The Politics Thread

[a1]

Except inside A1 world...allegedly.

ok.

when the lib dems lose they lose slightly.

when they win they win slightly.

when labour win they win proper.

when they lose they lose proper

when the torys win they win proper.

when they lose they lose proper.

thats gonna distort the overall stats .

in some cases the overall vote will show that more voted for second overall, than the winners got votes overall.

but you vote by town/ward/mp/whatever.

the above did not happen here.

the tories got 10.5 million votes overall

thats nearly 4 million more than voted lib dem. 2 mill more than voted labour. overall.

how it is now works. that the liberals and labour could team up against the tories proves its proportional in some way.

how do you take yourself off the roll ?

[fatshaft]

Except inside A1 world...allegedly.

ok.

when the lib dems lose they lose slightly.

when they win they win slightly.

when labour win they win proper.

when they lose they lose proper

when the torys win they win proper.

when they lose they lose proper.

thats gonna distort the overall stats .

in some cases the overall vote will show that more voted for second overall, than the winners got votes overall.

but you vote by town/ward/mp/whatever.

the above did not happen here.

the tories got 10.5 million votes overall

thats nearly 4 million more than voted lib dem. 2 mill more than voted labour. overall.

how it is now works. that the liberals and labour could team up against the tories proves its proportional in some way.

how do you take yourself off the roll ?

OMG, no it doesn't. please stop posting, and yes, please take yourself off the roll, you're unfit to vote.

[a1]

OMG, no it doesn't. please stop posting, and yes, please take yourself off the roll, you're unfit to vote.

voting doesnt work now ?

could they not team up an have more coz 55 and 260 odd is more than 300-ish. they might not veto nowt coz theres other parties votes. but thats more than the tories have.

i thought that was the problem now, that one party doesnt have more than half the votes/seats/mps.

and does "PR" counter or emphasize the Tactical Voting where billy brag sorts vote lib dem ?

[fatshaft]

OMG, no it doesn't. please stop posting, and yes, please take yourself off the roll, you're unfit to vote.

voting doesnt work now ?

could they not team up an have more coz 55 and 260 odd is more than 300-ish. they might not veto nowt coz theres other parties votes. but thats more than the tories have.

i thought that was the problem now, that one party doesnt have more than half the votes/seats/mps.

and does "PR" counter or emphasize the Tactical Voting where billy brag sorts vote lib dem ?

It's not PROPORTIONAL in any way.

[a1]

It's not PROPORTIONAL in any way.

it must be , maybe not per vote per seat exactly , maybe thats the wrong word for what i mean.

my 'problem' is that when you vote you vote for a winner. i can see that work.

its not a vote for "who dont you want?".

[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.

yes - actually I was genuinely puzzled - because on the face of it it seems indistinguishable from this:

"people living today never have the right to change something that has been around for a long time because they will then deny the long-standing thing to future generations."

is that what you are really saying?

if not - what is the difference between what you are saying and that?

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

[a1]

he's going.

[fatshaft]

It's not PROPORTIONAL in any way.

it must be , maybe not per vote per seat exactly , maybe thats the wrong word for what i mean.

my 'problem' is that when you vote you vote for a winner. i can see that work.

its not a vote for "who dont you want?".

Exactly. You vote for the guy you want (with PR), rather than often having to vote for someone you don't, becasue there's an even worse option more likely to win the seat in the FPTP system. And in other cases, you may be in a massively safe seat, but that candidate is not the one you would choose, under FPTP, there is basically noi point in voting, but under PR, no vote is wasted.

PR gets rid of all that, and lets everyone's vote count whoever they want to vote for. Seems if you actually understood PR, it is what you are in favour of, you just don't understand how or why.

[Worthy4England]

It's not PROPORTIONAL in any way.

it must be , maybe not per vote per seat exactly , maybe thats the wrong word for what i mean.

my 'problem' is that when you vote you vote for a winner. i can see that work.

its not a vote for "who dont you want?".

I agree entirely, that it's not a vote for who you don't want.

And I also agree that the Lib Dems accumulate a load of votes by coming second or third - not by winning. But what should they do? All move house to key marginals to make their votes count more? The people who vote for them - all 6m of them aren't voting for them to come third.

The way it is at the minute is not proportional.

[fatshaft]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

[fatshaft]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 672859.stm


Well now, that's interesting....

Mr Brown announced his intention to quit in a statement in Downing St in which he also said his party was to start formal talks with the Lib Dems.

Clegg always said he wouldn't work with Brown if the Tories got more votes, although he would work with Labour......

He said he had no desire to stay in his position longer than was needed to form a stable government, and that he would ask the Labour Party to set in form the process of a leadership contest.

He said it could be in the interests of the country to form a "progressive" government - possibly in coalition with the Lib Dems - the UK's third largest party.

It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.

They've used the Tories to force Brown out, wait for an 11th hour deal with Labour now.

