** The General Election Thread **

[Vorpal]

No electoral system guarantees producing a government that can govern but the UK system tends to do that better than most. It failed last time, and has done so before, but it often comes up with the goods. At least in terms of producing a government with a majority. The worst system among First World nations has to be the US system that seems to almost continuously produce a president who cannot legislate because another tier of government is controlled by the opposition. Probably a good thing at the moment though.

You mean we didn't get a result where a right wing minority couldn't get their own way?

In that instance yes. But there is a case for having a system that delivers some sort of result so we get government. Government without tiny minorities demanding legislation that few people want. That's not fair either.

The Nordic countries with their tiny minority parties and almost no clear majorities seem to govern ok, without tiny minorities demanding legislation that no one wants. What does happen is that these tiny minorities can influence legislation. But they still have win over enough of either the parliament, or the ministers, depending upon the governmental arrangements. I am not, for example in favour of anti-immigrant legislation implemented by the Danish government, and the Norwegian FrP have been the source of some legislation in Norway that I don't like. That said, I am happier with Norwegian politics than either British or US at the moment.

[pete75]

No electoral system guarantees producing a government that can govern but the UK system tends to do that better than most. It failed last time, and has done so before, but it often comes up with the goods. At least in terms of producing a government with a majority.

That's not the same thing at all! Arguably, giving a minority an artificial majority is not good government, let alone "better than most". Also, 5 out of 26 (roughly, depends exactly what you class as a change of government) post-WW2 UK governments have been minorities in parliament, which is nowhere near better than most - almost exactly the same as the Netherlands (5 in 25) and more than the French Fifth Republic (2 in 41, excluding short caretakers).

There is this pernicious myth that the UK's unfair voting system is what produces strong government and it does not seem to be true by many objective measures.

We need competent and able government not strong government though the latter is what those of an authoritarian bent prefer.

[pwa]

No electoral system guarantees producing a government that can govern but the UK system tends to do that better than most. It failed last time, and has done so before, but it often comes up with the goods. At least in terms of producing a government with a majority.

That's not the same thing at all! Arguably, giving a minority an artificial majority is not good government, let alone "better than most". Also, 5 out of 26 (roughly, depends exactly what you class as a change of government) post-WW2 UK governments have been minorities in parliament, which is nowhere near better than most - almost exactly the same as the Netherlands (5 in 25) and more than the French Fifth Republic (2 in 41, excluding short caretakers).

There is this pernicious myth that the UK's unfair voting system is what produces strong government and it does not seem to be true by many objective measures.

We need competent and able government not strong government though the latter is what those of an authoritarian bent prefer.

I think the danger of "authoritarian" government is suppressed by the knowledge that each party will have to defend marginal seats in, at most, five years from now. Any government that has run amok in the meantime will be facing the judgement of the electorate in all those marginal seats, and the MPs from those seats will be well aware of that.

[robing]

And you think she should be judged on the actions of her son?

YES = especially as she is Shadow home Secretary!!

Waddabout the queen then?
Or anyone else FTM

We're not talking about a parking ticket here!

[reohn2]

I hear that the BBC and ITV respectively have fired Kuenssburg and Preston.

I haven't bothered checking any facts but wanted you to know and share.

I can always delete the post when it has been shared 10,000 times.

One only hopes this is true,a petition was taken down by Change.Uk.
She's no more than a rightwing mouthpiece.As for Peston,he's a a pest when he's on with the most irritating delivery,so I don't listen to him

[reohn2]

YES = especially as she is Shadow home Secretary!!

Waddabout the queen then?
Or anyone else FTM

We're not talking about a parking ticket here!

Nor am I.
How can you judge a politician by the actions of her son?
I suggest you look at her track record in her constituency before making any judgement on her moral character,or is it that the sins of the son must always fall on the mother?

[PDQ Mobile]

YES = especially as she is Shadow home Secretary!!

Waddabout the queen then?
Or anyone else FTM

We're not talking about a parking ticket here!

The Queen has a chauffeur!

But it is not a conviction yet. Merely a charge.
Some places do stuff like that to opposition figures.

[djnotts]

Turnout. In the least statistically valid prediction of the day so far (but there will be contenders!), I foresee a high turnout. My Polling Station (small catchment area) staff said been "very busy" in first 4 hours.

[pwa]

Waddabout the queen then?
Or anyone else FTM

We're not talking about a parking ticket here!

Nor am I.
How can you judge a politician by the actions of her son?
I suggest you look at her track record in her constituency before making any judgement on her moral character,or is it that the sins of the son must always fall on the mother?

I agree with R2 on this. You can't blame her for what her son may have done. If you can establish that she was a bad parent, then that is different. But as we don't know that to be the case we just have to say her son is responsible for his own actions.

[PDQ Mobile]

I think the danger of "authoritarian" government is suppressed by the knowledge that each party will have to defend marginal seats in, at most, five years from now. Any government that has run amok in the meantime will be facing the judgement of the electorate in all those marginal seats, and the MPs from those seats will be well aware of that.

