It didn't 'only happen because of FPTP'. It happened because compromises needed to be made to election manifesto promises, and the only difference between this and a PR coalition is that there would have been fifteen people fighting their positions in a backroom instead of just two. It would be a far more common thing if PR were to happen, and personally I don't relish hamstrung governments unable to deliver on the promises they were elected for, because of some minor parties deciding they want to stir up trouble for the bigger parties.
I think our synapses are joined up in radically different ways. All the examples you give strengthen the case for PR in any system where the (majority) government gains power through getting a minority of the votes at a FPTP election. 68% of the electorate didn't vote for Cameron, and so in your version they have no say for 5 years, they have to put up with the Tory manifesto, bad luck. Only the people who voted Tory have a chance of having their 'single issue' debated. Under PR at least some of them would be represented in some way, we could even end up with a government which was voted for by more than half of the electorate! Radical! As for 'getting stuff done' compromise and negotiation between elected representatives is exactly what I want, it's the way grown ups work. Many would argue that the less government's get to do the better as well.
Wasn't Boaty McBoatface a whole load of teenagers having fun on the web? The name will be used for one of the underwater remote vehicles, so won't be lost. RRS Sir David Attenborough seems truly apt to me. Thank God it's not Ship-TonyBlair or Boaty McPhillip Greenface
Absolutely, and comparisons with the past don't really count with the Corbyn Labour Party, it's a paradigm shift. I am quite surprised that their vote has held up so well.
We must be wired to a different pattern. What I see is a party who only gained 5% of the vote holding a party that gained 35% of the vote to ransom, denying that 35% of voters their opportunity to see their issues passed into law.
It has held up well, really. The comparisons are with 2012 when Labour gained 823 seats with 38% of the popular vote.
"After eight months it would be very unfair - and improper actually - to hang this set of election results on Jeremy Corbyn's peg alone," Labour deputy leader Tom Watson Doesn't sound like a well-held-up vote to me...
UKIP also doing well again, second in both the by elections, seats in Wales, beating the Lib Dems in London Assembly count, more councillors.......strange when it would seem that the referendum would have made them a party in search of a purpose.
Yes, we are wired differently. That's people for you! I see a party that gained 35% of the vote having 100% of the power and disenfranchising the other 65%. I don't think it should be "winner takes all" and I get the feeling you probably do.
I get the feeling that you're only upset by this because the party you likely voted for is not the one that actually got the most votes in the election.
Trump will have lots of power if he is elected. Him and his mate Bojo the clown will make great allies. I promise I will emigrate off the planet if both of them become leaders of their respective countries.
The BBC's projected national share of the vote on yesterday's election is: Labour 31% Conservatives 30% Liberal Democrats 15% UKIP 12% Others 12% Which of course means the Conservatives would be re-elected if it was a General Election according to the BBC. Which is the appeal of the system to the Tories. It also used to favour Labour when they were doing well because of the Scottish factor - 40% of the vote winning 85% of the seats up there until recently - be interested if this affects their love for FPTP in the future.
Over here, we have finally got a government 70 days after the election. This is what a PR system delivers. A mish mash of a government with some independents not only negotiating local deals but some of them gaining cabinet seats. Some would say that is more representative of the wishes of the electorate. Others might disagree.
Ah... The old "you're only upset because you didn't win" argument. You would be wrong in your assumption, I'm afraid. I'm not in favour of PR because my personal choice didn't win. I'm in favour of PR because it's the right thing to do if we want a government that represents us all and is working on behalf of us all rather than just doing the things that 35% wanted and 65% did not. For what it's worth, I've voted in the past for the party I thought had the best ideas for the country at that time and they DID get the most votes. Sadly, FPTP and the constituency basis behind it meant they did not get the most seats. But, hey, that's FPTP for you... Delivering winners without the popular mandate. No wonder we're such a polarised country these days.
