When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[najaB]

In the times when there has been a Labour Party government with the referred-to clear majority, did they make any movements in terms of any reform to the present electoral system?

They didn't. Phil Moorhouse made a video recently explaining why:

The long and short of it is that big Labour wins removed the incentive for them to introduce electoral reforms since they didn't see the need for it. What they need is to form a minority government, since they know that PR would be their best chance to retain power.

 

[brad465]

Or, indeed, any majority government of any colour having absolute power on less than 50% of the vote. I would also quote 1983, 1987 and 2019 as notably "unfair" results in the sense that in each case, a government with very strident views on a range of issues got absolute power on less than 45% of the vote. (Some might also add 1997 to that, but I would not consider the first Blair term as "strident").

The Thatcher and Major victories altogether highlight how varied vote share transferring to seat numbers can be. The Tories got between 41.9 and 43.9% in the 79, 83, 87 and 92 elections, so very low vote share variation, but the seat numbers varied between 336 and 397. In particular Major secured more numerical votes than any party leader had done in UK history (just over 14 million), and remains the highest today, but had 60 odd seats less than Thatcher's 83 landslide.

 

[MikeWM]

The Thatcher and Major victories altogether highlight how varied vote share transferring to seat numbers can be. The Tories got between 41.9 and 43.9% in the 79, 83, 87 and 92 elections, so very low vote share variation, but the seat numbers varied between 336 and 397. In particular Major secured more numerical votes than any party leader had done in UK history (just over 14 million), and remains the highest today, but had 60 odd seats less than Thatcher's 83 landslide.

Labour in 2005 got 355 seats - ie. a comfortable majority - on just 35.2% of the vote, so as mentioned above they have benefitted from this too in the recent past. (In the same election, the Tories got 32.4% but only 198 seats). That's probably the most obvious candidate for 'least fair' result in living memory.

They still got 258 seats in 2010 on only 29% of the vote! Corbyn only got 4 more seats than that in 2017 with 40%...

 

[bspahh]

It seems to have escaped notice by the majority of commenters that the only other major economy in the world which uses Imperial units is also the one that we're desperate to get a trade deal with. Coincidence....?

Its just a shame that sabre rattling over the Northern Ireland agreement will block any USA trade deal, whatever units we use.

We've got a memorandum of understanding with Indiana which according to
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2022/05/29/milestone-inchpebble-indiana/ is all stuff that we could have signed as an EU member apart from:

Now, I’m not an expert on the intricate battles over “competence” between the EU and its member states. But as far as I can see, the only bit that the EU might possibly have claimed as its own territory is that strange non-discrimination clause on government procurement.

Is the Government going to force everything to switch from A4 paper to Foolscap Folio, or US Letter?

 

[najaB]

We've got a memorandum of understanding with Indiana

Which means absolutely nothing, given the US Constitution says:

Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Which means that MOU has absolutely zero legal standing.

 

[brad465]

Labour in 2005 got 355 seats - ie. a comfortable majority - on just 35.2% of the vote, so as mentioned above they have benefitted from this too in the recent past. (In the same election, the Tories got 32.4% but only 198 seats). That's probably the most obvious candidate for 'least fair' result in living memory.

They still got 258 seats in 2010 on only 29% of the vote! Corbyn only got 4 more seats than that in 2017 with 40%...

Yes I agree, the reason I highlighted those 4 examples above was because of how similar the vote shares were in all of them, thus how getting a set number of votes doesn't guarantee a set number of seats. 2005 probably is the least fair example with regards to a winning party, but with regards to votes translating into seats for any given party, the least fair outcome by far has to be UKIP in 2015: 3.8 million votes but only 1 seat to show for it, and in the other direction, the SNP getting less votes than UKIP but 56 seats.

 

[birchesgreen]

It seems to have escaped notice by the majority of commenters that the only other major economy in the world which uses Imperial units is also the one that we're desperate to get a trade deal with. Coincidence....?

But they use different imperial units.

 

[najaB]

But they use different imperial units.

It remains to be seen exactly which Imperial units the government re-introduces. It's mainly the fluid ounce that's different - which results in the quart/gallon being different.

 

[jfollows]

It remains to be seen exactly which Imperial units the government re-introduces. It's mainly the fluid ounce that's different - which results in the quart/gallon being different.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the fluid ounce is the one thing that's the same between the US and the UK, it's the number of fluid ounces in a pint that's different (16 in the US, 20 in the UK). Then the number of pints in a quart (2) and number of quarts in a gallon (4) are the same, so ultimately the US gallon is 16/20 or 4/5 the capacity of a UK or Imperial gallon.

