Vlad is moving troops home - or so he says...

Danllan · Feb 17, 2022

stewart said:
With an undemocratic voting system?

I'm on the record as being a supporter of PR - meaning a precise and direct representation proportional to the number of votes received, no 'minimum' percentages.

Nonetheless, the current FPTP system is a follow on from the 18th and 19th Century 'reforms', which saw the advancement of 'interests', i.e. trade, labour, land etc., and it does that pretty well and was fine until, probably, the 1960s.

But its day is gone and we are ready for PR now; the problem is that both the main parties tend to like the FPTP because when they get into government it gives them a much stronger - in fact absolute - ability to legislate.

Lowland1 · Feb 17, 2022

neilo said:
Wasn’t the 2019 GE all about the big issue of ‘getting Brexit done’? That’s supposedly the reason the red wall temporarily lent their vote to Boris.

Without that issue, we would still have a hung Parliament relying on cooperation agreements and coalitions, as we will likely see next time (unless Boris does manage to cling on and blow the Conservatives’ chances altogether).

We live in an era of technology. You can vote for whoever you want on Pop idol or Strictly so why not extend that to far more important issues.
Should we send troops to Ukraine? Answer yes or no using your TV remote. I mean if you can trust the general public with a vote to leave the EU why not extend the franchise.

Danllan · Feb 17, 2022

Lowland1 said:
We live in an era of technology. You can vote for whoever you want on Pop idol or Strictly so why not extend that to far more important issues.
Should we send troops to Ukraine? Answer yes or no using your TV remote. I mean if you can trust the general public with a vote to leave the EU why not extend the franchise.

The most obvious answer is that if a sensible period of time is to be allowed for public awareness and debate on any given issue, an effective decision could not be made when needed in urgent cases.

For big, long-term questions such as leaving the EU, republicanism, right to life / abortion, right to die, capital punishment etc., your point is valid and there is no rational argument against direct public consultation.

But so many things need decisions made quickly, this being so it makes sense for a potential government to state its general ideas, via manifesto, and then be chosen - or not - on that basis.

Widgetone · Feb 17, 2022

Danllan said:
I'm on the record as being a supporter of PR - meaning a precise and direct representation proportional to the number of votes received, no 'minimum' percentages.

Nonetheless, the current FPTP system is a follow on from the 18th and 19th Century 'reforms', which saw the advancement of 'interests', i.e. trade, labour, land etc., and it does that pretty well and was fine until, probably, the 1960s.

But its day is gone and we are ready for PR now; the problem is that both the main parties tend to like the FPTP because when they get into government it gives them a much stronger - in fact absolute - ability to legislate.

Agree with that. FTTP all rather too cosy a system for the govt of the day and opposition party - no one else gets a look in, except maybe in a by election protest vote which is pretty irrelevant in most cases.

The House of Lords is a check and balance on government absolute dictatorship - even if that body is under some ( neccessary ) scrutiny in itself. Supreme Court too is there as we saw when Boris tried to force a parliament shutdown to suit his own agenda.

Widgetone · Feb 17, 2022

Lowland1 said:
We live in an era of technology. You can vote for whoever you want on Pop idol or Strictly so why not extend that to far more important issues.
Should we send troops to Ukraine? Answer yes or no using your TV remote. I mean if you can trust the general public with a vote to leave the EU why not extend the franchise.

Lets not go there please - Ukraine/climate/whatever is not a gameshow

DrWazzock · Feb 17, 2022

Widgetone said:
Lets not go there please - Ukraine/climate/whatever is not a gameshow

Maybe not, but I think you’ll find the ordinary person in the street has a good deal more common sense than you might at first imagine as doesn’t see everything through the same prism of party politics that’s warps so many of the decisions made by our glorious leaders.

Lowland1 · Feb 17, 2022

Widgetone said:
Lets not go there please - Ukraine/climate/whatever is not a gameshow

At present every 5 years you vote for the people who will rule over you for five years after that the electorate have no actual involvement in any of the decisions made by that government however what that government will do is anything it can to make itself popular with the people in order to get re-elected therefore it’s just soundbite politics. Switzerland has been mentioned previously and some form of active participation by the people isn’t a bad idea. Obviously there would be a need for debate and in the event of a major crisis maybe the elected party gets a casting vote or something. What we have seen over the last 50 years is the emergence of a political class with no experience of real life. These people are chosen amongst themselves and parachuted into constituencies whilst the locals are ignored. Whilst the Farages of this world then come to the fore as so called ‘men of the people’ just using peoples dislike of politicians as a smokescreen to push their own agendas. What we really need is a Cultural Revolution and send these people to the camps.

