Support NeoGAF

[Kowak]

What are you basing that belief on? Have you got anything to back any of that up?

AV would lead to more Libs as they are quite often the second choice in most constituencies.

 

[mclem]

It's just crossed my mind that there's another way this could end: people who feel strongly that there should *not* be backroom deals could refuse to pledge allegiance to the Queen, as Sinn Fein do. That'd reduce the majority requirements until the Tories (presumably, although I guess it could be *them* refusing to sit in parliament over this) had an absolute majority.

Not that it'd ever happen, but it's an interesting way that independents could force people's hands.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Saying your vote is wasted in FPTP in a safe seat is like saying that if you voted for McCain in the US, your vote was wasted. The majority of people around you wanted something else. That sucks for you, but just because your vote wasn't taken into account in the composition of the government doesn't mean it was "wasted". You just lost.

Well, the electoral system is very different in the US, so let's not go down that dead end.

I'll just ask you this - what did my vote go towards, if I didn't vote for the winning party in my constituency?

 

[radioheadrule83]

The major issue I have with PR is that every election will turn out like this one. This hung parliament bollocks is total shit and I don't want it to ever happen again. In FPTP a hung parliament is the exception rather than the rule. If I vote for party X, I want party X in power. I don't want party X plus party Y in power. I don't want parties to have to compromise on their policies with other ideologically separate parties in order to be able to govern at all. I don't want to have smaller parties acting as kingmakers with disproportionate amounts of power. And I don't want the BNP and all kinds of other loonies in the house of commons, which you can pretty much guarantee will happen.

Saying your vote is wasted in FPTP in a safe seat is like saying that if you voted for McCain in the US, your vote was wasted. The majority of people around you wanted something else. That sucks for you, but just because your vote wasn't taken into account in the composition of the government doesn't mean it was "wasted". You just lost.

Its not total shit. You sound like you don't want democracy at all. If you vote for party X you want party X. Well to that I'm afraid people are saying "fuck you". In fact, they've already said it. People voted for party X, party Y and party Z in equal measure ensuring the post wasn't passed -- despite all warnings (for weeks) in the disgustingly biased media that a hung parliament was what would happen.

Have you considered that maybe people don't want anyone in particular to rush their ideologically singular programmes through parliament with utter disregard for the electorate? Particularly at this time of crisis.

Essentially you're against a fairer system that better represents peoples wishes, because you don't want politicians to have to talk to one another or work together for the good of the nation. You just want a government that can steamroll its work through parliament. I'm sorry but you, kowak and everyone else arguing against PR and any kind of referendum on it -- you just sound to me like you don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation and what people actually want.

The way the electorate behave in elections now is the result of dissatisfaction with their politicians and a historical context of being regularly dissatisfied with them. This hung parliament is asymptomatic of the FPTP system -- you're right to say that FPTP ensures hung parliaments happen less. However, the FPTP system is maintaining the status quo that made this hung parliament happen. Its a message. And it says that people didn't know who to pick, because they distrust all of them. It says that if the electorate is going to pick someone, it will pick the least-worst likely option. A hell of a lot of people are voting against what they don't want to happen, instead of FOR what they want to happen. Electoral reform can fix that, it can empower the electorate and make them engaged in politics again -- make them feel like the government they get is the government they asked for. It would also give the government a greater mandate. And if they have to compromise or work together to get a strong mandate for what they do, then so be it. That means we are closer to running our country, not them.


edit: regarding the comment about loonies and fringe parties, in a democracy I thought it was standard practice to allow freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Better to argue/campaign against the things we disagree with than ignore them. Ignoring the issues people seem to feel strongly about in this country and refusing to contest those views is the whole reason the BNP have a following to begin with.

 

[Empty]

Your vote wasnt ignore, its just the guy you voted for wasnt the person with the most votes. Thats fair to me. By voting for your candidate you gave him a chance of being elected, that isnt wasted.

