Are the Tories going to tear themselves apart?

ChiefGrasscutter

Moby wrote: »

Imo you vote in a govmt to make decisions such as this....that's the democracy bit!

I have never voted - and I'm my 50's.
I do not regard the UK's system of voting as democracy.
It is closer to being an "elected oligarchy".

Now for the first time in my life I am actually going to get a chance to make a difference rather than not voting in in anyway a safe seat - so its pointless.

...and I will be voting "out"

kinger101

Moby wrote: »

How many referendums should we pencil in regarding Europe. Should we have one every ten years? Imo you vote in a govmt to make decisions such as this....that's the democracy bit! As I said Cameron didn't impose a referendum because he cared about the British people having a say....he was worried about UKIP's effect on his own power base!

I agree with you on why Cameron decided to have a referendum. But our position within the EU is a constitutional one, and that's precisely the type of thing we should get a vote on. The EU is not the same beast as when we joined, and has set itself on the path to becoming a federal state.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

There could be a huge shift to UKIP as the Tories would have betrayed some of their core and die hard voters.

I don't really see this. There's a vote and exit will lose. End of. At no point in the last 40 years has the Tory party leadership ever argued for Brexit, and Cameron has characterised UKIP, not unfairly IMO, as fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists - labels they earn afresh every day. Nobody can say they didn't know what the party's view has been.

IDS has his covert backers, namely the six ministers on team Brexit and of course Boris at their head. It looks like their plan is to stage a leadership challenge regardless of how the vote goes

IDS was one of those who wrecked Major's government with infighting over a hopeless policy position, which was his desire for Brexit. He was one of those Major characterised as "b*st*rds", and the more we see of Duncan Smith, the clearer it is that Major's judgment was spot on. If IDS was so keen on Brexit, why didn't he make it party policy when he was leader? Er, that would be because it would have made the party unelectable, and he knew it; so he's trying to ride the party's coat tails, like Militant or Momentum, slippimng it into the agenda of an electable party knowing that there's no other way for him to get what he wants.

IDS is the Tories' Anthony Wedgwood-Benn.

Osborne's budgets for instance have been purely designed to promote the interests in society that will maximise his power. IDS exposed that when he said that the govmt should be helping people who in all probability will never vote for them. I respect him for that because the job of govmt is to rise above party interest.

I didn't vote for Cameron so they could favour people who didn't. We currently have a Labour chancellor so frankly he and Osborne had better watch it.

this administration may begin to resemble the govmt of John Major between 1992-7. In their favour they don't have a bright young Blair on the opposition benches to expose them, as clearly Corbyn lacks the agility to do so.

Whistling in the dark a bit there. This isn't 1992 to 1997. It isn't even 1987 to 92. It's 1981, when Howe raised taxes in a recession, and all the bien pensants raised a stink, including 364 economists who wrote to The Times to complain about what a bad idea it was. The recovery started more or less immediately, and the potty old twit leading Labour got obliterated at the next GE.

There are certain people whose agreement with you should worry you and whose opposition to you validates your views.

There are some similarities to 1990 to 1995, in that global economic headwinds make the future look a bit dodgy. 25 years ago, the issue was that Germany borrowed money to pay for reunification, and raised interest rates to fund it, which meant everyone else's went up too. This turned what would have been 2 years of UK economic pain into 6 or 7. The fact is, though, that this argument is happening now exactly because all the Conservative actors recognise that it's perfectly safe to have this spat. There is no electoral risk whatsoever, because the Opposition is an utter shambles led by a nasty Marxist terrorist-hugging anti-Semitic lunatic.

I'm starting to believe the most competent system leading to the greatest fairness is proportional representation.

You are saying that only because it would improve Labour's current standing. If they were in power you wouldn't be interested - Blair got a 66-seat majority in 2005 off a smaller vote share than Cameron got in 2015, and nobody on the left complained about the unfairness of that. People tend to be in favour of the system that produces the best results for their party.

There are two problems with PR though. One is that the voting system alters how people vote, so you have no idea how 2015 would have gone under PR, and neither does anyone else. You can't just assume identical vote shares, and work out a different seats outcome.

