Okay, I have heard (read) you out. No, the public has not 'had enough of Tory infighting', they've had enough of the Tories. In fact, I detect that they have had enough of the entire political class. PR just means a new boss, who is the same as the old boss. I submit that something more radical is required if our country is to be saved from a dismal fate.
In response to the question whether Keir Starmer is clear on policy 68% of the electorate (per Yougov poll) think he is either fairly unclear, very unclear or don't know. Not a ringing endorsement.
The Tories have been utterly incompetent and have betrayed the people who repeatedly voted them in and have only remained in power because people are more terrified of what labour now represents.
In a recent YouGov poll only 39% of British population were in favour of taking any Palestinian refugees - at all. There is a real danger we are over complicating this.
People just want the Government to do something about migration without comment or fuss. They are much, much less interested in the media driven pyschodrama than politicians assume. Even nice middle class people will go along with it (breathing a sigh of relief) providing that they are not inconvenienced to be made to feel guilty about the issue.
40% of the 39% were in favour of taking a few thousand or less. Only 2% were in favour of taking 100,000s. Could the point be any clearer!
Whether left or right immigration is not at all popular, even amongst people who like to pretend they are all about multi cult. Incidentally, 76% were in favour of taking Ukranian refugees and in far higher numbers too. Another data point that I recall (and you will have to trust me on that one too) is that when you ask right wing americans how many would mind someone from a different race/culture living next door, you get only 5% saying they would mind in the slightest- which seems laughably untrue having been in America on a few occasions.
It's a little unfair to say Denmark’s Brexit pledge to look after its British citizens, is "an embarrassing contrast" to the position taken by Theresa May. Firstly, the article you link to is from July 2016, before any serious Article 50 discussions had been held and it was a rare instance of May actually trying to sound tough on Brexit. It didn't last long, as the Withdrawal Agreement sets reciprocal rights for each side.
More importantly though, there is simply no equivalence between the respective numbers. Denmark has about 18,000 British residents, who I'm pretty sure will almost all be nice, white middle-class professionals. The UK has a lobby group for EU citizens living there called "The 3 Million" - no further comment needed, except that the group rather understates itself, since it appears from a High Court judgment of December 2022 about the rules relating to the rights of EU citizens to remain that there were approximately 2.2 million merely in the category of "pre-settled status", i.e. those who did not yet have five years' residence necessary for full settled status. This disparity in numbers is one of the underlying causes of Brexit: the British had little interest in using their freedom of movement rights, but felt swamped by the numbers coming from the EU.
That is true, but many many people who had lived here for some time and were good friends and neighbours felt very unsure and there wasn’t afair much in the way of reassurance.
The point about the disparity is important now, which is why the ‘right to live and travel on the continent’ always ignored the fact that few Brits want to, and they tend to come from exclusive and privileged corners of society.
It may seem inexplicable why the Tories keep ignoring their base on migration but it’s less so if we have a closer look at the situation. There is an argument that the Tories have not really increased migration dramatically but are just measuring it more accurately and what increase there has been is driven by events outside of their control but also the demands of their supporters, which are often directly contradictory with reducing migration numbers.
Firstly, if you add the missing 3-3.5 million EU migrants which came out the wood work during the settlement scheme to the migration figures for the last 15 years or so, migration’s probably been running at around 400,000 to 500,000 net a year, not the 250,000 we were told about. Then add on top of this the Ukrainian refuges scheme, the offer of asylum to Hong Kong residents and deferrals and delays in migration caused by the pandemic and the 600,000 net figure isn’t so much a dramatic increase but more of a continuation of business as usual.
Now whist this wasn’t what voters requested, the pandemic also has caused a much higher demand for migration, in part due to the DWP signing off half a million workers on long term sick in a blind panic during it, but mainly the fact that the pandemic generated huge debts which need increased tax revenue to pay off and migration is the only source of growth available to them at the moment.