Yes, but we live in a wider country represented by a larger government. Once again, we aren't governed by island constituencies, we are governed by central parties with whipa. In Oxford, for example, the vote counts across their two seats were LD: 41087 Con: 33633 Lab: 27937, yet they elected one Labour MP and one Tory MP in those two seats, and the 41,000 LD votes counted for nothing. That's not fair, those votes were wasted thanks to a weird geographical breakdown that has little bearing on how the country is actually governed.

 

[Dark Machine]

edit: regarding the comment about loonies and fringe parties, in a democracy I thought it was standard practice to allow freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Better to argue/campaign against the things we disagree with than ignore them. Ignoring the issues people seem to feel strongly about in this country and refusing to contest those views is the whole reason the BNP have a following to begin with.

On this subject, as has been mentioned earlier, when turnout was high and the electorate informed (thanks in no small part to Billy Bragg) the BNP were completely obliterated in Barking and Dagenham. The main parties will treat them as a true threat and thus argue better against them if PR is introduced IMO.

 

[louis89]

Well, the electoral system is very different in the US, so let's not go down that dead end.

I'll just ask you this - what did my vote go towards, if I didn't vote for the winning party in my constituency?

It went towards giving your guy a better chance at getting into the commons, and therefore increasing your party's chances of getting a seat. Again, you just lost. That doesn't make it unfair.

radioheadrule83, I'm just saying what I think. I'm not claiming to know what the rest of the country thinks or anything.

 

[Dark Machine]

It went towards giving your guy a better chance at getting into the commons, and therefore increasing your party's chances of getting a seat. Again, you just lost. That doesn't make it unfair.

radioheadrule83, I'm just saying what I think. I'm not claiming to know what the rest of the country thinks or anything.

So therefore, because of where I live (Liverpool) I am destined to 'lose' forever because the constituency is die-hard Labour and I support the Lib Dems? You're suggesting that I just sit down and take that?

Sorry but...:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Let me put this to you, as a Tory supporter, you go and live in Scotland, your Tory vote will never count for anything because everyone there HATES the Tories. Therefore you will have no say as to the make-up of the government because every seat is a safe non-tory seat. Too bad, you just lost. Most majority governments are elected here on around 35-38% of the vote, so 65-62% of the electorate need to just sit down and shut up because they lost. I find it odd that in a democracy, the Majority losing is normal.

Well gee, we're a nation of losers I guess huh? I'm getting off this rock then.

 

[Empty]

yes, but can't you see that having 650 different presidential elections for each constituency is totally illogical given how the government operates these days? it's only fair if you bend over backwards to justify the existence of such a ridiculous system, and ignore that the national vote-seat disparity, which actually influences government direction, rather than who you meet if you choose to go to a surgery, is incredibly unfair.

 

[RedShift]

It went towards giving your guy a better chance at getting into the commons, and therefore increasing your party's chances of getting a seat. Again, you just lost. That doesn't make it unfair.

radioheadrule83, I'm just saying what I think. I'm not claiming to know what the rest of the country thinks or anything.

The problem with your 'ha ha stfu you lost' argument is that in most constituencies over half the voters 'lost'. Elections aren't about choosing a winner, they're about electing representitives that reflect the opinions and interests of the electorate.

 

[Dr Zhivago]

Good article from New Scientist about the problems with various voting systems:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...sfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html

FPTP is about the worst though, surprised people are defending it.

 

[Dambrosi]

Good article from New Scientist about the problems with various voting systems:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...sfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html

FPTP is about the worst though, surprised people are defending it.

They're only defending it because they're Tories, desperate to maintain any chance of power for their preferred tribe. They don't actually support FPTP; it's just that the current system is the only way that their party can possibly be elected, given the overwhelmingly centre-left political make-up of the country. They're fighting for their ideological survival, and we all know it.

They fly in the face of logic and popular opinion at their own peril, methinks.

 

[phisheep]

Good article from New Scientist about the problems with various voting systems:

I found that sort of interesting, but like all the mathematical treatments it falls a long way short of political reality.

It all depends on what you mean by each vote being 'worth' the same, and there are too many contradictions in our political system to make votes 'worth' the same for all the different purposes.

If all it was about was getting a proportional representation of peoples single positive choices equitably represented in a chamber then it would be easy, but:

If it is about influence over policy, then proportionately-represented minorities and single-issue parties would have disproportionate influence over the majority.

