General British politics discussion thread

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's corruption with two fingers raised, no accountability or even anticipation of it. And real scary thing is if this is what they feel so comfortable doing in plain sight, what must they be getting up to in the shadows?

Well, a Tory MP has been charged with rape. He still retains the Tory party whip.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, a Tory MP has been charged with rape. He still retains the Tory party whip.

He has been arrested. He has not been charged. The Chief Whiop's position is that he will not make a decision about what to do with him until the police investigation is complete, which will be when either (a) the guy is charged, or (b) the investigation into him is closed with no charges being laid.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

He has been arrested. He has not been charged. The Chief Whiop's position is that he will not make a decision about what to do with him until the police investigation is complete, which will be when either (a) the guy is charged, or (b) the investigation into him is closed with no charges being laid.

Fair point.

Until he is convicted, he is assumed to be not guilty - well at least not of this.

In this jurisdiction, his name or identity would not be released, nor that of the complainant.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Fair point.

Until he is convicted, he is assumed to be not guilty - well at least not of this.

In this jurisdiction, his name or identity would not be released, nor that of the complainant.

I suspect they wouldn't wait for a conviction. Once charges are laid, the party would want to distance itself.

For comparison, Tory MP Charlie Elphicke had the whip withdrawn when complaints about him were first referred to the police, but it was restored to him a year later when his vote was needed in connection with a motion of confidence in Teresa May. When he was later charged with sexual assault the whip was again withdrawn.

He was convicted last week; he will be sentenced in September. I think the expectation will be that, unless he appeals the conviction, he will resign from Parliament, especially if he receives a custodial sentence.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect they wouldn't wait for a conviction. Once charges are laid, the party would want to distance itself.

For comparison, Tory MP Charlie Elphicke had the whip withdrawn when complaints about him were first referred to the police, but it was restored to him a year later when his vote was needed in connection with a motion of confidence in Teresa May. When he was later charged with sexual assault the whip was again withdrawn.

He was convicted last week; he will be sentenced in September. I think the expectation will be that, unless he appeals the conviction, he will resign from Parliament, especially if he receives a custodial sentence.

They used to say scandals on the Labour side were nearly always financial while those on the Tory side were usually sexual in nature.

Now it appears that financial scandals on the Tory side are so ingrained and normalised that they are ignored by the Tory press. No mention of lucrative Gov contracts being awarded without due diligence to friends of No. 10 and advisers to the Leave campaign.

Maybe it was ever thus. Perhaps the demise of the 'News of the World' has meant such sexual scandals find no traction in the general media anymore.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

They used to say scandals on the Labour side were nearly always financial while those on the Tory side were usually sexual in nature.

Now it appears that financial scandals on the Tory side are so ingrained and normalised that they are ignored by the Tory press. No mention of lucrative Gov contracts being awarded without due diligence to friends of No. 10 and advisers to the Leave campaign.

Interesting observation.

The current conservative government has locked itself into a position where it's promoting people based entirely on loyalty to Brexit. I think the fiasco where Chris Grayling somehow managed to lose a rigged election sums it up perfectly.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe it was ever thus. Perhaps the demise of the 'News of the World' has meant such sexual scandals find no traction in the general media anymore.

Yes and no I think. Ordinarily, a government wouldn't choose to restrict itself to such a small pool of people but this doesn't seem to be an ordinary government. People are selected for love of Brexit and pliancy with regards to the PM and Dominic Cummings. Some of these people, like Sunak can present themselves well but for the most part they seem to be gaffe-prone mainly old men who, when they humiliate themselves can't be discarded as there's only so many people in the pool to draw from.

Joe_ Public

If this was any other profession, would this mp be treated differently? If a teacher/doctor/civil servant would somebody under suspicion of rape be allowed to carry on as normal? Is this just a rule for mps or specifically tory mps? Obviously there is a separate unofficial code of conduct for tory mps where stuff like antisemitism is deemed of little consequence so maybe it's the same here too.