We need an honest conversation about migration but that would mean telling a population that didn’t have enough children since the 1970’s that to pay for the care of an aging population that not having kids brings about, taxes will have to be much higher and entitlements far lower if we are to afford less migration. Since we know that the conservative base won’t accept any of this, they always suggest the government cut a scheme worth a couple of billion annually and that would mean they can keep the several hundreds of billions in health, social care and welfare they receive every year, is it really so surprising that the conservatives say they want to bring down migration but never manage to do so?
yep that is all true. Sub-replacement fertility for 50 years means either continual high immigration or we take some immediate pain now but voters' children inherit their posterity
many voters will opt for the former a lot of the time. They want a big pool of labour for the service industry, for example.
I just dont think it's in the country's long term interests, nor is it what voters asked for in 2016 and 2019.
Healthcare could become far more reliant on British workers but that would involve reforming the NHS so we don't have a monopoly which pays below market rates (psychologically impossible for any political part)
I agree with you the that effects of mass immigration is destabilising on communities. Multi-ethnic democracies can often devolve into communal politics, where each group pursues its own interests, it’s not healthy.
I would much rather have lower immigration as well. I just don’t see how to achieve it considering the biggest block of voters that say they oppose it, actually are one of the main drivers for the need for more of it. Faced with contradictory demands the Conservatives chose to deliver the one they believe, rightly or wrongly, is more likely to win them an election.
I think the fertility point is spot on and follows because of the liberalising of sex which released men (mostly) from committed, long term monogamy. However, I think the idea that low skilled multi cultural immigration is increasing prosperity to be most unlikely. All places where there are large numbers of migrants are invariably poor with high levels of unemployment and net dependency and various levels of social dysfunction- with the limited amount that could be offered thereby being increasingly automatised out of existence.
Thatcher standing up to the unions and state interests from 1979 involved real risk. The unions had recently brought the country to its knees. Today’s Tories fold at the first sign of adverse comment in the BBC (however predictable) or a critical statement form Justin Welby. Surely nothing is more symptomatic of our general decline than this.
PR? The time has come for the Tory Party to split into two certainly - with conservatives (like Braverman) forming a new Conservative Party and the rest (the majority sadly) remaining as the Tory-Capitalism-Plus-Liberalism-With-a-Slight-Time-Delay Party. Short of PR they could cooperate as some sort of electoral alliance.
"Priti Patel and Suella Braverman have both managed the unusual feat of becoming pantomime villains to respectable middle-class opinion while presiding over record levels of immigration both of the official and unofficial variety" is MOST unfair comment. It seems to forget that the Home Office permanent staff comprises 100% Lefties determined to oppose anything that a conservative government might propose. And it forgets that great nice-but-soft-lefty British institution.... the BBC plus its commercial media satelites (full of media people who go to all the same parties in Hackney and Islington.) https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
Yes it was spot on. And it's depressing what a sneery reaction it got from our conservative-but-nicey-nicey commentariat in this country. She would have got a much fairer press in America or Australia.
I can't shake the sense that democratic representation is currently anything other than an aspiration. I've had zero say in appointing the last couple of governments. None. Zilch. And the PM of one was booted out by bond traders. So, yes. Any other rubbish system seems worth a try.
Yeah would be incredibly unpopular but paying MPs more seems logical (maybe in return for fewer).
I read in Adrian Woolridge's book that Victorian cabinet ministers were paid in today's money around £2 or £3m. It was clearly a far more prestigious job.
Yes I have thought about that as an idea. always welcome to suggestions. Imagine most would involve quite small tinkering. Although a bit part would be changing incentives.
Cabinet ministers may have paid huge salaries, but ordinary MPs were unpaid until 1911. The quality of Victorian government was, nonetheless, usually streets ahead of what we have now. I suppose that was a time when there was a real ethos of public service ethos.
I always thought the best way to get the best people is to either pay people a million pounds, or pay them nothing (but I appreciate that MPs cant be unpaid)
The British have many fine qualities but money envy isn’t one of them.
