I don't know if anyone else is having trouble commenting via Disqus on the Spectator website, but I've made about seventeen attempts to post a response to someone called Sue Ward, without success. Just to get it out of my system, I'll post it here instead.
From Fraser Nelson's article : "the people on the streets yesterday were, in effect, protesting against the British public’s choice."
Me : Rubbish. The absolute most you could claim is that they were protesting against the choice made by a mere 37% of the electorate.
Sue Ward : At least they got a higher percentage of the vote than Labour this time OR LAST TIME. Public voted against getting rid of FPTP preferring the democratic system that has served us well for decades and was never considered a problem by the left when it put them in power. This is our democracy so stop being a sore loser.
Me (what I would have said if Disqus had let me post) : I'm sorry, Sue, but as you know perfectly well, that is completely untrue. The public did not "vote against getting rid of FPTP" - they voted against adopting AV, which is a majoritarian system that would have produced an even bigger Tory majority on just 37% of the vote. If anything, the public voted for the marginally more proportional of the two non-proportional systems on offer, but that doesn't mean FPTP is good enough for them. As you'll doubtless recall, the No2AV campaign even had a section on their website entitled "Yes to PR, No to AV".
I'm afraid trying to rewrite history now simply isn't going to wash. If the Tories had wanted to defeat PR, they should have put it on the ballot paper and made the case against it.
Choosing AV was definitely up there as one of the most jawdroppingly stupid of the many, many idiotic and counterproductive strategic blunders calamity Clegg and lib dem HQ made.
ReplyDeletePR would have been an entirely different kettle of fish.
PR not only would have changed a great many people's minds from the offset but it would have been campaigned for vigorously by those who were far from convinced AV was anything other than a "miserable little compromise" and simply not worth the effort.
I voted Yes in that referendum, but purely to record my desire for change. I was well aware that if we'd got AV it would itself have had to be replaced in fairly short order. I just felt that getting the concept that the electoral system was something we could change into the public consciousness was worth it.
DeleteYou're right though, it was a complete car crash. And no doubt contributed to the death of the LibDems. Every cloud, and all that....
PR would have produced a tory-UKIP coalition with confidence and supply from the liberals. A rerun of the con-dem coalition, only a lot more Eurosceptic than either the previous government or the present one. Austerity would still have been a thing.
ReplyDeleteTory + UKIP = 49.5%. Might just about have translated into a majority of seats under PR, but whether it would have resulted in a stable or workable coalition is another matter. There's no way the Liberal Democrats would have gone into a confidence-and-supply arrangement with a government including UKIP ministers.
Delete"PR would have produced a tory-UKIP coalition with confidence and supply from the liberals"
DeleteConsidering that the tory party is only just warming up for the inevitable split, chaos and civil war over their party being pro or anti Europe/IN or OUT, adding the kippers to the mix would have been truly hilarious.
Stable? Not in a million years. Very funny? Undoubtedly. :-D
Would the NI unionist parties have tipped it over 50%? If so, no need for lib dem support.
DeleteIf not, then I suspect the lib dems would have attempted to form a coalition or C&S with the largest party. An alliance including UKIP would have involved some compromise from UKIP as well so I think the lib dems would have approached the situation calmly and rationally and with an open mind - as they did in 2010.
The alternative would be propping up a divided, unstable and minority leftwing bloc including separatists. Something tells me that option would be ditched fairly quickly.
Anyway, all a moot point. We don't have PR.
Oh good. The voice of the Daily Mail is back. :-D
Delete"I think the lib dems would have approached the situation calmly and rationally and with an open mind - as they did in 2010."
Do you indeed?
Well let's just check and see.
Nope. Calamity Clegg ruled out any coalition involving the tories and the kippers before the election just like with us and Labour.
As for a tory praising calamity Clegg to the skies for basically destroying his own party in exchange for a nice ministerial car, a chance to feel important and keeping the tories in power, well, that IS a surprise.
*chortle*
Let's just check with the voting public to see whether they thought it was rational, calm and open minded or indeed just a bunch of unprincipled yellow tories who would do anything for a sniff of power.