The second problem is that it creates different grossly unfair results, such as coalitions in which riff raff like UKIP or the SNP (for whom few voted) hold the balance of power between the two main parties (for whom ~70% voted). So there is actually nothing "proportional" about it at all - it is grossly Disproportionate Representation, which is unfairer to many more people. When such results are foreseen by the voters, you get unexpected outcomes, like a Tory majority in 2015 under FPTP. The electorate wasn't prepared to countenance either a Labour minority government with the SNP headbangers holding the balance of power, or a Tory minority with the UKIP headbangers holding the balance of power.

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

How many referendums should we pencil in regarding Europe. Should we have one every ten years? Imo you vote in a govmt to make decisions such as this....that's the democracy bit! As I said Cameron didn't impose a referendum because he cared about the British people having a say....he was worried about UKIP's effect on his own power base!

I don't doubt for a second that Cameron was effectively railroaded into a referendum. However, that in itself is a perfect example of a section of the electorate using their democratic power to drive change.

Compare that to the alternate vote referendum which was a pure political fudge based around a non-issue for most of the electorate.

kinger101

westernpromise wrote: »

There are two problems with PR though. One is that the voting system alters how people vote, so you have no idea how 2015 would have gone under PR, and neither does anyone else. You can't just assume identical vote shares, and work out a different seats outcome.

I find the strangest paradox with PR is that the strongest advocates of the system where the Lib Dems and the people who voted for them in 2012. Yet as soon as the Lib Dems enter the only form of Government PR is likely to deliver, their voters punish them at the next election.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

I don't really see this. There's a vote and exit will lose. End of. At no point in the last 40 years has the Tory party leadership ever argued for Brexit, and Cameron has characterised UKIP, not unfairly IMO, as fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists - labels they earn afresh every day. Nobody can say they didn't know what the party's view has been.

I doubt it will be that simple. The size of the vote and the momentum of the campaigns will factor as well. Besides IDS Michael Howard is in favour of Brexit. He was Tory leader before Cameron. So two of the three leaders prior to Cameron himself are for Brexit....and so is David Davis.......... the guy who should have beaten Cameron to the leadership. As I said there is a clear Brexit majority amongst the tory grass roots as well. Do you seriously think it will all be forgotten and they'll happily move on if they lose? Look at Scotland. The SNP is stronger than ever!

IDS was one of those who wrecked Major's government with infighting over a hopeless policy position, which was his desire for Brexit. He was one of those Major characterised as "b*st*rds", and the more we see of Duncan Smith, the clearer it is that Major's judgment was spot on. If IDS was so keen on Brexit, why didn't he make it party policy when he was leader? Er, that would be because it would have made the party unelectable, and he knew it; so he's trying to ride the party's coat tails, like Militant or Momentum, slippimng it into the agenda of an electable party knowing that there's no other way for him to get what he wants.

IDS is the Tories' Anthony Wedgwood-Benn.

IDS resigned due to his Govmts welfare policies and being controlled by the Treasury. He made this clear yesterday.

Whistling in the dark a bit there. This isn't 1992 to 1997. It isn't even 1987 to 92. It's 1981, when Howe raised taxes in a recession, and all the bien pensants raised a stink, including 364 economists who wrote to The Times to complain about what a bad idea it was. The recovery started more or less immediately, and the potty old twit leading Labour got obliterated at the next GE.

The Falklands victory got Thatcher re-elected not her economic policies.She was tanking in the polls and then events took over.

The fact is, though, that this argument is happening now exactly because all the Conservative actors recognise that it's perfectly safe to have this spat. There is no electoral risk whatsoever, because the Opposition is an utter shambles led by a nasty Marxist terrorist-hugging anti-Semitic lunatic.

Naaaah............. they have in no way chosen the time and place for this spat. Cameron/Osborne had absolutely no clue the budget would be received in this way! or that IDS would resign. The timing of the referendum was under a degree of control but Brexit campaigners will be fully aware it's a rush job timed to suit Cameron and this will add to the bitterness when/if they lose!
Your characterisation of Corbyn is not the person I recognise having met him on occasion.

You are saying that only because it would improve Labour's current standing. If they were in power you wouldn't be interested - Blair got a 66-seat majority in 2005 off a smaller vote share than Cameron got in 2015, and nobody on the left complained about the unfairness of that. People tend to be in favour of the system that produces the best results for their party.

No I genuinely believe PR would overall be a better system for the reasons given. I feel the coalition was infinitely a better administration than the present shower.

There are two problems with PR though. One is that the voting system alters how people vote, so you have no idea how 2015 would have gone under PR, and neither does anyone else. You can't just assume identical vote shares, and work out a different seats outcome.

