General Election/UK Politics

[MikeO]

Parliament had we used a modern electoral model rather than one instigated in 1884....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-results-pr-alternative-voting-system-tories-labour-hung-a9246661.html

'Analysis of results by the Electoral Reform Society shows the Conservatives would have won 77 fewer seats under the regional list proportional representation method of voting.

While Labour would have won 10 more seats and the Greens another 11, the Liberal Democrats would have been the biggest beneficiaries by taking 59 more seats.

The proportional representation system used in our European parliament elections would have left the Tories with only 288 seats, the largest party in a hung parliament – leaving open the possibility of a “rainbow” coalition government.

The pressure group claimed the “broken” first-past-the-post system was now “warping our politics beyond recognition,” arguing a change was now needed to allow millions of disenchanted voters to feel better represented.'

 

[MikeO]

The deeper you look the more absurd it gets, SNP get 48 members with 1,242,380 votes and the Greens get 1 to represent 865,697. The Mad Hatters tea party made more sense than this.

[johnh]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

The deeper you look the more absurd it gets, SNP get 48 members with 1,242,380 votes and the Greens get 1 to represent 865,697. The Mad Hatters tea party made more sense than this.

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

[MikeO]

59 minutes ago, johnh said:

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

An extremely watered down version of PR was voted down by the electorate with both major parties campaigning against it so no great surprise; as I keep saying, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. You've still not answered my earlier question to you though John (and I quote), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?" You can add to that the Greens getting one MP when 865,697 voted for them.

Googling suggests the current boundaries give Labour about an extra 15 seats, a very minor amount in comparison to the changes PR would bring. We don't need to sort out anomalies in FPTP, we need to bin it. 

 

[Keith B]

Trend appears to be against those of us on the left. But don't stop fighting. Even in the US, we may lose in 2020, but I am optimistic that we are on the correct side of things.

[Romey 1878]

13 hours ago, MikeO said:

Parliament had we used a modern electoral model rather than one instigated in 1884....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-results-pr-alternative-voting-system-tories-labour-hung-a9246661.html

'Analysis of results by the Electoral Reform Society shows the Conservatives would have won 77 fewer seats under the regional list proportional representation method of voting.

While Labour would have won 10 more seats and the Greens another 11, the Liberal Democrats would have been the biggest beneficiaries by taking 59 more seats.

The proportional representation system used in our European parliament elections would have left the Tories with only 288 seats, the largest party in a hung parliament – leaving open the possibility of a “rainbow” coalition government.

The pressure group claimed the “broken” first-past-the-post system was now “warping our politics beyond recognition,” arguing a change was now needed to allow millions of disenchanted voters to feel better represented.'

 

Since studying Government and Politics in college I've been a supporter of PR. It's the fairest system as far as I can see.

[Palfy]

Just a stat to compare the unfairness of 1st pass the post to Proportional Representation. 
LibDems polled 4% more votes and lost seats while the Tories polled 1% more votes yet gained 40 more seats, does anyone think that’s a fair system?

[Palfy]

9 hours ago, Keith B said:

Trend appears to be against those of us on the left. But don't stop fighting. Even in the US, we may lose in 2020, but I am optimistic that we are on the correct side of things.

We won’t stop fighting Keith, there’s to much to lose if we do. 
Those in this country who sold their beliefs for Brexit , I strongly believe will regret that decision in the not so distant future 

[Bailey]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

Just a stat to compare the unfairness of 1st pass the post to Proportional Representation. 
LibDems polled 4% more votes and lost seats while the Tories polled 1% more votes yet gained 40 more seats, does anyone think that’s a fair system?

The problem is the top 2 parties in this country will never agree to it for fear of losing out. 

[Bailey]

Labour shadow cabinet look like they are gearing up to appoint one of their own to be the new leader in Rebecca Long-Bailey with the possibility of Burgon as deputy. 

I find it completely demoralising that they would rally behind her when you have someone like Yvette Cooper in the backbenches who is 10 times the politician of those two idiots put together.

[holystove]

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

Labour shadow cabinet look like they are gearing up to appoint one of their own to be the new leader in Rebecca Long-Bailey with the possibility of Burgon as deputy. 

I find it completely demoralising that they would rally behind her when you have someone like Yvette Cooper in the backbenches who is 10 times the politician of those two idiots put together.

Jess Phillips would eat Johnson alive every single PM's questions.

[MikeO]

6 minutes ago, holystove said:

Jess Phillips would eat Johnson alive every single PM's questions.

