Just watching the Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns on Johnson vs Stewart. Apparently Stewart has done a 'great job' demonstrating the wide base of the Tory Party (Huh???) but Boris is the man who can get a deal with the EU and bring the country together. He was asked 'and Boris can bring the country together?' to which he replied 'Oh yes, easily.'

When Boris fans in the parliamentary party are so clearly living in isolation from the real world, then it goes some way to explaining some of the things they say and seem to believe.

Just seen that Stewart is out of the race. He will have to DOB, DOB, DOB somewhere else and his young supporters need no longer fear National Service.

"the man who can get a no deal with the EU"

FTFY

Exactly. The EU agreed a deal with the British government. This involved the EU negotiating team separately negotiating/agreeing the terms of the deal to be offered with 27 individual national governments. It was a tortuous process extending over 2.5 years and was characterised by the British governments combination of "red-lines" (No Common Market, No Free Movement, No Contribution to the EU Budget) with demands for as many EU goodies as possible - Oh, and not undermining the Good Friday Agreement with a physical, tariff barrier between N & S. Not surprisingly, the EU says "That's it. No more negotiating."

It follows that the strategy of ALL the candidates who want to leave the EU but with a deal and not Theresa May's deal  (i.e. all the candidates) depends ENTIRELY on the EU being bluffing. 

The negotiation that will take place when the EU admits that it's bluffing consists of various MAGICAL replacements to the "back stop" agreement - the propoposal to remain temporarily within the Customs Union while a long term solution to the N/S Irish border is worked out. The plan popular with the Tory ERG is MAGICAL TECHNOLOGY. The ERG have been assured by experts (IT salesmen and CEOs) that it is quite possible to solve everything with existing technology really, really quickly. This solution appears to have been talked into reality over the last few months so that it is now a given in Tory discussions.

If it wasn't all so serious with such consequences for real lives I'd say 'fuck the lot of them and lets just screw the whole nation up with a no-deal exit'. After all, that's exactly what the majority of Tory Party members with the final say on the candidates actually believe according to recent polls.

Wouldn't the potential benefit of Lib Dems be in taking votes away from the Conservatives and Labour, moving away from a two-party system, and towards the possibility of PR?

Tim Farron made it clear the Lib Dems wouldn't coalesce with either of the other two parties in 2017. It's still another five weeks before we find out if they pick Ed Davey or Jo Swinson - a brief look suggests both of them suck, but I'll sit myself on the fence about whether either is opportunist enough to bury the party by jumping back into bed with the Tories.

I've seen nothing to disabuse me of the opinion that the LDs are weather-vanes and will say whatever seems most politically expedient in any given moment. Chuka Umunna seems entirely suited to them in that regard, in that both him and Cable were on the fairly recent record about respecting the referendum result and hardening up on immigration at one point, but now of course it's all different and always has been. Haha, Chuka's also on record about how he could never join the LDs after their coalition history and broken promises. Lolz all round!

The LDs also managed to fuck up getting even AV, I don't have any hope they'd get anywhere with PR at all. If they surprise me then I'll be happy, but I have zero faith in it.

And then there were two.

Picking what solace I can from the wreckage, I do think that all this shit does bring us nearer to PR. FPTP was being propped up by the Coke vs. Pepsi two party cartel; but it will look less attractive to them as they drop down the rankings. One clear outcome of the recent elections is that 21st century politics can't be expressed through a 19th century electoral process.

If we're not going to descend further down the pan of irrational polarisation, we need an electoral system which ensures that every vote - no matter how much I object to it - influences the complexion of government. My vote (Green) will get on other people's tits too.

One must keep in mind that Israel has proportional representation, with regard to the practicality of the outcome.

I know from your twitter that you love this Coke/Pepsi analogy, but surely it only applies to them attempting to fudge the brexit thing without alienating large swathes of their support one way or another. As big as that is, there's a lot more life and Labour at the moment seem pretty much opposite to the Tories on austerity, tax, social care, housing, the NHS, transport, environment, and well, everything.

Anyway, I can respect a Green vote (and will go back to them if/when the centrist types finally manage to sabotage Labour enough to get it back to the middle of the road shit we tired of years ago - then it truly is something where your analogy works), there's principles in it. 

I only use the Coke Vs. Pepsi analogy in the context of FPTP voting, because it's in their mutual interest to maintain a system that supports the myth of a binary choice. The political calculation is that it's better to have a 50% chance of all of the pie than the virtual guarantee of around a third of it.  A proportional system is clearly more democratic, enfranchising virtually every voter, but the Tories and Labour don't support it because it's not in their parties' interests.

To Smiffy's point, yes, Israel has PR; but so do 89 other countries, including some of the most politically stable - staid, even.

fair enough, that makes sense. I never did like fizzy drinks much.

Maybe we can get stuck enough into hung parliaments and minority governments to make it happen, although i dread to think the trouble getting there will cause.

OK, I didn't know that, not having looked into it to any degree (obviously).

'more democratic' sounds like a good and desirable thing; in the age of facebook and twitter it is proving problematic.

I don't think a particular electoral system or political structure can in and of itself ensure a good outcome, if the participants can't even broadly agree on the definition of what that might look like.

I do think some experimentation is warranted in view of current systemic failures. A lot of what we're seeing is a rejection of the status quo because so many have been hard done by it, they are willing to entertain nuclear options (Trump, Brexit et al).

To me, the only way to save the day (and the planet), is swift and decisive wealth redistribution. Fuck 'slavery reparations', we need *poverty* reparations, on a global scale.

Democracy does need an appropriately educated populace to be effective.

Capitalism works better when the peons can be conned and divided.

AsboJo got the police called to his girlfriend's flat, over a sofa-ruining drunken altercation last night

New series Rise of the Nazis on the BBC starting 2 September. Apparently Germany was a Liberal Democracy and yet 4 years later was in the hands of a dictator with a government of murderers. Seems that it was as much about ruthless personal ambition and a desire to hold onto power by more moderate politicians as it was about extreme ideology. Just saying.

What's happening is scary.

I could see Irritable Duncan Syndrome filling Joseph Goebbels' shoes.

Fuck me if it hasn't all gone sideways. In a good way.

I'm not counting chickens yet. My rule of thumb is to ask "what would a bunch of spoilt, entitled, schoolboys do now?" It won't necessarily be clever, but it's likely to be vicious.

I just tweeted along these lines this morning:
  ​​​​​​​