To thinknit's a bit shit that we have to compromise our true political beliefs to getbtories out/ keep Starmer out/ insert political party you hate?

The idea that China cares AT ALL who wins the UK election is astonishingly solipsistic and anglocentric.

UK and most of western Europe is simply not relevant to China. They rightly identified, about a decade ago, that western european democracy and economic productivity was in terminal decline and nothing's happened since then to change that view.

US they care about more because of Taiwan and SCS.

In the meantime Xi has a hell of a lot on his hands with his 'New Productive Forces' strategy in which CCP investment has already topped $1.6trn.

China is not a democracy so they don't need to think in terms of electoral cycles. They think in terms of decades and centuries. The fortunes of a rain swept declining little island mired somewhere between Europe and America is totally irrelevant to them.

I don't think this Tory party is far right.

Depends where you put the centre doesn't it ? They are the furthest right I have ever seen them. And getting more so.

Don't want to vote for Khan as mayor, but think the Tory is awful, will pick an independent and if none of those look decent lord bucket head.

Here's the funny thing, re: the China comment. China and Russia don't actually care who wins the election...the best result for them is chaos, just like Brexit and the last couple of elections. As long as it's close, and there's a good bit of infighting in the winning party, and the newspapers and social media are full of people tearing strips out of each other...it suits them perfectly, because our government will be too busy looking inwards to look too closely at what they're doing.

After all, that's exactly how Russia got away with preparing for invading Ukraine - by encouraging Trump's drama and all the daft shit going on with the Tories over here.

I would suggest there's not a lot between Lib, Lab and Con at the moment. Greens are left wing. Reform is right wing. Everyone else is scrabbling for the centre ground.

OK OK, I'm taking part in a debate, no need to characterise my thoughts as 'crock', all opinions are valid surely.

I don't think this Tory party is far right. More liberal centrist and very statist/big spending, imo.

My point was moreso the evidence that the existence of PR in itself encourages the formation of extremist parties, as per recent papers/books by Conti and Mershon etc. I subscribe to this view.

I also disagree with a purist view of democracy such as you seem to espouse, I'm with Plato on the dangers of that. I think parliamentary representative democracy is the safest way to go and I do think PR threatens that as it encourages more extremist elements.

Look at UKIP for example, who forced the Tories into offering the EU referendum while having practically no parliamentary representation.

Hmmm ... the referendum was more about Camerons cowardice than any real agency from UKIP. It was the equivalent of holding up a shop with by pointing two fingers and threatening to go "bang".

The Greens were getting pretty powerful at one point, but their major achievement is actually getting Labour and the Torys to take on green policy.

Yes, that was a flash in the pan, wasn't it ?

Not really that good when you actually need something done.

Depends what the something is really

Fringe parties do have plenty of influence.

The main parties take on their policies to avoid having their vote share decrease.

Look at UKIP for example, who forced the Tories into offering the EU referendum while having practically no parliamentary representation. Reform UK will probably influence future Tory policy in the same way.

The Greens were getting pretty powerful at one point, but their major achievement is actually getting Labour and the Torys to take on green policy. My guess is that the Greens as with UKIP and Reform UK would all have been a disaster in government, but had the influence to force both Labour and Tories onto a more green agenda.

Fringe parties tend to exert influence outside of parliament rather than from inside it. The discussion is still had. I actually think haven't more parties in parliament would actually make it less functional. European governments where PR seems to be very prevalent tend to be extremely fragile alliances of multiple parties that can collapse on a sixpence. Not really that good when you actually need something done.

Given that we have a Tory party that still hasn't moved as far right as it will, that argument is also a crock.

Besides, why should people who vote for smaller parties be ignored ? Hardly democracy is it ?

The current system allows these smaller parties - with some justification - to pull the "help, I'm being oppressed" card which tends to boost their profile.

I made a bad call voting for Thatcher back in the day, but to be fair to my 18 year old self I was really keen to have a female PM.

Realistically, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. The same way voting Tory in 1997 wouldn't have. It might just have changed one seat, but had zero effect on the practical result of a Labour majority.

I once did the math on how many people actually decide the government. It's worryingly low. Low enough that if you could find them and they were amenable to a £10,000 inducement, you could buy the election for a few hundred million. Chump change to China.

