[Atlantis]

Proportional representation has the effect of taming the smaller parties. They are drawn into government and in doing so they must moderate their policies. Under FPTP, these smaller parties can remain as loose cannons, and can potentially blow everything up. Which is what UKIP managed to do, and what the SNP may still do. Lol.

Exactly, when small parties are allowed into parliament and/or government, they have to demonstrate that their policies are working. Failing to do so will result in them being kicked out. Depriving them of a place in national politics (like Ukip, which is represented in Brussels but not Westminster) will allow the movement to fester like an infected wound until it can no longer be ignored. That's what happened with Brexit and Trump. Both are now in the unfortunate position (for the nation) of having to demonstrate that their unworkable policies can be made to work.

Proportional representation teaches politicians the art of the compromise, which is needed to form coalition governments for the national good. There was a clear Remain majority in the last parliament, which was ineffective because it was split between Labour, Tories, SNP and LibDems. In the two-party system, falling back to third position means the death of the party. That's why Cameron called the referendum to prevent a Tory split and that's why Corbyn kept sitting on the fence until it was too late. The interest of the party is considered more important than the interest of the nation.

Since the two big parties have no interest in changing the system, the UK will be stuck with the two-party system and the fptp election system no matter how dysfunctional. The only solution is to break up the Union.

[Potemkin]

Exactly, when small parties are allowed into parliament and/or government, they have to demonstrate that their policies are working. Failing to do so will result in them being kicked out. Depriving them of a place in national politics (like Ukip, which is represented in Brussels but not Westminster) will allow the movement to fester like an infected wound until it can no longer be ignored. That's what happened with Brexit and Trump. Both are now in the unfortunate position (for the nation) of having to demonstrate that their unworkable policies can be made to work.

...or not be made to work. Lol.

Proportional representation teaches politicians the art of the compromise, which is needed to form coalition governments for the national good. There was a clear Remain majority in the last parliament, which was ineffective because it was split between Labour, Tories, SNP and LibDems. In the two-party system, falling back to third position means the death of the party. That's why Cameron called the referendum to prevent a Tory split and that's why Corbyn kept sitting on the fence until it was too late. The interest of the party is considered more important than the interest of the nation.

FPTP imposes a Darwinian struggle for survival on the political parties. To fall into third place is to become a zombie party, rather like the Lib Dems, and to fall into fourth place is to die. The parties must put their own interests before the interest of the nation. If they don't, they will go the way of the dodo. It doesn't matter how principled a party is if it doesn't exist any more.

Since the two big parties have no interest in changing the system, the UK will be stuck with the two-party system and the fptp election system no matter how dysfunctional. The only solution is to break up the Union.

Agreed. And that outcome is looking increasingly likely as time goes on....

[Rancid]

I don't understand why people still think there will be great economic upheaval.

Do you think the UK by itself will get a favorable trade deal against EU, against USA, against China?

[Patrickov]

Do you think the UK by itself will get a favorable trade deal against EU, against USA, against China?

I think it would be a yes for China's case. Many in Hong Kong see that China is risking economic collapse right now.

[snapdragon]

A favourable deal for them, but not us.

[skinster]

Sure, they'll have to get rid of Corbynism as fast as possible.

So that politics in the UK will remain like that in the U.S., with two rightwing parties? I would support the right within Labour heading over to The Tory party instead.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Proportional representation has the effect of taming the smaller parties. They are drawn into government and in doing so they must moderate their policies. Under FPTP, these smaller parties can remain as loose cannons, and can potentially blow everything up. Which is what UKIP managed to do, and what the SNP may still do. Lol.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. I think UKIP would have likely influenced a proportional system in the same way, that is, there would have been a referendum in the UK at some point. The issue was that large parts of the Tory base were euroskeptic and there was the impression, probably correct, that this wasn't going to go away anytime soon. Given that Cameron was quite confident that he could win the referendum, I don't see why he wouldn't have given UKIP or a similar party that might have arisen under PR a referendum in a potential coalition.

It's quite possible to marginalise smaller parties or the policies they represent in other voting systems, but while under other systems the party landscape might fracture, under FPTP at least some of the policies will usually eventually be picked up by the two major parties.

SNP isn't a small party, it's the dominant party within its territory.

It has 4% of the vote. How is that not small?

Obviously regionally dominant parties do well under FPTP.

Well, yes. You are making my point that the SNP is an exceedingly bad example to use for the purported irrelevance of small parties under FPTP.

It's unlikely the two major parties have adopted green policies because of the existence of the Green party, more likely because the mainstream has become greener.

My point is that under PR you probably get a Green Party, which will invariably be credited at least to some extent with the policy changes. Under FPTP the major parties often adopt policies that are or would have been those of small parties. Or in other words, to make my original point again, small parties (or small party issues) are not necessarily irrelevant. Is that not blatantly obvious?

With FPTP it's kind of irrational for voters to vote for small parties. Unless they really don't care for anything else or are simply protesting.

