The Politics Thread

[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.

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'?

For starters the voices who want their vote to be properly heard are getting louder with each election. If the main parties aren't meeting the needs of everyone's then it sounds like other voices need to be heard in the house of commons and whether we agree with what they say or not, I'm not sure we stood in the way of letting them be.

Perhaps there was someone sat back in 1918 shaking his head saying similar about giving women the right to have their say.

[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...

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.

What a rather bizarre statement.

In a situation where 40% or less of the popular vote, determines a workable majority, then 60% of the electorate have no chance of getting their "policies" implemented. No one but Labour voters could guarantee getting policies implemented for 13 years - and only Cons for the 19 years prior to that - all with only a minority of the electorate supporting them.

[a1]

isnt the vote proportional anyway ?

by town/ward/whatever.

if 'proportional representation' gets in we'll just get 9 losers telling you what to do.

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

to me these other voting systems place bias towards the runners up .

as it is now - you vote for a winner, its simple enough.

didnt win ? try again next time.

it'll end up being more complicated than the rugby league championship play offs.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What a rather bizarre statement.

In a situation where 40% or less of the popular vote, determines a workable majority, then 60% of the electorate have no chance of getting their "policies" implemented. No one but Labour voters could guarantee getting policies implemented for 13 years - and only Cons for the 19 years prior to that - all with only a minority of the electorate supporting them.

Well at least in that situation people are actually voting for policies - manifestos that performance can be assessed against later - rather than simply for who they might like to be negotiators on their behalf.

All I'm saying is, to those people who say that the BNP should have seats because that's what people want to vote for and that's 'democratic', it makes no practical difference to their 'cause'.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

[Worthy4England]

isnt the vote proportional anyway ?

by town/ward/whatever.

if proportional gets in we'll just get 9 losers telling you what to do.

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

to me these other voting systems place bias towards the runners up .

as it is now - you vote for a winner, its simple enough.

didnt win ? try again next time.

it'll end up being more comlicated than the rugby league championship play offs.

No - the voting is nothing like proportional. If the seats were allocated in direct proportion to the votes, on Thursday's election, Tory's would lose 71 seats, Labour 69, Lib Dem would gain 93, UKIP would gain 20, the BNP would gain 12.

[Worthy4England]

What a rather bizarre statement.

In a situation where 40% or less of the popular vote, determines a workable majority, then 60% of the electorate have no chance of getting their "policies" implemented. No one but Labour voters could guarantee getting policies implemented for 13 years - and only Cons for the 19 years prior to that - all with only a minority of the electorate supporting them.

Well at least in that situation people are actually voting for policies - manifestos that performance can be assessed against later - rather than simply for who they might like to be negotiators on their behalf.

All I'm saying is, to those people who say that the BNP should have seats because that's what people want to vote for and that's 'democratic', it makes no practical difference to their 'cause'.

You're still voting for a manifesto that can be assessed against later.

It does make a difference to the cause, let's say for example, the Greens favoured the Lib Dems policies on transportation, but the Tories policy on taxataion, they could support the both if they sat cross-bench.

There is no fundamental difference between FPTP and PR. If one party polls more than 50% of the electorate, they get the same "rights" as the duopoly we have today - which was fine when it was a duopoly, but the Lib Dems polled 6.5m votes and only got 57 seats. The reason it's fundamentally opposed by Lab and Tory, is that they both fear they'd lose out to it. Which is probably correct.

[a1]

No - the voting is nothing like proportional. If the seats were allocated in direct proportion to the votes, on Thursday's election, Tory's would lose 71 seats, Labour 69, Lib Dem would gain 93, UKIP would gain 20, the BNP would gain 12.

yeah, but how do you directly proportion the votes ? by amount of voters that voted ? the whole population ? percentage of population per mp ? and do you do it by town ? or count the country(s) as a whole ?.

if 31% of say 'farnworth' vote and labour win. they get 1 mp

but if a similar sized town down south vote and 70% of them do and the tories win do they get more mps ?

its all divided up like a pie, in such a way , that it is proportional now. the losers just can't see it.

[William the White]

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

smug little laugh?

they manage to figure it out quite cleverly in the vast, vast majority of old-established democracies and even very quickly in new and more vulnerable ones.

not absolutely certain a1 is bright enough, but most cambridge graduates should be.

cameron's bright enough to be too scared of putting the option to the people.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

smug little laugh?

they manage to figure it out quite cleverly in the vast, vast majority of old-established democracies and even very quickly in new and more vulnerable ones.

not absolutely certain a1 is bright enough, but most cambridge graduates should be.

cameron's bright enough to be too scared of putting the option to the people.

Stand down William, it was the time bit that was laughing at.