+looks at lib dem result for May+
Oh MY! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Doesn't appear to have gone down too well with the voters, does it? In fact you would have to be completely blind to somehow not notice the lib dems have been utterly annihilated and made to pay the heaviest of prices for their unprincipled yellow tory stupidity.
But I'll leave the last word on this to William Hague oddly enough since he more than any other outlined precisely how big a fool the lib dems were made of under the staggeringly useless calamity Clegg and his ostrich faction.
"On evening the Tories & Lib Dems signed their coalition deal, William Hague told his wife Ffion: "I think I've just destroyed the Liberals."
Which is the entire point.
We certainly knew Clegg's stupidity had destroyed them. Even some in Labour knew it. Cameron and his team self-evidently knew it. The only person who somehow didn't appear to know it was calamity Clegg and that was with Charles Kennedy telling him to his face that the coalition would destroy them.
Something tells me that whoever takes on the lib dem poisoned chalice (after they finish with their usual dirty tricks) won't be all that keen to be seen as the tories poodles while they spend the next two elections or more slowly trying to rebuild their smashed party.
I'm well aware the lib dems suffered electorally for their decision in 2010. It was partly their own fault for presenting themselves as leftists rather than centrist, pragmatist types - able to reach out and do deals with either side for the good of the country.
DeleteAnd make no mistake - in 2010 our country needed a strong, stable, fiscally prudent government able to take tough decisions. Had Clegg gone for the leftwing rainbow coalition, they country would have been sunk economically. Leave the tories on their own with no majority - same result. What he did was necessary for the country - even if people don't realise it at the moment.
Daily Mail - 99000 circulation.
The National - 15000 (oh dear!)
@Aldo
DeleteI have been reading your posts, but have not commented on them up till now. The reason is because I thought they were almost completely bereft of any sign of intelligence, and basic thought whatsoever. Your posts are the equivalent of the 'my dad is harder/tougher/stronger than your dad' mentality that early primary school boys used to deploy.
However, you have now reached another low altogether. You are boasting about the atrocious and toxic Daily Mail having more readers than a pro-independence daily newspaper, which has only existed since late last year. What exactly are you trying to achieve pedalling this garbage?
"in 2010 our country needed a strong, stable, fiscally prudent government able to take tough decisions. "
DeleteBut instead they got Osbrowne who, lest we forget, pledged to match Labour's spending plans before the 2010 election and the crash. (because it was SO obvious Labour were profligate spenders apparently) Then he rocketed the kippers up from their miniscule 3.1% in 2010 with his hilarious omnishambles budget.
"Had Clegg gone for the leftwing rainbow coalition, they country would have been sunk economically."
Bullshit. Both Clegg and Cable postured on following Labour's economic plans (delaying austerity for growth) before the 2010 election. So had the result been slightly different with some more Labour MPs then you can be 100% certain that is precisely what they would have done in a LibLab coalition.
All of the "there was no alternative" "economic apocalypse" nonsense is merely after the fact justification that doesn't stand up to a second's scrutiny had the result been different. What on earth did you think calamity Clegg and Cameron were going to say? The truth??
"Yeah, we gave the lib dems a few busywork ministerial jobs, told them to drop the anti-austerity stuff and left Osbrowne in charge because they want a sniff of power that badly."
Nah, wouldn't have gone down too well with the lib dem members now, would it?
"What he did was necessary for the country - even if people don't realise it at the moment."
Sounds suspiciously like Blairite style whining to me.
You remember? When the tories were dumb enough to support the catastrophic Iraq invasion because they just weren't bright enough to realise they were being lied to. Then Blair claimed history would remember him more kindly. Should we just have a quick check on just how splendidly things are gong in Iraq after all this time and just how right Blair was? I think we all know the answer to that one by now.
"Daily Mail - 99000 circulation."
Down from 115,000 in 2010. (Oh dear indeed!) How far down will it get by 2020 I wonder. :-)
But even if it wasn't yet another failing tabloid with a dropping circulation (being made ever more obsolete by mobile technology) it would still be one of the most amusingly dumb and reactionary pieces of shit ever to pass itself for a newspaper.
