The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Interesting times.

Interesting? I'll say. I've never in any aspect of my life seen the tail wag the dog quite like it!

I do believe the dog actually got in touch with it's tail to see how it would wag fairly early yesterday.

After asking the question, of it's tail, it can hardly be surprised that it's still happily wagging.

[fatshaft]

I suppose where I'm coming from is that I get the impression that at least 50% of people didn't even know what a hung parliament is until the last fortnight.

It's difficult then to imagine that a majority can seriously know what PR is and actively want it.

Maybe many don't, but plenty do. The last Euro elections have shown them what PR can do, with UKIP, BNP and even the green loonies gaining seats in Brussels. Now people are beginning to realise that we don't have to swing aimlessly from Labour to Tory and back again, but actually vote for who yopu want, be that in Europe, or in the devolved assemblies, it just falls down in the most important election. It'll come, becasue it has to.

As for not working, that just seems to be Tory scare tactics, seems PR works eevrywhere, it certainly works very well in Scotland.

[William the White]

I think that most people don't really understand PR, but a proper referendum with a genuine campaign, would soon inform them and allow them to think about it.

What is clear is that we are no longer in the two-party system for which FPTP is pretty ok. The will of the people was only just expressed by fortune this time, and only approximately. It's been denied time and time again.

If the Lib dems don't insist on the referendum (that's NOT insisting on PR) they are letting themselves and the people down by denying the votes the right to choose the system they want. PR works pretty well in most established democracies. Sometimes it produces results to make you grimace (Austria). Sometimes (Israel) it allows small parties to sabotage hugely important issues. sometimes it produces poitical instablity (Italy). But, mostly, it doesn't. It produces governments that can command support.

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting times.

Interesting? I'll say. I've never in any aspect of my life seen the tail wag the dog quite like it!

I do believe the dog actually got in touch with it's tail to see how it would wag fairly early yesterday.

After asking the question, of it's tail, it can hardly be surprised that it's still happily wagging.

Well yes, that's quite obvious, I was just saying though that "I've never, in any...etc"

[Worthy4England]

Interesting times.

Interesting? I'll say. I've never in any aspect of my life seen the tail wag the dog quite like it!

I do believe the dog actually got in touch with it's tail to see how it would wag fairly early yesterday.

After asking the question, of it's tail, it can hardly be surprised that it's still happily wagging.

Well yes, that's quite obvious, I was just saying though that "I've never, in any...etc"

Ahhh.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Maybe many don't, but plenty do. The last Euro elections have shown them what PR can do, with UKIP, BNP and even the green loonies gaining seats in Brussels. Now people are beginning to realise that we don't have to swing aimlessly from Labour to Tory and back again, but actually vote for who yopu want, be that in Europe, or in the devolved assemblies, it just falls down in the most important election. It'll come, becasue it has to.

It'll come because it has to? That's a bizarrely fatalistic thing to say before a debate on a complex question has even got going properly!

Call me a Little Englander if you want, but I don't see how they make their decisions in Belgium or Germany, or the EU, the organisation the phrase 'democratic deficit' was coined for, has the slightest impact on how we should do things in Westminster. Sure, we can look elsewhere for an illustration that other systems can operate perfectly well, but it's no way inevitable that every country in the world should converge into using the same system.

And I've asked the question elsewhere - if we had a system in which the BNP would actually have seats, what impact would that have on decision-making? Would their racist agenda that some people find attractive be advanced at all?

[Bruce Rioja]

Call me a Little Englander

Aren't you Welsh?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think that most people don't really understand PR, but a proper referendum with a genuine campaign, would soon inform them and allow them to think about it.

Right, well I'm glad you concede the first half of that, and I agree with the second.

What kind of % should we insist on though to abandon hundreds of years of consitutional practice and completely overhaul our political culture in this, the home of the mother of parliaments? I know you are in favour of doing both things, even (perhaps especially) so emotively phrased, but even you would consider that it isn't something that should be done on a popular whim.

My own take is that our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away, but I realise I am a small 'c' conservative pissing into the wind, in this company!

[Lord Kangana]

As previously discussed, the Tory agenda carries more than its weight under FPTP. So one mans meat is another mans poison really. As evidenced last night, theres no real groundswell of support for the BNP, so why we shoud fear the odd seat they get is beyond me. What I'm more interested in is seeing a true reflection of votes to seats. And therefore a truer reflection of the wishes of the majority. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as Spock once said, and fictional or not, he's right. Besides, it'd be like giving airtime to Nigel Farage. The more people hear him the more they realise he's a bit of a bellcheese with nowt to say.

