D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We don't know, as that option isn't available to us.
Election 2015 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tad
- Start date
We don't know, as that option isn't available to us.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
And here is the problem I think. To me it seems that hardcore Labour voters wanted Miliband to be more left wing, but to the rest of us he needed to be more right wing.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It was in the early 80's when the party was destroyed
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Yes, a quite brilliant decision! I know the reason they gave for doing it, (building up foreign currency reserves) but it still stinks.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
The only thing that made me happy last night was seeing the awful Danny Alexander get a good kicking in the polls and also that Ed Bollocks got dumped as well so there is no way he can sneak in as the new leader (will have to leave it to his wife now!). This is Andy Burnham's time for me with Chuka as his deputy
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Agreed, the best of a bad bunch.
Out of interest Grendel, who would you prefer to vote for? Just interested
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I was trying to think of a way of summing up the rise of SNP, and you sir, have sledgehammered the nail :laugh: :claping hands:
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Got to love a scouser
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
Chuka Umunna is a shout for leader of Labour for me, it'd shift them to the right a bit though but it's what they'd need sadly.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'd argue it began in the 70's and ended with new labour. It was a long slow death.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Interesting to look at the difference PR would mean to the seat allocation in the commons, (FPTP in brackets):
Conservative = 240 (331)
Labour = 198 (232)
UKIP = 82 (1)
Lib Dem = 51 (8)
SNP = 30 (56)
Greens = 25 (1)
That of course is based on the recent vote, I would say it is likely in a PR vote some people who voted would change their vote and some of those who don't bother voting as they feel their vote doesn't count might come out. That would be more likely to benefit the smaller parties. You could also make a strong arguement for less MPs in a PR system. At the moment we're very tied to the idea of having your MP for your area which makes it hard to easily reduce the total number of MPs.
Was listening to a chap on the radio last night saying only 40% of people who vote have any impact on the result. When you think the turnout was around 60% the actual % of the population that the result depends on is very low.
I can see calls for a change growing. How is Scotland going to be managed for example. If the SNP say no to austerity are the Conservates going to push through something that the Scottish people have not given them a mandate for? And the reverse, if Scotland gets different treatment or a minority party is dictating policy how can that be right?
Conservative = 240 (331)
Labour = 198 (232)
UKIP = 82 (1)
Lib Dem = 51 (8)
SNP = 30 (56)
Greens = 25 (1)
That of course is based on the recent vote, I would say it is likely in a PR vote some people who voted would change their vote and some of those who don't bother voting as they feel their vote doesn't count might come out. That would be more likely to benefit the smaller parties. You could also make a strong arguement for less MPs in a PR system. At the moment we're very tied to the idea of having your MP for your area which makes it hard to easily reduce the total number of MPs.
Was listening to a chap on the radio last night saying only 40% of people who vote have any impact on the result. When you think the turnout was around 60% the actual % of the population that the result depends on is very low.
I can see calls for a change growing. How is Scotland going to be managed for example. If the SNP say no to austerity are the Conservates going to push through something that the Scottish people have not given them a mandate for? And the reverse, if Scotland gets different treatment or a minority party is dictating policy how can that be right?
Nick
Administrator
So when people say it doesn't matter about their vote as it doesn't make a difference anyway, they have a point?
I don't understand why every vote shouldn't count?
Everybody who votes, total them up as actual votes rather than seats.
Doesn't make sense to me. If I knew my area was 99% Labour for example, whats the point in me bothering to vote if I didn't want to vote Labour if it goes off seats.
I don't understand why every vote shouldn't count?
Everybody who votes, total them up as actual votes rather than seats.
Doesn't make sense to me. If I knew my area was 99% Labour for example, whats the point in me bothering to vote if I didn't want to vote Labour if it goes off seats.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its all to do with swing! Its easier to understand if you imagine it as just Con v Lab.
Lets say there's 100 seats, to get a majority you need 51. Now say in the last election Con had 55 and Lab 45. Lab need to gain 6 seats to win. They will look for the 6 seats where Con had the smallest majority and target them (what they refer to as the marginals). They need the vote to swing to Lab by whatever % will see them win those seats. If you live in a constituency covered by those 6 seats your vote is critical. The further away you move from a marginal seat (so the bigger the existing majority is) the less important your vote as you are less likely to influence the outcome. In practice they would target more than 6 seats as not every seat will follow the same % swing.
That's why you get people posting on here that they have heard nothing from certain parties. its because the party has looked at the area and decided its not an area really worth fighting for.
The knock on problem is you get tactical voting. For example someone might support all the Green party policies but knowing they have no chance and not wanting the Conservatives to win they vote Labour. Or they don't vote at all as they feel their vote is wasted.
If you move to PR representation every vote counts so people are more likely to vote and less likely to vote tactically.
The other thing that needs looking at is how much each party is spending on campaigning. It appears the Conservatives, thanks to being the party supported by most of the 1%, are massively out spending everyone else. That's advertising basics, the more you spend the more influence on consumers (or in this case voters) you are likely to have.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Absolutlely
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nick
Administrator
They only want to know you when they want something off you.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Personally I'd keep the commons first past the post, but abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an upper chamber elected by PR (could also do it the other way round, depending on which preference to the weighting you prefer). Similar powers to the Lords now, the ability to delay bills and suggest revisions, without being able to stop them if the will of Parliament is there.
Then people get their own MP, but there is also influence from a PR system.