TV choice has a circ. of about 1.2 million a week. So that must mean it's a literary powerhouse going by your 'logic'.
And before you start whining about the Mail Online you might want to learn what a sidebar of shame is, who Martin Clarke is, why Facebook could destroy them if it redesignates some of their tat away from actual news, and why having a massive internet readership didn't stop the Guardian losing buckets of cash and won't save the Mail since internet ad revenue is so small and daily running costs so huge. Paywalls are the most common newspaper internet strategy for a reason.
Muttley - it is easy to call someone stupid (a bit like the 'my dad is bigger than yours' sort of thing you accuse me of, in fact!)
DeleteGive specific quotes and explain why it's stupid and I'll respond. Otherwise I'll dismiss you as just another butthurt yesser who disagrees with the fundamentals of free speech.
Pork - we were overspending by 150 billion pounds a year. It could not continue. Simple as that. After every period of profligacy comes a period of belt tightening - and the inevitable spoilt brats protesting and shouting about it. Your SNP has given them a voice - but the message is wrong headed. You must live within your means.
Big rant about the Mail there. I'm somewhat bemused. If you don't like it, don't buy/view it. If they tell blatant lies ad infinitum then eventually they'll run foul of the law or get their arses sued off. I don't really see this happening though.
"The reason is because I thought they were almost completely bereft of any sign of intelligence, and basic thought whatsoever. "
DeleteJames will be having flashbacks to some of Stormfront Lite's 'finest'. It's definitely up there since we've had barking mad references to putting Nicola in Jail, hangings, treason, trots, anarchists, insurrection, brute force and a great deal of spanking.
It's like peering directly into Paul Dacre's very soul. :-D
"Pork - we were overspending by 150 billion pounds a year. It could not continue. Simple as that."
DeleteTell it to this amusingly hypocritical spoilt brat, not me.
Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
He pledged two years of 2% increases. The final year total would be reviewed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
Aldo: Are you saying economists in the below article are wrong? Do you understand things better than them?
DeleteAusterity: SNP are right and the rest are wrong says top economist
AN award-winning economist has attacked the austerity policies adopted by Labour and the Tories as “naive” and likened them to a kindergarten understanding of economics. At the same time Professor Steve Keen – one of the few economists to have predicted the financial meltdown – praised the SNP and the Greens...
I agree Westminster is really poor at managing the finances of the country like you say. It's one of the reasons I back indy.
Not sure why that link didn't work:
Deletehttps://archive.is/Q3mZ4
James, am I allowed to say on here that this Aldo character is an utter buffoon and dolt? I try not to be personally abusive on the internet, but I am not a saint.
DeleteEverything British in Scotland has been either shut down or flogged off by the Tories. British Rail no more... British Steel no more... British Coal no more... Royal Mail no more... And folk wonder why Scotland has slowly become increasingly less British. Peak British identity occurs in those born in 1944 (hence the over 65's still back the union - just); been on a slippery slope since, with this accelerating in those who grew up under Thatcher. Young today are the least British of any generation; over 70% 'Scottish only' in the 2011 census. Of course that's all down to the Tories ripping the British out of Scotland, literally.
DeleteWe really only have one British thing left in Scotland; what remains of the welfare state.
Dave is busy getting rid of this to ensure there's nothing worth being British for.
Beats me why someone who supports the union would think that a clever idea.
@Scottish Skier
DeleteAldo: Are you saying economists in the below article are wrong? Do you understand things better than them?
I think we all know the answer to that question! :D
@Aldo
DeleteMuttley - it is easy to call someone stupid (a bit like the 'my dad is bigger than yours' sort of thing you accuse me of, in fact!)
Give specific quotes and explain why it's stupid and I'll respond. Otherwise I'll dismiss you as just another butthurt yesser who disagrees with the fundamentals of free speech.
You were boasting about that horrible, odious rag, the Daily Mail, having a bigger circulation than the National. If you cannot see how idiotic and inane boasts like that are then that is your problem.
It's sort of poignant that the SNP now have an MP for every year of the Tory decline in Scotland.