[thebish]

I think that most people don't really understand PR, but a proper referendum with a genuine campaign, would soon inform them and allow them to think about it.

Right, well I'm glad you concede the first half of that, and I agree with the second.

What kind of % should we insist on though to abandon hundreds of years of consitutional practice and completely overhaul our political culture in this, the home of the mother of parliaments? I know you are in favour of doing both things, even (perhaps especially) so emotively phrased, but even you would consider that it isn't something that should be done on a popular whim.

My own take is that our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away, but I realise I am a small 'c' conservative pissing into the wind, in this company!

what on earth does that mean? can you expand? I am genuinely puzzled!

[thebish]

As previously discussed, the Tory agenda carries more than its weight under FPTP. So one mans meat is another mans poison really. As evidenced last night, theres no real groundswell of support for the BNP, so why we shoud fear the odd seat they get is beyond me. What I'm more interested in is seeing a true reflection of votes to seats. And therefore a truer reflection of the wishes of the majority. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as Spock once said, and fictional or not, he's right. Besides, it'd be like giving airtime to Nigel Farage. The more people hear him the more they realise he's a bit of a bellcheese with nowt to say.

indeed...

down here in my neck of the woods - the BNP lost ALL of their twelve local council seats and Griffin was soundly thrashed.

bizarrley - Griffin says the labour trouncing was really unfair because there was a large turnout!

[Worthy4England]

Maybe many don't, but plenty do. The last Euro elections have shown them what PR can do, with UKIP, BNP and even the green loonies gaining seats in Brussels. Now people are beginning to realise that we don't have to swing aimlessly from Labour to Tory and back again, but actually vote for who yopu want, be that in Europe, or in the devolved assemblies, it just falls down in the most important election. It'll come, becasue it has to.

It'll come because it has to? That's a bizarrely fatalistic thing to say before a debate on a complex question has even got going properly!

Call me a Little Englander if you want, but I don't see how they make their decisions in Belgium or Germany, or the EU, the organisation the phrase 'democratic deficit' was coined for, has the slightest impact on how we should do things in Westminster. Sure, we can look elsewhere for an illustration that other systems can operate perfectly well, but it's no way inevitable that every country in the world should converge into using the same system.

And I've asked the question elsewhere - if we had a system in which the BNP would actually have seats, what impact would that have on decision-making? Would their racist agenda that some people find attractive be advanced at all?

The debate has been going along happily for about a lifetime...

There was more recently the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform (1997 or 98) - whilst some of the parts got wrapped into other legislation - the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament etc. the purpose of if started out to be a proposal for the voting system to elect the House of Commons.

Assuming that the BNP are a legitimate (legal) party, then people should be allowed to vote for them, as for any other legitimate party. Or should only centre-right and centre-left views be allowed?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think that most people don't really understand PR, but a proper referendum with a genuine campaign, would soon inform them and allow them to think about it.

Right, well I'm glad you concede the first half of that, and I agree with the second.

What kind of % should we insist on though to abandon hundreds of years of consitutional practice and completely overhaul our political culture in this, the home of the mother of parliaments? I know you are in favour of doing both things, even (perhaps especially) so emotively phrased, but even you would consider that it isn't something that should be done on a popular whim.

My own take is that our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away, but I realise I am a small 'c' conservative pissing into the wind, in this company!

what on earth does that mean? can you expand? I am genuinely puzzled!

No you're not - you know exactly what I mean but you just disagree with me.

But, to clarify, it upsets me when we sabotage some of our historic political arrangements, because it's not something future generations can ever get back.

The post of Lord Chancellor, for example - we had no practical problem at all there, with a post that can be traced back to 1066 and beyond, but it had to go, sacrificed on the altar of progress like so much else.

[Lord Kangana]

Ricketts used to be a tradition in our family. Some bastard went and introduced universal healthcare, thus robbing me of my birthright. Without consultation, I might add. Disgraceful behaviour all round.

[hisroyalgingerness]

Yeah but mummy, I agree with a good deal of the Tory policies, but I still don't think we should retain a political system which fudges the results so that the two main parties can to and fro power every decade or so. Historical doesn't make it right for today.

The thing with PR is this. It needs properly looking at, and no sharp referendum would resolve it because everyone needs to properly understand what they're voting to change.