There's more focus on changing the trajectory of the two main parties under FPTP. Maybe that makes FPTP systems potentially more volatile in that the changes can be more dramatic as opposed to gradual. You could say that the Tory party has partially reinvented itself around Brexit, after deliberately marginalising its euroskeptic faction for a long time. These are rare events though, so I'm not sure if this works as a general rule.

Do you think the UK by itself will get a favorable trade deal against EU, against USA, against China?

Probably somewhat better than other mid sized countries, if it plays its cards right.

[Ter]

The MPs who sabotaged Brexit have by and large been voted out of office, but what about the others ?
Mrs Miller for instance, the business woman who went to court again and again to thwart Brexit, can she show herself anywhere again ?

[colliric]

I'm glad Brexit is finally cleared for lift off.

But to me the dirty tricks campaign run by certain groups against Corbyn was unnecessary and downright vitriolic. I'm disappointed he's going to be turfed as Labour leader since he was a genuine socialist.

[Beren]

So that politics in the UK will remain like that in the U.S., with two rightwing parties? I would support the right within Labour heading over to The Tory party instead.

Because the Tories don't have enough supporters yet and Labour don't need anyone they could get, huh?

You represent the bankruptcy of Corbynism pretty well, don't you?

Labour should be attractive to social liberals (and greens) too, otherwise they're fucked.


Source

[Nonsense]

Because the Tories don't have enough supporters yet and Labour don't need anyone they could get, huh?

You represent the bankruptcy of Corbynism pretty well, don't you?

Labour should be attractive to social liberals (and greens) too, otherwise they're fucked.


Source

I may well be in a minority in my view on this, but I believe that the election result is a rebuttal of 'social liberalism', along with what goes with it.

When the chips are down, IMHO, people will opt for a form of 'conservatism that is socially pro-active' politically.

l am against tax cuts for those on higher incomes, I'm also against malingerers who are physically fit, able to work, but choose not to, for those people, state benefits should be stopped altogether after being given a period of assistance to be placed in employment & they can then receive in-work benefits that make it worthwhile to work regardless of their family status.

BEVIN would turn in his grave were he alive to witness the abuse of our welfare system, whether that be benefits, tax avoidance, gender-bender operations on the N.H.S, unfettered migration, lack of personal,social responsibility, two-tier basic state pensions based on age, for which I am referring to people born before April 1951, who receive a much lower BSP than anyone retired that was born after that date.

BEVIN would never accept current Labour manifesto policies directed at fragmentary groups in society, such as the 'young', who don't need 'assistance', they have adequate opportunities in life, they need to grasp them & they need to discard their sense of 'entitlement' to which they are accustomed to.

Our society has the balance between 'Liberalism' - personal responsibility wrong, an attitude that determines you only get out of life, what you are prepared to put in is realistic, one shouldn't expect the state to be a crutch that supports one in every aspect of life.

CORBYN, along with Labour's manifesto, was a potentially massive state expansion in our lives, it wasn't 'radical' in any sense, the difference between Labour-Tories is fundamental & Labour do not possess the political tools to address the social-economic divisions in our society without scaring away potential voters.

I think that Brexit will bring about a new realism that will further change the state's relationship with it's people.

Harold WILSON once said, " The Labour Party is a crusade or it is nothing", he meant that revolutions were not the only way to change society, incremental changes were more effective, but that is only true if there is a continuous momentum for change.

Their current manifesto was simply rehashing old statist policies with 'bribes', for which the voters rightly sussed & rejected them.

[Rich]

I may well be in a minority in my view on this, but I believe that the election result is a rebuttal of 'social liberalism', along with what goes with it.

But the Conservatives are a social Liberal party these days, led by a social liberal leader. I doubt there will be much let up in the relentless homosexual - trans agenda.

[Potemkin]

I may well be in a minority in my view on this, but I believe that the election result is a rebuttal of 'social liberalism', along with what goes with it.

Rich is right, Nonsense. That boat sailed a long time ago. There may be a large chunk of the electorate who are socially conservative, but the ruling class and, more importantly, our political elite are thoroughly imbued with social liberalism. It's like a secular religion for them.

[Nonsense]

But the Conservatives are a social Liberal party these days, led by a social liberal leader. I doubt there will be much let up in the relentless homosexual - trans agenda.

I don't doubt that for a moment Rich.

This election being an exception in that I voted Tory, on the basis that they were respecting the referendum result, I have no intention in my life of voting again, least not for any party that accepts Liberalism & fosters it in this country.

[Nonsense]

The government are looking to reintroduce the W.A Bill in parliament on Friday for the First Reading, I don't know whether it will have the Second Reading introduced before the Christmas recess.
The first PMQ's should be interesting, I can see BoJo responding to SNP questions with a response to STURGEON's quote, that she "doesn't want JOHNSON or BREXIT", with a smile, saying, "Well, here we are, you now have both, happy Hogmanay", here's your present to go with it, "You will not have IndyRef 2", at least for 5 years, according to GOVE.

[Beren]

I believe that the election result is a rebuttal of 'social liberalism'

I really wonder whether how you've drawn that conclusion as the Lib Dems and the Greens, both of whom gained a lot of popular support, are social liberals, plus Johnson himself, a former London mayor, is a social liberal as well.