[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.

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!

See above - not on a popular whim but after a genuine campaign and full consideration for and against. It would be totally wrong to implement a major constitutional change without this. I think there's every chance that FPTP would be retained.

And I'd accept that without reservation if that was the popular will. Test it. You supporters of single party governnment that commands less than 40 % of the vote - see if the British people are happy with it. Ask them.

I think that two party politics have been dead for a whole generation. I'm not partisan on this. It's wrong that Labour should command a large majority of the H of C with 38-39% of the vote. It's more than wrong, it's close to outrageous. And equally outrageous to cobble up some coalition of the unequally-elected to avoid confronting the question of our democracy that the voters have raised.

Oh - and the majority should be 50% plus one to implement the change.

[Prufrock]

isnt the vote proportional anyway ?

by town/ward/whatever.

if proportional gets in we'll just get 9 losers telling you what to do.

carnt imagine most of the numb bastards that vote now being able to figure out preferential voting . theyve got no chance at 8 minutes to ten.

to me these other voting systems place bias towards the runners up .

as it is now - you vote for a winner, its simple enough.

didnt win ? try again next time.

it'll end up being more comlicated than the rugby league championship play offs.

No - the voting is nothing like proportional. If the seats were allocated in direct proportion to the votes, on Thursday's election, Tory's would lose 71 seats, Labour 69, Lib Dem would gain 93, UKIP would gain 20, the BNP would gain 12.

And that's only in relation to Thursday election, with the current system. How many people voted either Tory, Labour, or Lib Dem, because that's the only vote that would count in their constituency? I happen to live in a constituency which is a Labour safe seat, so felt like I could vote for who I wanted. If it'd been a marginal, I would have ended up voting for either Labour or the Lib Dems, against the Tories. I think everyone sees PR has it's flaws, but the fact the Lib Dems can get 23% of the vote, and only 11-12% of the seats seems wholly unfair.

As for the BNP argument, Mummy, if 5% of people want to vote for them, to me, they should have 5% of the seats. Yes, you're right, it means they would have fook all power in real terms, but that is because only 5% of people want to vote for them (bearing in mind Worthy's caveat, as long as they are proven to be a legal party, as with any other). I think it was you who mentioned how an idealistically democratic system would have referenda (I think Gordy recently used the word referendas, which is a new one to me) on every issue, and it is an interesting point regarding idealism vs pragmatism, but for me, the current system isn't fair enough. One of my own major concerns regarding PR is the demise of constituency MPs, but PR would surely result in fewer back bench Mps (in the pollitical sense, I'm not proposing sending Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen in to do a grand design, after all, the traditional layout of the House of Commons isn't this generations to give away) but perhaps that might lead to the local election gaining greater significance, in what could be seen as a move towards Cpt. Moonface's idea of big society?

[Prufrock]

No - the voting is nothing like proportional. If the seats were allocated in direct proportion to the votes, on Thursday's election, Tory's would lose 71 seats, Labour 69, Lib Dem would gain 93, UKIP would gain 20, the BNP would gain 12.

yeah, but how do you directly proportion the votes ? by amount of voters that voted ? the whole population ? percentage of population per mp ? and do you do it by town ? or count the country(s) as a whole ?.

if 31% of say 'farnworth' vote and labour win. they get 1 mp

but if a similar sized town down south vote and 70% of them do and the tories win do they get more mps ?

its all divided up like a pie, in such a way , that it is proportional now. the losers just can't see it.

By proportion of the votes, if you don't vote you don't get a say. If you rock up at eight minutes to ten, after 15 hours, and can't vote coz there's a queue you don't get a say, though perhaps if you can't vote because they haven't printed enough ballot forms, that is a different matter.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You're still voting for a manifesto that can be assessed against later.

It does make a difference to the cause, let's say for example, the Greens favoured the Lib Dems policies on transportation, but the Tories policy on taxataion, they could support the both if they sat cross-bench.

There is no fundamental difference between FPTP and PR. If one party polls more than 50% of the electorate, they get the same "rights" as the duopoly we have today - which was fine when it was a duopoly, but the Lib Dems polled 6.5m votes and only got 57 seats. The reason it's fundamentally opposed by Lab and Tory, is that they both fear they'd lose out to it. Which is probably correct.

Ha, I love the example of the Greens going with the Tories on taxation. (Love those Green policies, by the way - 35 hour working weeks, requiring 40% of board members of larger companies to be female within five years, and, my personal favourite, a rule that says the maximum wage in any organisation can be no more than ten times the minimum wage in that organisation.)

I disagree on the manifesto point - now we can say "have you delivered on these pledges or not?". It's a bit different when manifestos say "we will work as hard as we can to do deals on X,Y and Z".

