opinions4u Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Given the current political situation in the nation, I thought it would be interesting to see what the thoughts of others are on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 No, no, no a thousand times no. For loads of reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Obviously PR isn't going to kick in as it would be Labour/Tory slitting their own wrists. But AV, AV+, etc aren't unlikely to be offered in a deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Obviously PR isn't going to kick in as it would be Labour/Tory slitting their own wrists. But AV, AV+, etc aren't unlikely to be offered in a deal. If the Tories and Lib Dems are crafty they will agree to PR but on the proviso that Scottish MPs are excluded from voting on English business, that would be slitting Labours' wrists. Of course if we could sort out full independance for them then all the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) Currently we have a party with around 36% of the vote telling us they have a mandate from the people... Things need to change... The right thing for Clegg to do is to play this out with the Torys... Reject there offer of a "review" (I will be amazed if the Torys give anything other than this), side with Labour and the rest of the left and get a PR referendum out there. This is the view of a Lib Dem councillor I know as well. Edited May 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Obviously PR isn't going to kick in as it would be Labour/Tory slitting their own wrists. Not true... Look at the share of the vote.. The left had by far and away the most votes... It favours the left for more than the right. It would be a big blow for the Torys and would mean the left would have to power share more between the various factions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) How to put the question in a referendum is an amazingly difficult question. How do explain the differences between alternative vote, alternative vote plus, proportional representation, winner-takes-all, single transferable vote, first-past-the-post, electoral lists and so on? I favour leaving FPTP off the referendum paper, so the decision to change the voting system is made before the referendum. People would then have to explore the alternatives. My expectation is that the Tories will agree to a vague referendum - so the question will be something like "Do you want a change to the voting system for the UK elections?" They'll also insist on a 60% "Yes" vote. Even if "Yes" wins, there's no telling what you might get. The final say will go to politicians, who are notoriously bad at addressing the question. Don't expect anything to happen with Dave Clegg and their crazy sidekicks at the helm. I favour alternative vote plus, which is what Labour were backing before the election. Edited May 9, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Currently we have a party with around 36% of the vote telling us they have a mandate from the people... Things need to change... I would quite agree that things need to change but I would like to point out that in 2005 Labour had 35.3% of the vote and had a mandate to govern with a majority in the 60s. The only person bleating about proportional representation then was the leader of the Lib Dems (Labour were strangely quiet on it). 10,683,789 people voted for the Tories this election but only 9,562,122 voted for the Labour party at the last election. By your logic the Tories have more right to govern now than Labour did back then. Personally I'd like to see some form of proportional representation in parliament, I don't know which one as I've not looked at the merits of them all but they use a form in the elections my Mum stands as a candidate in the medical world (I think its alternative vote- its a ranking one) and it seems highly complicated. I sort of like the system they use in Europe but make the areas smaller as its unlikely that an issue affecting Rochdale won't also affect Heywood and Middleton, and the two Oldham constituencies as well but it won't affect the areas further away, like Cheshire and Merseyside but these all get lumped together in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) I would quite agree that things need to change but I would like to point out that in 2005 Labour had 35.3% of the vote and had a mandate to govern with a majority in the 60s. The only person bleating about proportional representation then was the leader of the Lib Dems (Labour were strangely quiet on it). 10,683,789 people voted for the Tories this election but only 9,562,122 voted for the Labour party at the last election. By your logic the Tories have more right to govern now than Labour did back then. Personally I'd like to see some form of proportional representation in parliament, I don't know which one as I've not looked at the merits of them all but they use a form in the elections my Mum stands as a candidate in the medical world (I think its alternative vote- its a ranking one) and it seems highly complicated. I sort of like the system they use in Europe but make the areas smaller as its unlikely that an issue affecting Rochdale won't also affect Heywood and Middleton, and the two Oldham constituencies as well but it won't affect the areas further away, like Cheshire and Merseyside but these all get lumped together in Europe. AV can work out even more unfair than FPTP... PR is the only change worth making... Edited May 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 How to put the question in a referendum is an amazingly difficult question. How do explain the differences between alternative vote, alternative vote plus, proportional representation, winner-takes-all, single transferable vote, first-past-the-post, electoral lists and so on? I favour leaving FPTP off the referendum paper, so the decision to change the voting system is made before the referendum. People would then have to explore the alternatives. My expectation is that the Tories will agree to a vague referendum - so the question will be something like "Do you want a change to the voting system for the UK elections?" They'll also insist on a 60% "Yes" vote. Even if "Yes" wins, there's no telling what you might get. The final say will go to politicians, who are notoriously bad at addressing the question. Don't expect anything to happen with Dave Clegg and their crazy sidekicks at the helm. I favour alternative vote plus, which is what Labour were backing before the election. Disagree about leaving FPTP off the paper... You can't do that as you are then forcing change upon the people instead of the people saying they want change... Any form of AV has to many flaws and still helps party stitch ups... PR is the only change worth making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Currently we have a party with around 36% of the vote telling us they have a mandate from the people... Things