mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 17, 2019 14:33:26 GMT
Well I have to say "disaster" wins it for me every time. The inevitable bias in that article is that of course it very quickly dismisses the other options. (Not even naming Jo Swinson that's just "what's her name".) Given the premises the Lib Dems would actually seem quite a reasonable choice. Until you start second guessing the effects of the electoral system at least.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 17, 2019 19:05:04 GMT
Well I have to say "disaster" wins it for me every time. The inevitable bias in that article is that of course it very quickly dismisses the other options. (Not even naming Jo Swinson that's just "what's her name".) Given the premises the Lib Dems would actually seem quite a reasonable choice. Until you start second guessing the effects of the electoral system at least.That's the major policy I like about the LibDems. Yes they probably want PR for their own end but I don't think the current system is fair. In my constituency, my vote doesn't count because the result will be Tory. For that reason, I never have candidates or supporters coming round nor very few campaign literature. If I lived in a marginal, I would be the target of everyone and in votes which are on a knife edge, every vote really does count. In PR every vote unquestionably matters. I used to believe (as you possible do) that having PR would not be good because it encourages extremist parties as they take a few seats in parliament. Now I believe who are we to deny any voice and if such voices are considered beyond the pale by many, let them be called out for their beliefs in parliament. We must always put our trust in what we, the people, believe in and certainly not try to alter democratic systems as the result of a handful of "clever" people's second guesses.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 17, 2019 21:25:01 GMT
The inevitable bias in that article is that of course it very quickly dismisses the other options. (Not even naming Jo Swinson that's just "what's her name".) Given the premises the Lib Dems would actually seem quite a reasonable choice. Until you start second guessing the effects of the electoral system at least. That's the major policy I like about the LibDems. Yes they probably want PR for their own end but I don't think the current system is fair. In my constituency, my vote doesn't count because the result will be Tory. For that reason, I never have candidates or supporters coming round nor very few campaign literature. If I lived in a marginal, I would be the target of everyone and in votes which are on a knife edge, every vote really does count. In PR every vote unquestionably matters.
I used to believe (as you possible do) that having PR would not be good because it encourages extremist parties as they take a few seats in parliament. Now I believe who are we to deny any voice and if such voices are considered beyond the pale by many, let them be called out for their beliefs in parliament. We must always put our trust in what we, the people, believe in and certainly not try to alter democratic systems as the result of a handful of "clever" people's second guesses. Er..wasn't there a substantial majority against PR in a fairly recent referendum? Doesn't democracy count in that instance? The problem with PR in practise is that you get a multiplicity of parties in Parliament and no single party can form a government. The parties know this and knowing that they will not have to implement their manifestos they promise the earth. Then after the election a bunch of parties horse trade until a coalition is agreed and the coalition government puts in place a set of policies which not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. Democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind - with the exception of all the known alternatives. FPTP is the worst form of voting - with the exception of all the known alternatives.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 17, 2019 22:09:21 GMT
That's the major policy I like about the LibDems. Yes they probably want PR for their own end but I don't think the current system is fair. In my constituency, my vote doesn't count because the result will be Tory. For that reason, I never have candidates or supporters coming round nor very few campaign literature. If I lived in a marginal, I would be the target of everyone and in votes which are on a knife edge, every vote really does count. In PR every vote unquestionably matters.
I used to believe (as you possible do) that having PR would not be good because it encourages extremist parties as they take a few seats in parliament. Now I believe who are we to deny any voice and if such voices are considered beyond the pale by many, let them be called out for their beliefs in parliament. We must always put our trust in what we, the people, believe in and certainly not try to alter democratic systems as the result of a handful of "clever" people's second guesses. Er..wasn't there a substantial majority against PR in a fairly recent referendum? Doesn't democracy count in that instance? The problem with PR in practise is that you get a multiplicity of parties in Parliament and no single party can form a government. The parties know this and knowing that they will not have to implement their manifestos they promise the earth. Then after the election a bunch of parties horse trade until a coalition is agreed and the coalition government puts in place a set of policies which not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. Democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind - with the exception of all the known alternatives. FPTP is the worst form of voting - with the exception of all the known alternatives. Er..wasn't that for some convoluted AV type system? Your other point about horsetrading is a good one though.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 18, 2019 0:54:14 GMT
That's the major policy I like about the LibDems. Yes they probably want PR for their own end but I don't think the current system is fair. In my constituency, my vote doesn't count because the result will be Tory. For that reason, I never have candidates or supporters coming round nor very few campaign literature. If I lived in a marginal, I would be the target of everyone and in votes which are on a knife edge, every vote really does count. In PR every vote unquestionably matters.
