UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Yeah, Starmer (despite all the whining by some) has turned out to be a very good Labour leader. Beyond being more moderate in general I also think the 'Sir' helps with reassuring swing voters he's not some communist or whatever.

[Angel of Death]

Breaking: Labour conference has endorsed proportional representation.

It will never happen unless there's a hung parliament, and then only maybe. Otherwise, the neo-Blairites will just party like it's 1997 again.

[Torrain]

Breaking: Labour conference has endorsed proportional representation.

It will never happen unless there's a hung parliament, and then only maybe. Otherwise, the neo-Blairites will just party like it's 1997 again.

A Lib-Lab confidence and supply agreement (or formal coalition) is the only election outcome that favours a move to PR. That was a fairly plausible 2024 outcome for a while (arguably the median outcome for a few months), but seems more remote now.

[mileslunn]

How likely do people here think it is the mini budget gets amended?  Seems there are enough Tory MPs who want to bring back cap on banker's bonus and re-instate additional rate of 45% so wonder what happens there?  My guess is Truss doubles down and threatens to remove whip on any who disobey but she may have lost control.  Both are going over horribly in Red Wall for obvious reasons.

[Angel of Death]

Breaking: Labour conference has endorsed proportional representation.

It will never happen unless there's a hung parliament, and then only maybe. Otherwise, the neo-Blairites will just party like it's 1997 again.

A Lib-Lab confidence and supply agreement (or formal coalition) is the only election outcome that favours a move to PR. That was a fairly plausible 2024 outcome for a while (arguably the median outcome for a few months), but seems more remote now.

A hung parliament doesn't even necessarily imply that the Lib Dems would be able to give Labour a majority. In any case, being short a few seats, Labour would probably not offer any agreement to anyone and just play chicken with anyone daring to possibly return the Tories back to power.

[Pericles]

Electoral reform is a diversion in the UK sadly, because I can't see the British people voting for it in a referendum. The recent two hung parliaments would make it extra easy to scare people away from it.

[TheTide]

Electoral reform is a diversion in the UK sadly, because I can't see the British people voting for it in a referendum. The recent two hung parliaments would make it extra easy to scare people away from it.

There doesn't need to be a referendum. Various changes to electoral systems (nationally, regionally and locally) have been implemented without referenda. There was no referendum at the points when the franchise was extended or when the university seats were abolished.

All three referendums held at a UK level thus far (1975 EEC, 2011 AV and 2016 EU) were primarily to keep the government intact, rather than out of any direct democracy principle.  

[Pericles]

Electoral reform is a diversion in the UK sadly, because I can't see the British people voting for it in a referendum. The recent two hung parliaments would make it extra easy to scare people away from it.

There doesn't need to be a referendum. Various changes to electoral systems (nationally, regionally and locally) have been implemented without referenda. All three referendums held at a UK level thus far (1975 EEC, 2011 AV and 2016 EU) were primarily to keep the government intact, rather than out of any direct democracy principle. 

Changing the electoral system is a major constitutional change that should be done through a referendum, otherwise it won't be accepted as legitimate. These issues are the ones that most need to be decided that way.

[TheTide]

Electoral reform is a diversion in the UK sadly, because I can't see the British people voting for it in a referendum. The recent two hung parliaments would make it extra easy to scare people away from it.

There doesn't need to be a referendum. Various changes to electoral systems (nationally, regionally and locally) have been implemented without referenda. All three referendums held at a UK level thus far (1975 EEC, 2011 AV and 2016 EU) were primarily to keep the government intact, rather than out of any direct democracy principle.  

Changing the electoral system is a major constitutional change that should be done through a referendum, otherwise it won't be accepted as legitimate. These issues are the ones that most need to be decided that way.

That's a fair point. People still regularly talk of the illegitimacy of the abolition of plural voting without a referendum in the late 1940s.

(No they don't, and never particularly did to my knowledge.)

[Pericles]

Electoral reform is a diversion in the UK sadly, because I can't see the British people voting for it in a referendum. The recent two hung parliaments would make it extra easy to scare people away from it.

There doesn't need to be a referendum. Various changes to electoral systems (nationally, regionally and locally) have been implemented without referenda. All three referendums held at a UK level thus far (1975 EEC, 2011 AV and 2016 EU) were primarily to keep the government intact, rather than out of any direct democracy principle.  

Changing the electoral system is a major constitutional change that should be done through a referendum, otherwise it won't be accepted as legitimate. These issues are the ones that most need to be decided that way.

That's a fair point. People still regularly talk of the illegitimacy of the abolition of plural voting without a referendum in the late 1940s.

(No they don't, and never particularly did to my knowledge.)

It's not the 1940s, it is expected overseas and in the UK if it arises that this would be sent to a referendum. There would have been a majority of MPs plenty of times who opposed MMP here, but the electoral system has its own mandate from the people here and not from one individual election.

[Joe Republic]

The nation was asked to change the voting system only a decade ago and they said "no" by a 2:1 majority.  A Labour government going ahead themselves and changing it anyway would not exactly be a good look.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If a government were elected with a pledge to introduce it in its manifesto (for instance), then it would not require a referendum in any sense. But... er... Labour Party policy as voted for at Conference is not and never has been the same thing as Labour Party policy, so wait and see.

[afleitch]

We had the Jenkins Commission way back which suggested AV with additional list seats. In 2011 it was pure AV which was arguably less proportionate than the present system.

I would expect a reheated Jenkins proposal or a Scottish/Welsh/London system. Whatever can be done to retain relatively compact single member seats.