Peregrinus

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If this was any other profession, would this mp be treated differently? If a teacher/doctor/civil servant would somebody under suspicion of rape be allowed to carry on as normal? Is this just a rule for mps or specifically tory mps? Obviously there is a separate unofficial code of conduct for tory mps where stuff like antisemitism is deemed of little consequence so maybe it's the same here too.

The guy has been elected MP by the constituents of Whereeveritis, and that situation won't change unless he either resigns or is removed by law. There can be no question of him being removed by law unless he is actually convicted; so far he hasn't even been charged.

Separately, there's the matter of his connection with the Conservative Party. They could expel him from the party and/or withdraw the whip. Neither of these things would prevent him from sitting, speaking, voting, etc as an MP; he just wouldn't be a Tory MP. Expelling him from the party might minimise embarrasment to the party, though. But it would also identify him publicly, and I can see how if the police/prosecution authorities haven't identified him the Tory party wouldn't want to be the first to do so.

As already mentioned, when Tory MP Robert Elphicke was accused of sexual assault he was expelled from the party. (His name was already in the public arena at that point.) He was, however, later readmitted when it became politically expedient to do so, and had to be expelled a second time when he was convicted. All in all, doing it this way probably caused the party more embarrassment than if they had deferred taking any action until he was convicted or, at least, charged. It may be that experience which has persuaded them that, in fact, it is wiser to let the legal processes take their course and then react to them.

Joe_ Public

Elphicke said on Twitter: “The party tipped off the press before telling me of my suspension. I am not aware of what the alleged claims are and deny any wrongdoing.”

Charlie Elphickes name was only in the public domain because his own party put it out there. And then they suspended him.

So the question is why they are acting differently in this case? That they restored the whip to Elphicke in lieu of a critical vote merely tells us how morally bankrupt the party is, but we know that already anyway.

One excuse trotted out by the chief whip was we're worried if we name him that it would identify the accuser. The accuser has stated publicly she is happy to have him named so that excuse doesnt run at all.

Maybe there should be a general rule across society that nobody in any profession should face penalty or identification unless formally charged with an offence. But as it is, i dont see why an exception should be made for the individual in this case.

View

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Elphicke said on Twitter: “The party tipped off the press before telling me of my suspension. I am not aware of what the alleged claims are and deny any wrongdoing.”

Charlie Elphickes name was only in the public domain because his own party put it out there. And then they suspended him.

So the question is why they are acting differently in this case? That they restored the whip to Elphicke in lieu of a critical vote merely tells us how morally bankrupt the party is, but we know that already anyway.

One excuse trotted out by the chief whip was we're worried if we name him that it would identify the accuser. The accuser has stated publicly she is happy to have him named so that excuse doesnt run at all.

Maybe there should be a general rule across society that nobody in any profession should face penalty or identification unless formally charged with an offence. But as it is, i dont see why an exception should be made for the individual in this case.

They are probably acting differently because the MP concerned is a Brexiter and the Brexiters in charge of the party won’t hang one of their own out to dry.

Joe_ Public

View wrote: »

They are probably acting differently because the MP concerned is a Brexiter and the Brexiters in charge of the party won’t hang one of their own out to dry.

You can speculate if you wish, i suppose.

One likely factor is that late 2017 there was huge national focus on sexual misconduct. A tory minister had resigned, there were several ongoing public cases in both main parties so not being seen to be proactive in the case of Charlie Elphicke might have landed them in trouble.

Mid 2020 - no comparable focus. There's so much else going on that nobody's getting too worked up about a single rape case. Just as the righteous indignation over the Jenrick planning scandal failed to gain the traction it merited.

So maybe it's just simply that they sat on this case for 4 months and seem determined to protect the accused as much as possible because they can. Because accountability is not where it ought to be right now, for various reasons.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You can speculate if you wish, i suppose.

One likely factor is that late 2017 there was huge national focus on sexual misconduct. A tory minister had resigned, there were several ongoing public cases in both main parties so not being seen to be proactive in the case of Charlie Elphicke might have landed them in trouble.