need to change... Agree 100 percent. We also have a party with 29 percent of the vote holding over four times more seats than a party with 23 percent of the vote, and although unlikely at the moment, it is still possible we will end up with a PM whom 71 percent of the people voted against. One thing that this election has made absolutely clear is that Gordon Brown has no right to carry on as Prime Minster in the next government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) Not true... Look at the share of the vote.. The left had by far and away the most votes... It favours the left for more than the right. It would be a big blow for the Torys and would mean the left would have to power share more between the various factions... When you say, "the left," you include the entire Lib Dem vote - including a large amount of their vote where they are the none-Tory vote but people would rather eat cardboard than vote Labour. And as we all know Labour has adopted the Clinton strategy of pitching it's tent as far right as it dare, so it's a bit too easy to say that so much of the vote is, "left," or, "right." Edited May 9, 2010 by leeslover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 When you say, "the left," you include the entire Lib Dem vote - including a large amount of their vote where they are the none-Tory vote but people would rather eat cardboard than vote Labour. And as we all know Labour has adopted the Clinton strategy of pitching it's tent as far right as it dare, so it's a bit too easy to say that so much of the vote is, "left," or, "right." Libs about as left as left can get... Labour are a "centre left" party or have you been in a box for the last 13 years ? Only people who know nothing and the right thing press say anything else. I hardly think NMW, 50% tax bracket, tax credits are right ideas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 9, 2010 Author Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) This poll has been up 24 hours. I'm not sure what is the most extraordinary thing about it. An overwhelming 88% of those voting wanting some form of PR. Or the fact that only one person every 90 minutes gave enough of a toss to vote in the first place. Libs about as left as left can get... In the urban north I'd say this is true. Wander in to the West Country and you find a somewhat different LibDem party - one that finds the centre ground quite comfortably to the right of the local non-entity Labour groups. The LibDems have made an art of being an effective local alternative to the status quo by trying to be whatever they know the local electorate might vote for. The net result has been second place almost everywhere! Edited May 9, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Currently we have a party with around 36% of the vote telling us they have a mandate from the people... Things need to change...The right thing for Clegg to do is to play this out with the Torys... Reject there offer of a "review" (I will be amazed if the Torys give anything other than this), side with Labour and the rest of the left and get a PR referendum out there. This is the view of a Lib Dem councillor I know as well. About the same as what Hitler had.... when he gained power in January 1933. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Definately PR would be an improvement, so the progressive majority of the whole of UK are represented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 About the same as what Hitler had.... when he gained power in January 1933. Yes, but with a great deal of consensus between his policy platform and the Socialists, much as far more actually units the main 3 UK parties than divides them. The system itself creates the consensus before a vote is even cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 PR is not as bad as first-past-the-post. That's not to say that PR is all singing and dancing, it's not in my view - there are many quirks with this method too it seems. Will it address the West Lothian Question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Yes, but with a great deal of consensus between his policy platform and the Socialists, much as far more actually units the main 3 UK parties than divides them. The system itself creates the consensus before a vote is even cast. The usual Tory argument against PR (via either AV, AV+ or STV) is that the three main parties already represent ready-made coalitions, which is broadly true. The consensus is not as tight as you imply. They are demonstrably not "all the same". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 PR is not as bad as first-past-the-post. That's not to say that PR is all singing and dancing, it's not in my view - there are many quirks with this method too it seems. Will it address the West Lothian Question? Erm I'm not sure but its one issue that I want to see resolved as I don't see why Scottish MPs get a say in what doesn't affect Scotland (say if it affects England & Wales) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Erm I'm not sure but its one issue that I want to see resolved as I don't see why Scottish MPs get a say in what doesn't affect Scotland (say if it affects England & Wales) I can't see anything changing during this parliament... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 I wonder if Tulsehill and 0000 are currently mid-conniption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) I wonder if Tulsehill and 0000 are currently mid-conniption? Not really... Its something of a win overall... I feared a Tory majority... A Tory minority would of been easily defeated week in week out on anything too evil. A lib-con partnership will hopefully mean nothing to evil comes to the surface. But we will see... I can see us being back at the polls in 12 to 18 months... I don't see torys sticking to the plans enough to keep the libs happy... The libs will be damaged by propping up the torys in my opinion... They have to take all the tough calls now. I would imagine Labour will be in a strong position by the next election. For political ideal reasons I would of love a lib-lab partnership but it would of probably hurt Labour in the long run. Edited May 11, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 They have to take all the tough calls now. I would imagine Labour will be in a strong position by the next election. That is the most correct thing said on any election thread. The damage caused by having to reduce everyone's wealth is going to be devastating to the vote of both parties. Labour have lost an election in the way that a 17 year loses his virginity. It's great for them, but I hope they use this opportunity to move their party back towards the left. Get back towards their actual beliefs than the vote grabbing Blair manifesto. They don't have to do it to an unwinnable situation, just enough so that they can be distinguished between them and the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.