Oh how we laughed Labour boy !!!! Oh and nearly 4 million votes for UKIP and one measly seat, incredible how the chilly Jocks get 56 seats for less than 1.5 million votes though, not quite right that !
Otis
Well-Known Member
It simply is not fair and as someone quite rightly said this morning, FPTP makes people vote differently to how they would under another system.
Example:
Green Party local MP said he won a seat on the local council and did so with 62% of the vote.
Then he went for the general election and polled 12% of the vote. He said that people said they wanted to vote for him but knew the Green's wouldn't win.
We need to decide whether it should be about choosing an MP to represent you, or whether you are just voting for a party.
If things don't change it will always be Labour or Conservative. Can't see how that is at all healthy, especially with the likes of myself, who didn't like Cameron or Milliband. As Nick Clegg rightly said, we were always going to get either one or the other.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If Scotland does anything like it has done in this election its not going to be easy for Labour to get back in. There's always been a north south divide in voting and now the north part of the divide has essentially been split in two.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
The main problem I have with PR is you don't decide who your mp is. You vote for a party and they then assign you an mp.
Look at what happens in euro elections. One of the local conservative meps recently died. There was no election for his replacement, the Conservatives just picked a replacement and put him in.
Yes fptp needs reforming, but anything that replaces it needs to be more democratic, not less. Mp's need to be chosen by the public, not in a meeting room at party hq.
Look at what happens in euro elections. One of the local conservative meps recently died. There was no election for his replacement, the Conservatives just picked a replacement and put him in.
Yes fptp needs reforming, but anything that replaces it needs to be more democratic, not less. Mp's need to be chosen by the public, not in a meeting room at party hq.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Our mp knocked on our door and my wife game him a right kicking and then slammed the door in his face
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
PR has to be the fairest system, voting for a local MP doesn't matter to me as they simply trot off to Westminster and toe the party line anyway. Those that don't tend to find themselves kicked out of the party, a la Dave Nellist. FPTP simply doesn't represent the views of the voter and constituency boundaries are easily manipulated. One thing I would like to know is, is it illegal to register to vote in another constituency than the one you live in, as voters in areas with large majorities could be organised by party activists to vote in marginal seats
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They don't always though.
FWIW was always the problem I had when I could first vote; the local MP was of a party completely opposed to me but, he was an excellent local MP!
So come elections I had a choice of vote someone out who was doing his job well, (and doing it for me at times even if that went against the party he stood for) or vote for a party who, centrally, I hated.
It's why I'd rather have a split system. As it stands it's unfair that we have an unelected chamber that can have an influence on bills, so there's room for reform.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The system works. Given the choice of who people wanted as prime minister the correct candidate won.
The boundaries are currently waited to Labour. The first act will be to introduce the boundary commission proposals of reducing constituencies to 600 and making them fairer in terms of number of voters.
this is likely to mean labour will never achieve power again - and rightly so after this pathetic attempt. Milliband put personal glory ahead of his party and it will cost them dearly. The country is conservative by nature. Milliband was like those other hapless Marxists - Foot and Kinnock (but a lot richer) and deserved his night.
As for the odious Clegg I am glad he won his seat and can sit in parliament and see the wreckage he has caused after years of work and endeavour from ash down and Kennedy. A lust for power and a dishonesty that would have even made Blair blush. Another fitting outcome.
The boundaries are currently waited to Labour. The first act will be to introduce the boundary commission proposals of reducing constituencies to 600 and making them fairer in terms of number of voters.
this is likely to mean labour will never achieve power again - and rightly so after this pathetic attempt. Milliband put personal glory ahead of his party and it will cost them dearly. The country is conservative by nature. Milliband was like those other hapless Marxists - Foot and Kinnock (but a lot richer) and deserved his night.
As for the odious Clegg I am glad he won his seat and can sit in parliament and see the wreckage he has caused after years of work and endeavour from ash down and Kennedy. A lust for power and a dishonesty that would have even made Blair blush. Another fitting outcome.
Otis
Well-Known Member
It will be the worst thing in modern political history for Labour to never achieve power again. We can't have a one party country. That could be catastrophic for Britain. As some politcal commentator said on Friday, it could take 20 years for the Lib Dems to build up again and for the Green's to be a major player, probably just as long.
It would be just as bad if there was just Labour. We need a balance and differing standpoints for us to consider when choosing a government. I'm all for multi-party politics myself and don't like it just being a 2 way street. If Labour went out of the picture it would be a one way street and that could spell disaster.
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
Democracy is strange 63% of people voted against the Tory party but thats what we got.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
19 general elections post world war 2:
Labour 9 wins
Conservative 10 wins
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Electoral boundary change will soon put an end to that.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I know, Cameron stitching up so that the tory's stay in power regardless. They will quickly try and devolve Scotland for good measure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I know, Cameron stitching up so that the tory's stay in power regardless. They will quickly try and devolve Scotland for good measure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Actually just correcting the boundaries to try and make them a bit fairer.
They have favoured labour for years.
Tony Blair 36% of the vote.
Michael Howard 33% of the vote.
Result: 65 seat labour majority.
David Cameron 37% of the vote.
Gordon Brown 29% of the vote.
Result: Hung parliament.
If the boundaries favour the tories it's a stitch up. When they favour labour it's fine?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
19 general elections post world war 2:
Labour 9 wins
Conservative 10 wins
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
8 Labour wins. The first in 1974 was a hung parliament.
SNP has seriously affected Labours ability to win.
19 general elections post world war 2, most votes in England:
Labour 3 times
Conservative 16 times