If it is about holding the government to scrutiny and making it stick through legislative amendments, too fragmented an opposition will be weaker than a united opposition.

If it is about creating reform, special interest groups would block reforms creating no-go areas (think of the old Fleet Street unions).

The maths doesn't help with any of those things. That's why it needs a political settlement - the current negotiations look like they might get part way there.

 

[jamieson87]

WTF is that black and yellow partition thing outside the sky news set at westminster?

There seems to be some door that leads to nowhere behind portillo at the moment.

 

[freethought]

I found that sort of interesting, but like all the mathematical treatments it falls a long way short of political reality.

It all depends on what you mean by each vote being 'worth' the same, and there are too many contradictions in our political system to make votes 'worth' the same for all the different purposes.

If all it was about was getting a proportional representation of peoples single positive choices equitably represented in a chamber then it would be easy, but:

If it is about influence over policy, then proportionately-represented minorities and single-issue parties would have disproportionate influence over the majority.

If it is about holding the government to scrutiny and making it stick through legislative amendments, too fragmented an opposition will be weaker than a united opposition.

If it is about creating reform, special interest groups would block reforms creating no-go areas (think of the old Fleet Street unions).

The maths doesn't help with any of those things. That's why it needs a political settlement - the current negotiations look like they might get part way there.

I like how you offer no evidence, not even a logical framework for any of your criticisms. I want you to explain how special interest groups are unable to block reform under this system, I want you to explain to me, as we wait for the Liberal Democrats, who have the minority of votes, to choose our next government, how FPTP prevents minorities wielding influence over the majority and I would really love it if you would explain how under the current system Parliament is ever under any fucking scrutiny. How'd that strong opposition go for the DE Bill?

 

[blazinglord]

They're only defending it because they're Tories, desperate to maintain any chance of power for their preferred tribe. They don't actually support FPTP; it's just that the current system is the only way that their party can possibly be elected, given the overwhelmingly centre-left political make-up of the country. They're fighting for their ideological survival, and we all know it.

They fly in the face of logic and popular opinion at their own peril, methinks.

Unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way you can 100 per cent say that this country would always elect a centre-left coalition under PR. In every single country, there is a political grouping that represents the right side of the spectrum and a grouping that represents the left side. Plenty of countries with PR have elected right-wing governments, when the centre-left coalition inevitably fails, the electorate will turn to an alternative. The real danger is that a right wing government might be forced cobble up a deal with fringe parties like UKIP and the BNP in order to gain seats needed for a majority. An example is Italy where the mainstream left was completely annihilated after the Italian voters turned against the corruptions scandals and gave Berlusconi a foothold on power. Now Berlusconi is an amusing guy, but he is not in the long term interest of Italy.

I'll accept that FPTP is not without its flaw, but at least it more often than not guarantees stable governments grounded in the mainstream and it gives the electorate the option to kick out unpopular governments. The problem with PR, as we have seen over the past few days, it gives more power to politicians who are deciding behind closed doors how to form a government.

What I think we should have is a fully elected HoL using PR and representing a proper senate with powers to stop, delay and change legislation from the HoC. That way we have a stable government but a senate that doesn't give the stable and strong government a completely free rein.

 

[Veidt]

Culminating Obama's early run-in with Cameron and how Cameron plagiarized Obama's Change campaign. I imagine Obama must have a deep hatred for Cameron right now. hehe

 

[Koshiro]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290433096884

Nick Clegg's affections for sale on Ebay.

 

[blazinglord]

I like how you offer no evidence, not even a logical framework for any of your criticisms. I want you to explain how special interest groups are unable to block reform under this system, I want you to explain to me, as we wait for the Liberal Democrats, who have the minority of votes, to choose our next government, how FPTP prevents minorities wielding influence over the majority and I would really love it if you would explain how under the current system Parliament is ever under any fucking scrutiny. How'd that strong opposition go for the DE Bill?

