I'm not a big fan of Labour or Starmer either, although I do think they're better than the Tories.
Starmer is the leader they've got; reality is what it is.
The coming Labour government will not last forever. In my essay I've detailed things they could do to stay in power longer (which gives them more time to bake in more reforms), and prevent the Tories from undoing things without popular support.
Speaking from across the ocean in the US, I'm pleasantly surprised proportional representation is so popular in the UK! Do you know what changed since the AV referendum failed back in 2011?
AV wasn't a proportional system (and the Lib Dems didn't want it anyway, they preferred STV, but the Tories were only prepared to countenance AV). Still, at the start of the campaign for that referendum, AV was ahead in the polls. They lost because they fought a crap campaign (which I was part of, in a minor way).
PR is also popular in the USA according to a poll i saw recently. of course, in both countries the ruling class is against it as it is too democratic.
I've come to realise that PR is only as democratic as the political parties. We have seen the fight to get to the top of the "list" in Scotland. And Sturgeon's undemocratic parachuting in of random leadership lackeys to the top of the lists in 2021.
I agree. I don't think party lists should exist. Instead, it should be the voters not the parties who decide who gets elected. So e.g. most MPs could be elected by STV, and the rest in top-up seats would be the closest-to-winning losers for each party.
That'd be a whole more democratic, but would it be workable? Making each voter rank each candidate is a whole lot more work. I'd be glad to do it myself for the ~6 candidates I usually see on my ballot, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't even for those numbers.
The Scottish Parliament has, I see, seven party-list members per region; with four majorish parties that's at least twenty-eight candidates. Ranking those would be a whole lot of work. I think you'd get a lot of voters picking one or two or seven at most, and then ignoring the rest.
Voters wouldn't have to rank every candidate. The election authorities would rank each candidate (for a party's top up seats) based on the number of first preferences (or some similar criteria).
In general in STV elections, parties put up fewer candidates than the number of seats to be won, as they know they're not going to win them all.
I feel like a lot of this fails the question of "how would you like it if a Tory government behaved this way?" How would you like it if a Tory government attempted to prevent a future Labour government undoing its reforms? How would you like it if a Tory government politicised the BBC to do its bidding for it? (You don't even have to imagine it - these things have already happened under Tory governments past and present! And you don't like it, do you?)
I think it's fair that you would disagree with this. You could make the utilitarian case that the ends justify the means; however, forgive me for be a bit of a bleeding heart here, but for me maintaining democracy is the most fundamental end of all, and changes that get you even what from your perspective are substantial wins aren't worth the candle for me.
(And for what it's worth - I'm not particularly interested in a Labour government forcing future Conservative governments to run more public services directly when the evidence shows that Conservative governments are really bad at doing that!)
> How would you like it if a Tory government attempted to prevent a future Labour government undoing its reforms?
They already do this, e.g. by changing electoral rules making it harder for non-Tories to vote. If anyone -- Labour or Tories -- changed the system to make it less democratic, I'm against, if they make it more democratic, I'm for it. Referendums and PR are more democratic.
> How would you like it if a Tory government politicised the BBC to do its bidding for it? (You don't even have to imagine it - these things have already happened under Tory governments past and present! And you don't like it, do you?)
The BBC is the UK's national broadcaster and has always been political, and presumably always will be under Labour or Tory rule. My solution would be to have its board democratically elected by the people, see: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/a-scottish-national-broadcaster-to
> for me maintaining democracy is the most fundamental end of all
For me, *attaining* democracy is key, as the UK does not currently have anywhere near enough of it.
I'm not convinced that a proliferation of single-issue referendums is a good way to run a country, mostly because public opinion is inconsistent and any policy platform chosen piecemeal this way will inevitably be far less than the sum of its parts. It will also have the problem of policies being delivered by a political class against their own judgement (see how Brexit unfolded).
Nonetheless, I very much appreciate your civil disagreement. The public sphere could do with more like you.
> I very much appreciate your civil disagreement. The public sphere could do with more like you.
Thank you.
I think I might have usefully added, at the start of my essay, that I was answering the question, what might Labour to do attain the 2 objectives at the start of the essay, and not necessarily what I would do if I was running the country, or what I think would be the optimal way to run the country.
Starmer (and any other PM) is trying to do 3 things:
1. keeping his party happy so they keep him as leader
2. keeping the country happy so they win the next election
3. doing what's best in the long term interests of the country
And any ruler is going to have to do a balancing act to get all three done.
> I'm not convinced that a proliferation of single-issue referendums is a good way to run a country
I'm not convinced it is either, for the reasons you give. I was more supporting it for the tactical reason that it bakes in reform. Renationalising utilities is very popular (and also in the national interest IMO), and making it hard for the Tories to reverse that would also be in the national interest.
I don't have the data on this - but I do wonder whether the popularity of nationalising industries is just a countercyclical phenomenon rather than something baked into the British psyche? Like, after the Winter of Discontent and general failures of publicly-owned industries in the 1970s, were Thatcher's privatisations popular? This would line up with the well-attested thermostatic model of democracy, so it wouldn't surprise me. (But I'd like to see polling on it, if we had good polling on this kind of question back then.)
>Houses are not expensive because they are intrinsically expensive to build, they are expensive because supply is artificially restricted.
When I talk with builders, although EU and not UK, they talk about regulations. If you have an old house, you can have whatever heating and insulation. If you build a new house, it is on you to save the climate so it has to be very low emissions.
SOME of this I agree with BUT down to basics Pontifex. Starmer is NOT Labour. For heavens sake he has Blair on board.
I hope the UK sinks into the ocean and just goes away.
Starmer was (I think a Humanitarian Lawyer) what is humanitarian about supporting Israel?
