Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: roverstillidie91 on May 25, 2024, 07:18:12 am
-
According to reports Labour are wanting only a 1 to 1 debate with the Tories and to not include SNP, independents, Greens, Lib Dems etc.
Makes you wonder why?
-
According to reports Labour are wanting only a 1 to 1 debate with the Tories and to not include SNP, independents, Greens, Lib Dems etc.
Makes you wonder why?
During the last General Election campaign Boris Johnson didn’t want any leadership debates
-
According to reports Labour are wanting only a 1 to 1 debate with the Tories and to not include SNP, independents, Greens, Lib Dems etc.
Makes you wonder why?
Starmer wants to watch the Euros?
-
Any more than 2 sides in a TV debate and it’s an absolute mess.
-
TV debates are useless.
I thought we'd learned our lesson after 2010, when Clegg gave the LDs a massive boost in the polls following a TV debate where all he did was give a Colgate smile, look straight in the camera and answer audience questions saying "Wellz let me say, Karen. It IS Karen isn't it? Do you mind if I call you Karen? Well Karen..."
That put them in Government, and he turned out to be the biggest t**t in politics.
He's now acting as a human shield to Zuckerberg to explain why they are so humbly sorry that Facebook is being used to plan ethnic cleansing campaigns and undermine elections all round the world, but they only have people's best interests at heart. Karen.
-
I’m guessing that you don’t like Clegg then.
-
I have to agree with Starmer on this one. If we had PR, as we all know we should, then all of the above parties' views and proposals would be relevant.
As it is, with our ridiculous voting system, each GE just becomes a two horse race, so it's pointless cluttering the debate with any other than the two main parties.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
-
According to reports Labour are wanting only a 1 to 1 debate with the Tories and to not include SNP, independents, Greens, Lib Dems etc.
Makes you wonder why?
During the last General Election campaign Boris Johnson didn’t want any leadership debates
Yup, there's little difference between them.
-
I have to agree with Starmer on this one. If we had PR, as we all know we should, then all of the above parties' views and proposals would be relevant.
As it is, with our ridiculous voting system, each GE just becomes a two horse race, so it's pointless cluttering the debate with any other than the two main parties.
Surprised you're putting a case for currently maintaining the establishment status quo. Whatever you want.
By the way, Bristol West... tho I think they changed the name... is very likely to go Green from Labour. Only hosting debates between the two right wing establishment parties is as undemocratic as it gets. That's Starmer for you.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Absolutely.
-
I have to agree with Starmer on this one. If we had PR, as we all know we should, then all of the above parties' views and proposals would be relevant.
As it is, with our ridiculous voting system, each GE just becomes a two horse race, so it's pointless cluttering the debate with any other than the two main parties.
Surprised you're putting a case for currently maintaining the establishment status quo. Whatever you want.
By the way, Bristol West... tho I think they changed the name... is very likely to go Green from Labour. Only hosting debates between the two right wing establishment parties is as undemocratic as it gets. That's Starmer for you.
You're missing my point, BRR. I want PR, always have, but it's pointless having other parties at debates as things are just now, because it takes away time from the main two being put under scrutiny, which I want to see.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
-
Keir will sort it.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
It would appear to be the case Glyn.
I don’t suppose anyone can grumble if a democratic vote decided the outcome.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
Is there any wonder that happened?
It was Clegg's policy. He led the campaign in the proportional representation referendum.
And by the time it came, 7 months after the 2010 GE, his shower had fallen to about 8% in the polls and he was the most hated politician in the country, because he'd signed up lock, stock and barrel to the Tories' Austerity plans.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
Is there any wonder that happened?
It was Clegg's policy. He led the campaign in the proportional representation referendum.
And by the time it came, 7 months after the 2010 GE, his shower had fallen to about 8% in the polls and he was the most hated politician in the country, because he'd signed up lock, stock and barrel to the Tories' Austerity plans.
So I’m guessing then that after Labour win the GE that they won’t be proposing a PR vote anytime soon.
Like I said earlier, the big two don’t want it.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
Is there any wonder that happened?
It was Clegg's policy. He led the campaign in the proportional representation referendum.
And by the time it came, 7 months after the 2010 GE, his shower had fallen to about 8% in the polls and he was the most hated politician in the country, because he'd signed up lock, stock and barrel to the Tories' Austerity plans.
So I’m guessing then that after Labour win the GE that they won’t be proposing a PR vote anytime soon.
