https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48161178
Theresa May must resign or the Conservatives should force her out, after the party's heavy local election losses, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
The former Tory leader called Mrs May a "caretaker PM" and described her attempts to reach a Brexit deal with Labour as "absurd".
The party suffered its worst local election result in England since 1995.
Other senior Conservatives have urged Tory MPs to compromise with Labour to ensure Brexit is delivered.
Elections were held on Thursday for 248 English councils, six mayors, and all 11 councils in Northern Ireland. No elections took place in Scotland or Wales.
The Conservatives lost 1,334 councillors, while Labour failed to make expected gains, instead losing 82 seats.
The Liberal Democrats benefited from Tory losses, gaining 703 seats, with the Greens and independents also making gains.
Following the results, Mrs May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn both insisted they would push ahead with talks seeking cross-party agreement on leaving the EU.
Mrs May said it was clear the public wanted "to see the issue of Brexit resolved".
I went into this thread expecting Cameron or the ghost of Thatcher but no it's just Ian Duncan Smith
Well she's right in saying that we want to see Brexit resolved, in that we don't fucking want it
probably should have voted her out when you had a chance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
It's not that simple. Mind you, if they'd voted for ranked choice they'd be much better off.
I know we’re going off-topic, but not necessarily:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/226043/f1cf2990-0f45-4911-87fc-083f2678bead/image.png
The Conservatives would have won more seats had the UK adopted IRV, and as you would know, the Liberal and Labor parties here in Australia massively benefit from IRV.
CGPGrey touches on alternatives which would reduce the disproportionality, namely STV and MMP, but of course you then have the trade-off that fringe parties such as UKIP could have won substantially more seats.
Saying that, my favoured method is STV (using the Droop quota) with 3 seat constituencies, similar to the lower houses in Tasmania and Ireland.
IDS most likely did vote to remove her in the December vote of no confidence
Yes, as the picture's election year could predict a Conservative Party win... but it may change some people's psyche on officially voting on a third party, that really slowly in the next few future general elections if they keep IRV/AV, as long they understand it only delays the spoiler effect, after that election happens.
But for the latter, the only reason why these two (or three if you forget your country's the Nationals) major parties always won, was only for the Australia's modification on the IRV; the Two-prefer method.
For my view, I think they likely can't never heard their concept or adopted it from their Commonwealths' work, or if they does like its long term benefits, by using a different name to be the same result. Than sure.
IRV can facilitate... localised contests (for lack of a better term) where a third party is likely to topple a major party. Eg throughout Australia, a clear majority of house seats are a contest between Labor and the Liberals/Nationals, but in Melbourne, it’s a contest between Labor and the Greens. But you can probably count such contests on one hand - only 8 of the 150 members in the Australian House of Reps are not from Labor or the Liberals/Nationals, and half of that crossbench are defectors from the major parties.
There is no such thing as the ‘two-party preferred method’ ‘modification’. I have actually explained this to you in the past. The whole two-party preferred thing is a statistical tool used to analyse which two candidates, the winner and the ‘best loser’, are the ultimate recipients of the flow of preferences. IRV, like FPTP and other majoritarian methods (eg any voting system where a single member is elected from each district), naturally tend towards a two-party system. The only modification to IRV in Australia is that in federal elections, voters have to write a preference next to every single candidate on the ballot (as opposed to just one or several candidates).
'Former Tory leader' doesn't have the same distinction as 'Former Prime Minister' does it? IDS was never Prime Minister and only ever leader of the Opposition. I love how they frame his former position as being important, where now the only thing he holds is being a tenured Tory MP who is for a hard Brexit and probably in the Russians' pocket. He's not someone whose opinion I would respect.
IDS? Really?
If that soggy bastard is eyeing up the leadership the Tories can say goodbye to any sniff of power in the next 15 years. So please do Ian.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