BrianV · Feb 17, 2022

Lowland1 said:
At present every 5 years you vote for the people who will rule over you for five years after that the electorate have no actual involvement in any of the decisions made by that government however what that government will do is anything it can to make itself popular with the people in order to get re-elected therefore it’s just soundbite politics. Switzerland has been mentioned previously and some form of active participation by the people isn’t a bad idea. Obviously there would be a need for debate and in the event of a major crisis maybe the elected party gets a casting vote or something. What we have seen over the last 50 years is the emergence of a political class with no experience of real life. These people are chosen amongst themselves and parachuted into constituencies whilst the locals are ignored. Whilst the Farages of this world then come to the fore as so called ‘men of the people’ just using peoples dislike of politicians as a smokescreen to push their own agendas. What we really need is a Cultural Revolution and send these people to the camps.

As with Brexit UK politicians will almost never trust the people of this country to say what they want, they prefer what suits the main political parties!

Danllan · Feb 17, 2022

BrianV said:
As with Brexit UK politicians will almost never trust the people of this country to say what they want, they prefer what suits the main political parties!

Bloody hell, we're back in agreement... and so there is the argument for PR.

The only three, and there are only three real drawbacks of PR, are that it doesn't produce constituency accountable MPs, it can give very small parties disproportionate influence and that it does not necessarily lead to a stable government unless one party has an absolute majority in the country. That has only happened twice in modern times, both in the 1930s, and in a PR system would obviously lead to a government having as much legislative freedom as it does now. That could mean problems, since such an unusual occurrence would probably mean such a government trying to do too much while it had the chance...

BrianV · Feb 17, 2022

Danllan said:
Bloody hell, we're back in agreement... and so there is the argument for PR.

The only three, and there are only three real drawbacks of PR, are that it doesn't produce constituency accountable MPs, it can give very small parties disproportionate influence and that it does not necessarily lead to a stable government unless one party has an absolute majority in the country. That has only happened twice in modern times, both in the 1930s, and in a PR system would obviously lead to a government having as much legislative freedom as it does now. That could mean problems, since such an unusual occurrence would probably mean such a government trying to do too much while it had the chance...

Probably safer to stay as is but to use referendums more often when a government tries to introduce something that is either not included in it's election pledges or affects the country in a major way, in Switzerland a referendum is called if a certain percentage of the country requests one which seems a sensible safeguard.

Goweresque · Feb 17, 2022

fudge said:
In other words the UK parliament is unrepresentative of the electorate. This is a result of an unfair voting system.

Changing the voting system would change nothing. If anything PR would make things worse. At least now if Party A stands on a manifesto of A, B and C, and they win under FPTP they have to implement A, B and C because they'll hack off loads of people who voted for that if they don't.

Whereas under PR Party 1 stands on a manifesto of A,B and C, and Party 2 stands on X,Y and Z, and small Party 3 stands on D,E and F. No-one wins over all so a coalition is formed after lots of negotiations between the 3 Parties (which the electorate have no say in) which ends up agreeing to implement B, Z and F (because the coalition needs a few extra votes of the small party to get a majority). No-one actually voted for that outcome at all, and no-one who voted for those three parties get a say in whether they want that coalition, nor do the electorate as whole get a say whether they want that particularly coalition or not. It just gets imposed on the voters. If PR had a second vote on whether the coalition was acceptable to the People, that would make it better, would still be a crock though.

PR results in just the same universal political class we have under FPTP. Look at the Continent - there is just as big a disconnect between Rulers and Ruled there as there is here. Worse possibly, because the Party List system means the voters can never get rid of individual politicians. Under UK parliamentary seats Boris could lose his seat at the next election, regardless of whether the Tories win overall. Whereas on the Continent the top people in each party will be top of their Party list, and as long as they get enough votes for a handful of seats the same old faces end up in the legislature again.