[Torrain]

Simon Clarke, Secretary for “Levelling Up” and Housing has given a rather choice interview to the Times.

He says: “My big concern in politics is that western Europe is just living in a fool’s paradise whereby we can be ever less productive relative to our peers, and yet still enjoy a very large welfare state and persist in thinking that the two are somehow compatible over the medium to long term.

“They’re not. We need to address that precisely because in the end, if we want those strong public services then we are going to have to pay for them. I think it is important that we look at a state which is extremely large, and look at how we can make sure that it is in full alignment with a lower tax economy.” Put simply, Clarke is making the case that tax cuts need to be matched by significant cuts in public spending, particularly the welfare budget.

I’m not sure which part of this is most ill-judged, politically. Is it the part where he argues that we have to slash the remaining welfare state to afford these tax cuts, which make materially little benefit to the average Brito ? The part where he suggests that the past decade was a “paradise”? Or just openly calling the voters fools.

All in all, the full interview essentially boils down to “get ready for a new age of austerity” which is perhaps the most audacious line to take, in the face of the current political situation, and the self-inflicted wounds of the past week.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3af81bca-40e4-11ed-a7af-c587dcb7526e?shareToken=ed55fa6281e9a2a98250588e9239b5fc

[Blair]

Worth noting the Tories changed the electoral system for mayors from AV to FPTP without either a manifesto commitment or a referendum.

I hate the vast majority of the ultra online PR lot because they didn’t even bother to campaign around this- literally nothing.

[CumbrianLefty]

And partly in response to that utterly unhinged Clarke interview, the "no mandate" aspect of this is now being picked up even by some of our usually bovinely compliant lobby journalists.

So in the light of the way things *could* go this coming winter, a few polling figures to remember - the biggest ever Labour lead is 43 points, their highest ever score 63%, the lowest ever Tory rating 17%.

[afleitch]

And partly in response to that utterly unhinged Clarke interview, the "no mandate" aspect of this is now being picked up even by some of our usually bovinely compliant lobby journalists.

So in the light of the way things *could* go this coming winter, a few polling figures to remember - the biggest ever Labour lead is 43 points, their highest ever score 63%, the lowest ever Tory rating 17%.

Also less 'don't knows' in the raw data than usual. Which further legitimises the lead.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clarke represents a notoriously volatile constituency on Teesside.

[morgieb]

Clarke represents a notoriously volatile constituency on Teesside.

Which he won off Labor in 2017. Now that's less dangerous than a Corbyn 17/Johnson 19 seat, but clearly he'd be in deep sh**t if an election was held today and would be very vulnerable barring a miracle turnaround for the Tories.

[JimJamUK]

Clarke represents a notoriously volatile constituency on Teesside.

Which he won off Labor in 2017. Now that's less dangerous than a Corbyn 17/Johnson 19 seat, but clearly he'd be in deep sh**t if an election was held today and would be very vulnerable barring a miracle turnaround for the Tories.

The majority is 24%, which given the disproportionate swing amongst Leave voters/people who’ve voted Labour previously, would mean it would likely fall to Labour in the event of a Labour majority (which is a little short of a 10% lead).

[EastAnglianLefty]

One final point. While financial bills and King’s Speeches are defacto confidence motions, any bill can be turned into an official confidence motion, as a nuclear option to get it passed. John Major famously turned the Maastricht Treaty bill into a confidence motion to force his MPs to vote for it. If Truss bundled the measures into a single bill, with a confidence rider added, she would get enough votes to pass it by default (see Xahar’s comment about turkeys voting for Christmas), but sacrifice a ton of political capital, and the final shreds of political goodwill left.

Though it's worth noting that a confidence motion failing brings down the government, but doesn't necessarily precipitate an election, if an alternate government that does command the confidence of the House could be formed. When the parliamentary constituency decides that enough is enough, if Truss tries to fight it then it's one of the less likely routes by which she could be dispatched (the more likely one being via the 1922.)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

One final point. While financial bills and King’s Speeches are defacto confidence motions, any bill can be turned into an official confidence motion, as a nuclear option to get it passed. John Major famously turned the Maastricht Treaty bill into a confidence motion to force his MPs to vote for it. If Truss bundled the measures into a single bill, with a confidence rider added, she would get enough votes to pass it by default (see Xahar’s comment about turkeys voting for Christmas), but sacrifice a ton of political capital, and the final shreds of political goodwill left.

Though it's worth noting that a confidence motion failing brings down the government, but doesn't necessarily precipitate an election, if an alternate government that does command the confidence of the House could be formed. When the parliamentary constituency decides that enough is enough, if Truss tries to fight it then it's one of the less likely routes by which she could be dispatched (the more likely one being via the 1922.)

How would this work though in forming a new government? Truss would still be leader of the party that constitutes a majority in the Commons. So unless I'm mistaken the only way to avoid an election and form an alternate government would be 1) the Conservative parliamentary party deposes Truss and appoints a new leader within days - plainly impossible, or 2) enough Conservative MPs resign the whip to give the opposition a majority - never happening in a million years.

Of course there's almost zero chance the budget is voted down anyway. Both the government and any rebels will do everything to avoid that.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Appointing a new leader in a matter of days is possible - you simply need to decide on a consensus candidate and acclaim them. The difficulty would be in finding the consensus candidate.

[Blair]

Lol at the Palace now going to war with Truss.

[YPestis25]

Lol at the Palace now going to war with Truss.

What’s happened? Struggling to find anything.