Posts by casablanca

    At least you're posting in a font and size that most people can read for a change, so that's start.


    Leaving aside the pandemic and understandably politically expedient decisions, I think Dominic Cummings would probably agree with you.


    There's needs to be a decent level of expertise at the heart of government and when there isn't, which is most of the time, then we get into all these issues over cronyism and corruption.

    1 Thanks - I'll remember to choose the right font and size


    2 It's no compliment that the guy you think agrees with entered number 10 imagining he could achieve respect and progress dressed as a cross between a Harry Enfield teenager and Sid Vicious.


    3 The government has all the expertise it needs that money can buy (our money!). But it's no use when it comes to government explaining/justifying itself to the electorate, at which point the ministers hog the stage with soundbites, platitudes, self-congratulation* and faltering, irrelevant or incomprehensible explanations, while the experts are gagged and put behind a curtain; or in those farcical daily coronavirus tv sessions, the whole thing was so obviously "staged", where the experts on either side of the minister had been gagged with money, fame, the honours list and conditioned, trained or rehearsed on what was ok and not ok to say. When something is that contrived and Goebbellelish, all that's left is for voters and the media is to perceive or suspect corruption, cronyism, vested interests, careerism and incompetence ........ aka politics.


    * The ABC of politics: Always Be Selling

    1 I am a interventionist by nature, but only when it's in our interests to do so or whether there could be a huge loss of innocent life.


    2 We cannot turn a medieval culture into a western liberal democracy in a few decades. Either we stayed there for the next 100 years or get out and obviously the Americans have chosen to leave.


    3 I feel very sorry for the many girls and women who will suffer under any new Taliban administration, but it is for Afghans to decide what their culture should and shouldn't be and the Taliban has widespread support in the south of the country.

    I pretty much agree with your 3 points.


    My caveats or thoughts which give me mental turmoil are .........


    I'm not keen on one country intervening or acting unilaterally unless it has enough worldwide support

    Better still, tangible support


    Better still, with the support of the UN was supposed to be but isn't (with teeth). We need a world police with action based on a vote majority rather than unanimity


    Better still, when the plan is for a long-term fix, a new future, a lasting redevelopment not just a quick temporary fix that will reccur.


    Yes, with without a huge loss of innocent life. But who is innocent in a country that is behaving and thinking in a way that is a burden and threat to a world at large who are for the most part much more civilised?


    For instance, what should I do with innocent pigeons who crap all over my patio and on garden furniture and then build a nest inside my chimney which I don't know about until I light a fire, which sets fire to the chimney which sets fire to my house?


    Or during a beach picnic, an innocent seagull sweeps down to devour my sandwich and (accidentally?) pecks me and (accidentally) it has pecked my eye?


    Or in a world of insects, is an innocent young mosquito an innocent young life to be preserved just because it hasn't yet bitten anyone?


    Expanding beyond insects and birds, the difference between a guilty or innocent creature or person of the same DNA might ultimately just be happenstance. This is especially true if breeding is inward rather than outward, where such nature & nurture will either enlarge and preserve something worthy of preserving ...... or be worthy of eradicating.


    Are innocent humans really innocent if they willingly voted for a government that allows them to be a deliberate or unwitting danger or unsustainable burden on this planet?


    China gives me the creeps for all sorts of rational and emotional reasons but I understand why they are intolerant to a religion or ideology (a faint difference) which seeks to enlarge its influence (or procreates at a rate which has that effect), which the West seems unable or unwilling to understand (or admit out loud to doing so)

    The "origin" group are called Antifa and they are a violent black suprematist group who want to destroy us. And thus, I will never accept this disgusting practice of showing submission to these creeps by kneeling. People like Lineker make me sick.

    Whether the behind-the-scenes identity is Antifa or the Ku Klux Klan, this crowd of "kneejerks" represents everything that phoney, vacuous or lachrymose about so many people in Britain or the US.

    These days I take a holiday from Forum Box for two or three weeks just to avoid feeling I'm in a Groundhog Day forum. Probably that perception cuts both ways, especially if I keep posting excessively lengthy comments that get a flatline or zero response, with just one or two food-for-thought replies which I much appreciate - and need. Instead I click on a thread of interest and find it swamped with the same-old “dotty jenny” thoughts or diatribes in which practically everything is interpreted through an extreme distorted left-wing prism (or kaleidoscope).


