Harman's Labour 'rebellion'

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agree re Voting System, not sure how it reflects contempt on behalf of leaders, since the UK electorate had a chance to to change the voting system, and didn't....

Because they could've changed it or come up with a decent system that reflects voters choices, Dave is one of the worst for banging on about voter apathy and reconnecting with the electorate but when push came to shove he couldn't bring himself to break up the status quo as it benefits his party to much, they know that eventually we'll be sick of the other mob and they'll get a go again..

Originally Posted by ianch99

but the single alternative choice they had on offer was a bad one as far as I remember

Exactly it was the worst option to offer imo

We're not going to get another chance of reforming the voting system for a while now. The best chance was that referendum or maybe had the predicted hung parliament occurred. Now neither the Conservatives or Labour want it and the Liberal Democrats are nowhere. It's not going to happen for a long, long time.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

We're not going to get another chance of reforming the voting system for a while now. The best chance was that referendum or maybe had the predicted hung parliament occurred. Now neither the Conservatives or Labour want it and the Liberal Democrats are nowhere. It's not going to happen for a long, long time.

That's what they want you to think, fact they don't want people reminding of is that we are in charge not them, they make the rules because of us not in spite of us and if enough of us kick up a fuss for long enough things will change.

[papa smurf]

Labour leadership contest: Party now fears infiltration by BNP supporters

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10470069.html


the politics of desperation ?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's what they want you to think, fact they don't want people reminding of is that we are in charge not them, they make the rules because of us not in spite of us and if enough of us kick up a fuss for long enough things will change.

Unfortunately electoral reform doesn't seem to inspire the electorate and there isn't a mainstream party capable of winning an election that will change it. Even St Corbyn of Islington doesn't have much to say on the subject.

[Chrysalis]

sadly there is people out there who seem to believe FPTP is great, a guy on another thread said that today.

Damien is right tho, we wont get a chance of change for a long while now. I bet the lib dems are regretting a watered down compromise from the tories now.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

sadly there is people out there who seem to believe FPTP is great, a guy on another thread said that today.

Well FPTP does have advantages. It's one of the ways of ensuring a direct representative for a constituency in Parliament. You obviously have a party you vote for but in this system you also have someone who is your MP and can represent the constituency itself in Westminster. It's rarely needed but there can be times when someone is in a odd situation that requires intervention from their MP. A lot of people value that direct link.

There are other reasons too. One of them is it allows for Independent runs based on local issues which wouldn't be possible in a pure PR system where a party would need a broad vote across the country rather than getting support based on, for example, a local campaign about a closure of a hospital or school.

In fact in a pure PR system then you don't elect a person at all. Everyone would have to vote for a party and run under that party's banner. People moan about career politicians but this is the ultimate career politician's system. Representatives are not selected based on their character or local appeal but from approved party lists which are drawn up by the party itself.

Theoretically that also gives them less legitimacy to rebel against the party whip as no one elected them, they elected their party. Zac Goldsmith for example would have legitimate reason to rebel against a whipped Tory vote on Heathrow because although his party may want it his constituents do not.

Finally it also is designed to return a strong Government. I.E It usually gives a extra amount of seats to the party with the larger voter share so that they can command a majority. Some PR systems try to work this in by giving a 'bonus' amount of seats to whoever won the most seats.

I think FFTP no longer works with the fragmented party support we have now. Those advantages above don't outweigh the drawbacks of people not getting who they voted for but it's not as if FFTP is completely flawed.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Unfortunately electoral reform doesn't seem to inspire the electorate and there isn't a mainstream party capable of winning an election that will change it. Even St Corbyn of Islington doesn't have much to say on the subject.

A couple more elections with millions of peoples votes counting for nothing will inspire the mainstream parties to change it, government will be even more lacking in legitimacy if we have results like this again.

[tweetiepooh]

Damien makes good points and why I support the continuation of the current system. I want to elect a person not a party.

Most PR systems you end up with the least unpopular not necessarily the most popular.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Damien makes good points and why I support the continuation of the current system. I want to elect a person not a party.

Most PR systems you end up with the least unpopular not necessarily the most popular.

I think he made one exceptional point

I think FFTP no longer works with the fragmented party support we have now

[Ignitionnet]

FPTP was great when there were no real parties. It might be improved a bit by open primaries but in our multiple party system it's undemocratic.

Perhaps an FPTP chamber and a PR one would be better if there are people really attached to the idea that most of their representatives don't vote with the party the overwhelming majority of the time regardless of the opinion of their constituents, and that most people have no idea who they are voting for as they don't look past the party.

FPTP just doesn't work when there are more than two options.

Another point - there's no need to go with pure list-based PR. What's wrong with STV or, worst case, AV? You're still voting for the candidate, not the party, and the result is more representative of the views of the constituency as a whole?

EDIT: It should be noted that, as I recall, the three main parties elect their own leader by STV. The Mayor of London is elected by STV. People appear capable of writing numbers in boxes in those elections, I'm sure they can manage it in general ones

[rhyds]

Wales and Scotland have a system that works quite well. You have two votes, one for your local constituency Assembly Member/Socttish Parliament Member as per usual, and another for the regional list, which is decided by party, and the regional list seats are assigned by how well those parties did in the constituency election.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agree re Voting System, not sure how it reflects contempt on behalf of leaders, since the UK electorate had a chance to to change the voting system, and didn't....

Indeed. The electorate only have themselves to blame sometimes and they are easily led. At the beginning of that referendum campaign opinion was in favour of AV. However they were told to vote how to vote over the weeks by self-interested politcians and their buddies in the media. Like donkeys, they obeyed.

Same thing will happen with the EU referendum. Governments only hold referendums when they are assured of the result. Nearly came a cropper with the Scotland vote, but again the muppets were easily led on the day.

[nomadking]

Isn't FPTP with only two options the same as PR?

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Isn't FPTP with only two options the same as PR?

Not really. FPTP totally disregards "losing" votes, so coming second by one vote in a constituency counts the same as coming in behind the monster raving loonies. This is why the Lib Dems (and latterly UKIP)are such big supporters of PR, as all those votes in constituencies where they didn't win count towards their seat total in PR.