Mid 2020 - no comparable focus. There's so much else going on that nobody's getting too worked up about a single rape case. Just as the righteous indignation over the Jenrick planning scandal failed to gain the traction it merited.

So maybe it's just simply that they sat on this case for 4 months and seem determined to protect the accused as much as possible because they can. Because accountability is not where it ought to be right now, for various reasons.

Since 2017 though, there has been the Alex Salmond debacle which cost the Scottish government £500k, so I guess the government wants to tread very carefully.

Sam Russell

This is an article on ongoing corruption in the Tory administration. This was a contract for GB£250 million for PPE for the NHS.

A bit of the article:

The normal public procurement tendering process has pre-qualification criteria which companies have to meet. These will normally include so many years of experience in the specific sector, employment of suitably qualified staff, possession of the required physical infrastructure and a measure of financial stability. This is perhaps obvious – otherwise you or I could simply stick in a bid to build the HS2 railway that is £10 billion cheaper than anybody else, win the contract then go and look for a builder.

Ayanda Capital would fail every single test in normal procurement criteria to supply PPE to the NHS. I can see no evidence that anybody in the company had ever seen PPE except when visiting the dentist. They appear to have no medical expertise, no established medical procurement network, no quality control inspection ability, no overseas shipment agents, no warehousing or logistics facilities. We have of course seen this before from these crooked Tories with their “emergency procurement”, with the “ferry company” with no ferries. But this – a quarter of a billion pounds – is on a whole different level.

It is a long read, but just shows how low the standards are.

It ends with:

We do not just need a public inquiry. We need people to go to prison. All those involved in the Ayanda Capital PPE contract would be a good start.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is an article on ongoing corruption in the Tory administration. This was a contract for GB£250 million for PPE for the NHS.

A bit of the article:


It is a long read, but just shows how low the standards are.

It ends with:

its bizarre stuff alright. its like there's some kind of global pandemic going on and PPE is in short supply.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

its bizarre stuff alright. its like there's some kind of global pandemic going on and PPE is in short supply.

Since it is in short supply wouldn't you go to the main players rather than some just started company?

Roanmore

Aegir wrote: »

its bizarre stuff alright. its like there's some kind of global pandemic going on and PPE is in short supply.

You had makers of PPE in the UK actually supplying European countries because their own Government wouldn't engage with them.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

its bizarre stuff alright. its like there's some kind of global pandemic going on and PPE is in short supply.

Just how low do the Tories have to go before you will accept criticism of them?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

its bizarre stuff alright. its like there's some kind of global pandemic going on and PPE is in short supply.

Did you read the article?

They gave a contract worth GB£250 million to an investment company that majors in tax (avoidance) advice, with no experience of procurement, and no knowledge of public health procurement.

It would be considered fraud in most peoples mind who considered the process of awarding a Gov contract to a wholly unqualified proposer. Who approved the awarding of the contract?

It is certainly corrupt by one side of the contract or the other, or both sides. Will we ever know which, or will it be like the ferry contract awarded to a newly formed shelf company with no experience of ferries, and who owned no ferries - the contract was cancelled and no-one was to speak about it again?

There is something rotten in the State of the UK. I think Shakespeare had an insight into this type of carry on.

PommieBast

A week or two ago I was listening in to some of the HoL stuff and it would not surprise me if the current de-facto suspension of some customer protections related to bounce-back loans end up with a repeat of the Barclays GRG scandal. Safeguards are being ripped up left right and centre.

Sam Russell

Further on the PPE contract the UK Gov awarded to Ayanda Capital.

The masks were supplied by Ayanda Capital, who was awarded a £252 million contract to supply personal protective equipment (PPE). The government is now being sued over its decision to award the private family fund the contract by EveryDoctor and Good Law Project.

It was also revealed in a legal document, sent to EveryDoctor and Good Law Project by the government, that the deal was arranged by Andrew Mills, an adviser to the Board of Trade in the Department for International Trade, on behalf of Tim Horlick, CEO of Ayanda Capital.