    In this thread, what I find most disappointing, even intellectually and morally repugnant, is the government’s unwillingness to have given an honest defence of their actions. Instead, the government chooses whatever response is likely to gain the most credibility or bored/resigned acceptance by the media and its sheep audience (aka the electorate). For Chrissake’s government (left or right) even commission discussion groups to see which explanation or message generates the most voter appetite appeal. The really bad joke here is that this is part of the modus operandi of Democracy!


    The High Court has condemned the side-lining of the procurement process and it is a bullshit judgement. I partly blame the government for lacking the confidence and integrity to provide an honest and realistic defence. The procurement process wasn’t side-lined because of a pandemic emergency. That’s a mitigating but ultimately phoney explanation. I say this because it must be assumed the government knew what they wanted from this market research and wrote it down (aka a brief). Because if there wasn’t an adequate brief written by those in government initiating this project, they should belong in an asylum, not in a ministers’ cabinet or as senior advisers.


    As for those in government initiating this project knowing who they would like to see conducting this project, that’s hardly corruption or cronyism, it’s being a discerning client, in knowing from previous experience with more than one research company that those particular researchers would do a good job on this particular project. As for whether that good job would be at a fair price, anyone engaged in appointing the company ought to have a good enough idea of what the price ought to be, give or take a few percent. The essential point in this procurement situation - which is by no means uncommon – is that government is not purchasing telegraph poles or slabs of concrete or steel girders based on a quantifiable specification. Instead, the very nature and success or failure of this project will depend overridingly on qualitative, creative, intellectual factors as well as experienced expertise. What on earth can a government procurement officer bring to that? As for whether the cost was amenable to some haggling, this is North Europe, not the Middle East. If the price seems fair for what needs to be provided, don’t haggle, because in the end, if you trust the company, then you get what you pay for.


    As for whether the qualitative research project was worth doing, I’m none too sure. Certainly tackling the pandemic effectively required government being able to understand and influence human attitudes and behaviour. However, what I see in government much of the time is either (a) a yawning chasm between well-informed versus politically expedient decisions and (b) an intellectual laziness or deficiency to get to mental grips with information at government’s disposal (all too often due to over-analysis leading to decision-paralysis).

    What makes Hamas a terrorist group?


    Q That they're killing Israeli civilians rather than military?

    It's two countries at war, not military-only games.


    Q That they don't have a seat in UN?
    How would having a seat at a non/dysfunctional institution help them? Especially as the UN helped make Palestinians become dispossessed.


    Q That they hate Israel?
    Since when were wars based on amity rather than emnity?


    Q That their hatred is unustified?
    Since when is it ok to be evicted from your land by people who claim God rates them as The Chosen Few?

    The rules of citizen versus resident rights has become topsy turvy throughout Europe, including the UK. I read today that all British citizens who sought to leave this crazy-mixed-up country and become EU citizens now find it's only for 5 years. If in various EU countries it really is "AUTOMATICALLY extended thereafter for periods of 10 years" then why dole it out in small portions?


    Let's face it, this isn't EU citizenship, it's continual "light touch" review/probation of "right to remain", initially for 5 years thereafter for 10- year intervals. This "right to remain" is decided upon by the individual European country and most probably by its government in power at any given point in time. The fact that it is under the aegis of the EU does not make that "right to remain" any more secure, certainly not any more "permanent".


    For the foreseeable future, or forever, or until is falls apart, the EU is all about meddling, discussing and interfering rather than uniting. So one is left with the romantic concept of being a "citizen of the world", personified in those movies of yesteryear by Orson Wells, Charles Boyer, Sidney Greenstreet, et al) which for real people wanting to re-settle, gain a new life, raise a family or enjoy in a self-sufficient way the remainder of their lives, turns out to be creating "citizens of nowhere". In the last few pre-Brexit years this was a trendy segmentation concept of global cosmopolitanism. We now glimpse its likely reality.


    Meanwhile, like other countries, we're bitching about who to include or exclude from our menu of public benefits. One of these days the NHS will become semi-privatised and everyone can into buy into it (lust like seating on a train or accommodation in a hotel or seats in a theatre) and citizens will be entitled without charge to a given tier, depending on the degree or status of citizenship they possess. Nothing wrong with that, surely. Well, if there is, then that's life the world over.



    I think all this stuff about the Diana interview should've just been left in the past, but as the judge led review has concluded, Bashir lied to Diana using falsified bank statements which made Diana believe her own house staff were against her, when they weren't and the BBC bosses knew all about Bashir's tactics and covered it all up.