EDIT Although I think we're both right, although the US/Imperial fluid ounces are essentially the same, the US one is 29.57ml whereas the Imperial one is 28.41ml. 4% difference. So the US gallon is 0.83 of the Imperial gallon.

So metric is clearly so much more sensible! Even cgs/mks is insignificant in difference compared to this example.

EDIT Even more off-topic, I imported a US car in 1992 so I wanted to understand why its 18mpg in the US translated to 22mpg in the UK ......

 

[Shrop]

In the times when there has been a Labour Party government with the referred-to clear majority, did they make any movements in terms of any reform to the present electoral system?

No, they're as bad as the Tories benefitting from a system which affords them more MPs than their votes should give them. But electoral reform needs to start somewhere ...

 

[edwin_m]

It's heartening to see a good few comments that aren't fully supportive of the present electoral system, and acknowledging that it has flaws. In fact, are there many people on this thread who do support the present archaic system? Of course we know the tired old argument that it's hard to make decisions without a clear majority, however there are times when having this clear majority leads to decisions which smack of a Dictatorship. It would be interesting to develop this discussion about how appropriate people think the present system is (which I suggest is relevant to this thread), and how it might be updated.

We know that the Tories are already scratching around to appease the public after Partygate, by handing out money in a pretty arbitrary manner, and making questionable suggestions about moving away from metric measurements. Perhaps if they were to come up with something more meaningful like electoral reform, while they still have the power to propose it, then even though it risks losing them some seats, it may end up losing fewer for them than simply trotting out the same old negative anti-Labour (and other Party) tirades that they invariably do as the next General Election gets nearer.

Appealing to the centre isn't in the vocabulary of the present Tory party. They are the only significant party of the right, and they know there's nobody who would join them in a coalition, whereas the centre and left vote is split so would benefit from a more proportional system. Hence they have no reasons to propose this and very many to stick to the present system. They've even introduced it for Metro Mayor elections where only two out of the ten were Tories under the previous system.

In the times when there has been a Labour Party government with the referred-to clear majority, did they make any movements in terms of any reform to the present electoral system?

There was a move to do that under Blair but it never came to anything. There seems to be good support in the membership but the leaders are not surprisingly more cautious. Hence why the most likely way for it to come about will be if the LibDems demand it as a price to support a minority Labour government.

 

[Ediswan]

So metric is clearly so much more sensible!

But not entirely sensible. The base unit of mass has the 'kilo' prefix. Without the French Revolution, SI might have been 'metre, grave, second'.

 

[Shrop]

Appealing to the centre isn't in the vocabulary of the present Tory party. They are the only significant party of the right, and they know there's nobody who would join them in a coalition, whereas the centre and left vote is split so would benefit from a more proportional system. Hence they have no reasons to propose this and very many to stick to the present system.

Sadly you're probably right. Tory MPs are incredibly self-serving, and so is the Party as a whole. As for their voters, well let's hope they see some sense after the recent blatant dishonesty.

 

[simonw]

In the times when there has been a Labour Party government with the referred-to clear majority, did they make any movements in terms of any reform to the present electoral system?

As you lived through that time, I'm sure that you will recall they did; although unfortunately not to Westminster elections.

 

[birchesgreen]

Could be getting close to DEFCON 1

Johnson’s lurch to the right adds to momentum for leadership vote

Several Tory MPs believe the 54-letter threshold has been reached and that a challenge to PM could be mounted as soon as next week

www.theguardian.com

Boris Johnson’s lurch to the right after Partygate is fuelling even more anger among rebel Tory MPs, with momentum now building for a leadership challenge next week.

Conservative whips spent the first day of recess anxiously phoning round the parliamentary party to shore up support for the prime minister, as three more MPs called on him to resign, including Jeremy Wright, the former attorney general.

Several Tory MPs told the Guardian they believed the threshold of 54 letters withdrawing support for Johnson was close to being crossed – or may have been already. This would trigger a secret ballot on whether they still have confidence in the prime minister.

 

[Busaholic]

Could be getting close to DEFCON 1

Johnson’s lurch to the right adds to momentum for leadership vote

Several Tory MPs believe the 54-letter threshold has been reached and that a challenge to PM could be mounted as soon as next week

www.theguardian.com

Of course, we only have the word, or the silence, of Sir Graham Brady to go on. Isn't democracy great?

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course, we only have the word, or the silence, of Sir Graham Brady to go on. Isn't democracy great?

Yes...

A polticial party, like any private group, should be able to choose its leader how it sees fits. But when it's also choosing the Prime Minister it feels somewhat sub-optimal that basically it all rests on one man collecting letters and emails in secret.