I'm not a big fan of Labour or Starmer either, although I do think they're better than the Tories.
Starmer is the leader they've got; reality is what it is.
The coming Labour government will not last forever. In my essay I've detailed things they could do to stay in power longer (which gives them more time to bake in more reforms), and prevent the Tories from undoing things without popular support.
Pontifex.
The UK is finished..........I hope it sinks into the Ocean.
I don't, I'd get wet!
Speaking from across the ocean in the US, I'm pleasantly surprised proportional representation is so popular in the UK! Do you know what changed since the AV referendum failed back in 2011?
AV wasn't a proportional system (and the Lib Dems didn't want it anyway, they preferred STV, but the Tories were only prepared to countenance AV). Still, at the start of the campaign for that referendum, AV was ahead in the polls. They lost because they fought a crap campaign (which I was part of, in a minor way).
PR is also popular in the USA according to a poll i saw recently. of course, in both countries the ruling class is against it as it is too democratic.
I've come to realise that PR is only as democratic as the political parties. We have seen the fight to get to the top of the "list" in Scotland. And Sturgeon's undemocratic parachuting in of random leadership lackeys to the top of the lists in 2021.
I agree. I don't think party lists should exist. Instead, it should be the voters not the parties who decide who gets elected. So e.g. most MPs could be elected by STV, and the rest in top-up seats would be the closest-to-winning losers for each party.
That'd be a whole more democratic, but would it be workable? Making each voter rank each candidate is a whole lot more work. I'd be glad to do it myself for the ~6 candidates I usually see on my ballot, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't even for those numbers.
The Scottish Parliament has, I see, seven party-list members per region; with four majorish parties that's at least twenty-eight candidates. Ranking those would be a whole lot of work. I think you'd get a lot of voters picking one or two or seven at most, and then ignoring the rest.
Voters wouldn't have to rank every candidate. The election authorities would rank each candidate (for a party's top up seats) based on the number of first preferences (or some similar criteria).
In general in STV elections, parties put up fewer candidates than the number of seats to be won, as they know they're not going to win them all.
I feel like a lot of this fails the question of "how would you like it if a Tory government behaved this way?" How would you like it if a Tory government attempted to prevent a future Labour government undoing its reforms? How would you like it if a Tory government politicised the BBC to do its bidding for it? (You don't even have to imagine it - these things have already happened under Tory governments past and present! And you don't like it, do you?)
I think it's fair that you would disagree with this. You could make the utilitarian case that the ends justify the means; however, forgive me for be a bit of a bleeding heart here, but for me maintaining democracy is the most fundamental end of all, and changes that get you even what from your perspective are substantial wins aren't worth the candle for me.
(And for what it's worth - I'm not particularly interested in a Labour government forcing future Conservative governments to run more public services directly when the evidence shows that Conservative governments are really bad at doing that!)
> How would you like it if a Tory government attempted to prevent a future Labour government undoing its reforms?
They already do this, e.g. by changing electoral rules making it harder for non-Tories to vote. If anyone -- Labour or Tories -- changed the system to make it less democratic, I'm against, if they make it more democratic, I'm for it. Referendums and PR are more democratic.
> How would you like it if a Tory government politicised the BBC to do its bidding for it? (You don't even have to imagine it - these things have already happened under Tory governments past and present! And you don't like it, do you?)
The BBC is the UK's national broadcaster and has always been political, and presumably always will be under Labour or Tory rule. My solution would be to have its board democratically elected by the people, see: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/a-scottish-national-broadcaster-to
> for me maintaining democracy is the most fundamental end of all
For me, *attaining* democracy is key, as the UK does not currently have anywhere near enough of it.
Agreed on PR, that one's a no-brainer.
I'm not convinced that a proliferation of single-issue referendums is a good way to run a country, mostly because public opinion is inconsistent and any policy platform chosen piecemeal this way will inevitably be far less than the sum of its parts. It will also have the problem of policies being delivered by a political class against their own judgement (see how Brexit unfolded).
Nonetheless, I very much appreciate your civil disagreement. The public sphere could do with more like you.
> I very much appreciate your civil disagreement. The public sphere could do with more like you.
Thank you.
I think I might have usefully added, at the start of my essay, that I was answering the question, what might Labour to do attain the 2 objectives at the start of the essay, and not necessarily what I would do if I was running the country, or what I think would be the optimal way to run the country.
Starmer (and any other PM) is trying to do 3 things:
1. keeping his party happy so they keep him as leader
2. keeping the country happy so they win the next election
3. doing what's best in the long term interests of the country
And any ruler is going to have to do a balancing act to get all three done.
> I'm not convinced that a proliferation of single-issue referendums is a good way to run a country
I'm not convinced it is either, for the reasons you give. I was more supporting it for the tactical reason that it bakes in reform. Renationalising utilities is very popular (and also in the national interest IMO), and making it hard for the Tories to reverse that would also be in the national interest.
I don't have the data on this - but I do wonder whether the popularity of nationalising industries is just a countercyclical phenomenon rather than something baked into the British psyche? Like, after the Winter of Discontent and general failures of publicly-owned industries in the 1970s, were Thatcher's privatisations popular? This would line up with the well-attested thermostatic model of democracy, so it wouldn't surprise me. (But I'd like to see polling on it, if we had good polling on this kind of question back then.)
> whether the popularity of nationalising industries is just a countercyclical phenomenon
Probably, if I had to guess.
>Houses are not expensive because they are intrinsically expensive to build, they are expensive because supply is artificially restricted.
When I talk with builders, although EU and not UK, they talk about regulations. If you have an old house, you can have whatever heating and insulation. If you build a new house, it is on you to save the climate so it has to be very low emissions.
I'm sure regulations do have an effect as well.