    I am of the understanding or belief that ......


    1) Bashir showed the bank statements to Diana's brother-cum-minder, Earl of Spencer, to obtain access for an interview with her.


    2) The bank statements were merely a fake representation of what, in my opinion, is the obvious truth, that various media organisations were paying money to get a surveillance service of Diana. In any event, that is what Diana sincerely believed, albeit to a paranoid degree


    3) Diana was only too pleased to be interviewed and entirely satisfied with how it went. She needed that interview. How else could she make it clear that she was the victim and Charles was the perpetrator?


    4) With or without the interview, Diana was rapidly propelling herself downhill. But what was her alternative? She was in Buck House, not White House. Besides, she didn't have the robustness, maturity and First Lady status of a Jacqueline Kennedy to carve out her own lifestyle and powerbase during Jack--the-Zipper's shenanigans and, bear in mind, Jacqueline also loved the guy; by contrast, hard to imagine Diane being head over heels with a pretentious schmuck like Charles who asked on their first TV interview as a couple "what is love?".


    4) In the greater scheme of things, I think the second enquiry is making a mountain out of a molehill


    5) Bottom line, the scandal and outrage here is not so much the wrongdoing of using counterfeit bank statements to get access to an interview but the BBC's cover-up of the first public enquiry and their bunker retreat after the outcome of the second enquiry. But that's par for the course with nationalised institutions who needn't be concerned with the attitudes of captive tax-paying customers who are obliged to prop up such arrogance, self-righteousness and bias.

    David Cameron is giving evidence to the MPs now on his dealings with Greensill. On the news channels now.

    It was as pathetic as the usual UK parliamentary committee, not that the American equivalent is any better.


    The parliamentary committee wasted time by having too many instances of the same questions asked by different members. It was almost as if they were relying on questionnaire whilst pretending to be engaged in conversation or cross-examination. This meant Cameron’s replies were seldom pursued and the Q&A routine became shallow and monotonous. Many of the questions were rhetorical, accusatory, unfounded, unanswerable or just plain rude. For all their formalities and pedantries, they behaved like a mob. I found Cameron’s studied disregard of such treatment spineless but that's typically Cameron.


    Cameron indirectly admitted to commercial naivety but at least showed a reasonable understanding of the scheme he was lobbying. There was no evidence of untruthfulness in his description of its benefits. He claims to have taken on this project because it offered real benefits for government and country. Heaven forfid he should ackowledge it could have been a nice little earner. His emphasis on public service was over-egged and his persistent unwillingness to admit his motivation must surely have included financial gain seemed cowardly and ingenuous.


    Cameron’s justification for such over-informal and over-assertive lobbying was to do with rapid solutions in pandemic times. But I think Cameron missed the point, which in my view is that there is nothing in sch informality and enthusiastic lobbying. Even in normal times, where is the corruption in the lobbyist/promoter/salesman (same difference) seeking to persuade the government of an idea worth considering? What is speeding up communication and decision-making between private business and government? Why does Government need to place itself in an ivory tower, aloof and protected from capitalism?


    Was Cameron seeking to take advantage of his former status as prime minister to gain access and influence? Of course. Why not? Cameron wasn’t hired as a nonentity, nor was he expected to pitch to procurement officers or low-grade civil servants. Those who Cameron contacted about this financial service only had to say “no”.


    Government is expected to function in a modern post-Dickensian world, staffed by grown-ups, not vulnerable children. It was within Cameron’s gift to tell it the way it is this to this showboating cheap point-scoring Parliamentary committee. The trouble is that Cameron, in spite of his previous position as PM was nothing more than aa posh smooth talking lightweight. Even among lightweights Cameron would stand out as being exceptionally lightweight, granted, a posh lightweight, who should have been an estate agent for Savilles or Knight Frank.


    End result? More rules for government, to ensure they never have to wonder how they are supposed to behave. Eventually Artificial Intelligence/Androids will guide the way.

    Charmed and inflated by the compliment in (1)


    Impressed and persuaded by the solution in (2)


    Assume you really mean in (3) that Jordanian king will have to like it or lump it - you may well be right - it's already half Palestinians there


    I reckon if Jordan's king has to follow rather than lead his inhabitants, Israel will still have the same "neighbours from hell" merely relocated


    Plus existing Jordanian citizens who might side with the Palestinians rather than Jordan's King


    Israel might just find a way of co-existing with this "(semi-)Palestinanised" Jordan but maybe not with Israel's Nettanutter still in charge


    And failing that, they are simply the ones with more guns, "chosen" or not.