Second thing with it is - it's just not a priority. Frankly it's some way behind the economy and jobs.

[Worthy4England]

I think that most people don't really understand PR, but a proper referendum with a genuine campaign, would soon inform them and allow them to think about it.

Right, well I'm glad you concede the first half of that, and I agree with the second.

What kind of % should we insist on though to abandon hundreds of years of consitutional practice and completely overhaul our political culture in this, the home of the mother of parliaments? I know you are in favour of doing both things, even (perhaps especially) so emotively phrased, but even you would consider that it isn't something that should be done on a popular whim.

My own take is that our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away, but I realise I am a small 'c' conservative pissing into the wind, in this company!

what on earth does that mean? can you expand? I am genuinely puzzled!

No you're not - you know exactly what I mean but you just disagree with me.

But, to clarify, it upsets me when we sabotage some of our historic political arrangements, because it's not something future generations can ever get back.

The post of Lord Chancellor, for example - we had no practical problem at all there, with a post that can be traced back to 1066 and beyond, but it had to go, sacrificed on the altar of progress like so much else.

If future generations wanted to change it - they could.

I'm not sure whether I'd vote for it or not to be honest. It would depend on which system was being offered - there's plenty of variations...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The debate has been going along happily for about a lifetime...

There was more recently the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform (1997 or 98) - whilst some of the parts got wrapped into other legislation - the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament etc. the purpose of if started out to be a proposal for the voting system to elect the House of Commons.

Assuming that the BNP are a legitimate (legal) party, then people should be allowed to vote for them, as for any other legitimate party. Or should only centre-right and centre-left views be allowed?

Largely in the intellectual margins, yes... I'm having it put to me now that a popular movement is forming on one side of the discussion.

I completely agree about the BNP. My point is that if they are as powerless to influence decision making in a PR system as they are currently, where does this leave the lofty argument for a more democratic way of getting things done?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Yeah but mummy, I agree with a good deal of the Tory policies, but I still don't think we should retain a political system which fudges the results so that the two main parties can to and fro power every decade or so. Historical doesn't make it right for today.

It seems to me our democracy has always been a matter of convenience...an elaborate confidence trick in order to get some decisions made, with some checks and balances thrown in to make sure things don't get out of hand. This arrangement has served us pretty well for a while now - what is different about 'today'?

[Worthy4England]

The debate has been going along happily for about a lifetime...

There was more recently the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform (1997 or 98) - whilst some of the parts got wrapped into other legislation - the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament etc. the purpose of if started out to be a proposal for the voting system to elect the House of Commons.

Assuming that the BNP are a legitimate (legal) party, then people should be allowed to vote for them, as for any other legitimate party. Or should only centre-right and centre-left views be allowed?

Largely in the intellectual margins, yes... I'm having it put to me now that a popular movement is forming on one side of the discussion.

I complete agree about the BNP. My point is that if they are as powerless to influence decision making in a PR system as they are currently, where does this leave the lofty argument for a more democratic way of getting things done?

Well the whole idea of proportional representation is that it's proportional. Typically the BNP get between 500,000 and about 750,000 votes (iirc) - they polled 1.9% of the vote, this time. They'd get whatever proportion of seats 1.9% equated to - which I think would be about 10 on the turnout on Thursday...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The debate has been going along happily for about a lifetime...

There was more recently the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform (1997 or 98) - whilst some of the parts got wrapped into other legislation - the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament etc. the purpose of if started out to be a proposal for the voting system to elect the House of Commons.

Assuming that the BNP are a legitimate (legal) party, then people should be allowed to vote for them, as for any other legitimate party. Or should only centre-right and centre-left views be allowed?

Largely in the intellectual margins, yes... I'm having it put to me now that a popular movement is forming on one side of the discussion.

I complete agree about the BNP. My point is that if they are as powerless to influence decision making in a PR system as they are currently, where does this leave the lofty argument for a more democratic way of getting things done?

Well the whole idea of proportional representation is that it's proportional. Typically the BNP get between 500,000 and about 750,000 votes (iirc) - they polled 1.9% of the vote, this time. They'd get whatever proportion of seats 1.9% equated to - which I think would be about 10 on the turnout on Thursday...

Right, so given that there isn't a chance of any of their 'policies' being implemented, how does it improve our democracy to have those 10 BNP representatives in Parliament, funded by the taxpayer, of course.