I'm against PR because it encourages the formation and electoral success of extreme parties. Under PR UKIP would've had a fair few seats, probably Reform UK now, look at the AfD in Germany, the far right parties doing well in Netherlands and Sweden etc etc

I made a bad call voting for Thatcher back in the day, but to be fair to my 18 year old self I was really keen to have a female PM.
Since then, I’ve mostly voted Labour. But my local Labour Party is so shit- our MP has been suspended and doesn’t vote in Parliament, our councillors don’t respond to communication , the leader of the council and her acolytes are corrupt and either don’t consult or ride roughshod over public consultation, and are dismissive of the interests wishes and views of their constituents. So I don’t think I will be able to vote Labour, although I am generally a lefty.
I’ve heard that our suspended MP is likely to be deselected and replaced with the Council leader, which makes it even worse. I blame the national Labour Party for dragging their heels over the investigation into the allegations against our MP- can’t help but feel that is deliberate policy.
I don’t know whether to spoil my vote or vote Green, assuming there will be a local candidate. Either way it’s a protest vote. I know there is no chance of a Green MP.

One argument against PR was that it leads to weak governments and instability.

Obviously those are useless now - given the party that had the fucking nerve to campaign by suggesting Labour would be "chaotic" has given us more instability than I have ever known.

Another argument is that it leads to backroom deals and loss of transparency.

Again, the Tories have sunk that argument until it's come out the other side of the earth. And as the 2010 coalition showed, you can publish terms of coalition for transparency. Which is why 2010-2015 was relatively stable.

Personally I think it's the height of entitled arrogance to believe than any single party can have all the answers. Collaborative working should see the best of all worlds.

Proportional representation is the way forward. Until then vote labour in the general election if you don’t want more of the tories.

I have voted in elections since Harold Wilson was PM and not once have I ever voted FOR a party I have always voted AGAINST one or the other.

PR would be the answer but neither of the main parties would introduce it - it's against their own party's interest.

I think one of the cleverer tricks the elite pulled when they were (very grudgingly) forced to widen the franchise, was to then create a rump class that don't vote for whatever reason. Meaning they can ignore them (as they do) and carry on as before.

This also applies to the boneheaded "I've always voted <x>" contingent. If you have always voted <x> and would never vote any other way, then I have news for you my disenfranchised friend. No one gives a shit about you. Why would they ?

Depends what you think 'politics' is.

If you think it's about ideology and tribalism, about 'beliefs' like a quasi-religion, then yes I'm sure it must be very irritating.

If you think, as I do, that mature parliamentary democracies are about pragmatism and compromise, about taking small incremental decisions to improve the lot of as many people as possible whilst doing as little harm as possible, then, nah, doesn't bother me.

So you are happy to accept whatever you get then.

Unless you set up your own political party, you'll never find one that's perfect. Tactical voting to get the least worst option is the most pragmatic use of your vote.

I know people will be against thus buy its why I don't vote. I cant in good consciousness vote for any of the candidates.

There is no party I can vote for. My starting point is women's rights. Once we get past that, I will look at other policies such as the economy, the health service, education etc.
Not one of them gets past the starting point. Women's rights are in a mess because of the Tories. They had years to fix the problem and only make noises now in a last desperate attempt to win votes. I don't trust them. And, anyway, they fail on everything else that matters to me.
No other party can be trusted with women's rights.

He did it because in politics you take your opportunities when you get them. You don't wait around for a better position because it might never happen.

15 years down the line shows that he was right. There was no second vote on PR in the last 15 years and precious little likelyhood of it happening in at least the next decade.

It's the same reason why when people say parties don't want to win elections are talking bollocks.

Political parties seek power first and foremost. when they get that power then they think about how to deal with the issues that face them. Because even if you inherit the worst position ever, there is always the chance that something like covid or a minor war might crop up and change the game completely.

^^^^^^^^

It'd be far more shit to not compromise, and Starmer gets in or the Tory nightmare continues?

The run up to the AV vote was very short, considering it was (supposedly) about changing a fundamental part of our system.

There was also an incredible rump of stupid who voted against it because it "wasn't proper PR". Ultimately I don't think they would have swung it, but it was a harsh light on the critical think of the average person.