It holds us back
Topically money envy is one of the four causes of anti Semitism
‘Tesco CEO’s basic salary rose 1.7% to £1.4m. The chief executive's basic salary has risen another 3% this year. That means his total pay package in the year ahead, including his annual bonus, could reach up to £5m, with a further £3.9m in long-term bonuses lined up depending on his performance over the next three years.’
"Theresa May pioneered this negative triangulation, with her notorious ‘Go Home’ vans"
She was also responsible for the 'Windrush Scandal' where people who had settled here from Commonwealth countries, at a time when 'British' still meant anyone from the former colonies, were being asked to provide pay slips from 1973 to prove they'd been here that long.
Most right wing British people want much tougher immigration policies, but not unfair ones. They don't assume that anyone who isn't white is a candidate for deportation. They want people who are here illegally to be removed. Not allowed to stay but threatened by a 'hostile environment'.
Theresa May didn't understand this because she is fundamentally left wing. She basically had a Guardian columnists idea of what conservatives want. The sort of stuff a Tory in a David Hare play would come up with.
I agree something needs to change. Future historians will ponder for generations how Boris and the Tories blew a massive electoral majority. There was a moment where Labour could have split between the far lefts and social democrats; instead it’s the Tories who will end up like Lloyd George’s Liberals. It also means that conservative voices may never be heard again. At least with PR, there is a chance between shifting coalitions of smaller parties to prop up one or other in return for some moderating concessions. I think it might be worth trying, given the alternative and the obvious unfairness that parties can gain millions of votes and no seats.
I think it's basically the Cummings diagnosis that politicians mistake the Westminster simulacra for the reality of actually doing something quite dry and administrative like making sure immigration casework decisions happen quickly (something radical in this space would be a target of 90% of decisions in one month and then allocating expertise and resources accordingly). Basically you need to throw money at it upfront and probably start again with a completely new immigration casework department.
I also think they are literally scared of doing anything - almost like a collective psychology of incapability.
I read an interesting article a few weeks ago (sorry, I forget who by) which claimed that the Greens have managed to screw up Germany's energy supply despite getting no more than 16% of the vote, which is an indictment of PR. Though given that Merkel announced the Energiewende in 2011, and the Ukraine war had something to do with it, I have to say the conclusion is harsh on the Greens.
..."cosmopolitan liberals ....are egalitarian". No they're not; they just like the sound of the word. Egalitarianism is a great idea.... except that hardly anyone in the history of humanity has ever truly wanted it. Try suggesting to the leader of an egalitarian crusade "how's about you not be leader anymore... just an ordinary foot soldier?" and see what the reaction would be.
I absolutely agree with the base thesis that the realignment has happened but FPTP has meant that it hasn't been reflected in parliament. I used to be very against PR because I felt that the horse trading around coalitions almost always resulted in falling between two stools. An analogy would be the horrific slow motion car crash of Theresa May's Brexit 'negotiations'. We had a divided government not sure whether to be in or out and as a result, we've ended up with the worst of all worlds - we are in, with no divergence, but no ability to influence. I voted leave for a number of reasons, democratic deficit, 'change', a chance to make us more competitive globally - virtually none of what I hoped for has come to pass, and I don't blame Brexit itself for that, I blame our sclerotic state and its institutions.
I never joined the Conservative Party but I've been a fellow traveller for many years and I voted enthusiastically for what I hoped was the realignment in 2019. It's hard to express just how badly they have let me down. An 80 seat majority, and they have achieved literally nothing. Even despite covid. All the dials that I would hope to go in any direction have gone in the wrong direction.
I suspect there are many like me.
Last year I joined the SDP because almost everything they say chimes with me. They won't get anywhere in a general election in the absence of PR but if we had PR there is a chance they could make an impact.
The other unsaid part of the article is 'what PR'.
I'm originally from Northern Ireland and whilst the NI assembly has been a fairly unmitigated disaster, the system used (single transferable vote) is, I think, a pretty decent system for allowing for a broader range of views being represented whilst retaining an element of constituency belonging.
