• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Reply to: Electoral Reform

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Electoral Reform"

Collapse

  • mattster
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    Johnson isn't a dictator and his government isn't far right. And if Corbyn is hard left, he never got anywhere near leading his party to form a government. FPTP kept the corbynites out of power; under PR that wouldn't be the case.
    The first thing that would happen under PR is that Labour and the Tories would split into at least two other parties each, centrist and more extreme. If we had PR it seems much more likely to me that we would end up with a centrist coalition of New Lab/Lib Dem/One Nation Tory which would be absolutely fine by me, and much closer to the will of the country than the current mob. The big issue at the moment IMO (for both Tory and Lab) is the way leaders are elected within the parties. Leaders and prospective leaders end up pandering to the membership of that party, which is a fairly small minority of the voters on either side and inevitably much more extreme in it's views.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post

    Or maybe they will never agree and the government will do bugger all.
    You say that like it would be bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    A bit of collaboration should be a good thing - finding a consensus between two ideologies ought to temper the worst/extreme aspects of both and deliver something more centrist.
    Or maybe they will never agree and the government will do bugger all.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    Some people don't like change.
    Slightly reductive. Many have strong reasons for preferring the system, it's not "wants improvement" Vs "doesn't want change".

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    Why are people so set against a coalition? It can be made to work if the parties involved don't get all huffy like the DUP in NI.

    A bit of collaboration should be a good thing - finding a consensus between two ideologies ought to temper the worst/extreme aspects of both and deliver something more centrist.
    Some people don't like change.

    I like it as long as you can ensure that there is a minimum number of votes are needed to get a MP in.

    It means if someone wants to vote for the Brexit Party or the Socialist Workers party then a decent amount of people in the area need to also think the same way.

    Plus it is likely to improve voter turnout for the first few elections. (Though I live in a constituency with a good turn out anyway.)

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Half of which including boundary reform and PR were ditched by the Lib Dumbs in very short order...
    I ended up with boundary reform.

    Now got more local councilors to pay for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    That's entirely the point. FPTP tries to ensure a government has a working majority to get things done.
    Even though it doesn't reflect the votes of the majority - which are totally ignored. It's a bad system which is why so few places use it - we are not exceptional in having devised a brilliant system - we are stupid for not reforming such an outdated one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Half of which including boundary reform and PR were ditched by the Lib Dumbs in very short order...
    The Tories had to water down some stuff and the Lib dems had to ditch some - notably the promise not to increase tuition fees, but the Lib Dems didn't abandon PR - where did you get that idea?

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Why are people so set against a coalition? It can be made to work if the parties involved don't get all huffy like the DUP in NI.

    A bit of collaboration should be a good thing - finding a consensus between two ideologies ought to temper the worst/extreme aspects of both and deliver something more centrist.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post

    ..and Johnson getting 163 more seats than Labour on 11% more vote - absolutely ridiculous
    That's entirely the point. FPTP tries to ensure a government has a working majority to get things done.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post

    The 2010 coalition government showed that we got some policies from each - which reflected the result.
    Half of which including boundary reform and PR were ditched by the Lib Dumbs in very short order...

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Many struggle with deadlock for years in actuality. But it does somewhat show that the specific system used doesn't really make much difference.
    The 2010 coalition government showed that we got some policies from each - which reflected the result.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by TestMangler View Post

    FTPT generally gives power beyond the proportions that the country voted for, like Blair getting 150 or so seats more than the tories in 2005 with about 3% more of the vote share.
    ..and Johnson getting 163 more seats than Labour on 11% more vote - absolutely ridiculous
    Last edited by Peoplesoft bloke; 21 June 2022, 13:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Eirikur View Post

    I wonder how all these countries with PR manage?
    Many struggle with deadlock for years in actuality. But it does somewhat show that the specific system used doesn't really make much difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by hugebrain View Post
    Under PR there’s no way of voting out an MP who isn’t any good. Which is a bit of a flaw.

    Presumably you have to suck up to the present party leader to get to the top of the list, so instead of a healthy mix of different views within a party you get a homogenous bunch of yes men.
    There's been no way of getting rid of the series of hopeless MPs in various constituencies I've lived in where a nemotode worm wearing a blue rosette would be guaranteed a 20K plus majority.

    Your "healthy mix of views within a party" translates to me as "how the flip am I supposed to know whether I can support this party when they can't make their own minds up about what they stand for?"
    Last edited by Peoplesoft bloke; 21 June 2022, 13:17.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X