Plashet Grove Pete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:38 pm
Yep. And whilst the numbers change, that's been the case for a century.
What would be your solution to ensure such an undemocratic voting system is changed in such a way to both satisfy the majority and prevent disastrous outcomes?
Proportional systems where 43% of the votes equates as closely to possible to 43% of the seats are so obviously fairer and more democratic, it's the reason why every European state uses one except us and Belarus.
More proportional systems provide more collaborative less adversarial government, do better with long term planning and stability, score higher on voter turnout & satisfaction and mean less safe-seats, less wasted votes and more variety in representation.
Would Johnson have got away with his law-breaking, corruption and incompetence if there had have been a coalition party's ministers in cabinet? Of course not.
Yep, fair enough. The Tory - Lib/Dem coalition showed just how well such models can work.
I'm guessing you'll blame the Tories for that shambles, but as soon as a minority party gets a sniff, they get their noses well and truly in the trough.
Look at the Lib Dems and their about faces on (for example) student loans. Exactly the same as the Tories this time around.
So they can't be trusted I suppose?
Still, I'm sure you're right. Your system would be better. It works so well in other countries. Italy for example.
Plashet Grove Pete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:43 pm
Yep, fair enough. The Tory - Lib/Dem coalition showed just how well such models can work.
I'm guessing you'll blame the Tories for that shambles, but as soon as a minority party gets a sniff, they get their noses well and truly in the trough.
Look at the Lib Dems and their about faces on (for example) student loans. Exactly the same as the Tories this time around.
So they can't be trusted I suppose?
Still, I'm sure you're right. Your system would be better. It works so well in other countries. Italy for example.
The LDs in coalition isn't just like the current government at all though.
The argument was that FPTP lead to strong government. The last three years should have put that to bed.
Junco Partner wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:33 pm
Time for an upgrade.
Would it be an upgrade in practice?
Take 2019 which delivered a big majority govt, how would that have planned out under pr? According to electoral reform the Tories would have been unlikely to form a govt. To get to a majority you would have needed labour and about 5 or 6 other parties in coalition. Or you run a minority and spend 5 years doing nothing.
As the parties currently stand it feels like a recipe for lots of buying off. Do manifestoes go out of the window a bit?
Plashet Grove Pete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:43 pm
Still, I'm sure you're right. Your system would be better. It works so well in other countries. Italy for example.
It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of almost every democracy in the world. When the wall fell and the eastern states freed themselves from dictatorship not one picked FPTP as their electoral system. Belarus and ourselves, that's it, that's the company we keep in the FPTP club.
Plashet Grove Pete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:43 pm
Yep, fair enough. The Tory - Lib/Dem coalition showed just how well such models can work.
It shows how any system that gave a party with 23% of the vote 8% of the seats, and gives a party with 36% of the vote 47% of the seats is fundamentally undemocratic. So if the result was mirrored under a more proportional system (C=36%, L=29%, LD=23%) who can tell how the coalition would have developed, or even if it would have automatically been C-LD, if it was the power dynamics would have been very different with the LD views represented much more.....so who knows.
I do agree that Tories do generally turn anything they touch into a shambles, their philosophy dictates it, Johnson is the latest in a long line of shamblers.
Junco Partner wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:59 pm
I do agree that Tories do generally turn anything they touch into a shambles, their philosophy dictates it, Johnson is the latest in a long line of shamblers.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:08 pm
Would it be an upgrade in practice?
Undoubtedly.
The record of 100,000 golf-club bores & Daily Mail subscribers picking our Prime Minister for us is poor, it'll be no different this time out.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:08 pmTake 2019 which delivered a big majority govt, how would that have planned out under pr? According to electoral reform the Tories would have been unlikely to form a govt. To get to a majority you would have needed labour and about 5 or 6 other parties in coalition. Or you run a minority and spend 5 years doing nothing.
With FPTP we have high levels of non-voting, and within those that do bother there are high levels of tactical voting, You see it on here when an election comes around, the amount of us 'trapped' in safe seats who feel our vote is pointless is sky high, you amongst us Sammy if I remember right. So once freed from the FPTP straightjacket who knows how voting patterns would shift and how 2019 would have turned out. Just carrying % votes under FPTP across to see what would happen under PR is a fools errand. But 43% of the votes would not and should not get 56% of the seats that's for sure.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:08 pmAs the parties currently stand it feels like a recipe for lots of buying off. Do manifestoes go out of the window a bit?
What you call 'buying off' is what other democracies call negotiation, concession, consensus. The need to turn centrally to build a consensus is what makes it work, whereas in this Truss/Sunak effort you see them turn rightward because they're beholden to the headbanger wing of their party to bestow power. The experience with PR is the electorates are intelligent enough to know what to expect, as the song says "You can't always get what you want...but you get that you need" so when the buying off/consensus building begins its all part of the process. It's a jump from our elected dictatorship model, but its one the modern world demands.
… or do you think we are in such a wonderful position that we can afford for these ***** to spend months and months doing zip?
Gordon Brown? Seriously?
The systemic problems of structural public sector debt, excessive debt interest and a public addiction to 0% interest rates are down to that bloke's incompetence and you're offering him as an answer?
"No more Boom and bust" was replaced by Brown's life on Whacko Jacko's Never-Never land for actually paying for stuff, yet everyone is.
If a club sacks their manager, they don't give the caretaker and the physio money to spend in the transfer market do they?
This is the same situation, just the process is hamstrung by the fact that the club has to ask all its season ticket holders before they appoint a new boss.
Denbighammer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:52 am
If a club sacks their manager, they don't give the caretaker and the physio money to spend in the transfer market do they?
This is the same situation, just the process is hamstrung by the fact that the club has to ask all its season ticket holders before they appoint a new boss.
If clubs sack their manager the manager isn’t still there as a caretaker so it isn’t the same situation at all.
Denbighammer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:52 am
If a club sacks their manager, they don't give the caretaker and the physio money to spend in the transfer market do they?
This is the same situation, just the process is hamstrung by the fact that the club has to ask all its season ticket holders before they appoint a new boss.
You sack your manager he doesn't hang about until the new manager comes in tho
Sunak caught on video saying he’ll take money from deprived urban areas to help wealthy Tory towns
Wealthy Tory Towns? Areas of Tunbridge Wells are some of the most deprived areas of the country, but don't let facts get in the way. Don't let the minority affluent areas lead you to this false misconception.
-DL- wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:29 am
Wealthy Tory Towns? Areas of Tunbridge Wells are some of the most deprived areas of the country, but don't let facts get in the way. Don't let the minority affluent areas lead you to this false misconception.
That's absolutely staggering if true, I'm from near Tunbridge Wells and have lived in much poorer areas of the country, and while it's definitely true that everywhere has its' rough areas, I never knew Tunbridge Wells had anything like the poverty you find in other areas. I've done a quick google and Tunbridge Wells has the least children in absolute poverty of any Kent local authority-
If you'd share the facts you have I'd be grateful, because I certainly agreed with the opinion that Rishi was hurting the poorest people, and if that isn't the case my view would totally change.
