Election 2024

[Welshie]

Are the extras not allocated to a particular place then?

You're the regional list MP for in Scotland's case, Glasgow, so your constituency is the "Glasgow region"

So if you ran in a London borough, didn't win, but were on your parties London list, you might end up representing your voters in London anyway as a London regional MP.

It's done through a calculation and takes into consideration how many seats a party won nationwide.

If there's 325 seats available through the constituencies and Labour won 250, you'll break down vote shares at the regional level based on how properly represented Labour are.

SNP for example got 38% of the vote but won 50% of the Parliament through FPTP so they received zero regional list MPs.

 

[PINKIE]

You're just running on the premise that coalitions are fundamentally flawed and wrong and the system should avoid them.

It's a blinkered view of things.

What's the point in you voting for Greens for example, its essentially a waste of effort going down to the polling office, with their current numbers they're at best going to get a handful of MPs

But at the same time you wouldn't want them near the government as its a dreaded coalition.

What's the point?

I did mention earlier that coalition could work if there was more cooperation. Im not fundamentally opposed to the proposition, I just think in practice it ends up with either a watered down version and an inept govt, or making deals with fringe extremists who make demands that in a majority govt you wouldn’t entertain. Which is what you see in Israel. And to an extent happened in NI and when the DUP were propping up the Tories (although that was an ‘arrangement’ rather than a coalition)

 

[Welshie]

I did mention earlier that coalition could work if there was more cooperation. Im not fundamentally opposed to the proposition, I just think in practice it ends up with either a watered down version and an inept govt, or making deals with fringe extremists who make demands that in a majority govt you wouldn’t entertain. Which is what you see in Israel. And to an extent happened in NI and when the DUP were propping up the Tories (although that was an ‘arrangement’ rather than a coalition)

But thats not true Pinkie because the last 16 years of government in this country has consistently entertained fringe ideas and groups.

Brexit would not have happened if the Tory government had to be in coalition with the Lib Dems.

 

[The RDBD]

Clegg should have gone with Labour.

Why ??
Labour would have had to form a 4+ party
coalition just to get a majority of 1.

 

[brb]

But thats not true Pinkie because the last 16 years of government in this country has consistently entertained fringe ideas and groups.

Brexit would not have happened if the Tory government had to be in coalition with the Lib Dems.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[PINKIE]

But thats not true Pinkie because the last 16 years of government in this country has consistently entertained fringe ideas and groups.

Brexit would not have happened if the Tory government had to be in coalition with the Lib Dems.

That's come about largely because the Tories had both a reliance on the DUP and then a fractious group that wanted to leave the EU and threatened to jump ship to Farage unless Cameron gambled on a referendum, so they were compromised by nationalists.

The Lib dems were impotent in that coalition and I don't think they would have stopped the tide of Tory MPs who wanted out of the EU.

At best it would have delayed Brexit, but those who pushed the country into a referendum were either going to force Cameron's hand (as they did) or jump to Farage and topple the Govt.

As I mentioned, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of Coalition, but from what I've seen in practice it either creates a weak govt that can't get legislature done, or it invites people to the table that should be nowhere near it and haven't earned it.

You mentioned earlier a system where the share of the vote is translated to who gets which jobs, a threshold of vote share etc. I think coalition can be done, I just think it probably needs a better and more robust framework.

 

[Welshie]

That's come about largely because the Tories had both a reliance on the DUP and then a fractious group that wanted to leave the EU and threatened to jump ship to Farage unless Cameron gambled on a referendum, so they were compromised by nationalists.

The Lib dems were impotent in that coalition and I don't think they would have stopped the tide of Tory MPs who wanted out of the EU.

At best it would have delayed Brexit, but those who pushed the country into a referendum were either going to force Cameron's hand (as they did) or jump to Farage and topple the Govt.

As I mentioned, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of Coalition, but from what I've seen in practice it either creates a weak govt that can't get legislature done, or it invites people to the table that should be nowhere near it and haven't earned it.

You mentioned earlier a system where the share of the vote is translated to who gets which jobs, a threshold of vote share etc. I think coalition can be done, I just think it probably needs a better and more robust framework.

My point being it happens in FPTP already.

Huh? I mentioned ASM, a form of PR, that is being proposed and already functions in Scotland.

A share of the vote doesn't decide who gets what job, it simply allocates MPs based on the proportion of the vote they get regionally.

 

[PINKIE]

My point being it happens in FPTP already.

Huh? I mentioned ASM, a form of PR, that is being proposed and already functions in Scotland.

A share of the vote doesn't decide who gets what job, it simply allocates MPs based on the proportion of the vote they get regionally.

It happens but it's not the default as is the case in Coalition

I guess it comes down to who makes up those Coalition Govts.

And maybe that is the problem, trying to form a coalition govt based on a FPTP system