If the conservative party is so divided on the (right now) most important topic, why are they not splitting...
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Well living in the Netherlands it is quite common to see parties come and go, where one party splits up and later merges to different parties as situation changes.
I keep reading that "internally there is a lot of struggle to get the same opinion within the British government". To me this means that the government is unable to continue ruling and is better of splitting up, where both sides can advocate their goal and thus focus better and actually achieve something.
Why is there no talk about this at all? Nor splinter groups gaining traction?
united-kingdom conservative-party
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Well living in the Netherlands it is quite common to see parties come and go, where one party splits up and later merges to different parties as situation changes.
I keep reading that "internally there is a lot of struggle to get the same opinion within the British government". To me this means that the government is unable to continue ruling and is better of splitting up, where both sides can advocate their goal and thus focus better and actually achieve something.
Why is there no talk about this at all? Nor splinter groups gaining traction?
united-kingdom conservative-party
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Well living in the Netherlands it is quite common to see parties come and go, where one party splits up and later merges to different parties as situation changes.
I keep reading that "internally there is a lot of struggle to get the same opinion within the British government". To me this means that the government is unable to continue ruling and is better of splitting up, where both sides can advocate their goal and thus focus better and actually achieve something.
Why is there no talk about this at all? Nor splinter groups gaining traction?
united-kingdom conservative-party
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
Well living in the Netherlands it is quite common to see parties come and go, where one party splits up and later merges to different parties as situation changes.
I keep reading that "internally there is a lot of struggle to get the same opinion within the British government". To me this means that the government is unable to continue ruling and is better of splitting up, where both sides can advocate their goal and thus focus better and actually achieve something.
Why is there no talk about this at all? Nor splinter groups gaining traction?
united-kingdom conservative-party
united-kingdom conservative-party
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
asked 6 hours ago
paul23
486135
486135
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago
add a comment |
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
A common answer to this is that the UK uses a "First Past the Post"(FPTP) voting system (where each individual MP is elected from a constituency election, where most votes wins), whereas the Netherlands uses a form of list based proportional representation (PR). In each of these election there is a strong spoiler effect, where multiple similar candidates are likely to lose to an individual with united support, whereas in PR a party evenly dividing would expect to have the two new parties retaining approximately the same number of total seats.
The FPTP voting system also makes it much easier for a single party to win a parliamentary majority compared to PR, since it doesn't need an absolute majority in vote share (in recent history, figures around 40% have been enough).
Together these two phenomena encourage long-lasting, stable parties, since actually splintering can wipe out a party's seat count remarkably quickly. An even stronger effect is seen in the US, where politics has effectively reduced to a two party system for virtually its entire history. There is even a political science rule of thumb called Duverger's law which states this to be a general principle of FPTP versus PR.
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
A common answer to this is that the UK uses a "First Past the Post"(FPTP) voting system (where each individual MP is elected from a constituency election, where most votes wins), whereas the Netherlands uses a form of list based proportional representation (PR). In each of these election there is a strong spoiler effect, where multiple similar candidates are likely to lose to an individual with united support, whereas in PR a party evenly dividing would expect to have the two new parties retaining approximately the same number of total seats.
The FPTP voting system also makes it much easier for a single party to win a parliamentary majority compared to PR, since it doesn't need an absolute majority in vote share (in recent history, figures around 40% have been enough).
Together these two phenomena encourage long-lasting, stable parties, since actually splintering can wipe out a party's seat count remarkably quickly. An even stronger effect is seen in the US, where politics has effectively reduced to a two party system for virtually its entire history. There is even a political science rule of thumb called Duverger's law which states this to be a general principle of FPTP versus PR.
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
A common answer to this is that the UK uses a "First Past the Post"(FPTP) voting system (where each individual MP is elected from a constituency election, where most votes wins), whereas the Netherlands uses a form of list based proportional representation (PR). In each of these election there is a strong spoiler effect, where multiple similar candidates are likely to lose to an individual with united support, whereas in PR a party evenly dividing would expect to have the two new parties retaining approximately the same number of total seats.
The FPTP voting system also makes it much easier for a single party to win a parliamentary majority compared to PR, since it doesn't need an absolute majority in vote share (in recent history, figures around 40% have been enough).
Together these two phenomena encourage long-lasting, stable parties, since actually splintering can wipe out a party's seat count remarkably quickly. An even stronger effect is seen in the US, where politics has effectively reduced to a two party system for virtually its entire history. There is even a political science rule of thumb called Duverger's law which states this to be a general principle of FPTP versus PR.
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
A common answer to this is that the UK uses a "First Past the Post"(FPTP) voting system (where each individual MP is elected from a constituency election, where most votes wins), whereas the Netherlands uses a form of list based proportional representation (PR). In each of these election there is a strong spoiler effect, where multiple similar candidates are likely to lose to an individual with united support, whereas in PR a party evenly dividing would expect to have the two new parties retaining approximately the same number of total seats.
The FPTP voting system also makes it much easier for a single party to win a parliamentary majority compared to PR, since it doesn't need an absolute majority in vote share (in recent history, figures around 40% have been enough).
Together these two phenomena encourage long-lasting, stable parties, since actually splintering can wipe out a party's seat count remarkably quickly. An even stronger effect is seen in the US, where politics has effectively reduced to a two party system for virtually its entire history. There is even a political science rule of thumb called Duverger's law which states this to be a general principle of FPTP versus PR.
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
A common answer to this is that the UK uses a "First Past the Post"(FPTP) voting system (where each individual MP is elected from a constituency election, where most votes wins), whereas the Netherlands uses a form of list based proportional representation (PR). In each of these election there is a strong spoiler effect, where multiple similar candidates are likely to lose to an individual with united support, whereas in PR a party evenly dividing would expect to have the two new parties retaining approximately the same number of total seats.
The FPTP voting system also makes it much easier for a single party to win a parliamentary majority compared to PR, since it doesn't need an absolute majority in vote share (in recent history, figures around 40% have been enough).
Together these two phenomena encourage long-lasting, stable parties, since actually splintering can wipe out a party's seat count remarkably quickly. An even stronger effect is seen in the US, where politics has effectively reduced to a two party system for virtually its entire history. There is even a political science rule of thumb called Duverger's law which states this to be a general principle of FPTP versus PR.
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
answered 5 hours ago
origimbo
10.2k22340
10.2k22340
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
1
1
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
Side note: "long-lasting, stable parties" may not necessarily be a good thing.
– Draco18s
1 hour ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
@Draco18s since I believe in a direct democracy as utopia, and everything should be done to get closer to that utopia, I agree with that sentiment. Smaller parties are closer to what the public thinks. -- However that is an opinion that is up for debate.
– paul23
59 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
I think it might also be worth mentioning that, in the specific case of the UK, the two main parties can at least make a case for being able to trace their origins all the way back to the Whigs and Tories of the 17th century. Given the importance of tradition in British society, breaking up these parties would probably be a far greater deal than breaking up the two main parties in other European states.
– terdon
26 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
America's FPTP system not only causes a two-party system unintentionally, it forces the equilibrium rather quickly. Duverger's Law is so powerful there that third parties are doomed to be merely spoilers for the foreseeable future.
– Michael W.
6 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36049%2fif-the-conservative-party-is-so-divided-on-the-right-now-most-important-topic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is a very speculative question. It is also highly opinionated. I would recommend gearing the question more towards the differences between UK political parties and yours. Different countries operate their politics in radically different ways.
– David S
6 hours ago
The first past the post electoral system gives few seats to smaller parties. This tends to hold UK parties together.
– mikado
5 hours ago