I used to believe (as you possible do) that having PR would not be good because it encourages extremist parties as they take a few seats in parliament. Now I believe who are we to deny any voice and if such voices are considered beyond the pale by many, let them be called out for their beliefs in parliament. We must always put our trust in what we, the people, believe in and certainly not try to alter democratic systems as the result of a handful of "clever" people's second guesses. Er..wasn't there a substantial majority against PR in a fairly recent referendum? Doesn't democracy count in that instance? The problem with PR in practise is that you get a multiplicity of parties in Parliament and no single party can form a government. The parties know this and knowing that they will not have to implement their manifestos they promise the earth. Then after the election a bunch of parties horse trade until a coalition is agreed and the coalition government puts in place a set of policies which not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. Democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind - with the exception of all the known alternatives. FPTP is the worst form of voting - with the exception of all the known alternatives. Sorry, I have to disagree with this. In FPTP the majority of people get nothing of what they voted for - a minority gets everything they voted for. With a PR outcome as you describe it, a majority get some of what they voted for, a minority get nothing of what they voted for To me the latter is more democratic. In any event, PR just doesn't work how you describe it - which is why virtually everywhere other than Westminster, including the constituent parts of the UK, London, and the UKs Euro elections, doesn't use FPTP. The notable exception is the US, where winning 3 million more votes than your opponent still isn't enough to be elected as president.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,010
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 18, 2019 9:36:31 GMT
Er..wasn't there a substantial majority against PR in a fairly recent referendum? Doesn't democracy count in that instance? 68% vs 32%, on a turnout of just 42%. And that was for AV - a particular type of PR. PR is used in the UK already - for European elections, and for all three devolved regional assemblies - but none of them use AV... Coalition works very well indeed in many countries. It worked well here between 2010 and 2015. Situation normal, then. "Government tries to ram through something that's very different from what the electorate was promised". Sounds vaguely familiar... Anyway, why would parties collaborating to deliver as much of their own aims as possible be a bad thing? Surely collaboration is better than the negativity and conflict inherent in our current politics? FWIW, I'm not that against the concept of FPTP. The problem is that voters don't seem to understand how it works. We vote for the individual person to be our MP. No more, no less. We don't vote for the government, we don't vote for the PM. We have a short list of named individuals, and every single constituency gets the single most locally popular named individual as their rep in Westminster... Unfortunately, people don't look beyond the colour of the ribbon, so we all get a bunch of party-line yes-men parachuted in from central office. Half of them probably couldn't even find their constituency on a map without help. If people understood how their vote worked, and actually demanded candidates who were going to work for the constituency, then we'd get very different politics even under FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 18, 2019 10:11:34 GMT
Er..wasn't there a substantial majority against PR in a fairly recent referendum? Doesn't democracy count in that instance? 68% vs 32%, on a turnout of just 42%. And that was for AV - a particular type of PR. PR is used in the UK already - for European elections, and for all three devolved regional assemblies - but none of them use AV... Coalition works very well indeed in many countries. It worked well here between 2010 and 2015. "Government tries to ram through something that's very different from what the electorate was promised". Sounds vaguely familiar... Anyway, why would parties collaborating to deliver as much of their own aims as possible be a bad thing? Surely collaboration is better than the negativity and conflict inherent in our current politics? FWIW, I'm not that against the concept of FPTP. The problem is that voters don't seem to understand how it works. We vote for the individual person to be our MP. No more, no less. We don't vote for the government, we don't vote for the PM. We have a short list of named individuals, and every single constituency gets the single most locally popular named individual as their rep in Westminster... Unfortunately, people don't look beyond the colour of the ribbon, so we all get a bunch of party-line yes-men parachuted in from central office. Half of them probably couldn't even find their constituency on a map without help. If people understood how their vote worked, and actually demanded candidates who were going to work for the constituency, then we'd get very different politics even under FPTP. the assumption inherent in thinking the majority get some of their wishes is that it assumes everyone supports all of the policies of the party they voted for. In practice most people vote on a few issues that may get traded away.