An elected HoL would be a better system of checks and balances on the government. The government controls parliamentary time, and has a very effective whipping system. I suspect the Digital Economy bill would have been passed through even with a Labour and Lib Dem coalition. The Liberal Democrats leadership would have not brought down the government and forced a new election if they didn't want to, and they would have got their whips to act accordingly. Elections around the world shows that the electorate punishes parties that bring down governments and forces an election not that long after the previous one - no doubt the Lib Dems would bear this in mind.

The so-called 'progressive alliance' will only work if Labour and Lib Dems cede to the Nationalist demands to protect Wales and Scotland from public services cuts. Together they have something 8 or so seats, and represent about 20% of the population. Yet their demands would see England where 80% of the UK population resides suffering deeper cuts to satisfy the nationalists. If that is not disproportionate, then I don't know what is.

 

[blazinglord]

Culminating Obama's early run-in with Cameron and how Cameron plagiarized Obama's Change campaign. I imagine Obama must have a deep hatred for Cameron right now. hehe

Er... what? Firstly, Obama did not trademark the change message. If anything Obama plagiarised Blair in 1997. Secondly, Obama and Cameron apparently had a better meeting when he visited London a year or so again than he did with Brown. Thirdly, who cares what Obama thinks, if in the extreme unlikelihood that he isn't busy enough running a government? I would have thought that it would be obvious that political leaders usually have bigger things to worry about than fret over election campaigns in foreign countries...

 

[phisheep]

I like how you offer no evidence, not even a logical framework for any of your criticisms. I want you to explain how special interest groups are unable to block reform under this system, I want you to explain to me, as we wait for the Liberal Democrats, who have the minority of votes, to choose our next government, how FPTP prevents minorities wielding influence over the majority and I would really love it if you would explain how under the current system Parliament is ever under any fucking scrutiny. How'd that strong opposition go for the DE Bill?

Here we go then. I should point out first that I’m not putting this up as a defence of FPTP as you seem to think, but only to point out that the political reality is more complex than the mathematical approaches to ‘fairness’ suggest.

Let’s take control of legislation to start with. One of the main mechanisms for that is putting down amendments to Bills before Parliament – it is an essential part of the process of restraining the excesses of government. The difficulty is in framing an amendment that will sufficiently wide support in Parliament to win a vote on the amendment. A fragmented opposition is less likely to be able to do that. Result, the government more or less gets away with whatever it wants to.

As to policy and reform, you need look no further than the proposed ‘rainbow alliance’ where the price of nationalist interests would be to create no-go policy areas for the government and confine any radical change to England.

 

[gofreak]

Lord Ashdown and another senior Lib Dem has said a committee won't be enough.

The Lib Dems seem to have stepped up their public 'talk' to try and squeeze more out of the Tories.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0509/ukelection.html

Senior Liberal Democrats today warned that the Tories must give ground on the issue of voting reform if they want to strike a deal on the formation of a new government.

As the negotiating teams from the two parties were beginning a new round of talks, former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said that there was 'a mountain to climb' if they were to get an agreement.

'I don't believe that anybody can now establish a new government who is deaf to the calls from the British people for reform to our political system and part of that is electoral reform,' Lord Ashdown told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

He pointed out that Mr Cameron's offer was no better than that made by Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath to Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe when he was trying to form a coalition after the 1974 general election.

'We have to assume that was an opening bargaining position. I am sure the Tories realise things have moved on from then,' he said.

His comments were echoed by senior Lib Dem MP and energy spokesman, Simon Hughes.

'I can't imagine that a review would be enough to be honest,' he told Sky News's Sunday Live programme.

'We've been there before, we were there at the 1997 election, Labour came into office promising an inquiry. We had an inquiry, a referendum was promised, there wasn't a referendum.

 

[phisheep]

An elected HoL would be a better system of checks and balances on the government.

Quite. Even the current House of Lords has been a more effective defender of our civil liberties than the Commons has been over the last few years. And that really isn't a ringing endorsement of how the current Commons works.

I still suspect that if we go for an elected Lords, the seat of government will gradually shift to the Lords over the next 50 years, pretty well getting us back to where we started several hundred years ago.