The irony is that the European elections used to provide a safety valve for people to share their vote around which led to changes in policy in the main parties (eg. Ukip and the Brexit party votes leading the the referendum and then actual Brexit), but with this gone and councils largely a mess, we're missing that opportunity for new parties like the SDP to establish themselves.
- small minority of ultra left metropolitan liberals who do not appreciate how unrepresentative they are and have vastly disproportionate influence in academia and elite culture
- fairly moderate majority which has lost cultural and intellectual influence and is steadily losing political influence. Doesn't know what to do about it
- small but growing number of ethnonationalist right-wing extremists
- large Muslim minority population
- many recently arrived immigrants (from Soviet Union, Eritrea and Sudan in Israel's case) who have not integrated very well and are often resented
At least that situation could never pertain in the UK ;)
Okay, I have heard (read) you out. No, the public has not 'had enough of Tory infighting', they've had enough of the Tories. In fact, I detect that they have had enough of the entire political class. PR just means a new boss, who is the same as the old boss. I submit that something more radical is required if our country is to be saved from a dismal fate.
In response to the question whether Keir Starmer is clear on policy 68% of the electorate (per Yougov poll) think he is either fairly unclear, very unclear or don't know. Not a ringing endorsement.
The Tories have been utterly incompetent and have betrayed the people who repeatedly voted them in and have only remained in power because people are more terrified of what labour now represents.
In a recent YouGov poll only 39% of British population were in favour of taking any Palestinian refugees - at all. There is a real danger we are over complicating this.
People just want the Government to do something about migration without comment or fuss. They are much, much less interested in the media driven pyschodrama than politicians assume. Even nice middle class people will go along with it (breathing a sigh of relief) providing that they are not inconvenienced to be made to feel guilty about the issue.
39% is higher than I suspected TBF.
40% of the 39% were in favour of taking a few thousand or less. Only 2% were in favour of taking 100,000s. Could the point be any clearer!
Whether left or right immigration is not at all popular, even amongst people who like to pretend they are all about multi cult. Incidentally, 76% were in favour of taking Ukranian refugees and in far higher numbers too. Another data point that I recall (and you will have to trust me on that one too) is that when you ask right wing americans how many would mind someone from a different race/culture living next door, you get only 5% saying they would mind in the slightest- which seems laughably untrue having been in America on a few occasions.
It's a little unfair to say Denmark’s Brexit pledge to look after its British citizens, is "an embarrassing contrast" to the position taken by Theresa May. Firstly, the article you link to is from July 2016, before any serious Article 50 discussions had been held and it was a rare instance of May actually trying to sound tough on Brexit. It didn't last long, as the Withdrawal Agreement sets reciprocal rights for each side.
More importantly though, there is simply no equivalence between the respective numbers. Denmark has about 18,000 British residents, who I'm pretty sure will almost all be nice, white middle-class professionals. The UK has a lobby group for EU citizens living there called "The 3 Million" - no further comment needed, except that the group rather understates itself, since it appears from a High Court judgment of December 2022 about the rules relating to the rights of EU citizens to remain that there were approximately 2.2 million merely in the category of "pre-settled status", i.e. those who did not yet have five years' residence necessary for full settled status. This disparity in numbers is one of the underlying causes of Brexit: the British had little interest in using their freedom of movement rights, but felt swamped by the numbers coming from the EU.
That is true, but many many people who had lived here for some time and were good friends and neighbours felt very unsure and there wasn’t afair much in the way of reassurance.
The point about the disparity is important now, which is why the ‘right to live and travel on the continent’ always ignored the fact that few Brits want to, and they tend to come from exclusive and privileged corners of society.
It may seem inexplicable why the Tories keep ignoring their base on migration but it’s less so if we have a closer look at the situation. There is an argument that the Tories have not really increased migration dramatically but are just measuring it more accurately and what increase there has been is driven by events outside of their control but also the demands of their supporters, which are often directly contradictory with reducing migration numbers.