    Chosen by America rather than God

    Old Boy says “Sadly, it’s just going to get worse. Hamas want to wipe the Israelis from the face of the earth, which is not a good start point for negotiations”. I think that’s a magnificent understatement and quite apposite. I would add that the Palestinians, with the aid of Iran and its various “comrades in arms” - along with money or arms from China, North Korea and Russia - and a studied indifference by America’s Sleepy Joe Biden and his Democrat Party (who have never been pro jews generally and Israel specifically - all of that shouldn’t make it too difficult to wipe quite a few jews in Israel from the face of the earth. But I suspect most of those Israeli jews will simply be wiped off the face of their homeland and settle elsewhere, hopefully dispersing and mingling better with a gentiles and other ethnics.


    Let's get real: what on earth was that asshole Balfour and the deadhead UN thinking when proposing that jews on the receiving end of endless persecution, pogroms and that last-straw holocaust, should be given a homeland smack in the Middle East, displacing Palestinians into no-man's land simply on the basis of Old Testament biblical history? Of all the places, For God’s Sake!


    Also, , what kind of jews thought they could rise above antisemitism by continuing to this present day to evict Palestinians from their established homelands and small farmland plots by explaining personally to the world at large and incredulous reporters in particular that this landgrab/eviction was on the indisputable freehold paperwork in the old Testament that this was their promised land, not to mention a powerful eligibility referral by God that they are “The Chosen Few”. The jewish argument is a mixture of modern day legal doubletalk and biblical references but entirely absent of a current day morality.


    As for a two-state solution, it can't work. Secularism is unnecessary when there is just one religion in a country, hopelessly threatening when there is more than one and a bloody nightmare when a country’s population has to tolerate in its midst a tiny percentage of a quite different religion and life style, that is immigrating or creeping into the country and continuing thereafter to procreating at a faster rate that the indigenous religion. That’s why more than one religion - and I don’t mean just religious variations on a compatible theme - is impractical, unrealistic, indeed, plain daft. If the reader can’t figure out why ultimately it’s a hopeless idea, then my comments are in vain.


    What needs to be taken on board and thought about is that there is no other religion but Judaism that has its very own homeland. In effect, from day one, jews have created a psychological-social eruv around themselves, which draws attention, as well as separating and differentiating them from the rest of a country’s society. For jews to get oversensitive, touchy and kvetch about the slightest possible suggestion of antisemitism is counter-productive, prompting from gentiles the very feelings and social stand-off that jews suspected was there in the first place - but mostly wasn’t.


    There will always be unfair racial or ethnic prejudice or stereotyping. It can’t be eliminated. Correction, it shouldn’t be eliminated. It's how we navigate our social interactions and avoidances based on expectation or probability, correct or not. For better or worse, all of life's decisions are probabilistic. In Tom Lehrer’s song about National Brotherhood Week, which he described it as “everyone-love-one-another-hood week”, his concluding line was “be grateful it doesn’t last all year”. Amen to that! So my message to jews is that unless you really want to stand out conspicuously as a jew, ease up on shrugging, remove or at least trim the beard, don’t wear a prayer shawl sticking out of your trousers, admit to buying some stuff retail, find some other song than just “Hava Nagila”, let your son or daughter contemplate marrying a nice gentile without putting your head in a gas oven, and don’t ask me how much I paid for my house. A nose job is an optional extra and being superficial, ought to be unnecessary. Seriously though, the message to jews is that you either want to mix or you don’t. If you don’t, that feeling will be mutual. Anti-semitism and anti-gentilism are 2 sides of the same coin.

    so be it.


    you're absolutely right, that both pr & fptp have their +'s & -'s


    no need to get all deep and comment on those +'s & -'s


    after all, almost everything has +'s & -'s


    I must make a template of "they have their +'s & -'s", so I can churn out 400 posted comments in half an hour

    Batty disaapproves that Lord Brown is "allowed access to public sector contracts worth up to £120 million in recent years".

    It's entirely possible Batty hasn't the faintest idea what "allowed access" means.