Stuff all that shady deals in closed back rooms. Let the people decide on matters. It happens elsewhere, there's no reason why it can't happen here.

fudge · Feb 17, 2022

Goweresque said:
Changing the voting system would change nothing. If anything PR would make things worse. At least now if Party A stands on a manifesto of A, B and C, and they win under FPTP they have to implement A, B and C because they'll hack off loads of people who voted for that if they don't.

Whereas under PR Party 1 stands on a manifesto of A,B and C, and Party 2 stands on X,Y and Z, and small Party 3 stands on D,E and F. No-one wins over all so a coalition is formed after lots of negotiations between the 3 Parties (which the electorate have no say in) which ends up agreeing to implement B, Z and F (because the coalition needs a few extra votes of the small party to get a majority). No-one actually voted for that outcome at all, and no-one who voted for those three parties get a say in whether they want that coalition, nor do the electorate as whole get a say whether they want that particularly coalition or not. It just gets imposed on the voters. If PR had a second vote on whether the coalition was acceptable to the People, that would make it better, would still be a crock though.

PR results in just the same universal political class we have under FPTP. Look at the Continent - there is just as big a disconnect between Rulers and Ruled there as there is here. Worse possibly, because the Party List system means the voters can never get rid of individual politicians. Under UK parliamentary seats Boris could lose his seat at the next election, regardless of whether the Tories win overall. Whereas on the Continent the top people in each party will be top of their Party list, and as long as they get enough votes for a handful of seats the same old faces end up in the legislature again.

Stuff all that shady deals in closed back rooms. Let the people decide on matters. It happens elsewhere, there's no reason why it can't happen here.

I disagree. The first past the post system time and again produces a parliament which is unrepresentative. The prime examples of this over the past ten years are the over representation of the SNP and the under representation of UKIP. Ignoring 4 million voters cannot be healthy.
Direct government by the people is just impractical on a day to day basis. Under a healthy parliament political parties would put forward a program for government and then be judged on their performance at the next GE. Your point about the disadvantages of coalition can be valid in some circumstances. However I would suggest that the coalition between the Tories and the Libdems was no worse than the preceding Labour or succeeding Conservative governments. Indeed I believe a coalition would have been more representative and not joined GW Bush’s disastrous war on terror as Tony Blair did. Certainly the coalition did a better job than the current government. When it came to an end it took the Tories 18 months to implode.

I would say any such constitutional change would require a referendum.

Danllan · Feb 17, 2022

BrianV said:
Probably safer to stay as is but to use referendums more often when a government tries to introduce something that is either not included in it's election pledges or affects the country in a major way, in Switzerland a referendum is called if a certain percentage of the country requests one which seems a sensible safeguard.

I would see that as a step in the right direction, but we have to keep heading to a point where every vote has equal weight.

fudge said:
I disagree. The first past the post system time and again produces a parliament which is unrepresentative. The prime examples of this over the past ten years are the over representation of the SNP and the under representation of UKIP. Ignoring 4 million voters cannot be healthy.
Direct government by the people is just impractical on a day to day basis. Under a healthy parliament political parties would put forward a program for government and then be judged on their performance at the next GE. Your point about the disadvantages of coalition can be valid in some circumstances. However I would suggest that the coalition between the Tories and the Libdems was no worse than the preceding Labour or succeeding Conservative governments. Indeed I believe a coalition would have been more representative and not joined GW Bush’s disastrous war on terror as Tony Blair did. Certainly the coalition did a better job than the current government. When it came to an end it took the Tories 18 months to implode.

I would say any such constitutional change would require a referendum.

Yes, on the whole.

Goweresque · Feb 17, 2022

Danllan said:
I would see that as a step in the right direction, but we have to keep heading to a point where every vote has equal weight.

Under PR every vote doesn't have an equal weight. It gives disproportionate weight to the votes for smaller parties as they often hold the balance of power in a coalition. They can then get policies implemented on the back of a few % of the vote.

Then the other problem with PR is that the major parties often refuse to deal with any of the smaller parties they consider 'extreme'. Thus pushing making the votes for such parties worthless. None of the major parties in Germany will form a coalition with AfD and will prefer to ally themselves with parties far further from their own political position, to the detriment of the voters who voted for them.

PR is just a mass of deals behind closed doors that the voters never get a say in. It gives even more power to the political class that FPTP does.