Like I said earlier, the big two don’t want it.
Regardless of forms the next government, the winners never mention or consider moving to this more democratic model. Its only ever been parties in opposition or who have no hope of ever achieving who discuss this.
We need to learn from continental Europe in this instance.
I'm quite sure that with PR we would increase the overall number of people who participate in elections, ensuring we don't have periods of overall dominance by individual parties that then force through legislation that's unwanted by the majority and by its very nature is short term thinking that then gets jettisoned when the next election throws up a different flavour of government.
PR would rein in the excess of left and right leaning administrations, force parties to work together and enable longer term planning that would not be abandoned every election cycle.
The issue we have is no mainstream political party have the vision or boll**ks to ever implement this.
Its always been a case or party first before country, for all of them. They don't have the countries best interests at heart, only their own.
-
Here you have it writ large where the tories heads are ............
''The recent mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections took place under a First Past the Post (FPTP) system, where people are able to put just one ‘X’ on their ballot – choosing only one of the candidates. This often leads to outcomes where many voters are ignored and candidates are able to win on a low share of the vote. For example, Labour’s David Skaith won the new position of York & North Yorkshire mayor with little more than one-third of the vote (35.1 per cent). Meanwhile, the Conservative’s Philip Wilkinson became Wiltshire’s PCC with fewer than one-third of votes cast (31.0 per cent)''
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imposing-first-past-the-post-on-these-roles-was-a-mistake/
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
Is there any wonder that happened?
It was Clegg's policy. He led the campaign in the proportional representation referendum.
And by the time it came, 7 months after the 2010 GE, his shower had fallen to about 8% in the polls and he was the most hated politician in the country, because he'd signed up lock, stock and barrel to the Tories' Austerity plans.
So I’m guessing then that after Labour win the GE that they won’t be proposing a PR vote anytime soon.
Like I said earlier, the big two don’t want it.
Regardless of forms the next government, the winners never mention or consider moving to this more democratic model. Its only ever been parties in opposition or who have no hope of ever achieving who discuss this.
We need to learn from continental Europe in this instance.
I'm quite sure that with PR we would increase the overall number of people who participate in elections, ensuring we don't have periods of overall dominance by individual parties that then force through legislation that's unwanted by the majority and by its very nature is short term thinking that then gets jettisoned when the next election throws up a different flavour of government.
PR would rein in the excess of left and right leaning administrations, force parties to work together and enable longer term planning that would not be abandoned every election cycle.
The issue we have is no mainstream political party have the vision or boll**ks to ever implement this.
Its always been a case or party first before country, for all of them. They don't have the countries best interests at heart, only their own.
Exactly what I said mate.
-
Why is it then that we don’t change to PR?
Is it that the two big Party’s don’t want to open the door to the others.
Because when we had the opportunity to do so, we voted not to. Democracy's a bugger int'it?
Is there any wonder that happened?
It was Clegg's policy. He led the campaign in the proportional representation referendum.
And by the time it came, 7 months after the 2010 GE, his shower had fallen to about 8% in the polls and he was the most hated politician in the country, because he'd signed up lock, stock and barrel to the Tories' Austerity plans.
So I’m guessing then that after Labour win the GE that they won’t be proposing a PR vote anytime soon.
Like I said earlier, the big two don’t want it.
Regardless of forms the next government, the winners never mention or consider moving to this more democratic model. Its only ever been parties in opposition or who have no hope of ever achieving who discuss this.
We need to learn from continental Europe in this instance.
I'm quite sure that with PR we would increase the overall number of people who participate in elections, ensuring we don't have periods of overall dominance by individual parties that then force through legislation that's unwanted by the majority and by its very nature is short term thinking that then gets jettisoned when the next election throws up a different flavour of government.
PR would rein in the excess of left and right leaning administrations, force parties to work together and enable longer term planning that would not be abandoned every election cycle.
The issue we have is no mainstream political party have the vision or boll**ks to ever implement this.
Its always been a case or party first before country, for all of them. They don't have the countries best interests at heart, only their own.
We literally had a referendum on this exact subject 13 years ago.
PR was defeated 68/32.
Every single region of the country voted against it.
What exactly is your point?
-
A referendum that was granted by a Tory party, being held over a barrel by Lib Dems was never going to be the optimal time to run it.
What's ironic about it all was that the popular vote during that election demonstrated fully why our system is so outdated and undemocratic.
