Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Polling percentage ≠ number of seats.

I'd just like to flag up how ridiculous this is.

Yes but anybody who wins under the current system will never change it

Stevo_666

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

robert88

bompington wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Confirmation, if it were needed, that at the moment politics is just a load of balls

I think that is all the writer intended to convey really. Just 20 days too late.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

I can't see why that system is worse than the current one.

I mean, the main argument for FPTP is that it creates less representative but more decisive governments who can ram through their agenda without being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

We currently have an unrepresentative system which is being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

shirley_basso

But that is a symptom of the electorate rather than the voting system as parties are attempting to attract the fringe extremists who are always the most vocal.

Furthermore, it feels like that we are in a period of politics being driven by a single issue and therefore parties are positioning themselves around that.

Hopefully Brexit will die, May will be deemed a unexpected hero and Corbyn will be removed and then back to petty squabbling BAU.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

I can't see why that system is worse than the current one.

I mean, the main argument for FPTP is that it creates less representative but more decisive governments who can ram through their agenda without being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

We currently have an unrepresentative system which is being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

Also FPTP has a very clear link between constituency and MP. The main difficulty with other systems is either a constituency being 'assigned' an MP to fit the national spread of votes; or directly elected constituency MPs and a load of floating MPs to balance out the proportions. Neither is particularly satisfactory.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

I can't see why that system is worse than the current one.

I mean, the main argument for FPTP is that it creates less representative but more decisive governments who can ram through their agenda without being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

We currently have an unrepresentative system which is being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

Or else look at other countries with PR. The permanent political paralysis in Italy for example. Or Germany, where there was no government for 6 or 7 months while Merkel tried to negotiate a coalition - and where an extremist fringe party (AfD) has a sizeable representation.

Be careful what you wish for...

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

Are we moving towards a four party situation or is this a blip?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

More than that, both major parties are fundamentally divided on the main issue before parliament. Neither can agree amongst itself what it stands for, nor have a leader of sufficient calibre to unite around.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

I can't see why that system is worse than the current one.

I mean, the main argument for FPTP is that it creates less representative but more decisive governments who can ram through their agenda without being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

We currently have an unrepresentative system which is being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

Or else look at other countries with PR. The permanent political paralysis in Italy for example. Or Germany, where there was no government for 6 or 7 months while Merkel tried to negotiate a coalition - and where an extremist fringe party (AfD) has a sizeable representation.

Be careful what you wish for...

1st para is nonesense since they'd have had to have formed a government around a consensus on how to deliver brexit before they kicked off governing, rather than getting a party in which did not have a consensus.

2nd para is laughable given the current situation. Extremists have engineered labour's party system to their own end, government is being held to ransom by a lot who only got leverage because their main party tried to fend off extremists by becoming more extreme. (UKIP).

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

When was the last time one party actually had a clear majority of the vote though? 1931?

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

When was the last time one party actually had a clear majority of the vote though? 1931?

2005 election. So 2010.

Labour had solidly 13 years of total dominance of parliament.

If you want to ague the didn't have a huge majority then it's 2001 election.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

When was the last time one party actually had a clear majority of the vote though? 1931?

2005 election. So 2010.

Labour had solidly 13 years of total dominance of parliament.

If you want to ague the didn't have a huge majority then it's 2001 election.

Labour had 40% of the vote in 2001. 35% in 2005.

The fact that 40% of the vote can turn into 60% of the seats is not a sign of the strength of the current system in my view.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

When was the last time one party actually had a clear majority of the vote though? 1931?

2005 election. So 2010.

Labour had solidly 13 years of total dominance of parliament.

If you want to ague the didn't have a huge majority then it's 2001 election.

Labour had 40% of the vote in 2001. 35% in 2005.

The fact that 40% of the vote can turn into 60% of the seats is not a sign of the strength of the current system in my view.

Ah, misunderstood the question.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

Are we moving towards a four party situation or is this a blip?

I thought we already had Tory, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem - unless you think that one or more of those is insignificant and doesn't really count?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

More than that, both major parties are fundamentally divided on the main issue before parliament. Neither can agree amongst itself what it stands for, nor have a leader of sufficient calibre to unite around.

Maybe I should have expanded that to factions or something similar - but if there were a clear majority in Parliament in favour of something then we wouldn't be in this situation. Which takes me back to my point about the issues with PR.

shirley_basso

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

Are we moving towards a four party situation or is this a blip?

I thought we already had Tory, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem - unless you think that one or more of those is insignificant and doesn't really count?

As soon as a party starts to count of offer something attractive to voters, the main 2 just adopt the policy and absorb the party and its supporters.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Worth pointing out that we tried the proportional method in the referendum in 2016 and that wasn't very popular with a lot of people.

This is not a good take.

Point is that people will tend to prefer whatever system gets them the best result. In the case of the Lib Dems, PR is 'fairer' because it will get them more seats.

I can't see why that system is worse than the current one.

I mean, the main argument for FPTP is that it creates less representative but more decisive governments who can ram through their agenda without being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

We currently have an unrepresentative system which is being held to hostage by a fringe of extremists.

