| What an embarrassment on 22:38 - Oct 12 with 622 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 22:33 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Having studied politics at uni (way back) I think I do
What I don't get. is any reply to the question of why removing local accountability is better
Why the ultimate government is never want anyone wanted
Why your vote doesn't count, but the horse trading of some party ;grey beard' does
In fact beyond a constant child like whine that it is all so unfair why not explain where the ACTUAL benefit lies |
Your objections to PR are the same as the tory party's.
Strange that one, eh? |  | |  |
| What an embarrassment on 22:40 - Oct 12 with 622 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 22:36 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
Harry, being kind, that's just incoherent drivel. You're capable of much better.
FPTP will never deliver the ambitions of the impassioned ideas you've set out on here over the years.
No chance.
With PR (some of) your ideas have a chance of becoming government policy. |
Absolute bollox !
You clearly have not the first idea
Perhaps, though, you could point to one libdem policy that came out of the 2010-2015 government
And I will point out the real problem - lies
Which for the libdems came unstuck in that government | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:40 - Oct 12 with 619 views | Darth_Koont |
| What an embarrassment on 22:33 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Having studied politics at uni (way back) I think I do
What I don't get. is any reply to the question of why removing local accountability is better
Why the ultimate government is never want anyone wanted
Why your vote doesn't count, but the horse trading of some party ;grey beard' does
In fact beyond a constant child like whine that it is all so unfair why not explain where the ACTUAL benefit lies |
PR doesn’t remove local accountability. Not in the Scottish or Welsh systems anyway.
I think you need to update your education. And quit the hyperbolics. |  |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 22:40 - Oct 12 with 617 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 22:36 - Oct 12 by You_Bloo_Right |
Yes a fair point, certainly when viewed at individual constituency level where, under FPYP, gerrymandering can yeild definite results. The average turn out across the UK for the 2019 GE, though, was 67.3% which means
Electorate - 47,568,611
Voted - 32,013,675
Con - 13,966,454 (43.6% of votes cast, 29.4% of possible votes)
Lab - 10,269,051 (32.1% of votes cast, 21.6% of possible votes)
And the same picture can be drawn for most, if not all, GEs in this country.
How can ANY government claim a national mandate on those kind of numbers, even if we ignore those who have not voted? Only in 1931 (the National Government election) did "one party" secure more than 50% of the votes cast (but still just shy of 50% of the possible vote) and yet we have seen 80/90/100 seat majorities in the HoC under both Labour and Conservative governments. |
Turning up to vote should be compulsory. Bank holiday; turn up to vote or get a £500 fine. Spoil your ballot paper if you want. | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:42 - Oct 12 with 603 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 22:38 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
Your objections to PR are the same as the tory party's.
Strange that one, eh? |
Nope, that is just you lying
I am merely pointing that PR is NOT what numptiues imagine it to be
So why not address some of it's flaws
1. Removes local accountability | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:43 - Oct 12 with 592 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 22:40 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Absolute bollox !
You clearly have not the first idea
Perhaps, though, you could point to one libdem policy that came out of the 2010-2015 government
And I will point out the real problem - lies
Which for the libdems came unstuck in that government |
I've got news for you Harry. The 2010 election was run under FPTP! As was the 2015 GE.
Why does the massive majority of the world's democracies seem to get on just fine with some form of PR or other? | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:45 - Oct 12 with 586 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 22:42 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Nope, that is just you lying
I am merely pointing that PR is NOT what numptiues imagine it to be
So why not address some of it's flaws
1. Removes local accountability |
1. Tell that to MSPs elected by their constituents in Scotland.
2. ??? | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:48 - Oct 12 with 584 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 22:40 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
Turning up to vote should be compulsory. Bank holiday; turn up to vote or get a £500 fine. Spoil your ballot paper if you want. |
And that dear readers is one of the key planks of the PR mumbo jumbo merchants
Which I am sure would be a far higher percentage of spoilt ballot papers if voters turned up and were told
"we don't know who will be your MP if you win - and you will not decide whether you wish your party to enter a coalition..... that will both be decided by around a half dozen anonymous politicians
yep, sure sounds democratic to me | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What an embarrassment on 22:53 - Oct 12 with 578 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 22:43 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
I've got news for you Harry. The 2010 election was run under FPTP! As was the 2015 GE.
Why does the massive majority of the world's democracies seem to get on just fine with some form of PR or other? |
err they don't so stop making up stuff
and it is noticeable you have not addressed the two points
or that I have not spoke out once in favour of FPTP, just pointing out the undemocratic natutre of PR
which highlights the paucity of your argument as you do not address the known problems with PR instead, lie about my supposed support
and guess what ?