Firstly, if you add the missing 3-3.5 million EU migrants which came out the wood work during the settlement scheme to the migration figures for the last 15 years or so, migration’s probably been running at around 400,000 to 500,000 net a year, not the 250,000 we were told about. Then add on top of this the Ukrainian refuges scheme, the offer of asylum to Hong Kong residents and deferrals and delays in migration caused by the pandemic and the 600,000 net figure isn’t so much a dramatic increase but more of a continuation of business as usual.
Now whist this wasn’t what voters requested, the pandemic also has caused a much higher demand for migration, in part due to the DWP signing off half a million workers on long term sick in a blind panic during it, but mainly the fact that the pandemic generated huge debts which need increased tax revenue to pay off and migration is the only source of growth available to them at the moment.
We need an honest conversation about migration but that would mean telling a population that didn’t have enough children since the 1970’s that to pay for the care of an aging population that not having kids brings about, taxes will have to be much higher and entitlements far lower if we are to afford less migration. Since we know that the conservative base won’t accept any of this, they always suggest the government cut a scheme worth a couple of billion annually and that would mean they can keep the several hundreds of billions in health, social care and welfare they receive every year, is it really so surprising that the conservatives say they want to bring down migration but never manage to do so?
yep that is all true. Sub-replacement fertility for 50 years means either continual high immigration or we take some immediate pain now but voters' children inherit their posterity
https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/immigration-and-the-cup-of-eternal
many voters will opt for the former a lot of the time. They want a big pool of labour for the service industry, for example.
I just dont think it's in the country's long term interests, nor is it what voters asked for in 2016 and 2019.
Healthcare could become far more reliant on British workers but that would involve reforming the NHS so we don't have a monopoly which pays below market rates (psychologically impossible for any political part)
I agree with you the that effects of mass immigration is destabilising on communities. Multi-ethnic democracies can often devolve into communal politics, where each group pursues its own interests, it’s not healthy.
I would much rather have lower immigration as well. I just don’t see how to achieve it considering the biggest block of voters that say they oppose it, actually are one of the main drivers for the need for more of it. Faced with contradictory demands the Conservatives chose to deliver the one they believe, rightly or wrongly, is more likely to win them an election.
I think the fertility point is spot on and follows because of the liberalising of sex which released men (mostly) from committed, long term monogamy. However, I think the idea that low skilled multi cultural immigration is increasing prosperity to be most unlikely. All places where there are large numbers of migrants are invariably poor with high levels of unemployment and net dependency and various levels of social dysfunction- with the limited amount that could be offered thereby being increasingly automatised out of existence.
Thatcher standing up to the unions and state interests from 1979 involved real risk. The unions had recently brought the country to its knees. Today’s Tories fold at the first sign of adverse comment in the BBC (however predictable) or a critical statement form Justin Welby. Surely nothing is more symptomatic of our general decline than this.
PR? The time has come for the Tory Party to split into two certainly - with conservatives (like Braverman) forming a new Conservative Party and the rest (the majority sadly) remaining as the Tory-Capitalism-Plus-Liberalism-With-a-Slight-Time-Delay Party. Short of PR they could cooperate as some sort of electoral alliance.
"Priti Patel and Suella Braverman have both managed the unusual feat of becoming pantomime villains to respectable middle-class opinion while presiding over record levels of immigration both of the official and unofficial variety" is MOST unfair comment. It seems to forget that the Home Office permanent staff comprises 100% Lefties determined to oppose anything that a conservative government might propose. And it forgets that great nice-but-soft-lefty British institution.... the BBC plus its commercial media satelites (full of media people who go to all the same parties in Hackney and Islington.) https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
I thought the Braverman letter was pretty good
Yes it was spot on. And it's depressing what a sneery reaction it got from our conservative-but-nicey-nicey commentariat in this country. She would have got a much fairer press in America or Australia.
I can't shake the sense that democratic representation is currently anything other than an aspiration. I've had zero say in appointing the last couple of governments. None. Zilch. And the PM of one was booted out by bond traders. So, yes. Any other rubbish system seems worth a try.
