Big protest/march in Brixton about it on Saturday.
Sky News managed to label it as something to do with the Queen, which went down as well as you’d expect 
We always used to hold up FPTP as a great way to actually get a majority, so things would get done, and criticize Italy for having weak minority governments that failed after a couple of years. I’m not sure that this argument works that well nowadays.
3 Likes
I can understand that point of view and it sounds reasonable and practical.
However, with the US and UK as an example, I think it leads to a two party system between have’s and have not’s. And the political spectrum seems to move to the right and towards populism.
It’s not that PR is perfect, nor that Italy should be a standard example of PR.
It seems that in the UK a coalition is a no go, but most European countries with PR have coalitions that seem to serve the electorate better imo than in the UK (but still not perfect, mind 
)
1 Like
They’re rare, but we had one from 11.5.2010 to 8.5.2015 - five years. It was such a ‘success’ that in the next election the voters went back to a single party government, apparently to the surprise of that party !
1 Like
Coalitions should go with compromises, for both parties involved to create a win-win, in terms of winners take some of all, instead of nothing at all. Can’t remember the details about that period with Nick Clegg though, as I wasn’t too much in UK politics then.
But even without coalitions, voting support is sometimes needed, like the case of the DUP supporting the Conservatives. It seems that in spite of that, they still got duped afterwards. Although I do not agree with their positions, I can understand this will cause a certain reluctance to forming coalitions or alliances with other parties.
Coalitions requires trust and respect, something severely lacking in UK politics and notably in the senior ranks of the Tory party. Our adversarial style of politics would always tend to make it difficult (the exceptions being when all sides have a common enemy) but these days, it seems that scoring points or just not-doing-what-they-said is more important than anything.
The politicians here struggle with compromise. They might well see coalition as lose-lose.
They campaign with a written party manifesto and failing to deliver your manifesto promises simply hands free ammunition to your opponents at the next election. It’s also difficult accepting your opponents’ policies if you’ve just spent a month being very rude about those policies in the media.
It’s been suggested, of course, that the 2010-2015 coalition caused the Tories to promise an EU referendum in their 2015 manifesto because they expected the coalition to continue. ‘When’ that happened they would be able to break the referendum promise, claiming that their partners wouldn’t allow it. Of course the Tories won a majority and were then forced to deliver on their promise. And the rest is history …
Oops. Sounds like small cause, large consequences.
I understand this.
However, I can’t accept your argument. Not because I disagree, but because I fail to see that statement come true in reality.
I mean, proclaiming law & order while reducing the police force, no full HS2, no levelling up, no new hospitals, no whatever, leads to an 80 seat majority?
(Sidenote 1:
that manifesto has a Moa-esque taste to me, especially if it is one from the Conservatives I find that quite funny.
Sidenote 2:
the Con party still has the faux promises from that previous 2019 PM. Putting money where they cut expenditures before.
Our Plan)
I was careful not to argue ‘failing to deliver your manifesto promises means you’ll lose the next election’.
It hands ammunition to your opponents (sometimes the ones in your own party !). But if your opponents don’t use that ammunition, or if they’re unelectable anyway, or if you change your leader and blame the failure on the outgoing one, then you can still win.
Hats off, well formulated. Sounds like (sound) higher politics. 
And… It’s happened. Under cover of the sad news of HRH passing, last Thursday the Tories announced a lift on the fracking ban.
Liked this one from the US.
6 Likes
It could help solve the energy problem.
People will be able to turn the tap on, set fire to the water and keep warm.
3 Likes
You’re assuming there will still be running water
Oh good, another self absorbed completely unaware grammar nazi 
.
And this one’s going to save the NHS. By being a grammar nazi…
4 Likes
Jeez, Thereez as grammar nazi should be more worried about English people knowing what the French ‘accent grave’ stands for. Like, pronounce similar to ‘ther-ass’.
(Funny and morbid that the name of the accent means a rest place for dead people in English.)
However, on the Oxford comma I agree with her as long as it is related to Conservatives. See the example in the article:
This sentence, for example:
“At the government’s circus-themed party, I struck up a conversation with the clowns, Suella Braverman and Nadine Dorries,”
which does not have an Oxford comma,
has a different meaning to:
“At the government’s circus-themed party, I struck up a conversation with the clowns, Suella Braverman, and Nadine Dorries.”
No Oxford comma needed.
QED
2 Likes
FFS say IFS
I’m sure that’s just a mistake, there’s no way the tories would implement something to benefit the middle classes above lower income groups.
1 Like