I'm a bit tired of what I was trying to say about the BNP now - it's enough to say that I can't see the benefit of parliament being littered with extreme or single issue parties.

[Prufrock]

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!

See above - not on a popular whim but after a genuine campaign and full consideration for and against. It would be totally wrong to implement a major constitutional change without this. I think there's every chance that FPTP would be retained.

And I'd accept that without reservation if that was the popular will. Test it. You supporters of single party governnment that commands less than 40 % of the vote - see if the British people are happy with it. Ask them.

I think that two party politics have been dead for a whole generation. I'm not partisan on this. It's wrong that Labour should command a large majority of the H of C with 38-39% of the vote. It's more than wrong, it's close to outrageous. And equally outrageous to cobble up some coalition of the unequally-elected to avoid confronting the question of our democracy that the voters have raised.

Oh - and the majority should be 50% plus one to implement the change.

This, the idea of PR, however well, or not, understood, seems to be a big factor in this election. Surely it is only right to ask the people.If, and as William says, it is a very realistic possibility, the people want to stick with FPTP, fair enough.

Another quirk of the two party system, as somebody else, I think Worthy, pointed out, is that the third most popular party have a bigger say in what happens than second, or indeed, there is a possibility that a combination of second and first, and a couple of others, that barely beats first could have more say. It seems that for the first time in a long time, with the power the Lib Dems could have, that the possibility of changing the two party system is a realistic option, I think it only fair the people should be allowed to make their decision on whether or not to take it, not the people with a vested interest in keeping it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And I'd accept that without reservation if that was the popular will.

[...]

Oh - and the majority should be 50% plus one to implement the change.

Would you be happy be for any question to be decided in this way?

Examples:

"Should we re-introduce the death penalty for society's worst crimes?"

"Should we take 75% of the property owned by the top 40% wealthiest in the country, and divide it up between the bottom 60%?"

[a1]

By proportion of the votes

so that some people in some town thats voting more gets no extra MPs ?

thats penalising them by watering down their vote.

that road doesnt seem any fairer.

[Prufrock]

You're still voting for a manifesto that can be assessed against later.

It does make a difference to the cause, let's say for example, the Greens favoured the Lib Dems policies on transportation, but the Tories policy on taxataion, they could support the both if they sat cross-bench.

There is no fundamental difference between FPTP and PR. If one party polls more than 50% of the electorate, they get the same "rights" as the duopoly we have today - which was fine when it was a duopoly, but the Lib Dems polled 6.5m votes and only got 57 seats. The reason it's fundamentally opposed by Lab and Tory, is that they both fear they'd lose out to it. Which is probably correct.

Ha, I love the example of the Greens going with the Tories on taxation. (Love those Green policies, by the way - 35 hour working weeks, requiring 40% of board members of larger companies to be female within five years, and, my personal favourite, a rule that says the maximum wage in any organisation can be no more than ten times the minimum wage in that organisation.)

I disagree on the manifesto point - now we can say "have you delivered on these pledges or not?". It's a bit different when manifestos say "we will work as hard as we can to do deals on X,Y and Z".

I'm a bit tired of what I was trying to say about the BNP now - it's enough to say that I can't see the benefit of parliament being littered with extreme or single issue parties.

A valid concern though it may be, do you not think the fact the Lib Dems only got 6% less of the popular vote than Labour, yet only 12% of the seats a more pressing concern?

And as for the FPTP vs PR, the latest YouGov survey, recognising its limitations, has 63% for PR, with only 13% for FPTP.

[William the White]

And I'd accept that without reservation if that was the popular will.

[...]

Oh - and the majority should be 50% plus one to implement the change.

Would you be happy be for any question to be decided in this way?
Examples:

"Should we re-introduce the death penalty for society's worst crimes?"

"Should we take 75% of the property owned by the top 40% wealthiest in the country, and divide it up between the bottom 60%?"

In the end ad absurdam gets you to the absurd and i'm not getting into that particular philosopher's meander... It's too easy a way of avoiding addressing an issue...

Why should the people not be asked about the kind of democracy they want?

Advance your reasons. Let us reason and debate.

[Prufrock]

By proportion of the votes

so that some people in some town thats voting more gets no extra MPs ?

thats penalising them by watering down their vote.

that road doesnt seem any fairer.

Depends, to me PR seems to get rid of the idea of an MP linked to a constituency, in favour of a nationwide list system, I can't personally see any other system working. It then places a greater onus on the local elections, which at the moment seem a bit of a joke. This being my first time voting either general or local election, I was surprised to find more than one name per party on the local form.

PS. I'm about to send you a PM about a completely unrelated issue.