[a1]

Exactly. You vote for the guy you want (with PR), rather than often having to vote for someone you don't, becasue there's an even worse option more likely to win the seat in the FPTP system. And in other cases, you may be in a massively safe seat, but that candidate is not the one you would choose, under FPTP, there is basically noi point in voting, but under PR, no vote is wasted.

PR gets rid of all that, and lets everyone's vote count whoever they want to vote for. Seems if you actually understood PR, it is what you are in favour of, you just don't understand how or why.

i'm not bothered if i lose. i know why i've lost. what i dont like is when i have lost some rule says my losing vote might be worth more "proportantally?!?" than someones vote for the winners.

its the tactical voting types that'll cause the trouble.

but whatever, browns going.

[fatshaft]

Exactly. You vote for the guy you want (with PR), rather than often having to vote for someone you don't, becasue there's an even worse option more likely to win the seat in the FPTP system. And in other cases, you may be in a massively safe seat, but that candidate is not the one you would choose, under FPTP, there is basically noi point in voting, but under PR, no vote is wasted.

PR gets rid of all that, and lets everyone's vote count whoever they want to vote for. Seems if you actually understood PR, it is what you are in favour of, you just don't understand how or why.

i'm not bothered if i lose. i know why i've lost. what i dont like is when i have lost some rule says my losing vote might be worth more "proportantally?!?" than someones vote for the winners.

its the tactical voting types that'll cause the trouble.

but whatever, browns going.

a1, it's not football, it's democracy. It's not about voting for the winner, it's about having your vote count, and too many votes up and down the country are absolutely meaningless uner the current system.

And your vote wouldn't be worth more, it would be worth exactly the same, one man, one vote. It's clear though this simple concept is just way over your head.

[Puskas]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Rather overly emotive, don't you think?

You're not destroying anything - there's nothing physical to wreck. You're altering the voting system. You could always alter it back again - assuming there was support for that.

I suspect similar arguments were employed against universal suffrage....

[Worthy4England]

Exactly. You vote for the guy you want (with PR), rather than often having to vote for someone you don't, becasue there's an even worse option more likely to win the seat in the FPTP system. And in other cases, you may be in a massively safe seat, but that candidate is not the one you would choose, under FPTP, there is basically noi point in voting, but under PR, no vote is wasted.

PR gets rid of all that, and lets everyone's vote count whoever they want to vote for. Seems if you actually understood PR, it is what you are in favour of, you just don't understand how or why.

i'm not bothered if i lose. i know why i've lost. what i dont like is when i have lost some rule says my losing vote might be worth more "proportantally?!?" than someones vote for the winners.

its the tactical voting types that'll cause the trouble.

but whatever, browns going.

Which is a cause for celebration. He should have gone about three years ago.

On the down side, I've just seen Harriet Harman head into number 10 - that's a distinct worry.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

Would you accept that it's easier for PR to work in a fledgling assembly, than it would be for the centuries-old Westminster tradition to be uprooted to make the switch?

And if this upheaval is to take place, is now the time to do it, in the middle of a time when there's a huge deficit to get rid of?

[Worthy4England]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

Would you accept that it's easier for PR to work in a fledgling assembly, than it would be for the centuries-old Westminster tradition to be uprooted to make the switch?

And if this upheaval is to take place, is now the time to do it, in the middle of a time when there's a huge deficit to get rid of?

OK - so the $6m question is. If the Tory's committed to have a referendum within the term of Government - 5 years - would that be unreasonable? It would allow them to do what needed to be done, with a positive commitment to address the PR question later in their term of office.

[fatshaft]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

Would you accept that it's easier for PR to work in a fledgling assembly, than it would be for the centuries-old Westminster tradition to be uprooted to make the switch?

And if this upheaval is to take place, is now the time to do it, in the middle of a time when there's a huge deficit to get rid of?

I would yes, I was just pointing out the lengths Murdoch will go to to rubbish PR. There are plenty of other examples of good PR that his reporter passed over while flying to Israel, it's pretty clear the piece was totally slanted.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I would yes, I was just pointing out the lengths Murdoch will go to to rubbish PR. There are plenty of other examples of good PR that his reporter passed over while flying to Israel, it's pretty clear the piece was totally slanted.

Ok, but you keep coming back to the examples close to home - I just want to make the point that it's far easier to operate on a PR system when starting afresh (and when there is long list of reserved matters) than it is to parachute it into a long-established political culture.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

Would you accept that it's easier for PR to work in a fledgling assembly, than it would be for the centuries-old Westminster tradition to be uprooted to make the switch?

And if this upheaval is to take place, is now the time to do it, in the middle of a time when there's a huge deficit to get rid of?

OK - so the $6m question is. If the Tory's committed to have a referendum within the term of Government - 5 years - would that be unreasonable? It would allow them to do what needed to be done, with a positive commitment to address the PR question later in their term of office.

Well, that seems reasonable (and responsible) enough, and at least it prepares the ground for a prolonged period of serious public consultation on the matter.