Off Topic UK / EU Future

[Deleted.......]

As an anti_tory you do not mind what you have just said in bold and blue. So Tory voters who could represent anything upwards of 40% of the vote would never form another government. But minnows - like the SDP - would have massive sway. As I have said some prefer PR; others FPTP - but both are valid democratic systems.

"they" - there had to be aconspiracy theory somewhere !!
Believe that paragraph if you like - sorry but I view it as nonsense - we do not just define our friends as democratic. And yes the UK broadly passes that test - the party with the most voters gets to be the government - even if that is not over 50% it is still the most" The tories polled over a million more votes than Labour so get to do most of the government. PR means the tiniest minority gets the biggest say - not surprising for someone who supports a minorty party to want that -it makes sense but not good government.

I can see one major potential benefit of PR. FPTP tends to promote short term decision making. I have lost count of the times when Ministers of all parties have rejected proposals on the basis that they would not be implemented during the lifespan of the current government. PR would mean bigger parties always had some representation so could make longer term policies in terms of infrastructure and regeneration which would really benefit the country. And, as of course, it would mean more consensus and compromise which I'm obviously a huge fan of

 

[superhorns]

No, because the priority is to respect the national outcome in a national poll. How the individual constituencies, or indeed countries within the UK voted is secondary, as the PM keeps reminding everybody.

I would also add more than 400 MPs were at odds with their constituencies over Brexit by backing remain in an area that voted leave. Do the maths, most constituencies voted leave.

 

[colognehornet]

As an anti_tory you do not mind what you have just said in bold and blue. So Tory voters who could represent anything upwards of 40% of the vote would never form another government. But minnows - like the SDP - would have massive sway. As I have said some prefer PR; others FPTP - but both are valid democratic systems.

"they" - there had to be aconspiracy theory somewhere !!
Believe that paragraph if you like - sorry but I view it as nonsense - we do not just define our friends as democratic. And yes the UK broadly passes that test - the party with the most voters gets to be the government - even if that is not over 50% it is still the most" The tories polled over a million more votes than Labour so get to do most of the government. PR means the tiniest minority gets the biggest say - not surprising for someone who supports a minorty party to want that -it makes sense but not good government.

If there is one thing that I have learned in politics Leo, it is that there are able people in all the major parties and we need forms of government which can harness those skills. We in the German Green Party do not have a monopoly on good ideas - there is no one particular party which I agree with more than about 80%, including my own - there are people who I can work with from the SPD, from die Linke, and even from the CDU. We do this in local politics - without this cross party cooperation no real development would be possible. Coalitions encourage cross party cooperation, and sometimes working with 'the other' is easier than with your own party. Your way of party politics discourages that cooperation - it strengthens the party whips, and the type of one party politics which stifles good ideas.

 

[superhorns]

I can see one major potential benefit of PR. FPTP tends to promote short term decision making. I have lost count of the times when Ministers of all parties have rejected proposals on the basis that they would not be implemented during the lifespan of the current government. PR would mean bigger parties always had some representation so could make longer term policies in terms of infrastructure and regeneration which would really benefit the country. And, as of course, it would mean more consensus and compromise which I'm obviously a huge fan of

We have had many examples of PR in EU countries causing long delays in being able to form governments. It can lead to the stifling of bold policies so not much really gets done. I can see how the idea would be attractive to civil servants. The current German coalition government looks awfully delicate with minority parties able to exert undue power.

 

[Deleted.......]

I would also add more than 400 MPs were at odds with their constituencies over Brexit by backing remain in an area that voted leave. Do the maths, most constituencies voted leave.

I know - which is even more reason to respect the wishes of constituents. It doesn't change anything but at least we'd be listened to.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I know - which is even more reason to respect the wishes of constituents. It doesn't change anything but at least we'd be listened to.

So there are 10 MPs who do not listen to the wishes of their constituents, that no one in England, Scotland or Wales could have voted for, yet they are calling the shots on some issues. Something not quite right there I think.

 

[Leo]

I can see one major potential benefit of PR. FPTP tends to promote short term decision making. I have lost count of the times when Ministers of all parties have rejected proposals on the basis that they would not be implemented during the lifespan of the current government. PR would mean bigger parties always had some representation so could make longer term policies in terms of infrastructure and regeneration which would really benefit the country. And, as of course, it would mean more consensus and compromise which I'm obviously a huge fan of

Personally I would prefer PR.
What I object to is people who favour one system suggesting the one they do not favour is not democratic. That is the path of autocrats.
FPTP and PR both have merits and problems but both are fully democratic.

 

[Leo]

So there are 10 MPs who do not listen to the wishes of their constituents, that no one in England, Scotland or Wales could have voted for, yet they are calling the shots on some issues. Something not quite right there I think.

and under PR they would more often hold the balance of power

 

[Deleted.......]

Personally I would prefer PR.
What I object to is people who favour one system suggesting the one they do not favour is not democratic. That is the path of autocrats.
FPTP and PR both have merits and problems but both are fully democratic.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[superhorns]

I know - which is even more reason to respect the wishes of constituents. It doesn't change anything but at least we'd be listened to.