Thats a plus imo.

The second problem is that it creates different grossly unfair results, such as coalitions in which riff raff like UKIP or the SNP (for whom few voted) hold the balance of power between the two main parties (for whom ~70% voted). So there is actually nothing "proportional" about it at all - it is grossly Disproportionate Representation, which is unfairer to many more people. When such results are foreseen by the voters, you get unexpected outcomes, like a Tory majority in 2015 under FPTP. The electorate wasn't prepared to countenance either a Labour minority government with the SNP headbangers holding the balance of power, or a Tory minority with the UKIP headbangers holding the balance of power

.Well you define them as riff raff but that dismisses the views of huge swathes of people. I believe the SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, Greens should have a say in Govmt proportional to their vote level. That's clearly more democratic and inclusive. Factionalism is rife in this country and unless reigned in it is clear Govmt policy is being viewed and decided throught the prism of party interest rather than the public interest. Osborne's budgets are the most prominent example of this. You could add the new trades union legislation to this as well.

Malthusian

kinger101 wrote: »

I find the strangest paradox with PR is that the strongest advocates of the system where the Lib Dems and the people who voted for them in 2012. Yet as soon as the Lib Dems enter the only form of Government PR is likely to deliver, their voters punish them at the next election.

Parties like the Lib Dems - all things to all men, simultaneously socialist and libertarian - don't exist in countries which use PR. The Lib Dems were only able to exist as a permanent protest vote because they never got into power and had the contradictions at their heart exposed.

The usual set up in PR systems is a left-centre and right-centre party, with the right-centre flanked by a libertarian party and the left-centre flanked by red socialist and green socialist parties. If Britain went PR the Lib Dems - if they still existed in any form - would have to decide which side they wanted to take. There is no real difference to FPTP, the same faces still rotate in and out of power every five years or so, only via a left coalition and a right coalition instead of a left party and a right party.

Filo25

Malthusian wrote: »

Parties like the Lib Dems - all things to all men, simultaneously socialist and libertarian - don't exist in countries which use PR. The Lib Dems were only able to exist as a permanent protest vote because they never got into power and had the contradictions at their heart exposed.

The usual set up in PR systems is a left-centre and right-centre party, with the right-centre flanked by a libertarian party and the left-centre flanked by red socialist and green socialist parties. If Britain went PR the Lib Dems - if they still existed in any form - would have to decide which side they wanted to take. There is no real difference to FPTP, the same faces still rotate in and out of power every five years or so, only via a left coalition and a right coalition instead of a left party and a right party.

Absolutely right.

Its why I would be interested in seeing what UKIP would do if they actually had some power (much though I dislike them myself), at least people should get to see what they are actually voting for, are they a libertarian party to the right of the Tories that wants to replace the NHS with an insurance based system or are they the friends of the working class, which they are trying to rebadge themselves as in some areas.

Moby

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/21/tory-turmoil-cameron-ids-osborne-back-after-ids-resignation-by-backing-compassionate-conservatism-politics-live?page=with:block-56efcd0ce4b0fc0a5ab70978#block-56efcd0ce4b0fc0a5ab70978

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/21/tory-turmoil-cameron-ids-osborne-back-after-ids-resignation-by-backing-compassionate-conservatism-politics-live?page=with:block-56efdf71e4b0fc0a5ab709b8#block-56efdf71e4b0fc0a5ab709b8

As the budget unravels before our eyes..........I see David Davis.....an infinitely better man than the Ant and Dec double act is now weighing in!

kinger101

Malthusian wrote: »

Parties like the Lib Dems - all things to all men, simultaneously socialist and libertarian - don't exist in countries which use PR. The Lib Dems were only able to exist as a permanent protest vote because they never got into power and had the contradictions at their heart exposed.

I think that's probably a bit too much of a generalisation. The Lib Dems are not actually that different from Labour or the Tories in containing multiple camps. Yes, they contain both social liberals and economic liberals (if that's what you mean by libertarians), but you tend to have one camp at the helm of the party. As we can see now in both Labour and the Tories. The Lib Dems share of the vote actually went down in 2012, perhaps indicating the electorate preferred yellow to orange. I think the yellows certainly offered a different proposition to Brown (particularly on issues like ID cards, which ruled Labour out for me).

As for being all things to all men, one might say the same about Cameron and Miliband at the last election.