So it is not going to go away quietly. There had to be a horlicks in there somewhere.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is an article on ongoing corruption in the Tory administration. This was a contract for GB£250 million for PPE for the NHS.

A bit of the article:


It is a long read, but just shows how low the standards are.

It ends with:

From the same article with an update:

UPDATE 8:58am

I have just seen this absolutely astonishing thread from Jolyon Maugham at 6.25am this morning. It really is mind-blowing. Not only did the “adviser”, named as Andrew Mills, set this all up, he himself established an intermediary company in the transaction to cream off a fortune

Mind boggling stuff.

Sam Russell

Lemming wrote: »

From the same article with an update:



Mind boggling stuff.

Indeed. Someone needs to go to jail. Well, lots of them need to go to jail.

Unbelievable what is going on - filling their arse pockets with lots of loot taken from HM Gov, illegally (or perhaps it's the new normal and not illegal) - and not a word said about it.

And people thought going on a 250 mile drive in lockdown - with a long drive to test eyesight was a serious matter.

Oh, look over there - squirrels.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unbelievable what is going on - filling their arse pockets with lots of loot taken from HM Gov, illegally (or perhaps it's the new normal and not illegal) - and not a word said about it.

And people thought going on a 250 mile drive in lockdown - with a long drive to test eyesight was a serious matter.

It is the same people (or person if you will ...) facilitating the above theft of public monies by writing contracts without applying any of the standing criteria that are legally required. So I think long drives and a lack of censure eyesight tests are quite relevant in this regard. Rules are for the little people.

Sam Russell

Lemming wrote: »

It is the same people (or person if you will ...) facilitating the above theft of public monies by writing contracts without applying any of the standing criteria that are legally required. So I think long drives and a lack of censure eyesight tests are quite relevant in this regard. Rules are for the little people.

What about the squirrels?

Does nobody care about the squirrels.

[Edit]
Perhaps someone does care!
Labour calls for inquiry into purchase of 50m unusable face masks

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

What about the squirrels?

Does nobody care about the squirrels.

[Edit]
Perhaps someone does care!
Labour calls for inquiry into purchase of 50m unusable face masks

Don't forget pestfix; who are trying to use their government-paid £108m to strike out the case taken against them by the Good Law Project & EveryDoctor claiming that if the claimants lost they wouldn't be able to afford costs (whilst pestfix has registered assests of £18k and a handful of employees) therefore the case should not be heard.

There's more to this than just Ayande Capital. There's a sleaze & corruption scandal here that will make the 90s Tory sleaze & corruption scandal look like it was a bunch of amateur choir boys. Funny how it's the same party on both occasions.

Joe_ Public

Pestfix was originally listed as 108m but when it became public that figure was downgraded to 30 something million. An accounting error, it was claimed. The sort of thing that can easily happen when you are playing with public funds like monopoly money.

Lemming

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Pestfix was originally listed as 108m but when it became public that figure was downgraded to 30 something million. An accounting error, it was claimed. The sort of thing that can easily happen when you are playing with public funds like monopoly money.

That'll be the 30% deposit that PHE forwarded since PestFix are not a manufacturer and would instead have had to source from China or the like and, having feck all cash or contacts in the medical world, would need to have ponied up a sizeable lump of cash in advance. So claims of "only" 30m are for optics only. Pure lying spin.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more sarcastic comments please. Post deleted.

The White Wolf

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign

Why did we need inquiry to confirm what we knew already? Something that was obvious from the moment the token name on their leader election ticket actually won to their fury and amazement.

Particularly damning is the claim that Corbyn, accused directly of antisemitism, was actually obstructed by internal party politics of trying to fix the situation.

The most amusing thing of all is that the ones who obstructed Corbyn are the ones attempting to sue.

Leroy42

What does Corbyn, or his supporters, hope to gain by any of this?

The White Wolf

Leroy42 wrote: »

What does Corbyn, or his supporters, hope to gain by any of this?

Clearing your name of anti-Semitism would be pretty important to most people never mind politicians.