    Batty wants to put the PM in a council estate to help him grasp the "reality of the majority

    There is no need for that. All the PM needs to do is read Batty's postings

    Only problem then is he would wonder if he's pushing water uphill and it's time to return to his previous much better paid career

    Proportional Representation might seem attractive to the Non-Educated BUT it doesnt work in practice. Here in Scotland we are lumbered with both PR and FPTP all within the same election. It flings up all sorts of anamolies and problems. We end up with huge undeserved majorities which do not represent the views of the vast majority of Scots. For many years it was the L/W Labour party, then it became an even more L/W SNP. Scots are by nature slightly centre Left, but the Skewed Electoral system up here is geared purely for political extremists.

    You say: Proportional Representation might seem attractive to the Non-Educated BUT it doesn’t work in practice.

    Probably more attractive to the over educated (aka Useful Idiots)


    You say: Here in Scotland we are lumbered with both PR and FPTP all within the same election. It flings up all sorts of anomalies and problems

    Yes, I noticed some of the complications on a TV news program in the last couple of weeks. Very complicated. Very Heath Robinson


    You say: We end up with huge undeserved majorities which do not represent the views of the vast majority of Scots. For many years it was the L/W Labour party, then it became an even more L/W SNP. Scots are by nature slightly centre Left, but the Skewed Electoral system up here is geared purely for political extremists.


    I'm still not sure why the skewed electoral system tilts in favour of political extremists. Without your explanation I just think that any kind of tilt in political policy gets magnified by treating that tilt as a dichotomy rather than a more nuanced matter of degree. I think biases feed on themselves.

    Broadening this subject, I think PR resembles the worst aspect of education, where almost everyone’s a winner, which I view as a.regression to mediocrity. It's very Left Wing, very Equal Outcome. Depending on the method of PR, it can create an outcome where candidates get selected without ever coming first. The FPTP method at least generates a winner.


    The downside can be when it’s a near-tie photo-finish. But then it depends on the reason why the two candidates almost tied. If it’s because they are both recognised as high quality candidates, each with good ideas or proposals, then it’s six of one versus a half a dozen of the other. But if the near-tie is because of two distinct but near-equal segments of voters, where each segment's choice is more influenced by the party than by the candidate, then the quality of the candidate and their ideas and proposals get quashed by party politics or dogma. The downside of party politics is to end up with candidates who tend towards adequacy, who are team players, without a mind of their own, thereby leadership potential.


    Also, when you’ve got a mass of exceeding average MP’s arguing in ever- decreasing circles and conflicted between what might be the right thing to do versus what their party insists it stands for, citizens in Britain generally or Scotland in particular, are ill-served.


    That is why I think party politics is an out-of-date concept which gets in the way of effective democratic government decision-making. There is only one political concept that makes any sense and that’s a roughly central /non-extremist positioning in a world of capitalism, with a variety of views, depending on the topic. Left versus Right is archaic as a topic; it encourages binary thinking.


    No MP candidate should be given power who believes in equal outcome. Nor should an MP candidate be given power who believes that those who fall through the cracks of society should be neglected or ignored by government on the grounds of being the architects of their own misfortune. Unrestricted capitalism fosters ruthless materialism. The former must be checked by government control, the latter must be dissuaded by government though education. That said, a degree of authoritarianism woud certainly not go amiss in this over-permissive society but no decent person should wish a sensible degree authoritarianism to drift into fascism.


    As for uncompromising democracy (whatever that means!), I’m against a situation where all 600+ MP’s have an equal vote on whatever issue they decide to get agitated or excited about. It slows up, even messes up decision-making. I favour a system of government based on meritocracy. My hero in that respect is Lee Kuan. A less drastic change (more evolution than revolution) would be a nominated cabinet of 15-20 exceptional politicians (chosen by their peers) who make the decisions, after airing the subject among that over-abudance of 600+ MP’s but with more time alloted, which will prevent blathering on and pontificating until doomsday, and certainly without being able to exercise voting power; influence yes, voting power to permit or stymie decision-making, no. If you're not sure about that, remember how long UK parliament p!$$ed about for almost 3 years trying to deliver the referendum result to leave the EU? That farce would have happened whether it was 52:48 or 55:45.

    When I said ours is the best system, I was comparing itbwith other countries. Who do you think has a better electoral system, and why?


    I am not aware of any, I'm afraid.

    We're talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about the whole government political system. Where if you're a citizen and eligible to vote, then you vote. Then it's either PR or FPTP, each of which has it's +'s and -'s


    What are YOU talking about?