Either you have special interest groups who have clear priorities (eg Scot Nats). fairer in one way in that supporters know what they will push for. Unfortunately they are not like referendums as their are often no clear alternatives for those NOT wanting this. So a Government implementing Indyref 2 are likely to be following the wishes of a minority when it is quite possible that the majority would have preferred no vote but whose votes went to parties whose interests are elsewhere (including other parties in the governing coalition). As a result voting for anyone who really cares about such issues (perhaps someone thinking that environmental issues should be secondary to economic implications - ie anti-greens) ends up having to vote based on comments on who promises not to be allied to the party pushing the opposite agenda. ie based on non-Manifesto political promises and we know how valuable they are!
I reiterate that the issue with coalitions is that they are inherently unstable when faced by difficult decisions that arise.
Finally, personally I believe that senior politicians are mostly interested in getting power over principles (or at best believe that they can justify concessions to get power as the country will be better with them involved in Government). As a result parties can move a long way from their avowed philosophies.
As for local politicians. I like the idea in principle, but it is difficult to pin them to policies as any promise is outside their power! maybe you like the American system of everyone obstructing commitments unless their local priorities are met eg appropriations bills which have no overall coherence!
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Nov 18, 2019 11:58:43 GMT
Never would vote Labour but something has to be done about BTOpenReach. It's effectively a private monopoly in vast swaths of the country which has been receiving huge subsidizes from the government. It's rollout of fibre has been way too slow and too expensive. It's decision to use FTTC and FTTP, rather than FTTDP has resulted in large parts of the country being left with FTTC or even ADSL which is simply not fit for purpose in the 21st century. It's crowded out competition from other non-fibre technologies in rural areas where it's clearly not economic to deliver fibre. Either BTOpenreach has to be nationalized or the market needs to be opened up. Allowing private monopolies to exist in an area which is vital to out future economy is not free market capitalism.
As for funding the nationalization, I see no issues at all. The government simply issues 50-year Gilts, current yield 1.17%. The government is being paid to borrow money from the market in real terms. So on the balance sheet it will have bought an asset, paying dividends, funding this purchase at a negative real rate of interest. Win-win.
stop being rational, as our PM says it's obviously a communist plot. Try Hull for a real monopoly, only KC can provide a landline or BB, and the prices are ridiculous Id create a company to install the fibre etc ie an infrastructure company rather than privatise openreach BT are rip off merchants, we were doing some work in conjunction with NHS the quote to us as a private company to install a dedicated fast BB Line £15000 the quote to the NHS FM people £25000 apart from the price the rest of the quote identical.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 18, 2019 13:28:45 GMT
The problem with PR in practise is that you get a multiplicity of parties in Parliament and no single party can form a government. Well, two out of the last three elections resulted in no overall majority even with the current system.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,010
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 18, 2019 17:57:18 GMT
The problem with PR in practise is that you get a multiplicity of parties in Parliament and no single party can form a government. Well, two out of the last three elections resulted in no overall majority even with the current system. ...and the third only just snuck in by 10 seats.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 19, 2019 11:22:04 GMT
But all 3 had a Government largely controlled by one party. If no party has the majority of tyjhe seats the dynamic is very different, especially where it takes more than 2 parties to form a Government IMHO
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,010
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 19, 2019 12:41:59 GMT
But all 3 had a Government largely controlled by one party. "Largely". Because 2017 resulted in a government only being formed through a confidence-and-supply agreement with another party. So that's two out of the three most recent governments that haven't been single-party.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 19, 2019 13:22:24 GMT
Interestingly, someone has asked on BBC why manifestos aren't legally binding & in amongst the 'expert' responses was one from a Finnish researcher who said that the UK was actually one of the best at keeping manifesto commitments due to the political system in operation. Make of that what you will or look up the actual research (About 30mins ago in section from Southampton)
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 20, 2019 18:30:04 GMT
Time for a good laugh tomorrow when Labour launch their bribery manual. sorry manifesto....
At yesterday’s debate he said “he was fully committed “ I agree he should be.
At least he supports British business..I guess he went to Spechsavers.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,010
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 21, 2019 14:55:52 GMT
Anyway, back to St Nige... He's trying to sue Led By Donkeys for infringing his copyright and intellectual property, by registering TheBrexitParty.com And the legal letter from his lawyers makes multiple references to how EU law is being breached... thebrexitparty.com/ for more details.
|
|