General Election 2010

[ewerk 30611]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

 

It depends on which form of PR you're talking about. Ideally I'd like to see the list system, with a threshold to keep out the cunts.

[Ayatollah Hermione 13869]

Brown's making his statement for anyone who wants to waste time at work.

[Guest alex]

Phil, where have you been?

 

All labour politicians have been going on about for the last 12 hours is how they are now in favour of PR!!!

 

Clinging to the piggy trough.

 

 

There's a massive difference between Voting Reform (i.e. voting for 1st 2nd 3rd favourite) and Proportional Representation which is based on percentages.

 

 

Lib Dem wont take a minor tweak to the voting system. They want their percentage represented.

Voting reform doesn't have to take the form you describe. Nor does PR have to be 'pure'. There's many different systems. I also think the Lib Dems may compromise rather than insist the latter.

[Renton 21627]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Pisser if you're home alone and fancy a pint in the pub next door.

 

Brown reaching out to Lib Dems, wants PR referendum.

[Guest alex]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Pisser if you're home alone and fancy a pint in the pub next door.

 

Brown reaching out to Lib Dems, wants PR referendum.

There's a back door

[ewerk 30611]

Phil, where have you been?

 

All labour politicians have been going on about for the last 12 hours is how they are now in favour of PR!!!

 

Clinging to the piggy trough.

 

 

There's a massive difference between Voting Reform (i.e. voting for 1st 2nd 3rd favourite) and Proportional Representation which is based on percentages.

 

 

Lib Dem wont take a minor tweak to the voting system. They want their percentage represented.

 

You're embarassing yourself even further.

[Toonpack 9418]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Pisser if you're home alone and fancy a pint in the pub next door.

 

Brown reaching out to Lib Dems, wants PR referendum.

 

Desperate

[Renton 21627]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Pisser if you're home alone and fancy a pint in the pub next door.

 

Brown reaching out to Lib Dems, wants PR referendum.

 

Desperate

 

Naah, didn't really sound like that, shouldn't have used that choice of words perhaps. I think Brown knows he's gone tbh.

[ewerk 30611]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Pisser if you're home alone and fancy a pint in the pub next door.

 

Brown reaching out to Lib Dems, wants PR referendum.

 

Desperate

 

Of course he is, as are the Tories.

[Happy Face 29]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

 

Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could.

 

But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

 

Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could.

 

But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo.

Edited May 7, 2010 by alex

[Craig 6682]

I re-iterate my view that if Brown tries to cling on, Labour will get a hammering in the next General Election.

 

I think whoever takes power is likely to lose next time out - possibly heavily. Especially if it's only 6 months down the line.

[Happy Face 29]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

 

Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could.

 

But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo.

 

It's still democratic because the majority of people have chosen who's running things.

 

That's not dictatorial.

 

I'm not supporting the current situation either mind.

[Guest alex]

Bloke at work is pretty downcast. He's a Tory volunteer who's been helping out with the election campaign from Tynemouth which was the NE HQ for the Tories. He was pretty sure they'd win in Tynemouth and get an overall, narrow majority.

As for Craig's point, that's why I'd be careful about who I got into bed with if I was Clegg.

[Guest alex]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

 

Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could.

 

But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo.

 

It's still democratic because the majority of people have chosen who's running things.

 

That's not dictatorial.

 

I'm not supporting the current situation either mind.

Slightly inflamatory language on my part but I think the point still stands. When was the last time the majority of people voted for a government though? Certainly not in the example I gave.

[NJS 4386]

I re-iterate my view that if Brown tries to cling on, Labour will get a hammering in the next General Election.

 

I think whoever takes power is likely to lose next time out - possibly heavily. Especially if it's only 6 months down the line.

 

That's when it gets even more cat and mouse - the Tories won't try a budget with unpopular cuts that they would have done if they'd won a majority if they know theres another election soon.

[NJS 4386]

When was the last time the majority of people voted for a government though? Certainly not in the example I gave.

 

Labour in 1950 (51%) iirc - and they didn't win - not a strong recommendation for the system tbf.

[Happy Face 29]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

 

Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could.

 

But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo.

 

It's still democratic because the majority of people have chosen who's running things.

 

That's not dictatorial.

 

I'm not supporting the current situation either mind.

Slightly inflamatory language on my part but I think the point still stands. When was the last time the majority of people voted for a government though? Certainly not in the example I gave.

 

Bad choice of words from me too. I meant the largest minority.

 

If second choices were introduced, majorities would be created for those parties with enough votes/seats to form a government.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Remember when they did that in Auf Wiedersehen Pet though, HF? To quote (iirc) Dennis, "Democracy: everone gets what nobody wants".

[Renton 21627]

Bloke at work is pretty downcast. He's a Tory volunteer who's been helping out with the election campaign from Tynemouth which was the NE HQ for the Tories. He was pretty sure they'd win in Tynemouth and get an overall, narrow majority.

 

I'm sorry but .

 

Sure he's a decent bloke etc but didn't think much of their candidate or the deluge of tory shit that came through my door each day (despite a Labour poster in the window). I've got absolutely loads of local issues with them too. Tynemouth staying red is my main plus from last night, looks safer now than ever as well.

[Happy Face 29]

The Tories have lost 4 councils, Lib Dems lost one and Labour have gained those 5.

[Renton 21627]

Remember when they did that in Auf Wiedersehen Pet though, HF? To quote (iirc) Dennis, "Democracy: everone gets what nobody wants".

 

I paraphrased that before retiring last night.

 

Edit: I think it resulted in their hut being painted grey or something.

 

Edit x2: And It was Barry who said it iirc and related to people having a second choice of colour.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Renton

[Guest alex]

Bloke at work is pretty downcast. He's a Tory volunteer who's been helping out with the election campaign from Tynemouth which was the NE HQ for the Tories. He was pretty sure they'd win in Tynemouth and get an overall, narrow majority.

 

I'm sorry but .

 

Sure he's a decent bloke etc but didn't think much of their candidate or the deluge of tory shit that came through my door each day (despite a Labour poster in the window). I've got absolutely loads of local issues with them too. Tynemouth staying red is my main plus from last night, looks safer now than ever as well.

He's alreet but I thought it was funny too. He was very smug yesterday thinking it was in the bag.

[Andrew 4754]

heres dave

[Phil 6]

Phil, where have you been?

 

All labour politicians have been going on about for the last 12 hours is how they are now in favour of PR!!!

 

Clinging to the piggy trough.

 

 

There's a massive difference between Voting Reform (i.e. voting for 1st 2nd 3rd favourite) and Proportional Representation which is based on percentages.

 

 

Lib Dem wont take a minor tweak to the voting system. They want their percentage represented.

Voting reform doesn't have to take the form you describe. Nor does PR have to be 'pure'. There's many different systems. I also think the Lib Dems may compromise rather than insist the latter.

 

 

The Lib Dem are in a very powerful position and Clegg knows it. While Labour are desperate not to let the Torys make their savage cuts, so I think they'd be mad to go for anything too watered down, it really is a chance in a life time for them.