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

Or else look at other countries with PR. The permanent political paralysis in Italy for example. Or Germany, where there was no government for 6 or 7 months while Merkel tried to negotiate a coalition - and where an extremist fringe party (AfD) has a sizeable representation.

Be careful what you wish for...

1st para is nonesense since they'd have had to have formed a government around a consensus on how to deliver brexit before they kicked off governing, rather than getting a party in which did not have a consensus.

2nd para is laughable given the current situation. Extremists have engineered labour's party system to their own end, government is being held to ransom by a lot who only got leverage because their main party tried to fend off extremists by becoming more extreme. (UKIP).

Not really.

Para 1 - see my point to RJS above.

Para 2 - See my point regarding this not being the UK norm. Also, your thoughts on Germany and Italy?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

More than that, both major parties are fundamentally divided on the main issue before parliament. Neither can agree amongst itself what it stands for, nor have a leader of sufficient calibre to unite around.

Maybe I should have expanded that to factions or something similar - but if there were a clear majority in Parliament in favour of something then we wouldn't be in this situation. Which takes me back to my point about the issues with PR.

It's the interplay between party and faction that is dividing loyalties. That and the completely shameless jockeying for position as leader in waiting without wanting the current one to quit just yet in case they have to get their hands dirty. Which again boils down to the total leadership vacuum, which is not even limited to the major parties.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

More than that, both major parties are fundamentally divided on the main issue before parliament. Neither can agree amongst itself what it stands for, nor have a leader of sufficient calibre to unite around.

Maybe I should have expanded that to factions or something similar - but if there were a clear majority in Parliament in favour of something then we wouldn't be in this situation. Which takes me back to my point about the issues with PR.

It's the interplay between party and faction that is dividing loyalties. That and the completely shameless jockeying for position as leader in waiting without wanting the current one to quit just yet in case they have to get their hands dirty. Which again boils down to the total leadership vacuum, which is not even limited to the major parties.

Can't really disagree with the reasons, although my point still stands about the end result.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics. So if you want a taste of what it would be like most of the time under PR, here it is.

More than that, both major parties are fundamentally divided on the main issue before parliament. Neither can agree amongst itself what it stands for, nor have a leader of sufficient calibre to unite around.

Maybe I should have expanded that to factions or something similar - but if there were a clear majority in Parliament in favour of something then we wouldn't be in this situation. Which takes me back to my point about the issues with PR.

It's the interplay between party and faction that is dividing loyalties. That and the completely shameless jockeying for position as leader in waiting without wanting the current one to quit just yet in case they have to get their hands dirty. Which again boils down to the total leadership vacuum, which is not even limited to the major parties.

Can't really disagree with the reasons, although my point still stands about the end result.

I agree that PR isn't the solution to this problem. That also requires leadership and there is none to be had.

rjsterry

Who'd be a local councillor?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-politics

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Who'd be a local councillor?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-politics

When I read some of the comments beneath any article involving our local councillors, it disgusts me that I share a community with the despicable individuals who make them.

tailwindhome

Shirley Basso wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I see it the current issues in parliament are largely because there is no one party with a clear majority. Which is something of an unusual situation in UK politics.

Are we moving towards a four party situation or is this a blip?

I thought we already had Tory, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem - unless you think that one or more of those is insignificant and doesn't really count?

As soon as a party starts to count of offer something attractive to voters, the main 2 just adopt the policy and absorb the party and its supporters.

I'm discounting SNP as a regional party.

The current Left Right model seems to be coming under tremendous strain.

It's not inconceivable that the right will split to Right and Centre Right and Labour to Left and Centre Left.

Whether the centre left swallows the LibDems or coalesces round them remains to be seen.

sgt.pepper

NZ has Mixed Member Proportional. It retains the constituency link (which is vastly overstated anyway), while proportionately reflecting the vote count. It has shortcomings, particularly around the 5% threshold - but overall, it functions infinitely better than FPTP.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or else look at other countries with PR. The permanent political paralysis in Italy for example. Or Germany, where there was no government for 6 or 7 months while Merkel tried to negotiate a coalition - and where an extremist fringe party (AfD) has a sizeable representation.

Be careful what you wish for...

Red herrings.

It's my favourite country, but that's just the Italians being Italian. Makes no difference which electoral system they have.

Germany has functioned excellently for a long time - they're falling apart (and seeing the rise of the Right) because political elites have deliberately obscured and diminished the effects of the migrant crisis on regular people - which has echoes of Brexit, actually.

Also, this idea that countries shouldn't have a decent electoral system 'in case they vote for a party I don't like' is as patronising as it is dangerous.

rick_chasey

Germany is not falling apart ffs.

Look at how wealthy actual average folk are and you’ll turn green with envy.

Stevo_666

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or else look at other countries with PR. The permanent political paralysis in Italy for example. Or Germany, where there was no government for 6 or 7 months while Merkel tried to negotiate a coalition - and where an extremist fringe party (AfD) has a sizeable representation.

Be careful what you wish for...

Red herrings.

No, the result of no overall majority stemming from their PR system.