Great shout that, love the woman.

[johnh]

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

The problem is the top 2 parties in this country will never agree to it for fear of losing out. 

Neither will the electorate.  Rejected by a significant majority in the relevant referendum.

[Bailey]

2 hours ago, holystove said:

Jess Phillips would eat Johnson alive every single PM's questions.

I agree.

I don't particularly like her but I can recognise that she is a more than competent MP who won't just parrot the party slogans like most MP's do these days.

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, johnh said:

Neither will the electorate.  Rejected by a significant majority in the relevant referendum.

Because the majority of the electorate are tory and labour voters who don't want a fair system because it'll stop their duopoly.

And (for the third time of asking), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?"

Are you related to Michael Howard?

 

[johnh]

2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Because the majority of the electorate are tory and labour voters who don't want a fair system because it'll stop their duopoly.

And (for the third time of asking), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?"

Are you related to Michael Howard?

 

Well the starting rules are the same for everyone.  Maybe the LibDems need a manifesto which attracts more votes in areas where they have no success.  

[MikeO]

Just now, johnh said:

Well the starting rules are the same for everyone.  Maybe the LibDems need a manifesto which attracts more votes in areas where they have no success.  

So you are related to Michael Howard then. You obviously can't answer, "yes of course it's fair" because it self evidently isn't and you won't answer, "no, it's not fair" because you like it the way it is. Fair enough, I won't ask again.

[johnh]

19 hours ago, MikeO said:

So you are related to Michael Howard then. You obviously can't answer, "yes of course it's fair" because it self evidently isn't and you won't answer, "no, it's not fair" because you like it the way it is. Fair enough, I won't ask again.

Mike, I gave a response but for some reason you chose not to address it?

[MikeO]

43 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, I gave a response but for some reason you chose not to address it?

You gave a response but you didn't answer my question, you gave a "politicians answer" i.e. a deflection. 

As to the suggestion that I'm complaining because I don't like the result; I've been complaining about our electoral system for more than forty years so I see no reason to stop now. And it's not just about the LibDems, it's not fair that the Greens and (holds nose) the Brexit party have minimal/zero representation when they got more than 1.5 million votes between them, the tories got forty seats for that.

[Matt]

 

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

 

Very eye opening 👁

[MikeO]

Nadia Whittome, new Labour MP and at 23 the youngest member in the house...

[Bailey]

With that comment she shows her age!

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, Bailey said:

With that comment she shows her age!

That’s the future get use to it Bailey it’s only going to get worse

[MikeO]

51st state happening already.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50879809

[markjazzbassist]

22 hours ago, MikeO said:

51st state happening already.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50879809

Do you like Navy as your passport color?  If so you will love ours

[MikeO]

New peer Zac Goldsmith seems to have had a change of heart since 2012....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50868906

 

[holystove]

On 27/12/2019 at 11:36, MikeO said:

New peer Zac Goldsmith seems to have had a change of heart since 2012....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50868906

 

Reading up in this... So he stood for re-election, was rejected by the people and was then made a 'lord' so he could continue in government, ie rule the people that rejected him.

To pick up an old theme: who do you have to vote for to get rid of Zac Goldsmith?  

[MikeO]

13 hours ago, holystove said:

Reading up in this... So he stood for re-election, was rejected by the people and was then made a 'lord' so he could continue in government, ie rule the people that rejected him.

To pick up an old theme: who do you have to vote for to get rid of Zac Goldsmith?  

British hypocrisy democracy in action.

[Chach]

On 15/12/2019 at 05:43, johnh said:

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

 

On 15/12/2019 at 05:57, MikeO said:

An extremely watered down version of PR was voted down by the electorate with both major parties campaigning against it so no great surprise; as I keep saying, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. You've still not answered my earlier question to you though John (and I quote), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?" You can add to that the Greens getting one MP when 865,697 voted for them.

Googling suggests the current boundaries give Labour about an extra 15 seats, a very minor amount in comparison to the changes PR would bring. We don't need to sort out anomalies in FPTP, we need to bin it. 

 

There has been no vote on PR watered down or otherwise, the vote was whether to introduce an Alternative Voting system where voter preferences are taken into account.

In the proposed system voters rank their candidate numerically and where no candidate has been able to get 50% + 1vote in first preference votes then voters second preference votes come into play and so on until a candidate has an actual majority.

Theres plenty of good arguments against PR but that people would vote against a system where a candidate is actually required to get 50% + 1 vote to win office is absurd in the extreme.