Con, 10.7m votes 306 seats
Lab, 8.6m votes 258 seats
Lib Dem, 6.8m votes 57 seats
When you've just had an election that has produced that result, in the process allowing Clegg to prop up a party that itself only gained 36% of the electorate (Lib Dems didn't vote for that scenario) in effect you have pissed of 64% of the electorate.
This dosen't set a scenario where people are going to vote for anything that an illegitimate gov are proposing. If anything plenty voted against it just because of their dislike for that discredited government.
Its something that needs to be properly debated with a consensus reached about how parliament for its own long term interests should be pushing for this outcome regardless of party policy.
What happens if circumstances dictate that Labour have a disastrous period in government, with everything else that's going off in the world, what sort of extremists could we be looking at gaining a majority come the next election?
-
We didn't have a referendum on Proportional Representation at all.
We had a referendum on swapping electing constituency MPs from First Past the Post to something called the Altenative Vote.
The Alternative Vote would have ensured that the winning candidate in a constituency has at least some kind of majority support, but has nothing to do with proportional representation on a country-wide level.
-
Electing local national representatives, like now, does have great value for localities, but it doesn't work nationally. Times have changed whereby we are all much more nationally engaged than in previous times. Maybe a better system that gives more power to localities is needed alongside a real PR nationally.
Thinking just on the national level, I think the aim should be for votes for parties and seats dealt out proportionally. Simple. There could be a more local vote alongside this on named individuals that would be put forward for allocation who would then be plugged into localities. Complex.
What isn't okay is for parties to simply choose individuals, though actually that is what happens already in many cases. Labour have increasingly been doing this, Tories have always tended to do it.
With the local council elections, more power could be given to them in engaging with national issues.
It's difficult, though necessary and doable. The transferred vote thing is a fudge, as is lumping together several seats like in the Euro elections.
-
We didn't have a referendum on Proportional Representation at all.
We had a referendum on swapping electing constituency MPs from First Past the Post to something called the Altenative Vote.
The Alternative Vote would have ensured that the winning candidate in a constituency has at least some kind of majority support, but has nothing to do with proportional representation on a country-wide level.
It was an opportunity to ditch First Past The Post. The electorate decided to keep it.
-
We didn't have a referendum on Proportional Representation at all.
We had a referendum on swapping electing constituency MPs from First Past the Post to something called the Altenative Vote.
The Alternative Vote would have ensured that the winning candidate in a constituency has at least some kind of majority support, but has nothing to do with proportional representation on a country-wide level.
It was an opportunity to ditch First Past The Post. The electorate decided to keep it.
Ah, so we didn’t have a referendum on this exact subject (PR) 13 years ago.
-
Electing local national representatives, like now, does have great value for localities, but it doesn't work nationally. Times have changed whereby we are all much more nationally engaged than in previous times. Maybe a better system that gives more power to localities is needed alongside a real PR nationally.
Thinking just on the national level, I think the aim should be for votes for parties and seats dealt out proportionally. Simple. There could be a more local vote alongside this on named individuals that would be put forward for allocation who would then be plugged into localities. Complex.
What isn't okay is for parties to simply choose individuals, though actually that is what happens already in many cases. Labour have increasingly been doing this, Tories have always tended to do it.
With the local council elections, more power could be given to them in engaging with national issues.
It's difficult, though necessary and doable. The transferred vote thing is a fudge, as is lumping together several seats like in the Euro elections.
See that to me is a cop out. How many people actually vote for an individual MP at a general election? The vast majority of people only have a passing interest in politics and just vote for whoever is nominated for the party they want to vote for.
If you want local representation then maybe local councillors could do that role better, they would definitely cost the taxpayer less.
-
''If you want local representation then maybe local councillors could do that role better, they would definitely cost the taxpayer less''
Are you involved in the tory election campaign dd?
-
Electing local national representatives, like now, does have great value for localities, but it doesn't work nationally. Times have changed whereby we are all much more nationally engaged than in previous times. Maybe a better system that gives more power to localities is needed alongside a real PR nationally.
Thinking just on the national level, I think the aim should be for votes for parties and seats dealt out proportionally. Simple. There could be a more local vote alongside this on named individuals that would be put forward for allocation who would then be plugged into localities. Complex.
What isn't okay is for parties to simply choose individuals, though actually that is what happens already in many cases. Labour have increasingly been doing this, Tories have always tended to do it.
With the local council elections, more power could be given to them in engaging with national issues.
