2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[NoKnowledge]

I was talking about IF there was the proportional representaion (PR)

Originally Posted by NoKnowledge

I was talking about IF there was the proportional representaion (PR)

Well Germany has managed a strong economy with a system of proportional representation, quite a few of the G20 have some form of collation governments. It is incorrect to suggest such systems led to weak economies.

[Angua]

What I find most extraordinary about the insistence on FPTP particularly by Tory supporters is that Scotland would probably have more than one Tory MP as a result. In addition we might have more MP's who will work for their collective constituents than to line their own pockets as it would no longer be a guaranteed job for life in some areas..

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Angua

What I find most extraordinary about the insistence on FPTP particularly by Tory supporters is that Scotland would probably have more than one Tory MP as a result. In addition we might have more MP's who will work for their collective constituents than to line their own pockets.

It doesn't surprise me at all. Lib Dems and Labour combined got more than 50% of the vote. The Tories would lose out under a more proportional system.

[NoKnowledge]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well Germany has managed a strong economy with a system of proportional representation, quite a few of the G20 have some form of collation governments. It is incorrect to suggest such systems led to weak economies.

But aren't the ideology of the major & minor parties that form coalitions similar where as in the UK the parties are almost worlds apart?

Originally Posted by NoKnowledge

But aren't the ideology of the major & minor parties that form coalitions similar where as in the UK the parties are almost worlds apart?

I would argue with the suggestion that the parties are worlds apart, I think they can be quite similar, in this country their doesn't seem to massive gulfs in ideology.

However, if it were the case that the parties are worlds apart, that is because of the current political system which requires hostility between the parties as it's winner takes all in the electoral system. If we had collation governments they would have to compromise and moderate themselves in order to work together.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

No. They wouldn't have done the protests if the Liberal Democrats had won because one of their key policies is to implement electoral reform. This was a key issue for them before the election and remains so afterwards, it is very disrespectful to portray it was "throwing their collective teddies in the corner because they didn't get the result they wanted".

Yet they didn't protest before the election did they?

And Clegg's job is to assume control of the country. Do you think he would persue a policy that would keep him out of the running? He may be a liberal and part of the leftist elite but he has self-interest just like the centrists and those on the right.

Anyway, as per my previous post Clegg is the most powerful man in the country right now. Both other parties are bending over backwards trying to get Clegg on his side (well, Labour was at one point). He will massively shape the policies of the next government. I have not computed the various figures that of the dozens of systems Lib Dem supporters can dream up but i'd suggest that FPTP has been very kind to Lib Dems this time around.

If they wanted to protest about the election, why not protest Labour's constant gerrymandering?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by danielf

It doesn't surprise me at all. Lib Dems and Labour combined got more than 50% of the vote. The Tories would lose out under a more proportional system.

Under FPTP Labour need the smallest percentage of votes to get a majority, so why are the Tories so anti when it would probably favour them more (based on Euro MP's who are elected by PR).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

I would argue with the suggestion that the parties are worlds apart, I think they can be quite similar, in this country their doesn't seem to massive gulfs in ideology.

However, if it were the case that the parties are worlds apart, that is because of the current political system which requires hostility between the parties as it's winner takes all in the electoral system. If we had collation governments they would have to compromise and moderate themselves in order to work together.

It works both ways. In a two party system parties will tend to move to the center to get votes off each other. Under PR the extremes tend to get more representation. You also get more parties in parliament. Then again, the parties that actually get into government will tend to cooperate, leading to a consensus model.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

Under FPTP Labour need the smallest percentage of votes to get a majority, so why are the Tories so anti when it would probably favour them more (based on Euro MP's who are elected by PR).

I don't think it would. Yes, the current system favours Labour most, but it also favours the Tories over the Lib Dems. PR would bring the Lib Dems in at the cost of Labour, but it would result in two parties on the left flank that would outnumber the Tories. Labour and Lib Dems combined got ~53% of the popular vote. The Tories ~35%. The current result would have been a nightmare for the Tories under PR.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

Nice try. Emmeline Pankhurst et al. didn't have the vote during the Suffragette movement. He did. He isn't complaining over unjust civil rights. He (and a considerable number of others) are throwing their collective teddies in the corner because they didn't get the result they wanted.

No, they are complaining because they feel disenfranchised by the current electoral system which means that many votes are practically worthless.
No point in having the vote if it doesn't mean anything so in that sense not that far removed from not having the vote at all.

Originally Posted by punky

You think the protests would have happened if the Lib Dems have won? And your comments are quite insulting to the memories of those that died (including Emily Davidson) so we can vote.

Can't say - but I would think not as the Lib Dems promised electoral reform.

I don't think the comments are insulting at all and I'm sure many who did die wouldn't fail to see the irony of a pointless voting system.

Your comments about confronting 'idiots' exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest is probably more insulting if you want to go down that road.

Originally Posted by punky

No, its selfish. Its protesters over-inflated egos thinking that what they want to say is more important than whatever interview the viewers have tuned in for.

The protesters have every right to be there protesting peacefully. Are you saying they should be quiet for Sky news now or not protest against their perceived treatment by Sky News?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by danielf

It works both ways. In a two party system parties will tend to move to the center to get votes off each other. Under PR the extremes tend to get more representation. You also get more parties in parliament. Then again, the parties that actually get into government will tend to cooperate, leading to a consensus model.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------



I don't think it would. Yes, the current system favours Labour most, but it also favours the Tories over the Lib Dems. PR would bring the Lib Dems in at the cost of Labour, but it would result in two parties on the left flank that would outnumber the Tories. Labour and Lib Dems combined got ~53% of the popular vote. The Tories ~35%. The current result would have been a nightmare for the Tories under PR.

Actually there are 40/72 Right of Centre UK MEP's (25 Tory, 13 UKIP & 2 BNP)

[punky]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

No point in having the vote if it doesn't mean anything so in that sense not that far removed from not having the vote at all.

So they are protesting because the party they voted for didn't win? Going a bit full-circle here aren't we?

Your comments about confronting 'idiots' exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest is probably more insulting if you want to go down that road.

Good. Hope they take heed. Although I doubt they'd care.

The protesters have every right to be there protesting peacefully. Are you saying they should be quiet for Sky news now or not protest against their perceived treatment by Sky News?

Peaceful? With the racket they were making?

Still boils down to the fact they are selfish and their protest forced an interview off the air. My main gripe with protesters like these is that the only people that are affected are entirely innocent and don't give a toss about whatever the protesters are whinging about.

And no, before you say it, continuing employment of Kay Burley is not same as denying women or black people the right to vote.

So they are protesting because the party they voted for didn't win? Going a bit full-circle here aren't we?

How many times. It's not about not winning, it's questioning the nature that there is a winner and loser instead of people being presented in the manor they voted.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

So they are protesting because the party they voted for didn't win? Going a bit full-circle here aren't we?

No, they are protesting for electoral reform and feel that the time has finally come to fix the broken system.

Originally Posted by punky

Peaceful? With the racket they were making?

A bit weak if you're playing semantics. Peaceful, i.e. non-violent as you know full well I suspect.

Originally Posted by punky

Still boils down to the fact they are selfish and their protest forced an interview off the air. My main gripe with protesters like these is that the only people that are affected are entirely innocent and don't give a toss about whatever the protesters are whinging about.

Why are they selfish for forcing an interview off air? They don't have to bow down to Sky News now do they? And you know that all the viewers don't give a toss about what the protesters are whinging about, how exactly?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Angua

Actually there are 40/72 Right of Centre UK MEP's (25 Tory, 13 UKIP & 2 BNP)

Hmm, yes. Fair point.