Scotland still has a FFPTP when it comes to introducing legislation | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 22:59 - Oct 12 with 573 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 22:53 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
err they don't so stop making up stuff
and it is noticeable you have not addressed the two points
or that I have not spoke out once in favour of FPTP, just pointing out the undemocratic natutre of PR
which highlights the paucity of your argument as you do not address the known problems with PR instead, lie about my supposed support
and guess what ?
Scotland still has a FFPTP when it comes to introducing legislation |
Who is "they" Harry?
What system would you like? You don't want PR. You don't support FPTP. What's your proposal?
What is FFPTP? | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:02 - Oct 12 with 559 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 22:59 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
Who is "they" Harry?
What system would you like? You don't want PR. You don't support FPTP. What's your proposal?
What is FFPTP? |
So rather than address the points, you ask that I give an answer.
I am not the one advocating any system.
it is you. So why not address the points made about PR ? | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:11 - Oct 12 with 555 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 23:02 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
So rather than address the points, you ask that I give an answer.
I am not the one advocating any system.
it is you. So why not address the points made about PR ? |
Oh lordy.
The ecking Scottish system (5 pages back) addresses all your concerns about representation.
Your (very Tory) points about pre-government haggling are simply more democratically mature than have a system where 40% get you a massive parliamentary majority - mature systems get on with it.
What gets done has majority support.
Most of the world seems to make it work OK, you however, seem to prefer the system that favours the tories.
Care to explain why?
Because, to be honest, you're looking like a tory sympathiser here. FPTP has never resulted in the views you purportedly hold getting a serious foothold in UK politics. | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:11 - Oct 12 with 555 views | HARRY10 |
I will explain
Assume PR means that the proportion of the vote is allocated the same proportion of MPs. You either akllow the party with the largest number to govern,or
allow others to form a coalition
If that coalition is with the leading party then what happens in cabinet ?
The smaller party is allocated cabinet seats proportionally, and are merely outvoted everytime. All they can do is vote down any bills, which without PR they could do anyway.
If the coalition is with the second party then again they will be in a minority in cabinet - voted down as were the LDs in 10/15. Their only hope is to vote against bills when brought to Parliament, thus collapsing the government
rinse and start again - another GE | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:16 - Oct 12 with 550 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 23:11 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
I will explain
Assume PR means that the proportion of the vote is allocated the same proportion of MPs. You either akllow the party with the largest number to govern,or
allow others to form a coalition
If that coalition is with the leading party then what happens in cabinet ?
The smaller party is allocated cabinet seats proportionally, and are merely outvoted everytime. All they can do is vote down any bills, which without PR they could do anyway.
If the coalition is with the second party then again they will be in a minority in cabinet - voted down as were the LDs in 10/15. Their only hope is to vote against bills when brought to Parliament, thus collapsing the government
rinse and start again - another GE |
So how do most of the counties in the world get up and tie their shoelaces in the morning?
Your system produces tory governments supported by 30% of those entitled to vote. | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:16 - Oct 12 with 551 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| What an embarrassment on 22:33 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Having studied politics at uni (way back) I think I do
What I don't get. is any reply to the question of why removing local accountability is better
Why the ultimate government is never want anyone wanted
Why your vote doesn't count, but the horse trading of some party ;grey beard' does
In fact beyond a constant child like whine that it is all so unfair why not explain where the ACTUAL benefit lies |
I'll try to give some replies to your questions, Harry, though I can only speak for myself and how I see things.
Local Accountability
What accountability? Oh yes, we get to vote in a general election but have no say in who makes it to the candidates list in the first place. If the "grey beards" you keep mentioning want a particular individual placed as a local candidate then that will happen (and is happening) now, no need to wait for a PR system. And the constituents cannot initiate the Recall procedure.
I truely hope that nobody in the Ipswich constituency ever has to elicit the help of their current MP. Not just because by the time people do go to their MPs with an issue they have normally exhausted all other avenues in seeking a resolution to a frequently very serious problem. No, not just for that reason but also because I personally have no faith in the current Ipswich MP being an effective and empathetic advocate. Parachuted in from Cambridge as he was Tom Hunt, along with many other MPs from a range of parties, does little to support your prioritising the "local link".
Don't like the party-list system that would be required under a PR system? Well you have similar already.
The Government One Wants
I would suggest that with the exception of 1931 the majority of people in this country have never had the government they want and rarely the government they need. That can be squarely placed at the door of the FPTP system IMO.
