Yesterday I wrote a thread about people's increasingly fractured political preferences. I said that we were becoming less easy to please, and that this made it increasingly difficult for political parties to craft a message with broad appeal. 1/16
The thread got a lot of very interesting responses, for which 🙏.
A lot of the responses, perhaps unsurprisingly, said that some form of proportional representation was the answer. 2/
I'm a big fan of PR. But if the problem is that political preferences are ever more fractured, I don't think that PR does anything more than move, rather than solve, the problem. 3/
Let's imagine (this might take some doing...) that the next GE has been won by Progressive Alliance parties, and that they have introduced a wonderful PR system for the following GE. 4/
The parties of the left are likely to realign in some way. Staying optimistic, let's say that they configure themselves so as to better match the fractured preferences of the people. 5/
The 'broad church' Labour party may no longer exist. Parties may emerge with different priorities on (eg) the environment, capitalism, UK/EU relations, etc etc. The whole process is likely to be fraught. 6/
And, let's say, that the Conservatives, as now, keep about 40% of the vote; but that, under the new system, that only gets them 40% of the seats in Parliament. 7/
The question is what happens next. 8/
Many seem to imagine that the new 'progressive' parties, who between them have 60% of the vote, will simply group together and form a Govt. 9/
The fact that they will have that opportunity (which they don't have under FPTP) is a strong - perhaps even overwhelming - reason to welcome a fairer voting system. 10/
But, while the individual parties may be able to fashion policies which, to return to my theme, appeal to people's fractured political preferences, many of those preferences (esp the 'niche ones') will - inevitably - not survive coalition negotiations. 11/
So we will be in a position in which *parties* will be able to represent fractured political preferences, but in which *a coalition Govt* in which those parties are represented will - inevitably - abandon (or shelve) some of those preferences. 12/
And that, as the LDs can testify, can lead very quickly to dissatisfaction from voters whose preferences have been abandoned. 13/
It also strikes me that we are asking a lot (too much?) of our politicians in this environment. The push for PR comes (in part) from a desire to have parties which better reflect our preferences, and therefore (in part) from our inability to moderate our preferences. 14/
Yet, while *we* don't seem to be prepared to compromise, we seem to expect that politicians, who have formed parties to reflect those preferences, will, post-GE, find compromises between rival 'progressive' positions. 15/
I'm afraid I don't see a solution which doesn't start with us all accepting that we won't get all of what we want, and that we need to compromise. 16/16
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts about political preferences which have been going round my head over the weekend. I think I might have the beginnings of something which might be interesting... 1/13
When we make choices about which party to support, we want to see a number of things which are important to us reflected in the stance/policies of that party. 2/
We also have a number of things which are red lines, which if crossed, mean that we are likely to withhold our support, even if much of the rest of the offer is a good one. 3/
Not for the first time, I get the feeling that the Government hasn't thought things through. It has, once again, left students and universities facing huge uncertainty. 1/5 bbc.co.uk/news/uk-580096…
We are told to expect decisions - on whether students will be required to get vaccinated before going to university - in September. We are also told that this will amount to giving students 'advance warning'. 2/5
If students are to need to be vaccinated before coming to uni and haven't yet had the first dose, and there are 8 weeks between doses and 10 days before vaccine protection kicks in... *it is already too late* for the start of term. 3/5
Strong stuff here from David, and it is all fully merited.
The 'sign then renege' manoeuvre is (unsurprisingly) corrosive of trust. And things don't look good for 'global Britain' if the rest of the world doesn't trust the UK.
The bits on governance (66-72) and on standstill periods and a freeze on legal actions and processes (77) make it very clear that this is not an attempt to reach agreement.
Para 77 is a thing of beauty.
It says: we believe we and the EU should agree a ‘standstill’ on existing arrangements, including the operation of grace periods in force, and a freeze on existing legal actions and processes...
One thing struck me - from a news management perspective - about today's briefing.
On 'freedom day', much of the media focus is on the announcement that the Govt will, in September, introduce a vaccine passport scheme for clubs and mass events. 1/5
On the face of it, this looks like an own-goal by an incompetent Govt. On 'freedom day', it has managed to alienate many businesses and many of its own MPs.
You can add their critical voices to those opposed to the 'reckless' easing of restrictions. 2/5
There may, though, be method in the madness. Here's my theory.
The critical voices of those opposed to the 'reckless' easing of restrictions have, literally, been marginalised. *Instead* we hear the voices of those urging a return to pre-COVID normal. 3/5
But first, two 'corrections'.
In the tweets on the attempts to shore up power, I omitted to refer to the 'anti-protest' law, described here by @IanDunt. It merits a place.
And there (obviously) shouldn't be an apostrophe in 'its' in tweet 6. 2/ politics.co.uk/comment/2021/0…
So... how should we respond? The first key thing is to accept the inevitability that many of us, who all see the Johnson govt as a danger, will disagree (perhaps profoundly) about the best way forward. The disagreements are here to stay. 3/
The debate about 'levelling up' prompts this 10-tweet summary of the Johnson Govt. 1/10
The Johnson Govt excels at 'sloganeering populism'. 'Get Brexit Done', 'Global Britain', 'Freedom Day'... and now 'Levelling up'.
The rhetoric projects energy and is meant to show a Govt devoted to 'the people's priorities'. 2/10
Behind the rhetoric, one might hope for some substance, and for at least the beginnings of a coherent policy agenda. And yet - be it the relationship with the EU or the wider world, COVID or tackling inequality - there is *nothing*. 3/10