It's difficult, though necessary and doable. The transferred vote thing is a fudge, as is lumping together several seats like in the Euro elections.
IMO the House of Commons should be elected fully on PR.
The House of Lords should be fully elected on a constituency basis so the electorate has a local representative and someone to take individual grievances to.
-
Surely the winners under PR would be Reform? Would that change anyone’s mind on PR?
UKIP would have had a lot more power in parliament about 10 years ago as well.
-
They have pure Proportional Representation in The Netherlands and the largest party there is Geert Wilders far-right Freedom Party. Careful what you wish for…
-
Belief in democracy equates to belief in people.
It's the refrain of anti-democrats the world over that more power shouldn't be given to the electorate at the ballot box as they may do something we don't like with that power.
-
They have pure Proportional Representation in The Netherlands and the largest party there is Geert Wilders far-right Freedom Party. Careful what you wish for…
The Netherlands has one of the highest levels of GDP per capita in Europe.
Greater democratic powers nearly always leads to greater wealth and a happier population. And that's throughout history.
Something we should all be wishing for.
-
Surely the winners under PR would be Reform? Would that change anyone’s mind on PR?
UKIP would have had a lot more power in parliament about 10 years ago as well.
Had the 2015 GE used PR, UKIP would have had about 78 seats instead of the 1 under FPTP!
However, that score would probably have been higher because voters wouldn't have considered voting for UKIP a waste of a vote under the PR system.
-
Changing the voting system would probably be the biggest political change for this country in a very long time.
Surely the risk is letting in the far right/left to have some power? Not to mention the instability in government, have we forgotten Theresa may struggling with a coalition?
How would it work in a diverse collection of nations? Does the SNP for example only get 2% of seats on a UK basis, substantially less than their current holding? What does that mean for independence shouts? It's complicated.
I expect we'd see more votes for the greens and reform/ukip than current. Based on latest polling reform would have over 60 MPs and people like Farage would end up guaranteed a voice just because of their party. It effectively guarantees the big guns a seat.
-
Id say looking at what a PR devolved government would achieve when comparing what it may look like on current voting intentions is probably the wrong way to look at it.
For every vote for an extreme right/left faction you would have counter votes for centre/greens/progressive parties. With the electorate knowing that their vote will now count regardless of where they are located would allow people to express what they want from politicians rather than being told this is what you get.The uptake should also increase proportionately.
For people also worried about extreme elements then the counter balancing nature of a system like this would produce all the checks and balances required.
The only "democratic state" that it doesn't seem to work properly in is places like Isreal when you have a very small extremist party holding the balance of power and having far greater influence then their representation should entail. Very much doubt this would happen in this country due to a more balance political outlook overall.
We don't have bogie men under the bed in this country, people of a delicate nature can relax!
We should never be allowing parties with 36/40 % of the overall vote to take charge, its patently undemocratic.
This country needs a massive shake up, it should start with an initiative like this and then kick on.
-
I've supported PR for many years and still do today.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to those on the right if they'd not suddenly been converted to the cause by the fact that Labour will win this time.
No system is ever perfect though. If we had PR in this country, it's almost guaranteed that the LDs would be in every single Government.
-
Id say looking at what a PR devolved government would achieve when comparing what it may look like on current voting intentions is probably the wrong way to look at it.
For every vote for an extreme right/left faction you would have counter votes for centre/greens/progressive parties. With the electorate knowing that their vote will now count regardless of where they are located would allow people to express what they want from politicians rather than being told this is what you get.The uptake should also increase proportionately.
For people also worried about extreme elements then the counter balancing nature of a system like this would produce all the checks and balances required.
The only "democratic state" that it doesn't seem to work properly in is places like Isreal when you have a very small extremist party holding the balance of power and having far greater influence then their representation should entail. Very much doubt this would happen in this country due to a more balance political outlook overall.
We don't have bogie men under the bed in this country, people of a delicate nature can relax!
We should never be allowing parties with 36/40 % of the overall vote to take charge, its patently undemocratic.
This country needs a massive shake up, it should start with an initiative like this and then kick on.
Do you think Geert Wilders is extreme? Or Farage?
If Farage had got all those seats BB mentions in 2015. He would be a rather powerful politician in this country. The Conservatives would have perhaps gone in to a coalition with him instead of the DUP in 2017.
-
I've supported PR for many years and still do today.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to those on the right if they'd not suddenly been converted to the cause by the fact that Labour will win this time.