EDIT: And I think that would be a good thing. It's a huge problem with our current system that while everyone would like there to be a strong government and a strong parliament you can't have both simultaneously. Strong government = weak parliament and vice versa.

 

[curls]

Murdoch/Tories Link

Last summer, as the media regulator gathered evidence for its pay-TV review, Conservative leader David Cameron said that Ofcom "as we know it, would cease to exist" if his party came into power

Accusations - hotly denied by the Tories - have been made that Conservative media policy is in effect being written by Rupert Murdoch and his son James - the chairman of BSkyB, chief executive of the Sun's owners News International, and not a fan of Ofcom.

Labour claimed there'd been a deal on media policy after the Sun newspaper switched its allegiance to the Conservatives.

If true - lunatic fringe party confirmed.

 

[Ushojax]

If true - lunatic fringe party confirmed.

I think we all know this already. Remember the story about James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks bursting into the offices of the Independent and harassing the editor after he criticised Murdoch's electioneering?

 

[Dambrosi]

I found that sort of interesting, but like all the mathematical treatments it falls a long way short of political reality.

It all depends on what you mean by each vote being 'worth' the same, and there are too many contradictions in our political system to make votes 'worth' the same for all the different purposes.

If all it was about was getting a proportional representation of peoples single positive choices equitably represented in a chamber then it would be easy, but:

If it is about influence over policy, then proportionately-represented minorities and single-issue parties would have disproportionate influence over the majority.

If it is about holding the government to scrutiny and making it stick through legislative amendments, too fragmented an opposition will be weaker than a united opposition.

If it is about creating reform, special interest groups would block reforms creating no-go areas (think of the old Fleet Street unions).

The maths doesn't help with any of those things. That's why it needs a political settlement - the current negotiations look like they might get part way there.

Do you see, Dr. Zhivago? This sort of negative guff is what I mean.

Phisheep: I know it may just be the humanism in me talking, but I tend to trust the people to make the right decisions regarding our country, as long as they are properly informed and empowered. Look at what happened in Dagenham - when the populace was properly informed about the BNP's true beliefs and policies, their support dropped like a rock. This clearly shows that an informed voter is an active, moderate voter, and that such people are the best ones to decide the direction of the country.

You don't seem to believe that, for some reason. You seem to believe that the British people are foolish children who need to be led by the hand by Papa Tory towards a righteous Conservative future, despite their recorded insistence that that's not the future they want. Mind you, the Tories have always been the types to think that they know better - that they are better - than everyone else, so I suppose that attitude doesn't surprise me. However, it speaks to a nihilism and disbelief in people's innate rationality that I can't subscribe to.

The people are mostly perfectly rational, just uninformed, misinformed or just apathetic due to disgust with politicians. Unfortunate, but as Dagenham proved, not necessarily true at all. Greater levels and amount of debate will inform us; the media's willful misinformation must be confronted and contained by various means, such as (maybe) legally obligating news outlets to only report on verifiable facts, not opinions; and a new voting and electoral system that keeps politicians "honest" (or as "honest" as is possible) would do wonders to restore people's faith in politics in general, which is the main point of electoral reform. It's a pity that, for the present, that would put the Tories at a disadvantage, but such is the (current) will of the people, and I see no reason to deny them their preference. Thy People's Will Be Done.

And besides, as freethought ably pointed out, all the disadvantages you pointed out with PR and similar systems already exist in our current system, virtually unabated. Though I do agree that some kind of check against such problems will be needed for electoral reform to work as intended.

blazinglord: I never once said that the country would always and forever be centre-left in alignment, just that it currently is, and will be for some considerable time. By which time, the United Kingdom of Great Britain as we know it might not even exist...but that will be up to the people at that time, as it should be.

 

[Zenith]

Are people seriously denying that newspapers can shape and reinforce the narrative of a situation? Are they dumb?

 

[Dambrosi]

Are people seriously denying that newspapers can shape and reinforce the narrative of a situation? Are they dumb?

Yeah, you'd think they'd know better by now. Their favourite party certainly does.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Ever since, Putin has declined offers to meet senior British representatives. There has been no formal meeting with Gordon Brown over the past three years. Kremlin politicians today expressed a clear preference for a new Conservative or Conservative-led administration in Downing Street.