    1 Best electoral system in the world, so why change it?

    Because it's the best of a bad lot, where satisfaction = complacency = a route to decay rather than progress. Actually I don't think our system rates as even being the best of a bad lot. I don't think having a voting process free from falsification is itself enough to claim having "the best electoral system in the world". You need think about the qualitative rather than quantitative or mechanical aspects.


    2 I agree we could have fewer MPs and the House of Lords also needs radical reform, but that’s as far as I would go.

    re the end of your sentence: I wasn't asking for your permission!


    3a Reason more capable people don’t go into politics is it's too exasperating.

    How does that likely correct observation stack up with your view that we have the best electoral system in the world?


    3b Appeals to people who are naturally argumentative and crave publicity.

    How can the best electoral system in the world be one which attracts argumentative publicity seekers?

    Putting it another way, do you have any human traits in mind of a more positive nature worth trying to attract into politics?


    4 People who really want to get things done tend not to go into politics, even though ultimately this is where the biggest changes are possible.

    Grief! You're saying that a career in politics is inimical to doers (rather than debaters), even while admitting it is within government that the biggest changes are possible (by implication, possible rather than realisable). Yet in (1) you say we have the "best electoral system in the world so why change it?" How on earth can you maintain we have "the best electoral system in the world" if it attracts the kind of people who make bad government? Are you having difficulty recognising the solid cause & effect connection between how we attract better politicians and how we make better use of them?

    I'm with OB on this one. It's one thing to enjoy working from home but quite another to be obliged to have to live where you work and it seems entirely reasonable that BJ and his fiancée should make use of government budgets and donors (a fine dividing line) to somehow make their living quarters comfortable and enjoyable. Why the heck should BJ and fiancée have to personally finance the appearance and upkeep of a government/nationally-owned historically-important listed building's interior when they've only got a 5-year lease, where its possible renewal for BJ will be in the hands of the electorate?


    As for Ron-M's effortless unconcern with a government that can't focus on what's important to citizens' wellbeing and standard of living, it's a tempting outlook, especially if one is financially well secured (the "I'm Alright Jack" segment), or too easily pleased, or insensitive to the helpless plight of those who deserve more than being a victim of negligent, incompetent or sabotaged government. I can't help but resist such smug indifference, not just out of social conscience but also to avoid having to live in the country of my birth while it steadily deteriorates quantitatively and qualitatively

    The problem as I see it is that whether it be FPTP or PR, the population gets the government it deserves. What this country needs are better quality citizens who would vote for better quality candidates, which would attract better quality candidates to put themselves forward.

    If the above statement appears to you to be placing a questionmark against the underlying current principle of democracy, you're dead right. But I won't take that particularly any further for now.

    Whether FPTP or PR, the size of government is unnecessarily and grossly large and, like any parasitic life form, it will fill that vacuum. Bidenism is in danger of doing that in America

    A country and its government, as well as taking care of the welfare and facilities it provides to its citizens, should also enable them to improve their standard of living beyond just bleak survival and adequacy. To do that, an effective government needs to mean business. This can only be achieved if government re-develops its protocol and manner of dealing with business rather than expecting business to re-fashion itself to deal with government.

    PS

    The dilemma of PR vs FPTP would evaporate if we only got rid of the simplistic 2 party system, idiotically preoccupied with left wing socialism versus right wing wealth creation. There is only one system and it is centralism within a Capitalist rather than Marxist or Communist society. If you can't come to terms with that reality, go and live in China or look for a country like the Russia of yesteryear.

    It then follows that parliamentary debate shouldn't need a lift wing party and a right-wing party, where one is in power and the other is the opposition, which morphs into argumentativeness, along with at the same time, secretly dyed-in-the-wool Leftie MP's trying to ingratiate themselves to moderate right wing voters and died-in-the-wool Rightie MP's trying to ingratiate themselves to moderate Left-wing voters (assuming the Rightie MP's can shed enough of their ugly face of capitalism).

    In that more realistic world it wouldn't matter nearly so much whether the constituency outcome is FPTP or PR - what's more important is that the candidates would be contesting with one another on the basis of good ideas, beliefs and intelligence for what a centrally-positioned government should be doing for the nation and its citizens.

    On that basis the lower the voter turnout, the better. After all, why mess up the election result with indifferent or deadhead voters?