But then like so much of our polticial processes its from a different era and arguably not fit for the 21st century.

 

[najaB]

Yes...

A polticial party, like any private group, should be able to choose its leader how it sees fits. But when it's also choosing the Prime Minister it feels somewhat sub-optimal that basically it all rests on one man collecting letters and emails in secret.

But then like so much of our polticial processes its from a different era and arguably not fit for the 21st century.

Unfortunately, that's an unavoidable consequence of the Westminster system. We would need to separate the role of PM from party leader, is there any practical way to do that?

 

[matacaster]

In the times when there has been a Labour Party government with the referred-to clear majority, did they make any movements in terms of any reform to the present electoral system?

No, because they felt it had benefitted them at the time and they didn't expect that to change. First past the post always benefits one of the two big parties. Collegiate style government leads to indecision or least worst decision.

Yes...

A polticial party, like any private group, should be able to choose its leader how it sees fits. But when it's also choosing the Prime Minister it feels somewhat sub-optimal that basically it all rests on one man collecting letters and emails in secret.

But then like so much of our polticial processes its from a different era and arguably not fit for the 21st century.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the drip, drip of one or two letters a day smacks of a planned campaign to keep it in the news. Many of the letter writers are Teresa May remainder types who were looking for any way to oust Johnson.
That said, I do not agree with drinking alcohol and parties at work (except Xmas eve perhaps) and Johnson and the others at the top should be setting an example. The civil servants appear to be rather uncivil too. Alcohol in Parliament should go too.

 

[JamesT]

Unfortunately, that's an unavoidable consequence of the Westminster system. We would need to separate the role of PM from party leader, is there any practical way to do that?

Not just Westminster, I think it’s an inherent part of parliamentary systems that the head of government will be the leader of the largest party.
To separate it you’re looking at a presidential system, which has its own issues.

 

[simonw]

No, because they felt it had benefitted them at the time and they didn't expect that to change. First past the post always benefits one of the two big parties. Collegiate style government leads to indecision or least worst decision.


Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the drip, drip of one or two letters a day smacks of a planned campaign to keep it in the news. Many of the letter writers are Teresa May remainder types who were looking for any way to oust Johnson.
That said, I do not agree with drinking alcohol and parties at work (except Xmas eve perhaps) and Johnson and the others at the top should be setting an example. The civil servants appear to be rather uncivil too. Alcohol in Parliament should go too.

You might want to have a look at the voting system in NI, the Welsh London and Scottish assemblies and, until changed by the Tories, various mayoral elections.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, because they felt it had benefitted them at the time and they didn't expect that to change. First past the post always benefits one of the two big parties. Collegiate style government leads to indecision or least worst decision.

Even this current government with an 80 majority is feckless and plays the victim. They go on about the culture wars but do little with their legislative majority to actually meaningfully affect said wars. They just moan all the time.

You might want to have a look at the voting system in NI, the Welsh London and Scottish assemblies and, until changed by the Tories, various mayoral elections.

I would not look at Northern Ireland as an example of an effectively governed place. The Executive has fairly limited powers and is deliberately hamstrung by design.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sadly you're probably right. Tory MPs are incredibly self-serving, and so is the Party as a whole. As for their voters, well let's hope they see some sense after the recent blatant dishonesty.

This is unfair. *All parties*, not just the Tories, have proven remarkably adept at finding arguments in favour of whatever electoral system is most likely to benefit themselves:

• The LibDems not only strongly support electoral reform (unsurprisingly since that would give them many more seats), but strongly support STV - a system that is not only not truly proportional, but is likely to particularly favour the LibDems because, as the perceived centre-party, they'd tend to get the 2nd-preference votes of both Labour and Tory supporters.
• Labour historically not only favoured FPTP when it benefitted them, but were also for a long time happy to gerrymander the system by (a) having smaller constituency sizes in areas likely to be favourable to Labour, and (b) legislating so that Scottish and Welsh MPs (likely at the time to be Labour) could vote on English matters while English MPs (more likely to be Tory) couldn't vote on Scottish matters (the so-called West Lothian question). More recently, there's been growing support within Labour for PR - which appears to be driven not so much by any genuine conversion to the merits of PR as by a realisation that, with Scotland now lost and the LibDems more inclined to ally with Labour, it is now PR not FPTP that probably gives a better prospect of a Labour-lead Government.
• And the Tories have always supported FPTP - which benefits them as one of the two largest parties, and the party that most often secures the plurality of votes.

