Votes that matter

[Ldr]

Theoretically, what inventive is there for Labour if in power to do right by an area like doncaster? The seat is guaranteed they  could put up a traffic cone and it would win ( same principle goes for a conservative government and their heartlands.) Elections are won and lost in marginal constituencies

[Not Now Kato]

Which is why proportional representation is the only way forward.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Which is why proportional representation is the only way forward.

But no party would have the power to divvy out money to the constituencies they'd want to so it's no solution.

[Ldr]

It's a stumper Glyn, I definately think the current system is not fit for purpose though

[BillyStubbsTears]

Because politicians actually DO have loyalties to the people who are their core supporters. They're not all self-serving calculators.

Compare Donny in 2010 with Donny in 1997 for example.

Consider the fact that in the very first month of Tory rule in 2010, Eric Pickles (true story: I couldn't remember his name, so I Googled "fat Tory from Bradford" and it came up with Eric Pickles as the first hit) reduced the funding for Donny council by 9% and increased the funding for Dorset.

That's what happens. Heartland DO get supported by Governments.

[Not Now Kato]

Which is why proportional representation is the only way forward.

But no party would have the power to divvy out money to the constituencies they'd want to so it's no solution.

Seems to work in plenty of other places. In fact it seems to work better than the FPTP system we have here.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Which is why proportional representation is the only way forward.

But no party would have the power to divvy out money to the constituencies they'd want to so it's no solution.

No, but every party would know that a vote in Donny was as valuable as a vote in Dorking. And vice versa. So they would have no incentive to unfairly prioritise any region.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Which is why proportional representation is the only way forward.

But no party would have the power to divvy out money to the constituencies they'd want to so it's no solution.

No, but every party would know that a vote in Donny was as valuable as a vote in Dorking. And vice versa. So they would have no incentive to unfairly prioritise any region.

Only if you go for the undemocratic list version of PR that does away with constituencies. I wouldn't, I'd opt for the ATV PR system that retains constituencies and continues the relationship between an MP and the voters he represents - and they have the ability to unseat him if they wish.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn.
Yes, that's the theory, but in practice it doesn't really work like that does it?

MPs at least as often pander to their constituents' perceived views as represent their interests.

See: John Mann and Caroline Flint.

[Donnywolf]

I believe that we have all agreed that PR in some form is "better" (I chose the word carefully) than FPTP ! All we need now is a groundswell I favour of it but a lot of the impetus is being obscured by the b****t mess

It would be good if that opinion grew once the EU thing is concluded one way or the other and at least voters could not then say (as an excuse for not voting) my Vote does not count. Transparantly PR in most formats is a fairer way to go - which is probably why out of the developed Democracies in the world we are one of 6 that dont use it

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn.
Yes, that's the theory, but in practice it doesn't really work like that does it?

MPs at least as often pander to their constituents' perceived views as represent their interests.

See: John Mann and Caroline Flint.

If you did away with the link between an MP and a constituency, all they'd have to pander to is their own personal interests. And if they're high up enough on the party list there's no way to get rid of them. Which is completely undemocratic.