"I think the Conservatives will not escape a review of relations with Russia. And the review as such will lead to healthier relations between Britain and Russia," Gleb Pavlovsky, an analyst closely connected to the Kremlin, told the news agency Interfax, adding that Labour had "aggravated" ties with Russia.

.

 

[UnblessedSoul]

If true - lunatic fringe party confirmed.

Sigh can't believe so many morons voted for the tories

 

[Ushojax]

.

:lol Maybe if they hadn't assassinated someone with Polonium 210, on British soil, then refused to extradite the chief suspect, things would be less chilly. Are the Tories likely to change tack on that issue?

 

[freethought]

Here we go then. I should point out first that I’m not putting this up as a defence of FPTP as you seem to think, but only to point out that the political reality is more complex than the mathematical approaches to ‘fairness’ suggest.

So you agree that FPTP is an unfair system? It strikes me that we should strive for mathematical fairness and then deal with the political realities as dictated by the voters as opposed to a mathematically unfair system which is still afflicted by most, if not all of the problems you've outlined.

Let’s take control of legislation to start with. One of the main mechanisms for that is putting down amendments to Bills before Parliament – it is an essential part of the process of restraining the excesses of government. The difficulty is in framing an amendment that will sufficiently wide support in Parliament to win a vote on the amendment. A fragmented opposition is less likely to be able to do that. Result, the government more or less gets away with whatever it wants to.

Sorry, before I continue, you need to explain to me why PR is only fragmenting the opposition, yet government power would be unaffected. Seems to me you're only adding PR to one side of the debate. Oh, and you'd also have to explain why government doing whatever the hell it wants is any different from the past thirty years of our political history under, wait for it, FPTP.

As to policy and reform, you need look no further than the proposed ‘rainbow alliance’ where the price of nationalist interests would be to create no-go policy areas for the government and confine any radical change to England.

So Labour don't already rely on Scottish MP's to pass legislation? The SDLP don't already follow the Labour whip? The Tories haven't been making overtures to Unionists? You're discussing a situation we're already in, without PR. So why is it you only see the problem existing as part of PR?

 

[Learn2read]

Just looking at the results, is there normally so many "fourth" parties elected to parliament? I guess can see some of the regional nationalist parties getting in, just didn't know there were so many apart from the big three.

Btw, is there a term for them in the UK, similar to "third party" in the US?

 

[Chinner]

Editor of the Spectator tweeted this morning:

Brown's agent has just said he is heading back to London. Resignation today now possible.

Apparantly SNP are heading to London as well!

Maybe today won't be boring after all?

 

[Empty]

Lord Ashdown and another senior Lib Dem has said a committee won't be enough.

The Lib Dems seem to have stepped up their public 'talk' to try and squeeze more out of the Tories.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0509/ukelection.html

Well "electoral reform" is one of the areas where Cameron has shown willingness to move on publically, the only things he's ruled out are europe, immigration and defense, so this is good strategy; they point out that Cameron is being unreasonable on this policy area and put the ball back in his court to appear like he is willing to compromise in that national interest. I think if they can get a favorable deal there, the committee as detailed a few pages back is okay but needs more guarantees of survival in case the tories go for a majority in 6-12 months; i still think a referendum on STV with the tories given the ability to campaign against is very workable for both sides personally, but it'd be a brave move for Cameron. That and a few cabinet posts to help moderate Tory policy, then i think that would be the best choice now.

 

[RedShift]

So what are the best bets on a timeframe until the next election? Are talking 6 months, a year, or is there actually a chance of Cameron managing to last longer?

Will any reform of the electoral system even be put in force in time?

 

[blazinglord]

Apparently some Labour MPs have started coming out of the woodwork now going against a Lib-Lab pact.

12.40pm: Malcolm Wicks, the Labour MP for Croydon North, has come out against a Lib-Lab pact. The former energy minister told the Press Association:


Any prospect of a Labour government staying in power with support from the Liberals in a ragbag coalition depending on assorted nationalists is, I think, ridiculous.

