Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

In another attempt to move the subject on, very interesting discussion on the wireless this morning about the future of the voting system. For the first time in my recollection there were Tories and Labour representatives agreeing that it will soon be time to move on from first past the post to some form of PR. The whole point of first past the post is to produce strong single party governments, if it can't do that it's redundant, and the fact that it is likely that 30% of the vote may well go to Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens and they are likely to have 6 or 7% of the seats between them, whereas the SNP could get 8 or 9% of the seats on 4% of the vote will just highlight the unfairness of the system. A revised system would allow the bigger parties to split into more coherent blocks, which would still have to work together to form coalitions....just like in Europe.

I voted against AV in the 2011 referendum (had nearly forgotten it) I think because I was still mentally locked into the old 'strong government' model and that the proposal itself seemed half arsed. But the last 5 years have shown that coalitions can work and are nothing to be afraid of, I think I would vote differently now.

 

I'm no expert on voting systems, but I sense a change is needed for fairness, and it will help lift voting apathy. There's little incentive for someone wanting to vote Labour in a Tory stronghold, and vice versa, and smaller party supporters will be more affected still.

The time to make these changes may be when Scotland leaves the Union, which looks inevitable. The next prime minister may be the last of the United Kingdom.

On a frivolous and unrelated matter, I liked the suggestion by someone ringing in to LBC this morning that the name of the latest Royal sprog should be Mildred. The heirs to the throne will then be George and Mildred. Nice.

 

If, or rather, when the Scots leave the union Labour would find it very difficult to gain a majority. It would make sense for them to force through a PR law if they do form the next government as they would then be far more likely to form a Lib/Lab coalition than the current arrangement and I'm sure the LibDems will support it as they will almost permanently be the balance between the two major parties...

 

I was surprised the Lib Dems didn't make a stronger push for electors reforms as part of their coalition with the Conservatives.

For me, I find the strangest thing to be the single vote for two elements - the local candidate (with their very specific points on amenities, infrastructure and pressure group type topics) and a party + leader who sit closer to an ideological position.

 

I thought the referendum was the price the Lib Dems put on coalition Matt. It was a total damp squib, they handled it really poorly, and nobody remembers it even now. On reflection it must have been really poor for me to vote against it.

Agree on the split. Some kind of list would allow you to do both. Not sure what it would do for turnout though. At 65% last election we were lower than all of the major EU countries except France (who tend to turn out in larger numbers for presidential rather than parliamentary elections) and Scandinavia put everyone to shame.

 

We have the other system here Stan (PR?). What difference does it make to first past the post? You reckon it gives smaller parties a better chance, is it?

 

What a load of bolloks , seriously ?

 

Proportional Representation. I think fundamentally it means no one feels their vote is 'wasted' because seats are allocated at least partly according to the total number of votes cast for each party. In an extreme example for first past the post system, 5 nearly evenly matched parties could be contesting a single constituency. One wins 19% of the vote, three win 20% of the vote and one gets 21%. The last one wins, despite the fact that 79% of the electorate voted against them. I would assume that it means you would have a more diverse parliament, and probably coalitions in perpetuity, which is no problem for me, compromise is good for the soul.

Interesting stuff on the news just now.....backroom talk, especially from the Tories, of a 'Grand Coalition' between Conservative and Labour. I thought we saved that option for World Wars..........but in terms of policy it makes a bit of sense, they are the most 'austere' of all the parties.

 

I heard Billy Bragg put forward an interesting idea - that the proportion of the national vote should be reflected in the House Of Lords. This at least would give some meaning to every vote.

 

The system in Germany is a mixture of direct mandate and PR - you have 2 votes, one for the candidate and one for the party. Translated to the UK it would mean that the winners of each constituency get into parliament direct - the numbers are then rounded up until each party has the seat percentage according to their vote. So when I vote I can vote for the SPD direct candidate and the second vote for the Greens. The advantage of PR is that it provides governments which actually have the support of the people. Unfortunately it only works when you have a political culture accomodated to it - ie. where you have enough parties which would be prepared to work together, which I fear is not yet the case in the UK. At the moment it would mean permanent Liberal government (because no one wants to go into coalition with anybody else). Coalitions can also be dangerous for party membership and so most of them get their members to vote on the possible coalitions which they would accept, and those they wouldn't.

 

You are right, you tend to get many more smaller parties in Parliament with Proportional Representation as here in Norway. More political groupings are represented (an advantage). and the Government is comprised usually of various coalitions, which can give weaker un- decisive Government. 3 Parties were in the previous Government Left to Centre broadly, now presently there are 4 parties, Right to Centre broadly. One thing I have noticed is that smaller parties who go into Government struggle to get much of what they campaigned for in the election and / or want, through into government policy, and lose popularity as a result, because they cannot deliver. The big parties force through their policy mainly. As with the LIb Dem in the last UK government I believe. Small parties joining a government are taking a big risk on their future.

 

Opinions. Certainly how many people I know see it.

 

Possibly, But I was being accused of insulting people directly on this thread, which wasn't true, and when asked, no examples were given. I've let the "warmongers like you" comment by Swords slide because he's only doing it to provoke a response like he always does. Surely if other people want to throw stones, they shouldn't then be sheltered when a few get lobbed back. I'm just standing my ground, which - in politics - is surely something noteworthy.

 

^^

 

The defence rests...

 

Get over yourself, Chaz.

 

That's very good of you Chazza, considering it was after you called me a Neanderthal...

 

I reckon Nines has gifted me this experience to truly feel his, Tramore's and Beth's pain. Lucky I am not a moderator, as I would be a cruel and vengeful mod, punishments would be flying, with no reasons given or chance of appeal.

Shut the **** up with this drivel. Please.

 

He started it...

 

I was going to give you a very special privilege, but I'm having my doubts. Away back to the playground with ye!