Benefits of a PR system
1. The make up of the national legislative body more accurately reflects, in proportion, the feelings of the electorate/country as a whole.
2. Whilst some argue that PR systems rarely produce absolute majorites I would suggest that this is a good thing. I feel that coalition governments in a PR set-up are more likely to consider long-term planning and we are less susceptible to a new government spending its time in office unpicking the work of the previous government. I would certainly expect there to be a more consensual approach to the running of the country - so more continuity and stability. Dare I say, greater transparency too as the "horse trading" (you surely aren't suggesting that such inter-party trade offs don't happen at the moment?) is more likely to happen in the open.
3. Likely to increase turnout as fewer votes are "wasted".
4. It will encourage parties to campaign nationally rather than just in those "key marginals".
5. Whilst a PR system almost by definition means most people don't get the government they want, as a country we are more likely to get the government we need. |  |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 23:19 - Oct 12 with 546 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 23:16 - Oct 12 by You_Bloo_Right |
I'll try to give some replies to your questions, Harry, though I can only speak for myself and how I see things.
Local Accountability
What accountability? Oh yes, we get to vote in a general election but have no say in who makes it to the candidates list in the first place. If the "grey beards" you keep mentioning want a particular individual placed as a local candidate then that will happen (and is happening) now, no need to wait for a PR system. And the constituents cannot initiate the Recall procedure.
I truely hope that nobody in the Ipswich constituency ever has to elicit the help of their current MP. Not just because by the time people do go to their MPs with an issue they have normally exhausted all other avenues in seeking a resolution to a frequently very serious problem. No, not just for that reason but also because I personally have no faith in the current Ipswich MP being an effective and empathetic advocate. Parachuted in from Cambridge as he was Tom Hunt, along with many other MPs from a range of parties, does little to support your prioritising the "local link".
Don't like the party-list system that would be required under a PR system? Well you have similar already.
The Government One Wants
I would suggest that with the exception of 1931 the majority of people in this country have never had the government they want and rarely the government they need. That can be squarely placed at the door of the FPTP system IMO.
Benefits of a PR system
1. The make up of the national legislative body more accurately reflects, in proportion, the feelings of the electorate/country as a whole.
2. Whilst some argue that PR systems rarely produce absolute majorites I would suggest that this is a good thing. I feel that coalition governments in a PR set-up are more likely to consider long-term planning and we are less susceptible to a new government spending its time in office unpicking the work of the previous government. I would certainly expect there to be a more consensual approach to the running of the country - so more continuity and stability. Dare I say, greater transparency too as the "horse trading" (you surely aren't suggesting that such inter-party trade offs don't happen at the moment?) is more likely to happen in the open.
3. Likely to increase turnout as fewer votes are "wasted".
4. It will encourage parties to campaign nationally rather than just in those "key marginals".
5. Whilst a PR system almost by definition means most people don't get the government they want, as a country we are more likely to get the government we need. |
1945 and 1997 were pretty conclusive. | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:24 - Oct 12 with 536 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| What an embarrassment on 23:19 - Oct 12 by XYZ |
1945 and 1997 were pretty conclusive. |
They were but the party that formed the government with a sizeable majority each time still did not secure 50% of the votes cast - which is kind of my point.
Edit. 1945 47.7% of votes cast. 1997 43.2% of votes cast. [Post edited 12 Oct 2022 23:28]
| |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 23:42 - Oct 12 with 515 views | XYZ |
| What an embarrassment on 23:24 - Oct 12 by You_Bloo_Right |
They were but the party that formed the government with a sizeable majority each time still did not secure 50% of the votes cast - which is kind of my point.
Edit. 1945 47.7% of votes cast. 1997 43.2% of votes cast. [Post edited 12 Oct 2022 23:28]
|
Fair point. 1931 was a unique election that should probably be excluded from any analysis of FPTP.
1945 is the outlier, IMO, and, again, has a unique explanation.
Will the tories commit harikiri for the sake of the country? That would be something (good!). | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 23:51 - Oct 12 with 511 views | HARRY10 |
| What an embarrassment on 23:16 - Oct 12 by You_Bloo_Right |
I'll try to give some replies to your questions, Harry, though I can only speak for myself and how I see things.
Local Accountability
What accountability? Oh yes, we get to vote in a general election but have no say in who makes it to the candidates list in the first place. If the "grey beards" you keep mentioning want a particular individual placed as a local candidate then that will happen (and is happening) now, no need to wait for a PR system. And the constituents cannot initiate the Recall procedure.