Very puzzling. Is there no place for selective immigration of folks who want to come work and become normie British?
The problem isn’t so much the electoral system per se as MPs remuneration.
£85k is a good wage for a brickie – but not an MP
As a result we get:
1) Already wealthy
2) Unqualified – career politicians, lawyers, no experience of ‘making anythings’ etc
3) Unsuitable – Nut jobs, criminals, power trippers etc
With a Missus and 2 kids; faced with a choice of £150k working at Tesco or £85k as an MP – not much of a choice
The honour of public service is not enough – again desperately naive
Pay £250,000 (no other incomes allowed) and we would soon be cooking on gas
Yeah would be incredibly unpopular but paying MPs more seems logical (maybe in return for fewer).
I read in Adrian Woolridge's book that Victorian cabinet ministers were paid in today's money around £2 or £3m. It was clearly a far more prestigious job.
You are a very constructive writer Ed
You should consider a piece on how we can practically transform our children’s fortunes
A recipe for effective governance
Presently we are in a Doom Loop of incompetence and consequent poor governance that is falling into authoritarianism
“Shut up and do as you are told!”
As opposed to argument, persuasion and consensus
PR on its own, would just be inviting in more incompetence – eg the German Greens have utterly destroyed their prosperity
So what’s to do?
As with a school; a poor head master usually means a poor school
So all we have to do is improve the quality of our wannabe leaders and we stand a chance
To get the ball rolling:
1) Pay MPs generously
I have found if you have a good argument and take the trouble to explain it – people will accept that.
Not the ideologues, but they are in the minority.
Envy is not admirable.
2) Allow the Cabinet High Offices to be appointed by the Prime Minister
Expecting to get the best person to be running UK health from the talent pool of MPs is absurd
The Cameron appointment - in isolation - refreshing
Bypass the need for experience and ability to have to be elected
Yes I have thought about that as an idea. always welcome to suggestions. Imagine most would involve quite small tinkering. Although a bit part would be changing incentives.
Cabinet ministers may have paid huge salaries, but ordinary MPs were unpaid until 1911. The quality of Victorian government was, nonetheless, usually streets ahead of what we have now. I suppose that was a time when there was a real ethos of public service ethos.
I always thought the best way to get the best people is to either pay people a million pounds, or pay them nothing (but I appreciate that MPs cant be unpaid)
We aren’t very good at explaining things
If you are more confident and take the trouble to formulate an argument for why paying MPs £85k leads to ever declining circles
They are able to move beyond their ‘money envy’ and accept this is sensible.
The weak, wet and woke just collapse in the face of pushback
Especially if aggressive
The British have many fine qualities but money envy isn’t one of them.
It holds us back
Topically money envy is one of the four causes of anti Semitism
‘Tesco CEO’s basic salary rose 1.7% to £1.4m. The chief executive's basic salary has risen another 3% this year. That means his total pay package in the year ahead, including his annual bonus, could reach up to £5m, with a further £3.9m in long-term bonuses lined up depending on his performance over the next three years.’
"Theresa May pioneered this negative triangulation, with her notorious ‘Go Home’ vans"
She was also responsible for the 'Windrush Scandal' where people who had settled here from Commonwealth countries, at a time when 'British' still meant anyone from the former colonies, were being asked to provide pay slips from 1973 to prove they'd been here that long.
Most right wing British people want much tougher immigration policies, but not unfair ones. They don't assume that anyone who isn't white is a candidate for deportation. They want people who are here illegally to be removed. Not allowed to stay but threatened by a 'hostile environment'.
Theresa May didn't understand this because she is fundamentally left wing. She basically had a Guardian columnists idea of what conservatives want. The sort of stuff a Tory in a David Hare play would come up with.