I don't think that appeals to common sense; neither, in my judgment, would it be accepted by public opinion. We have lost. I think we need to accept the logic of this and we need to prepare ourselves for a dignified and principled opposition. I think it would look very, very shabby for us to be seen hanging on to the doorknob of No 10.

Also a columnist in an article in The Guardian makes a good arguement against a 'progressive coalition'. Seems like there is a momentum now for either a minority Tory government or a Lib-Con coalition.

 

[gerg]

The people are mostly perfectly rational, just uninformed, misinformed or just apathetic due to disgust with politicians. Unfortunate, but as Dagenham proved, not necessarily true at all. Greater levels and amount of debate will inform us; the media's willful misinformation must be confronted and contained by various means, such as (maybe) legally obligating news outlets to only report on verifiable facts, not opinions; and a new voting and electoral system that keeps politicians "honest" (or as "honest" as is possible) would do wonders to restore people's faith in politics in general, which is the main point of electoral reform. It's a pity that, for the present, that would put the Tories at a disadvantage, but such is the (current) will of the people, and I see no reason to deny them their preference. Thy People's Will Be Done.

I'm not sure I can comment on your rant about the "people" and their tendancies to think one way or another, but what I've bolded is ridiculous. For example, where does the line between a "verifiable fact" and an "opinion" begin, especially in regards to policies about future events (which would, imo, by definition be unverifiable)? It would seem to me that such a policy would actively stifle discussion, for people would fear that their claims would be legally targeted as "only" opinion and not as fact. Indeed, I'm not sure you could have "verifiable" discussion about claims regarding future events.

Moreover, you can't have news without analysis, because you need some kind of representation or narrative in order to understand the figures and the statistics.

In any case, I think your claims about the innate characteristics of man are unsupported, if such qualities even exist in the first place.

 

[phisheep]

Phisheep: I know it may just be the humanism in me talking, but I tend to trust the people to make the right decisions regarding our country, as long as they are properly informed and empowered. Look at what happened in Dagenham - when the populace was properly informed about the BNP's true beliefs and policies, their support dropped like a rock. This clearly shows that an informed voter is an active, moderate voter, and that such people are the best ones to decide the direction of the country.

You don't seem to believe that, for some reason. You seem to believe that the British people are foolish children who need to be led by the hand by Papa Tory towards a righteous Conservative future, despite their recorded insistence that that's not the future they want. Mind you, the Tories have always been the types to think that they know better - that they are better - than everyone else, so I suppose that attitude doesn't surprise me. However, it speaks to a nihilism and disbelief in people's innate rationality that I can't subscribe to.

I think you missed my point entirely.

There's nothing I said in my post that casts doubt on the abilities of the electorate to make their own rational decisions.

All I'm querying is how a superficial mathematical 'fairness' translates into practical politics. It is about the behaviour of politicians rather than of the electorate.

Plus, I'm not necessarily a Tory in the sense you seem to imply.

So you agree that FPTP is an unfair system?

Yes. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

It strikes me that we should strive for mathematical fairness and then deal with the political realities as dictated by the voters as opposed to a mathematically unfair system which is still afflicted by most, if not all of the problems you've outlined.

I'm inclined to think it isn't that simple, as what is mathematically 'fair' is deeply intertwined with the practical political side. So you can't necessarily treat them independently.

You may be right in terms of the practical problem of how we get from A to B though.

Sorry, before I continue, you need to explain to me why PR is only fragmenting the opposition, yet government power would be unaffected. Seems to me you're only adding PR to one side of the debate. Oh, and you'd also have to explain why government doing whatever the hell it wants is any different from the past thirty years of our political history under, wait for it, FPTP.

I didn't suggest that - or at least I didn't mean to. It is just that the government and opposition fragmentation play out in different ways - the government has the leisure and time to work out compromises and common positions regarding legislation, while the opposition in the course of debate doesn't have that time and is significantly disadvantaged as a result. Of course, this could be resolved by adjustments to the way Bills are handles and to Parliamentary procedure, but that's another aspect that would need to be worked out.