I truely hope that nobody in the Ipswich constituency ever has to elicit the help of their current MP. Not just because by the time people do go to their MPs with an issue they have normally exhausted all other avenues in seeking a resolution to a frequently very serious problem. No, not just for that reason but also because I personally have no faith in the current Ipswich MP being an effective and empathetic advocate. Parachuted in from Cambridge as he was Tom Hunt, along with many other MPs from a range of parties, does little to support your prioritising the "local link".
Don't like the party-list system that would be required under a PR system? Well you have similar already.
The Government One Wants
I would suggest that with the exception of 1931 the majority of people in this country have never had the government they want and rarely the government they need. That can be squarely placed at the door of the FPTP system IMO.
Benefits of a PR system
1. The make up of the national legislative body more accurately reflects, in proportion, the feelings of the electorate/country as a whole.
2. Whilst some argue that PR systems rarely produce absolute majorites I would suggest that this is a good thing. I feel that coalition governments in a PR set-up are more likely to consider long-term planning and we are less susceptible to a new government spending its time in office unpicking the work of the previous government. I would certainly expect there to be a more consensual approach to the running of the country - so more continuity and stability. Dare I say, greater transparency too as the "horse trading" (you surely aren't suggesting that such inter-party trade offs don't happen at the moment?) is more likely to happen in the open.
3. Likely to increase turnout as fewer votes are "wasted".
4. It will encourage parties to campaign nationally rather than just in those "key marginals".
5. Whilst a PR system almost by definition means most people don't get the government they want, as a country we are more likely to get the government we need. |
that really is embarrassing
However bad Hunt is you can vote him out and vote for the candidate you want. Under PR you cannot
Under PR the locals do not decide who their candidate is. Someone is allocated to them after the election
I. matters not a jot how the legislative is made up as (also the excecutive) the party with the most MPs will always win - other than being brought down by legislation not being passed. Achievement, nil
2. Makes no sense (see above)
4. Quite the opposite - reasons as previously given
5. Again not true
You are arguing for a system where you cannot question the candidate before the election, or check his/her previous voting record as you are not told who he/she might be - and which ever party you might vote for, there is no knowing what policies they will dump and what they will accept as part of being a coalition
Both remove local accountability and put the power in the hands of a small number
The problems are complex on one level, and simple at another
The latter is voters almost complete ignorance of how Parliament works (see above).
However odious what Truss is doing I know I did not vote for her party so bear no responsibility. Imagine you had voted for a coalition party that was propping up the Tories. Is it the government you voted for.
Ah, the PR numpties will reply. With PR the 45% tax reduction would be a reduction to 42%, bankers bonuses would only be paid on every other day and some benefits will be increased in line with inflation, others won't
However in the real world it is an either or situation. And elsewhere, as with the current cabinet, coalition partners are rewarded enough to keep them on side (see 10/15)
What would happen is best explained by reference to the last page of Animal Farm, with the voters (being the farm animals) are outside staring in. | | | |
| What an embarrassment on 06:52 - Oct 13 with 480 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| What an embarrassment on 23:51 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
that really is embarrassing
However bad Hunt is you can vote him out and vote for the candidate you want. Under PR you cannot
Under PR the locals do not decide who their candidate is. Someone is allocated to them after the election
I. matters not a jot how the legislative is made up as (also the excecutive) the party with the most MPs will always win - other than being brought down by legislation not being passed. Achievement, nil
2. Makes no sense (see above)
4. Quite the opposite - reasons as previously given
5. Again not true
You are arguing for a system where you cannot question the candidate before the election, or check his/her previous voting record as you are not told who he/she might be - and which ever party you might vote for, there is no knowing what policies they will dump and what they will accept as part of being a coalition
Both remove local accountability and put the power in the hands of a small number
The problems are complex on one level, and simple at another
The latter is voters almost complete ignorance of how Parliament works (see above).
However odious what Truss is doing I know I did not vote for her party so bear no responsibility. Imagine you had voted for a coalition party that was propping up the Tories. Is it the government you voted for.
Ah, the PR numpties will reply. With PR the 45% tax reduction would be a reduction to 42%, bankers bonuses would only be paid on every other day and some benefits will be increased in line with inflation, others won't
However in the real world it is an either or situation. And elsewhere, as with the current cabinet, coalition partners are rewarded enough to keep them on side (see 10/15)
What would happen is best explained by reference to the last page of Animal Farm, with the voters (being the farm animals) are outside staring in. |
I should have known you would start your reply with an insult.