If the referendum decision was by constituencies there would have been a very large majority vote for leave, maybe that would have reduced the level of non acceptance by the 'remainers'.

 

[Deleted.......]

If the referendum decision was by constituencies there would have been a very large majority vote for leave, maybe that would have reduced the level of non acceptance by the 'remainers'.

If we want to be really democratic the constituencies that wanted to remain should be free to do so

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

and under PR they would more often hold the balance of power

Possibly, but I doubt that if Labour were the largest party they would do a deal with them. It also depends on what type of PR you had.

 

[superhorns]

The 2010 UK coalition was broadly a success, repairing some of the damage done by the previous Labour government by gaining control over expenditure. The coalition relationship was soured by the lack of trust between the two parties when the Lib Dems reneged on the deal to allow the constituency boundary changes in return for the ill fated Alternative Vote referendum. On a turnout of a paltry 42% nearly 70% rejected the idea of changing the system.

I don't see it changing at all in our lifetime.

 

[Leo]

The coalition was a great success for the Tories but did not turn out so well for the LibDems whose supporters felt shafted by important decisions and compromises. So much for coalition politics and more people getting what they want. At least under FPTP if a side gets a majority it is up to them what they do.
Either way - both are democratic and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. The fact is democracy does not always give you the government you would like. That is called life.

 

[superhorns]

The coalition was a great success for the Tories but did not turn out so well for the LibDems whose supporters felt shafted by important decisions and compromises. So much for coalition politics and more people getting what they want. At least under FPTP if a side gets a majority it is up to them what they do.
Either way - both are democratic and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. The fact is democracy does not always give you the government you would like. That is called life.

Although the Lib Dems were unfairly treated after their stint in government there were a small minority compared to the size of the Tories. They gained rather a lot of ministers if I remember.

 

[Leo]

Although the Lib Dems were unfairly treated after their stint in government there were a small minority compared to the size of the Tories. They gained rather a lot of ministers if I remember.

I don't disagree - and it was for the LibDems to decide what they would and would not support. It showed Nick Clegg's lack of experience for which he ultimately paid.
People who support PR often forget that it leads to horse trading and if that is "better" democracy in their opinion I am not sure I share the opinion. BOth are equally valid and it is up to a country to decide which it likes.

 

[colognehornet]

I don't disagree - and it was for the LibDems to decide what they would and would not support. It showed Nick Clegg's lack of experience for which he ultimately paid.
People who support PR often forget that it leads to horse trading and if that is "better" democracy in their opinion I am not sure I share the opinion. BOth are equally valid and it is up to a country to decide which it likes.

I agree that democracy can sometimes be difficult Leo. The alternating one party state system of the UK. is simpler. PR. is something which a country needs to grow into - namely the art of cross party cooperation which would, initially, be difficult for the British. Sometimes horse trading is involved, but it is better for a parties supporters to know that through this maybe 3 out of 5 of the aims you had have been realized than none at all. This is what is known as Realpolitik - however, parties should take polls of their members in advance of elections in order to find out which coalitions would be acceptable (unfortunately it's not possible to do the same amongst supporters).

 

[superhorns]

I agree that democracy can sometimes be difficult Leo. The alternating one party state system of the UK. is simpler. PR. is something which a country needs to grow into - namely the art of cross party cooperation which would, initially, be difficult for the British. Sometimes horse trading is involved, but it is better for a parties supporters to know that through this maybe 3 out of 5 of the aims you had have been realized than none at all. This is what is known as Realpolitik - however, parties should take polls of their members in advance of elections in order to find out which coalitions would be acceptable (unfortunately it's not possible to do the same amongst supporters).

Belgium was 589 days without a government due to not being able to find cross party cooperation. There does not seem to be much cross party cooperation in Germany at the moment. I really don't see PR as an answer to any of the UK's current or future problems.

 

[colognehornet]

Belgium was 589 days without a government due to not being able to find cross party cooperation. There does not seem to be much cross party cooperation in Germany at the moment. I really don't see PR as an answer to any of the UK's current or future problems.

Merkel's problems are with her own party not with the SPD.

 

[Leo]

I agree that democracy can sometimes be difficult Leo. The alternating one party state system of the UK. is simpler. PR. is something which a country needs to grow into - namely the art of cross party cooperation which would, initially, be difficult for the British. Sometimes horse trading is involved, but it is better for a parties supporters to know that through this maybe 3 out of 5 of the aims you had have been realized than none at all. This is what is known as Realpolitik - however, parties should take polls of their members in advance of elections in order to find out which coalitions would be acceptable (unfortunately it's not possible to do the same amongst supporters).

Why should a country "grow into" PR. It is not better. It is different. Some people prefer it. You write as if the UK is weak for going with a system that you personally do not approve of. A lot of people like FPTP and do not want to "grow into" something as if that is the adult version of what they have.