So Labour don't already rely on Scottish MP's to pass legislation? The SDLP don't already follow the Labour whip? The Tories haven't been making overtures to Unionists? You're discussing a situation we're already in, without PR. So why is it you only see the problem existing as part of PR?

Never said it was only a problem with PR (or that I don't support PR). Only that this is likely to be a more significant problem in a PR legislature owing to the greater number and representation of minority parties. The examples you give are particularly around geographical splits where there is a bunch of common policy - it becomes more difficult when the major gaps are on policy rather than geography.

 

[Empty]

So what are the best bets on a timeframe until the next election? Are talking 6 months, a year, or is there actually a chance of Cameron managing to last longer?

Will any reform of the electoral system even be put in force in time?

it depends on how good a deal the lib dems and tories sign. i've pretty much accepted that a lib-lab pact isn't realistic or plausible, so we could have a "supply and confidence" agreement where the lib dems promise not to support a vote of no confidence and vote on a queens speech, in exchange for a cabinet post, but a tory minority government has to compromise on every single piece of policy to pass it through parliament. if that happens then there will be an election in six months as the tories will want to go for a majority and will be sick of the compromise. the other one is a formal coalition which could potentially work for much longer; the lib dems will want to show that coalition governments can work effectively, they'll want to keep it going long enough to get PR passed in which takes time, in an another quick election they'll get blown out as labour becomes the sole opposition force, and on the tories side the budget cuts may be so stern that the tories may go down in the opinion polls and lose from calling an election. of course a weak coalition deal fraught with in-fighting and disagreement could lead to a quick election too, and the tories could want to go for a majority anyway.

i think unless we get a really amicable and good deal with the tories that leads to a very stable government, we'll have another election within the year (maybe 18 months at the most) which would be too soon for electoral reform.

 

[DECK'ARD]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290433096884#description

Bid quickly if you want to form a Government!

 

[phisheep]

i think unless we get a really amicable and good deal with the tories that leads to a very stable government, we'll have another election within the year (maybe 18 months at the most) which would be too soon for electoral reform.

Too soon for deficit and debt reduction as well, and for credibility in the markets.

I reckon that there will be a formal coalition capable of lasting out a full Parliamentary term.

 

[industrian]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290433096884#description

Bid quickly if you want to form a Government!

Glorious.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Glorious.

Love the questions and answers from the seller.

God I love Britain =)

 

[DECK'ARD]

Too soon for deficit and debt reduction as well, and for credibility in the markets.

I reckon that there will be a formal coalition capable of lasting out a full Parliamentary term.

If a Lib/Lab/everyone else coalition that just scrapes a majority falls to bits (which it will), Labour and the Libs dems will be absolutely crucified at the resulting election, we'll have a Tory landslide and them in power for an eternity.

Clegg is caught between a rock and a hard place, but he's doing the right thing so far. He just mustn't cave on electoral reform though.

 

[Empty]

If a Lib/Lab/everyone else coalition that just scrapes a majority falls to bits (which it will), Labour and the Libs dems will be absolutely crucified at the resulting election, we'll have a Tory landslide and them in power for an eternity.
.

not only that, but cameron will be forced much further right by his party to maintain his grip on leadership and we'll get a landslide tory majority on a very damaging right-wing platform.

 

[Dambrosi]

not only that, but cameron will be forced much further right by his party to maintain his grip on leadership and we'll get a landslide tory majority on a very damaging right-wing platform.

So what's the solution? "Better to risk it and let the Tories discredit themselves over the next year than to harm the progressive parties with a ham-fisted coalition"?

I dunno how I feel about that...

 

[Empty]

more " it's better to let the lib dems water down some of the worst parts of the tory agenda and take short term pain over long term torture"

 

[phisheep]

Meanwhile, I am a bit bemused about this so-called 'progressive alliance'.

What is remotely progressive about
- locking people up without charge and without evidence for 90 days
- retaining DNA of innocent people for use in criminal investigation
- having opposition MPs arrested

Eh?

 

[defel]

Meanwhile, I am a bit bemused about this so-called 'progressive alliance'.

Id also add all the crazy anti-terror laws that prevent photographers from taking photographs of London landmarks without being interviewed or questioned.