Joe_ Public

It's surely better that all this is played out now in the midst of a series of other distractions than, say, years down the line when election campaigns are in the offing. A lot of people would no doubt prefer if those on the labour left simply licked their wounds and disappeared, but thats not happening and if Starmer did truly mean it when he talked about being a party unifier, this could be a chance for him to prove it.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's surely better that all this is played out now in the midst of a series of other distractions than, say, years down the line when election campaigns are in the offing. A lot of people would no doubt prefer if those on the labour left simply licked their wounds and disappeared, but thats not happening and if Starmer did truly mean it when he talked about being a party unifier, this could be a chance for him to prove it.

There are always elections in the offing.

Local elections are very important, as it is from these new national figures emerge, and it is through local power that national power is built. Control of local councils is very important in British politics.

Labour needs to rebuild its message that it represents the workers, and the less well off, as well as social justice, equality, and other Social Democratic values that the current crop of Tories are trampling on. The slogan 'For the many, not the few' needs strengthening and given real meaning.

Keir Starmer needs to get out there and be seen to be a man of the people - his people. He should start rebuilding the red wall that Cummins Johnson breached. He will never get into No. 10 without a solid North.

Winter is coming in British politics as well as in the British economy. He needs to prepare - and be prepared.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tory MP Charlie Elphicke [...] was convicted last week; he will be sentenced in September. I think the expectation will be that, unless he appeals the conviction, he will resign from Parliament, especially if he receives a custodial sentence.

Elphicke did not contest the last election - his wife did however and she was elected. Seems the "family seat" isn't just an Irish thing.

marno21

Sajid Javid has joined JPMorgan's European Advisory Council, offering them advice on their operations in Europe post Brexit

https://www.ft.com/content/6636719c-bc62-4eef-aa71-c05fddedeb7c

No conflicts of interest there whatsoever.

Joe_ Public

It's ok, nothing at all to worry about.

According to a government source: "His [Sajid Javids] role at the bank will be 'strictly ringfenced' from his political position".

What more reassurance would anybody need?

Leroy42

Whatever about people being able to continue in jobs they had prior to getting elected, surely there should be some rule that you cannot take on a second job whilst being an MP? At the very least one should have to run for re-election on the basis that one is now only a part time MP and the constituents may want a full time MP.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever about people being able to continue in jobs they had prior to getting elected, surely there should be some rule that you cannot take on a second job whilst being an MP? At the very least one should have to run for re-election on the basis that one is now only a part time MP and the constituents may want a full time MP.

MPs having other sources of earnings is extremely common, on both sides of the house. There are more than a few MPs for whom the MP salary is not even their main income. For obvious reasons, there will be no appetite in parliament to legislate to ban this practice.

The political theory is that it's a matter for the voters if they want to elect an MP who has a second job, or who holds himself open to taking one. Legislation restricting who may be elected to, or serve in, parliament is obviously politically sensitive, and the general principle is that there should be as few barriers as possible.

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever about people being able to continue in jobs they had prior to getting elected, surely there should be some rule that you cannot take on a second job whilst being an MP? At the very least one should have to run for re-election on the basis that one is now only a part time MP and the constituents may want a full time MP.

You're not allowed a second job if you're serving in cabinet, i believe, but i do understand mps keeping jobs they had, as being an elected politician is not exactly the most secure of employment and having the fall back makes sense. Thus, for example, people who had been gps or nurses continuing to work part time in order to maintain their registrations in the event they lost their seats.

In this instance, however, it really doesnt say much for the common perception of an mps life being a long daily grind that left no time for anything else. Javids constituents didnt know when electing him last December that in 7 months he'd have enough time on his hands to take up a lucrative second role on the sidelines. Annoy the hell out of me, but such is way of things, I'm sure they'd have resoundingly cheered him home regardless.

