what the advocates of PR are hoping for, I feel obliged to point it out to them where I can. All credit to them if they both accept the evidence and maintain their principles in the light of it, of course.

    If that's what the people want, that's what they should get. Otherwise, it ain't democracy, is it?
    Left, right, up, down, forward, back, ana, kata, doesn't matter.
    In practice, it rarely seems to deliver a completely intolerable outcome where it's tried.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    SeanT said:

    We certainly do politics differently. I'm not sure our politicians are worse, or "out of their depth", indeed that's a silly argument: it's just that English-speaking Anglo-Saxon political culture (from FPTP on) is utterly different to the consensual (as you say) coalition-forming continental model.

    This is why we never had the influence of France or Germany, and why we constantly felt "frustrated". It is, in the end, why we are Leaving.

    But we are Leaving in the worst possible way, chaotically, angrily, bloodily, steered by a hopelessly divided parliament, which is led by the two worst party leaders in living memory.

    Maybe we need a proper Civil War. You know, a real one. With troops manning the hastily erected earthworks in Hampstead.

    Let us fight it out.

    Probably in Hampstead more "Les Mis" than "Battleship Potemkin" but who knows ?

    There's a grain in that but it started long ago at Messina in the 1950s when Britain still thought of itself as a world power with the Bomb and a "special relationship" with Washington. Why did we need to get involved with this Franco-German stuff ? Paris and Bonn wanted us in from the start but we chose to play our usual "semi detached" role as we were a great power with an Empire (nearly) and influence.

    The came the national and international humiliation that was Suez - the illusion shattering pretence ending experience that it was.

    Once Eden had departed Super Mac decided our only future was in Europe and with Europe and he sent Heath to make it happen but the Germand and especially the French hadn't forgotten our earlier intransigence. The French got past Suez because they had already created an alternative role for themselves - we hadn't - and spent a decade and a half trying to get round De Gaulle.

    By the time we joined, it was two decades too late and we were doomed to be the "third wheel" in the Franco-German partnership. I'm actually surprised we stayed in as long as we did.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    NEW THREAD
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Anorak said:
    I saw the "tram" tracks just west of the station when I last visited in May.
This discussion has been closed.