Leadership Debates

[roverstillidie91]

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?

[Filo]

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

[wilts rover]

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?

[ncRover]

Any more than 2 sides in a TV debate and it’s an absolute mess.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[drfchound]

I’m guessing that you don’t like Clegg then.

[scawsby steve]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[Bristol Red Rover]

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.

[Bristol Red Rover]

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.

[scawsby steve]

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.

[scawsby steve]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

Keir will sort it.

[drfchound]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[danumdon]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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/

[drfchound]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[danumdon]

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?

[Branton Red]

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.

[Bristol Red Rover]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[danumdon]

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.

[SydneyRover]

''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?

[Branton Red]

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.

[ncRover]

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.