Goweresque · Feb 17, 2022

fudge said:
I disagree. The first past the post system time and again produces a parliament which is unrepresentative. The prime examples of this over the past ten years are the over representation of the SNP and the under representation of UKIP. Ignoring 4 million voters cannot be healthy.
Direct government by the people is just impractical on a day to day basis. Under a healthy parliament political parties would put forward a program for government and then be judged on their performance at the next GE. Your point about the disadvantages of coalition can be valid in some circumstances. However I would suggest that the coalition between the Tories and the Libdems was no worse than the preceding Labour or succeeding Conservative governments. Indeed I believe a coalition would have been more representative and not joined GW Bush’s disastrous war on terror as Tony Blair did. Certainly the coalition did a better job than the current government. When it came to an end it took the Tories 18 months to implode.

I would say any such constitutional change would require a referendum.

Don't forget the coalition of Tories and Lib Dems from 2010 to 2015 was based on MP numbers created by the FPTP system. The Tories were by far the largest party and only need a few votes to get a majority, so it was largely a Tory government, with a few LD policies chucked in. Under PR no-one ever comes close to a majority of seats and the coalitions can be made up of 3 or even 4 parties, take months to negotiate, and can look nothing like the manifestos each party stood on. You can't judge the success of a coalition under FPTP rules, you have to look at how they operate under PR rules. Look in Scotland, the SNP have to give the Greens loads of say in government in order to get a majority despite the Greens only getting just over 1% of the main vote. 99% of people didn't vote Green, yet they are part of the Scottish government.

robs1 · Feb 17, 2022

fudge said:
In other words the UK parliament is unrepresentative of the electorate. This is a result of an unfair voting system.

Funny how it's only the losing side are the ones that complsin

fudge · Feb 17, 2022

robs1 said:
Funny how it's only the losing side are the ones that complsin

Eh? It isn’t only people who didn’t vote for Johnson who don’t like his corrupt dishonesty, in the same way many Labour voters were betrayed by Blair with his decision to join the Iraq war.

Lowland1 · Feb 17, 2022

fudge said:
Eh? It isn’t only people who didn’t vote for Johnson who don’t like his corrupt dishonesty, in the same way many Labour voters were betrayed by Blair with his decision to join the Iraq war.

Too right I voted Conservative as I thought he’d be different to what has gone before. I was right but for the wrong reasons.

fudge · Feb 17, 2022

Goweresque said:
Don't forget the coalition of Tories and Lib Dems from 2010 to 2015 was based on MP numbers created by the FPTP system. The Tories were by far the largest party and only need a few votes to get a majority, so it was largely a Tory government, with a few LD policies chucked in. Under PR no-one ever comes close to a majority of seats and the coalitions can be made up of 3 or even 4 parties, take months to negotiate, and can look nothing like the manifestos each party stood on. You can't judge the success of a coalition under FPTP rules, you have to look at how they operate under PR rules. Look in Scotland, the SNP have to give the Greens loads of say in government in order to get a majority despite the Greens only getting just over 1% of the main vote. 99% of people didn't vote Green, yet they are part of the Scottish government.

Under FPTP an unrepresentative parliament is formed. That is an overwhelming disadvantage IMO. I am not optimistic that voting reform will take place. Head bangers on the left of the Labour Party still harbour the fantasy that the unions tail can wag the national dog. In the same way the swivel eyed loonies in the Tory party think they, in turn, can dictate to everyone. For the foreseeable future I shall continue to exercise my right to vote without any hope of that vote being significant.

Danllan · Feb 17, 2022

Goweresque said:
Under PR every vote doesn't have an equal weight. It gives disproportionate weight to the votes for smaller parties as they often hold the balance of power in a coalition. They can then get policies implemented on the back of a few % of the vote.

Then the other problem with PR is that the major parties often refuse to deal with any of the smaller parties they consider 'extreme'. Thus pushing making the votes for such parties worthless. None of the major parties in Germany will form a coalition with AfD and will prefer to ally themselves with parties far further from their own political position, to the detriment of the voters who voted for them.

PR is just a mass of deals behind closed doors that the voters never get a say in. It gives even more power to the political class that FPTP does.

A point I made earlier; yet it does mean representative equality. As for a few % of vote, under FPTP a government can have an overall minority yet with a few percent more MPs control everything.

Vlad is moving troops home - or so he says...

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page