It didn't stop the "impasse" you referred to earlier which was created entirely by the governing party alone.
It's a massive and very relevant hole in the argument.

Genuine compromise is good.
Authoritarian and dogmatic is bad.

I think the mainland Europeans are much better at compromise and we could learn from them.
But you see it differently.
Though I don't understand why really.

[reohn2]

I'm not suggesting that PR should not be introduced for electing MPs, but I think an inevitable consequence of that would be that many who call for PR would not be happy about some of the people who would be elected, and I don't simply mean Nigel Farage, but rather the likes of Stephen Yaxley Lennon and other racists. At the very least being in Parliament would give them a huge boost in publicity and potentially enable them to gain even more political support and momentum, but at the worst PR can often give small extreme groups disproportionate power and influence as kingmakers. Many people have been very unhappy about the Tory reliance on the DUP to prop up its government, but PR might result in bedfellows for the main parties who would make your stomach churn.

I can't agree with this analogy,yes in some instances there may very well be extremists with a voice initially(heaven knows we haspve some in power presently albeit dressed up as respectable),but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
A properly thought through PR system is much fairer than any FPTP system IMHO.

[roubaixtuesday]

That's not the same thing at all! Arguably, giving a minority an artificial majority is not good government, let alone "better than most". Also, 5 out of 26 (roughly, depends exactly what you class as a change of government) post-WW2 UK governments have been minorities in parliament, which is nowhere near better than most - almost exactly the same as the Netherlands (5 in 25) and more than the French Fifth Republic (2 in 41, excluding short caretakers).

There is this pernicious myth that the UK's unfair voting system is what produces strong government and it does not seem to be true by many objective measures.

We need competent and able government not strong government though the latter is what those of an authoritarian bent prefer.

I think the danger of "authoritarian" government is suppressed by the knowledge that each party will have to defend marginal seats in, at most, five years from now. Any government that has run amok in the meantime will be facing the judgement of the electorate in all those marginal seats, and the MPs from those seats will be well aware of that.

I think the plan is very clear to deal with this:

Voter suppression will be achieved through demanding ID to vote
Media diversity will be quashed through the dismemberment of the BBC and the cowing of Channel 4
Executive power will be entrenched through changes to the constitution
Social media will be used to cover the truth in an avalanche of false propaganda
Uncooperative MPs in the governing party have already been purged.

These have all been alluded to or seen in this campaign, or are implied in the conservative manifesto, and follow examples from the Republicans in the US and Putin, Orban and other "populist" governments.

Johnson is very dangerous, far more than it appears

[mjr]

Turnout. In the least statistically valid prediction of the day so far (but there will be contenders!), I foresee a high turnout. My Polling Station (small catchment area) staff said been "very busy" in first 4 hours.

Could it be just people trying to vote before the rain gets heavier?

[djnotts]

We need competent and able government not strong government though the latter is what those of an authoritarian bent prefer.

I think the danger of "authoritarian" government is suppressed ..........

I think the plan is very clear to deal with this:

Voter suppression will be achieved through demanding ID to vote
Media diversity will be quashed through the dismemberment of the BBC and the cowing of Channel 4
Executive power will be entrenched through changes to the constitution
Social media will be used to cover the truth in an avalanche of false propaganda
Uncooperative MPs in the governing party have already been purged.

These have all been alluded to or seen in this campaign, or are implied in the conservative manifesto, and follow examples from the Republicans in the US and Putin, Orban and other "populist" governments.

Johnson is very dangerous, far more than it appears

Precisely so, except that I expect voter suppression will go further - those on benefits including the disabled do not contribute, why should they have a say? Non-home owners have no real stake in a capitalist society, so ditto. The franchise at the next GE (and that is making a big assumption that there will be one) will be very far from universal.

[roubaixtuesday]

I think the danger of "authoritarian" government is suppressed ..........

I think the plan is very clear to deal with this:

Voter suppression will be achieved through demanding ID to vote
Media diversity will be quashed through the dismemberment of the BBC and the cowing of Channel 4
Executive power will be entrenched through changes to the constitution
Social media will be used to cover the truth in an avalanche of false propaganda
Uncooperative MPs in the governing party have already been purged.

These have all been alluded to or seen in this campaign, or are implied in the conservative manifesto, and follow examples from the Republicans in the US and Putin, Orban and other "populist" governments.

Johnson is very dangerous, far more than it appears

Precisely so, except that I expect voter suppression will go further - those on benefits including the disabled do not contribute, why should they have a say? Non-home owners have no real stake in a capitalist society, so ditto. The franchise at the next GE (and that is making a big assumption that there will be one) will be very far from universal.

I don't think it will be as explicit, but more subtle. just as Johnson can claim he's still subject to scrutiny as he answers questions on facebook. We shall see.