I agree something needs to change. Future historians will ponder for generations how Boris and the Tories blew a massive electoral majority. There was a moment where Labour could have split between the far lefts and social democrats; instead it’s the Tories who will end up like Lloyd George’s Liberals. It also means that conservative voices may never be heard again. At least with PR, there is a chance between shifting coalitions of smaller parties to prop up one or other in return for some moderating concessions. I think it might be worth trying, given the alternative and the obvious unfairness that parties can gain millions of votes and no seats.
I think it's basically the Cummings diagnosis that politicians mistake the Westminster simulacra for the reality of actually doing something quite dry and administrative like making sure immigration casework decisions happen quickly (something radical in this space would be a target of 90% of decisions in one month and then allocating expertise and resources accordingly). Basically you need to throw money at it upfront and probably start again with a completely new immigration casework department.
I also think they are literally scared of doing anything - almost like a collective psychology of incapability.
I read an interesting article a few weeks ago (sorry, I forget who by) which claimed that the Greens have managed to screw up Germany's energy supply despite getting no more than 16% of the vote, which is an indictment of PR. Though given that Merkel announced the Energiewende in 2011, and the Ukraine war had something to do with it, I have to say the conclusion is harsh on the Greens.
..."cosmopolitan liberals ....are egalitarian". No they're not; they just like the sound of the word. Egalitarianism is a great idea.... except that hardly anyone in the history of humanity has ever truly wanted it. Try suggesting to the leader of an egalitarian crusade "how's about you not be leader anymore... just an ordinary foot soldier?" and see what the reaction would be.
This was a very interesting read.
I absolutely agree with the base thesis that the realignment has happened but FPTP has meant that it hasn't been reflected in parliament. I used to be very against PR because I felt that the horse trading around coalitions almost always resulted in falling between two stools. An analogy would be the horrific slow motion car crash of Theresa May's Brexit 'negotiations'. We had a divided government not sure whether to be in or out and as a result, we've ended up with the worst of all worlds - we are in, with no divergence, but no ability to influence. I voted leave for a number of reasons, democratic deficit, 'change', a chance to make us more competitive globally - virtually none of what I hoped for has come to pass, and I don't blame Brexit itself for that, I blame our sclerotic state and its institutions.
I never joined the Conservative Party but I've been a fellow traveller for many years and I voted enthusiastically for what I hoped was the realignment in 2019. It's hard to express just how badly they have let me down. An 80 seat majority, and they have achieved literally nothing. Even despite covid. All the dials that I would hope to go in any direction have gone in the wrong direction.
I suspect there are many like me.
Last year I joined the SDP because almost everything they say chimes with me. They won't get anywhere in a general election in the absence of PR but if we had PR there is a chance they could make an impact.
The other unsaid part of the article is 'what PR'.
I'm originally from Northern Ireland and whilst the NI assembly has been a fairly unmitigated disaster, the system used (single transferable vote) is, I think, a pretty decent system for allowing for a broader range of views being represented whilst retaining an element of constituency belonging.
The irony is that the European elections used to provide a safety valve for people to share their vote around which led to changes in policy in the main parties (eg. Ukip and the Brexit party votes leading the the referendum and then actual Brexit), but with this gone and councils largely a mess, we're missing that opportunity for new parties like the SDP to establish themselves.
Nevermind Denmark, one look at Israeli politics should be enough to put anyone off PR
Not the ideal situation for that country TBF
Yep, especially as Israel has:
- small minority of ultra left metropolitan liberals who do not appreciate how unrepresentative they are and have vastly disproportionate influence in academia and elite culture
- fairly moderate majority which has lost cultural and intellectual influence and is steadily losing political influence. Doesn't know what to do about it
- small but growing number of ethnonationalist right-wing extremists
- large Muslim minority population
- many recently arrived immigrants (from Soviet Union, Eritrea and Sudan in Israel's case) who have not integrated very well and are often resented
At least that situation could never pertain in the UK ;)
One reason I lost interest in I/P is the PR system seems to make it much harder for Israel to compromise in a way that seems fair to the Palestinians.
But anyway, I should avoid dragging the conversation to that area.