The first PMQ's should be interesting, I can see BoJo responding to SNP questions with a response to STURGEON's quote, that she "doesn't want JOHNSON or BREXIT", with a smile, saying, "Well, here we are, you now have both, happy Hogmanay", here's your present to go with it, "You will not have IndyRef 2", at least for 5 years, according to GOVE.

I'm 100% sure that Sturgeon is absolutely pleased with the election results, and it doesn't matter at all whether what any member of the Johnson cabinet happens to say regarding the issue at the moment.

[Istanbuller]

Proportional representation teaches politicians the art of the compromise, which is needed to form coalition governments for the national good.

Can you tell same things for Germany where coalition crumbles and political parties do not compromise?

Your underestimation of Britain and Britain's liberal democracy makes me smile most of time. British prime minister and ministers always have to face questions from opposition parties. They have something called Questions to Prime Minister. Everyone is free to express their opinions. This is something gold. You don't see this in most places.

[B0ycey]

The first PMQ's should be interesting, I can see BoJo responding to SNP questions with a response to STURGEON's quote, that she "doesn't want JOHNSON or BREXIT", with a smile, saying, "Well, here we are, you now have both, happy Hogmanay", here's your present to go with it, "You will not have IndyRef 2", at least for 5 years, according to GOVE.

The irony is those who want to leave the EU want to retain the Union. Why? The Scots and the English governments clearly have opposite agendas.

As for Sturgeon, I can't see why she would be happy with the result actually. Sure she has seats. But the SNP are by far the best party in the entire UK and still they could only gain 45% of the vote in Scotland. They should get 90% easily if policy was the defining factor. This suggests that Scotland doesn't want independence because that surely is the only reason why anyone up there voted for the other political joke parties. Plus another referendum would have been likely if the Tories were not in power and her party was the defining factor on who was PM.

Nonetheless if I was Johnson I would give her the damn referendum but with the insistance of Devo-Max on the paper. Not only do they deserve it because clearly they were lied to about EU membership, but Sturgeon is right about one thing. He cannot ignore this issue after Brexit.

[Atlantis]

Can you tell same things for Germany ...

That's exactly why I said what I said. The Federal Republic is all about the art of the compromise, just like the EU.

But you obviously wouldn't understand that because you keep on killing each other in the ME, or if you don't kill each other, you have to go into exile, if you don't agree with the powers-that-be.

[Nonsense]

The irony is those who want to leave the EU want to retain the Union. Why? The Scots and the English governments clearly have opposite agendas.

As for Sturgeon, I can't see why she would be happy with the result actually. Sure she has seats. But the SNP are by far the best party in the entire UK and still they could only gain 45% of the vote in Scotland. They should get 90% easily if policy was the defining factor. This suggests that Scotland doesn't want independence because that surely is the only reason why anyone up there voted for the other political joke parties. Plus another referendum would have been likely if the Tories were not in power and her party was the defining factor on who was PM.

Nonetheless if I was Johnson I would give her the damn referendum but with the insistance of Devo-Max on the paper. Not only do they deserve it because clearly they were lied to about EU membership, but Sturgeon is right about one thing. He cannot ignore this issue after Brexit.

It was accepted in 2014, that the Scottish Referendum would be a, 'once in a generation' event, from that viewpoint, the SNP won't get the referendum.

I think you are right about the people of Scotland not wanting independence, I think they know that the SNP were the tail wagging the Westminster dog, you simply don't get away with biting the hand that feeds you.

Why would the Conservative government 'reward' the SNP, when they had been so disruptive in the courts, or in Westminster over Brexit, 'one good turn deserves another', two can play that game, we can obstruct the SNP's objective until the cows come home.

We could also, as you say, let them have their referendum, but Westminster could say that the price would be too costly for Scotland, which would put the issue to bed for many a year to come, certainly for an indefinite period.

We could 'deconstruct' the Scottish economy the following day of them voting for their version of Brexit, we could stop immediately the Block Grant, we could instantly stop them using English courts to fight a case against us, merely by a show of MP's hands, we could stop any UK-Scottish trade, we could set up a border to stop any Scottish 'escapees' when they are starving & we could literally starve them into submission with no possibility of any talks to settle the issue.
In short, the tools available to Westminster are sufficient to quell any Scottish desire to break away from the settlement that binds us together & they are powerless to stop us.

Scotland has it's own particular form of devolution arising from the political settlement of 1707,just like the U.K leaving the E.U, Scotland would owe us some £270+ BILLION, for which they would need to finance that at some £10 BILLION+ per annum in interest alone & they would need to add proportionately, an amount to pay the U.K's debt to the E.U on our leaving.

Scotland's people would be begging for sheep dung were we to play hardball with them, there is no goodwill involved in the issue of what they owe us, their Brexit-Westminster antics have cost us £ BILLIONS more, we them them nothing, they owe us BIG TIME.

You are correct about both governments having different agendas on the union, the above demonstrates why the SNP are just playing politics, with no hope of a prosperous Scotland arising from the ashes of independence or a SNP power grab, reason will prevail when the Scottish people wake up & smell the coffee.