Peregrinus

Javid sits for a Tory rotten borough. The voters have in reality no say in who represents them. The MP for Bromsgrove is basically chosen by the Selection Committee of the Bromsgrove Conservative Association; everything after that is a formality. If the members of the Selection Committee do not object to Javid filling his idle hours in this way, it is irrelevant how the voters feel about it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Javid sits for a Tory rotten borough. The voters have in reality no say in who represents them. The MP for Bromsgrove is basically chosen by the Selection Committee of the Bromsgrove Conservative Association; everything after that is a formality. If the members of the Selection Committee do not object to Javid filling his idle hours in this way, it is irrelevant how the voters feel about it.

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

MPs having other sources of earnings is extremely common, on both sides of the house. There are more than a few MPs for whom the MP salary is not even their main income. For obvious reasons, there will be no appetite in parliament to legislate to ban this practice.

The political theory is that it's a matter for the voters if they want to elect an MP who has a second job, or who holds himself open to taking one. Legislation restricting who may be elected to, or serve in, parliament is obviously politically sensitive, and the general principle is that there should be as few barriers as possible.

It really depends on whether the "second job" results in a conflict of interests, the excessive pruning of the Railway network in the 1960s being a classic example of a vested interest clouding some of the decision making as several MPs had interests in road construction companies. The fallout is still being felt today with the HS2 fiasco which is replacing a line that should never have been shut in the first place.

Just how often do MPs put their own business interests before their political/constituents interests, probably far more often that they should.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

No, they can do that, butg the system is set up to minimise the effectiveness of doing it. There's a widespread perception that voting for a candidate who, realistically, cannot win is a "wasted vote". (Though, to be fair, voting for a candidate who will inevitably win regardless of how you vote is just as pointless.)

What they cannot do is vote for a Tory candiate who isn't Savid Javid, or vote for a Tory candidate who will represent them full time. No such option will appear on the ballot paper, because the Bromsgrove Conservative Association has decided that it will not.

The whole point of the UK electoral system is to minimise the choice offered to the voter, and to maximise the control exercised by the party.

ArmaniJeanss

Aegir wrote: »

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

Obviously they are.
But unfortunately what happens is if any capable Labour or Liberal politician happens to be from Bromsgrove they quickly realise the futility of fighting for the seat there and they stand elsewhere. With limited resources for all parties, it makes sense to throw those resources (people and money) at winnable seats.

The same happens to the Conservatives, there's little or no point in putting the best candidates and canvassers into say Merseyside so they just don't bother and concentrate on what is winnable and what needs defending.

So we end up with a self-perpetuating thing where no-one really fights for ~100 seats because they are safe, and they remain safe because no-one else tries to win them.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Obviously they are.
But unfortunately what happens is if any capable Labour or Liberal politician happens to be from Bromsgrove they quickly realise the futility of fighting for the seat there and they stand elsewhere. With limited resources for all parties, it makes sense to throw those resources (people and money) at winnable seats.

The same happens to the Conservatives, there's little or no point in putting the best candidates and canvassers into say Merseyside so they just don't bother and concentrate on what is winnable and what needs defending.

So we end up with a self-perpetuating thing where no-one really fights for ~100 seats because they are safe, and they remain safe because no-one else tries to win them.

So not a rotten borough then, just a safe seat.

I was expecting to hear that Bromsgrove had an electorate of ten people, all with the surname Javid or something.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point of the UK electoral system is to minimise the choice offered to the voter, and to maximise the control exercised by the party.

Unlike PR STV where people can vote for a change from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and instead get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?

L1011

Aegir wrote: »

Unlike PR STV where people can vote for a change from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and instead get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

Well, when you get the two main (opposite side of the same coin) parties going into a coalition like the one we have, at least half of that 50% got the Taoiseach they didn't vote for.
So by that logic only 25% got the government they voted for, but they all got representation without the manifesto they voted for.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

That was true of the 'Spring Tide' result for Labour, but it did not last long. Labour are in the noise in opinion polls.

The last time a single party got over 50% popular vote in the UK was 1932. Neither Labour (UK) nor Tories want STV or any form of proportional voting because it suits their voting power.

With the 'Safe seat' system, there is a dirth of talent at the MP level which, with this Tory Gov, has translated into an absence of talent at ministerial level, and in particular, PM level.