DeleteThe Scottish Tories - in decline since '59!
Catchy. I like the 1979 version, but 1959 is more accurate.
I’m aware the tories matched labour’s spending pledges. They did so in 2006, before the financial crash.
DeleteAsk yourself this – if you’re spending / borrowing too much and the public finances require painful rebalancing, who do you trust to do it? The conservatives / a conservative led government or a left wing rainbow coalition held to ransom by some extreme characters and small parties? That was the option in 2010. The lib dems could back a fiscally prudent conservative led government or an unstable coalition held to ransom by the unions and the extreme left (keep in mind that labour + libdems would not have had a majority in 2010).
You found an economist who backs the Greens and SNP? He must enjoy the banter with his peers....
Just a little on the conservative economic record:
A growing economy.
Falling unemployment.
Deficit halved.
Inflation almost zero.
Cheap borrowing rates for the government.
Most people in employment ever.
Welfarism tackled head on – increasing the number of productive, tax paying people and reducing the cost to the state of unnecessary benefits.
If I think of a few more, I’ll be sure to add them!
Muttley, you need to chill out! Pork bangs on endlessly about the Daily Mail for some odd reason. I just thought it appropriate to point out its sales figures relative to the national. The comment was supposed to wind up people like yourself. It succeeded beautifully.
Aldo
This Daily Mail simpleton Aldo just doesn't get it does he?
DeleteHey, shit for brains, the tories and Osbrowne didn't claim Labour were overspending JUST for the years after the crash, they claimed they were overspending period. Yet Osbrowne's own words and deeds in pledging to match Labour's spending show that he is as full of shit as you are since that spending level was either appropriate or not. Before and after the crash.
You can't just whine "but, but, but, Gideon didn't know about the cwash!!" then blame the crash and state of the economy on the very same spending levels the incompetent twit pledged to match.
LOL
It's about as convincing as your half-baked spin lines and CCHQ propaganda on the economy. Particularly when all it amounts to the usual wildly out of touch 'you've never had it so good' bullshit from a bunch of overpriviliged public school twits.
If everything is just peachy then why was it the tories only just scraped a tiny majority (less seats than John Major) against one of the worst Labour leaders on record while droves of tory voters are back to being far too ashamed to even admit they are voting tory to the pollsters? (again, just like under John Major) Hmmm? Strange too that Osbrowne missed his own targets and is back to relying on overheating house prices in London and the South. Recent history teaches us nothing can possibly go wrong with that 'strategy' can it?
We all realise you have the usual attention span of a Daily Mail reader but don't start blubbering and shrieking like a child when someone demonstrates a far greater knowledge on a subject (like the press) than your tabloid fed ignorance.
Why not go ask your nurse for some more meds while you are looking for those 75,000 trots and anarchists you hilariously claimed to have joined the SNP in one of your many barking mad posts/episodes.
Wow - such hatred!
DeleteThe choice faced by the British people was one of prudence and stability vs the "coalition of chaos" - a bit like the choice incidentally that the libdems faced back in 2010 post election. They made the sensible decision.
A tory majority is a HUGE feat of achievement! Everyone reckoned it to be impossible. The boundaries weren't in their favour. The distribution of their vote wasn't in their favour. They hadn't been elected since '92 and they'd just imposed 5 years of austerity on the British people. No one expected them to win - but they did. A majority of 16. If you'd told a pollster that two months ago they would have laughed in your face.
The tories pledged to match labour's spending from opposition. The opposition does not have access to the same degree of economic data that the government does. Had they been in power, with access to the books, they might've had different ideas. Incidentally, had they been in power in '98 they wouldn't have transfered banking oversight to the FSA. So the crash may not have impacted on the UK to the same degree. We'll never know. What we do know is that we need economically conservative government NOW to get us out of the mess we are in - as opposed to a big coalition of squabbling lefties trying to out stupid each other. Wouldn't you agree?
No - of course you wouldn't.
Once again, you mention the Mail. You are truly obsessed. Did they sack you for not cleaning the lavvies properly?