Fair enough. | |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 07:06 - Oct 13 with 472 views | chicoazul |
Harry rattling the PR mullahs on here. Some good points from both sides! |  |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 07:14 - Oct 13 with 454 views | Darth_Koont |
| What an embarrassment on 07:06 - Oct 13 by chicoazul |
Harry rattling the PR mullahs on here. Some good points from both sides! |
It is difficult dealing with someone whose versions of FPTP and PR only exist in their head.
Even if local accountability were exclusive to FPTP (it really isn’t), that wouldn’t even start to compensate for the resulting democratic deficit and lack of accountability at the national level.
Harry has some good takes but this really isn’t one of them. | |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 08:19 - Oct 13 with 440 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| What an embarrassment on 23:51 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
that really is embarrassing
However bad Hunt is you can vote him out and vote for the candidate you want. Under PR you cannot
Under PR the locals do not decide who their candidate is. Someone is allocated to them after the election
I. matters not a jot how the legislative is made up as (also the excecutive) the party with the most MPs will always win - other than being brought down by legislation not being passed. Achievement, nil
2. Makes no sense (see above)
4. Quite the opposite - reasons as previously given
5. Again not true
You are arguing for a system where you cannot question the candidate before the election, or check his/her previous voting record as you are not told who he/she might be - and which ever party you might vote for, there is no knowing what policies they will dump and what they will accept as part of being a coalition
Both remove local accountability and put the power in the hands of a small number
The problems are complex on one level, and simple at another
The latter is voters almost complete ignorance of how Parliament works (see above).
However odious what Truss is doing I know I did not vote for her party so bear no responsibility. Imagine you had voted for a coalition party that was propping up the Tories. Is it the government you voted for.
Ah, the PR numpties will reply. With PR the 45% tax reduction would be a reduction to 42%, bankers bonuses would only be paid on every other day and some benefits will be increased in line with inflation, others won't
However in the real world it is an either or situation. And elsewhere, as with the current cabinet, coalition partners are rewarded enough to keep them on side (see 10/15)
What would happen is best explained by reference to the last page of Animal Farm, with the voters (being the farm animals) are outside staring in. |
"However bad Hunt is you can vote him out and vote for the candidate you want. Under PR you cannot"
You seem to continue to willfully ignore the fact that there are various PR systems that allow for that "local connect" you cherish (and I believe,currently at least, is largely a scam); some even operating in the UK. And if there is not a candidate one wants?
"Under PR the locals do not decide who their candidate is. Someone is allocated to them after the election."
See above. Local political party members may well have a say over who their candidate should be - at best from a list that will include at least one national party placement. The broader electorate have no such opportunity.
Conservative party members had a choice of who the PM is from the PLP list- that's going well.
"matters not a jot how the legislative is made up"
How very Stalinist.
You've skipped the question of increasing turn out. Whilst there will be a range of reasons why over 30% of the electorate don't vote I think one of those reasons is that they feel disenfranchised (no candidate/party worth voting for, they are in a "safe seat" and would vote against the incumbent but think it's not worth it, etc). Our current FPTP, exclusively constituency-based, system does nothing to address that.
Then you simply say my points are invalid.
If all we are going to do is swap opinions we may as well not bother.
"You are arguing for a system where you cannot question the candidate before the election, or check his/her previous voting record as you are not told who he/she might be"
Not true Harry. Do some more research on PR systems that allow for both a local and national element.
"However odious what Truss is doing I know I did not vote for her party so bear no responsibility"
So you're happy to continue with a system that over the years has more often than not delivered a Tory government because you are secure in the knowledge that you didn't vote for it? That's a comfort for us all I'm sure.
Again you reference Animal Farm. If only you could see, Harry, that we the voters are already outside looking in.
Oh well, another day, another semi-coherent rant coming my way. | |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 09:53 - Oct 13 with 408 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| What an embarrassment on 22:42 - Oct 12 by HARRY10 |
Nope, that is just you lying
I am merely pointing that PR is NOT what numptiues imagine it to be
So why not address some of it's flaws
1. Removes local accountability |
What local accountability, exactly?
Do you mean local accountability in a national assembly? |  |
| |
| What an embarrassment on 09:56 - Oct 13 with 405 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| What an embarrassment on 07:06 - Oct 13 by chicoazul |
Harry rattling the PR mullahs on here. Some good points from both sides! |
Any chance of pulling together a nice little summary of the good points on both sides just for us politically naive PR mullahs? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