No system is ever perfect though. If we had PR in this country, it's almost guaranteed that the LDs would be in every single Government.
What are your thoughts on the Lib Dem’s Billy?
It will be interesting to see how they differentiate themselves from Labour in this election. Or perhaps they will just target the Conservatives in the slim hope of a Labour minority that needs coalition.
-
Id say looking at what a PR devolved government would achieve when comparing what it may look like on current voting intentions is probably the wrong way to look at it.
For every vote for an extreme right/left faction you would have counter votes for centre/greens/progressive parties. With the electorate knowing that their vote will now count regardless of where they are located would allow people to express what they want from politicians rather than being told this is what you get.The uptake should also increase proportionately.
For people also worried about extreme elements then the counter balancing nature of a system like this would produce all the checks and balances required.
The only "democratic state" that it doesn't seem to work properly in is places like Isreal when you have a very small extremist party holding the balance of power and having far greater influence then their representation should entail. Very much doubt this would happen in this country due to a more balance political outlook overall.
We don't have bogie men under the bed in this country, people of a delicate nature can relax!
We should never be allowing parties with 36/40 % of the overall vote to take charge, its patently undemocratic.
This country needs a massive shake up, it should start with an initiative like this and then kick on.
Do you think Geert Wilders is extreme? Or Farage?
If Farage had got all those seats BB mentions in 2015. He would be a rather powerful politician in this country. The Conservatives would have perhaps gone in to a coalition with him instead of the DUP in 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/the-guardian-view-on-the-netherlands-a-radical-right-reset-will-challenge-european-unity
Looks like they already have Wilders number. He can't stand as leader and has had to compromise all his extreme policies to enable others to join his alliance for government. The indication is that this coalition will more than likely still fail.
In effect this is what PR should do with its checks and balances, the same thing had happened in Italy with Meloni having to temper her policies.
Farage, never going to happen.
-
I've supported PR for many years and still do today.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to those on the right if they'd not suddenly been converted to the cause by the fact that Labour will win this time.
No system is ever perfect though. If we had PR in this country, it's almost guaranteed that the LDs would be in every single Government.
!
-
Id say looking at what a PR devolved government would achieve when comparing what it may look like on current voting intentions is probably the wrong way to look at it.
For every vote for an extreme right/left faction you would have counter votes for centre/greens/progressive parties. With the electorate knowing that their vote will now count regardless of where they are located would allow people to express what they want from politicians rather than being told this is what you get.The uptake should also increase proportionately.
For people also worried about extreme elements then the counter balancing nature of a system like this would produce all the checks and balances required.
The only "democratic state" that it doesn't seem to work properly in is places like Isreal when you have a very small extremist party holding the balance of power and having far greater influence then their representation should entail. Very much doubt this would happen in this country due to a more balance political outlook overall.
We don't have bogie men under the bed in this country, people of a delicate nature can relax!
We should never be allowing parties with 36/40 % of the overall vote to take charge, its patently undemocratic.
This country needs a massive shake up, it should start with an initiative like this and then kick on.
Do you think Geert Wilders is extreme? Or Farage?
If Farage had got all those seats BB mentions in 2015. He would be a rather powerful politician in this country. The Conservatives would have perhaps gone in to a coalition with him instead of the DUP in 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/the-guardian-view-on-the-netherlands-a-radical-right-reset-will-challenge-european-unity
Looks like they already have Wilders number. He can't stand as leader and has had to compromise all his extreme policies to enable others to join his alliance for government. The indication is that this coalition will more than likely still fail.
In effect this is what PR should do with its checks and balances, the same thing had happened in Italy with Meloni having to temper her policies.
Farage, never going to happen.
That all makes sense actually, thank you.
My worry with PR is that it would just turn in to a far-left v far-right circus. With either side getting more riled up if their polar opposites got more power.
But I guess if those parts of the population feel more represented in the democratic process they are less likely to get more cynical and extreme. (Less talk of “the elites”).
-
I've supported PR for many years and still do today.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to those on the right if they'd not suddenly been converted to the cause by the fact that Labour will win this time.
No system is ever perfect though. If we had PR in this country, it's almost guaranteed that the LDs would be in every single Government.
Or the SNP. That'd rile the little Englanders with the Scottish holding sway over a different country!
-
Id say looking at what a PR devolved government would achieve when comparing what it may look like on current voting intentions is probably the wrong way to look at it.