Pretty much every party (including MPs and party members) is being self-serving to some extent in this regard. It's not correct to single the Tories out as if they are somehow different from everyone else.

 

[DarloRich]

Some interesting front covers on regional newspapers this morning paid for by the campaign group 38 degrees. The Yorkshire Post tweeted thier cover last night. Cutting. I believe the Northern Echo has one also.

(Yes I KNOW it is an advertising wrap thank you!)

https://twitter.com/JayMitchinson/status/1531370957683793922

(PS if anyone knows how to "embed" the tweet I would be most grateful for advice!)

 

[Typhoon]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the drip, drip of one or two letters a day smacks of a planned campaign to keep it in the news. Many of the letter writers are Teresa May remainder types who were looking for any way to oust Johnson.

Almost certainly true however considering the way he acted during her premiership phrases like 'He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword' and 'Revenge is a dish best served cold' come to mind. There is also a quote (from an Aussie - cricketer?) to the effect that the the best time to kick a man is when he is down.

(I assume you meant remainer?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Be careful with your spelling and Googling. Theresa May is the politician. Teresa May is, shall we say, an actor of less than salubrious repute?

 

[Shrop]

This is unfair. *All parties*, not just the Tories, have proven remarkably adept at finding arguments in favour of whatever electoral system is most likely to benefit themselves:

• The LibDems not only strongly support electoral reform (unsurprisingly since that would give them many more seats), but strongly support STV - a system that is not only not truly proportional, but is likely to particularly favour the LibDems because, as the perceived centre-party, they'd tend to get the 2nd-preference votes of both Labour and Tory supporters.
• Labour historically not only favoured FPTP when it benefitted them, but were also for a long time happy to gerrymander the system by (a) having smaller constituency sizes in areas likely to be favourable to Labour, and (b) legislating so that Scottish and Welsh MPs (likely at the time to be Labour) could vote on English matters while English MPs (more likely to be Tory) couldn't vote on Scottish matters (the so-called West Lothian question). More recently, there's been growing support within Labour for PR - which appears to be driven not so much by any genuine conversion to the merits of PR as by a realisation that, with Scotland now lost and the LibDems more inclined to ally with Labour, it is now PR not FPTP that probably gives a better prospect of a Labour-lead Government.
• And the Tories have always supported FPTP - which benefits them as one of the two largest parties, and the party that most often secures the plurality of votes.

Pretty much every party (including MPs and party members) is being self-serving to some extent in this regard. It's not correct to single the Tories out as if they are somehow different from everyone else.

You'll notice if you read my previous posts, that my criticisms tend to be levelled at our voting system generally, not just the Tories, it's just that at present the Tories are the ones with the power to make change.

I've previously (regrettably but necessarily) cast doubt on just about all political Parties for one reason or another, but I would say that you singling out the LibDems for favouring change simply because it would give them more seats, is also unfair. Why on earth shouldn't they feel that a system is unfair, when it gives them far fewer seats than are represented by those who voted for them?

 

[bspahh]

At Oddschecker, there are odds for which year Boris Johnson will quit as Prime Minister. A couple of weeks ago, you could get odds of 3/1 for 2022. The odds are shortening, and its now 9/4 (ie if you bet £1 and he leaves this year, you get your £1 back and £2.25 winnings, if he doesn't, you lose the £1). The favourite is still 2024, with current odds of 8/7 (ie bet £1 and get £1.14 winnings). 88% of the new bets are for him to leave in 2022.

In the day after the publication of the Sue Gray report, the odds for Johnson to quit as Prime Minister in 2022 drifted out towards 3/1, but they are now back down to 7/4. The odds for him to quit in 2024 or later are 7/5

 

[nw1]

Unfortunately, that's an unavoidable consequence of the Westminster system. We would need to separate the role of PM from party leader, is there any practical way to do that?

If the leader is also the leader of the governing party, put the vote to the general public, so we don't get a PM forced on us by unrepresentative party members.

I suspect we would have not got Johnson in 2019 if that had happened, as most Labour and Lib Dem voters would presumably have voted for the most-likely alternative (Hunt?) en masse, as would, presumably, Remainer and socially-liberal Tories.

Even though I don't like Hunt much, and don't like the Tories in general, I would have voted for him as the least-worst option in such an election.

 

[simonw]

Even this current government with an 80 majority is feckless and plays the victim. They go on about the culture wars but do little with their legislative majority to actually meaningfully affect said wars. They just moan all the time.


I would not look at Northern Ireland as an example of an effectively governed place. The Executive has fairly limited powers and is deliberately hamstrung by design.

But the effectiveness of otherwise of the institute wasn't the question asked.