As I expected, no response to the economic improvements I posted - except a class hatred driven jibe. There's about a million more people in work. Surely worth some praise, no? Or do the SNP only admire benefit monkeys?
"The comment was supposed to wind up people like yourself."
DeleteWow -such hatred!! etc. you clueless, bumptious hypocrite.
"A tory majority is a HUGE feat of achievement"
I well remember witless Daily Mail types like yourself trying to convince themselves of that just after Major's narrow win. Didn't last very long, did it? Oh how we all laughed at the tory party tearing themselves to pieces over Europe. Not quite as much as we will this time though. :-)
" The opposition does not have access to the same degree of economic data that the government does."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Is that seriously the best you can do? We were too stupid to have a fucking clue what the economy was like so we promised to match Labour's spending anyway? Yeah, that sounds SO much better.
" So the crash may not have impacted on the UK to the same degree."
Good luck convincing anyone that the tories would have been far stricter on the banks regardless of the framework they chose.
"as opposed to a big coalition of squabbling lefties trying to out stupid each other"
How DID Lords Reform and Boundary Changes go incidently? As well as the Ominshambles budget or Lansley's fuckwitted and botched 'reforms'?
ROFL
"Once again, you mention the Mail."
You're the one who admitted to reading it while trying to defend them. Don't blame me if your low IQ tabloid pish sounds precisely with like someone with their head stuck up Paul Dacre's arse.
"class hatred "
Oh good christ. Who will save those poor downtrodden Bullingdon boys from mockery! Help, help, they're being oppressed!!
*chortle*
The only monkey on here is yourself throwing your own tabloid shit about while the rest of us laugh at your comical out of touch antics.
Do yourself a favour and try reading up on scottish politics (not in your tabloid of choice the Mail obviously) before making another fool of yourself ranting like a deranged lunatic about 75,000 trots and anarchists joining the SNP.
My impression is that most people believe we voted against PR in 2011. It's a blind spot for many otherwise politically aware folk.
ReplyDeleteJames, I have found that Disqus picks up all my comments made to different sites. But I have found it doesn't always pass comments written on the Disqus site back to the original site. So I use Disqus to find replies to my comments then use "view in discussion" to go back to the source to reply.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, it's hellish funny to reply to people howling about the way the FPTP system handed the SNP 95% of the seats on 50% of the votes, saying, well you had a referendum about that and you lost, get over it.
ReplyDelete@Rolfe
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that some prefer a system that they can spin, whatever the weather. To them the little political battles are more important than peoples' lives. I refer primarily to politicians and activists, but trolls too.
So when does the Brit Nat campaign begin in earnest to change the Holyrood voting system?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to PR or any alleged form of it then the Brit Establishment will want the one that dishes out the most theoretical damage to the bad, wicked evil Scot Nats.
I was so disgusted by the back stabbing Liberals going to coalition with the Tories that in 2011 that I voted No to what was a repellent voting system to me. That doesn't mean I approve of the FPTP system though which I also find equally repellent.
Ironically, if the AV thing had gone through, the SNP might not have won so many seats as it would have facilitated the #SNPout strategy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand we might have got rid of Mundell if enough Labour and those pesky Greens had put SNP as their second choice.
The many voices within Labour arguing for a shift back to the right of centre (on the grounds that, as Blair or D Miliband put it, in a classic left vs right electoral battle the right always wins) is entirely predicated on the continuation of FPTP. FPTP both makes it very hard for parties with distinctive, clearly marked ideological territory either on the left or the right to have significant representation, it also gives all the power to a set of electors (the suburban/commuter belt lower-middle to middle classes in the swing seats) most likely to be won over by some version of a 'pragmatic', 'modern', anti-state, pro-'reform' ideology like Thatcherism or later Blairism. In polities with some version of PR a far broader range of opinion is heard in parliament and governments are forced to have a far wider base of support.
ReplyDeleteWith PR, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall would no longer feel the need to remain in the same party, and Labour could conceivably win without constantly having to remind us of how it values 'aspiration'.
If only Blair or Brown had had the foresight to bring in PR when they were strong, their party would not be in such a parlous state now.