For every vote for an extreme right/left faction you would have counter votes for centre/greens/progressive parties. With the electorate knowing that their vote will now count regardless of where they are located would allow people to express what they want from politicians rather than being told this is what you get.The uptake should also increase proportionately.
For people also worried about extreme elements then the counter balancing nature of a system like this would produce all the checks and balances required.
The only "democratic state" that it doesn't seem to work properly in is places like Isreal when you have a very small extremist party holding the balance of power and having far greater influence then their representation should entail. Very much doubt this would happen in this country due to a more balance political outlook overall.
We don't have bogie men under the bed in this country, people of a delicate nature can relax!
We should never be allowing parties with 36/40 % of the overall vote to take charge, its patently undemocratic.
This country needs a massive shake up, it should start with an initiative like this and then kick on.
Do you think Geert Wilders is extreme? Or Farage?
If Farage had got all those seats BB mentions in 2015. He would be a rather powerful politician in this country. The Conservatives would have perhaps gone in to a coalition with him instead of the DUP in 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/the-guardian-view-on-the-netherlands-a-radical-right-reset-will-challenge-european-unity
Looks like they already have Wilders number. He can't stand as leader and has had to compromise all his extreme policies to enable others to join his alliance for government. The indication is that this coalition will more than likely still fail.
In effect this is what PR should do with its checks and balances, the same thing had happened in Italy with Meloni having to temper her policies.
Farage, never going to happen.
That all makes sense actually, thank you.
My worry with PR is that it would just turn in to a far-left v far-right circus. With either side getting more riled up if their polar opposites got more power.
But I guess if those parts of the population feel more represented in the democratic process they are less likely to get more cynical and extreme. (Less talk of “the elites”).
It should allow the electorate to take control of the process instead of having two parties thinking they can just divi it up between them and requiring voters to tow their particular line.
Its probably the biggest reason why the "establishment" will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening to protect their own interests, to the determent of the electorate.
When the two parties start singing from the same hymn sheet, then we really are in trouble.
-
I've supported PR for many years and still do today.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to those on the right if they'd not suddenly been converted to the cause by the fact that Labour will win this time.
No system is ever perfect though. If we had PR in this country, it's almost guaranteed that the LDs would be in every single Government.
Or the SNP. That'd rile the little Englanders with the Scottish holding sway over a different country!
SNP are toast in this election but FPTP was never a hurdle for them. Its probably more accurate to call the SNP “Little Scotlanders” anyway.
-
One potential benefit of PR might be that the fringe parties would have a lot more scrutiny of their policies.
Fir example, how many people who voted UKIP in 2015 knew that their manifesto committed them to a massive cut in taxes and a huge increase in public spending? At a time when the deficit was already about 6% of GDP.
Folk could vote UKIP then as a protest, knowing that their policies were meaningless. If we had PR and they could hold the balance of power, you'd like to think there'd be a bit more consideration of what they really stood for.
Then again, given most UKIP voters I've come across...
-
Democracy is about compromise. We'll all have our own individual views on laws that should be passed and how the country should be run but none of us should be able to get our own way - that's dictatorship.
Currently we have 2 major broad church parties one bestriding the left and one the right. The compromises on policy are decided within these parties by a small handful of the population.
The electorate effectively has a choice of one of these parties and their predetermined policy compromises or the other to run the country. And given the FPTP system people in marginal seats have more of a say than others - votes in marginal seats are worth more to politicians as can be seen by the extra time/money invested in campaigning in those areas.
Under PR there would be more parties with differing policies and views to choose from. The electorate would have more of a say in which policies are enacted and how the country is run. The power of compromise on policy would, to a much greater extent, be held by ordinary people rather than by a small bunch of bug-eyed ideologues at Tory and Labour HQ.
And each vote across the country would count equally.
Both those things would increase engagement in politics.
Our democracy would be strengthened greatly and the policy of government better reflect the views of the people.
-
I don’t know why PR is even under discussion as potentially something that could happen any time soon.
Having read most of the above posts it is very obvious that the big two would never allow it to happen.
-
Although I can see Starmer and Sunak getting on like a house on fire, them and their ilk ruling for decades.
Thing is, whatever people are voting is part of the picture of democracy, we have to accept that. The other side is parties being compelled to carry out their manifesto, and then the media giving us it straight as opposed to the establishment controlled BS we currently have.
One step at a time I guess.
-
They do seem to have a lot in common.
-
I don’t think anyone is suggesting PR could happen any time soon, more that many believe it should.