IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 18, 2021 17:58:48 GMT
The trouble is that all we are discussing is a method to choose our elite. Those who do not get the elite they want then go off and try and change the method of selection to get a different elite. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people saying I want a different mechanism when really they want a different result. Don't think this happens only at state level, but city, village council and club.
I am chair of 2 organisations and a member of one other.
The best of all of these is an organisation without constitution.... but I would not want that organisation to have control of the nuclear button.
The most stressful is one with 15 different governing documents.... I would not want that organisation to have the nuclear button either.
The more energy that goes into the rules the less energy goes into getting things done
Given the climate change crisis I think you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Disagree I don't want a different result per se - I argued strongly for PR even when a government closer to my views was in power via the old method. I argued that UKIP (obviously a complete anathema to me) should have representation when people said that it was great that First Past the Post kept them out of Parliament. It isn't the result that I dislike, its the unrepresentativeness and the subsequent polarisation of politics and the alienation of voters who aren't represented.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 18, 2021 18:01:09 GMT
'Overwhelming' victory 35 / 150 cracking - time for a schmoke That's the point (not the schmoking, though that may help) it WAS a clear victory, they will lead the government, they have led the three previous governments, and the government will be representative of who people voted for. Our partisan, polarised system is the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 18, 2021 18:57:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 18, 2021 19:27:08 GMT
The trouble is that all we are discussing is a method to choose our elite. Those who do not get the elite they want then go off and try and change the method of selection to get a different elite. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people saying I want a different mechanism when really they want a different result. Don't think this happens only at state level, but city, village council and club.
I am chair of 2 organisations and a member of one other.
The best of all of these is an organisation without constitution.... but I would not want that organisation to have control of the nuclear button.
The most stressful is one with 15 different governing documents.... I would not want that organisation to have the nuclear button either.
The more energy that goes into the rules the less energy goes into getting things done
Given the climate change crisis I think you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Disagree I don't want a different result per se - I argued strongly for PR even when a government closer to my views was in power via the old method. I argued that UKIP (obviously a complete anathema to me) should have representation when people said that it was great that First Past the Post kept them out of Parliament. It isn't the result that I dislike, its the unrepresentativeness and the subsequent polarisation of politics and the alienation of voters who aren't represented. Ditto. The current system is outdated. Not hard to guess why they don't want to change it... As for the bold - the elite is elite, there aren't two elites.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 18, 2021 23:56:59 GMT
This thread made me think. The advantage of PR is that over time, as society changes, the proliferation of parties with a chance of getting a foothold in parliament leads to looser voter affiliation with a single party, and changing values and opinions lead to some once dominant parties falling away. The Christian Democrats and PvdA (Party of the Workers = roughly like the Labour Party of GB) used to alternate power in the 1980s, but are now also rans to a Liberal (Free trade-business) party, the socially liberal D66 and the right wing party of Geert Wilders. you can be sure that in 20 years time, the political picture will be different again
The same cannot be said for the frozen in aspic parties of the UK. Nothing will change because these two parties have the power to make sure that it doesn't. The gradual reshaping of politics by PR can only be a good thing, bringing in new people, fresh ideas, and avoiding the problem that a party anchored in power for decades has, of political influence from wealthy outsiders insidiously corrupting the party. And the problem of an opposition party that has run out of ideas, frozen in time but unwilling to accept that the millions who vote for the Greens or UKIP successor party should have any chance of being represented in parliament.
As i'm writing this political essay and haven't finished this glass of whisky (blended, I'm afraid), I would like to deal with the point made earlier that it takes PR countries longer to form governments after elections. This is a fact, but not of fundamental importance. All these countries have power much more devolved to regional and local levels. A caretaker government, essentially the previous government remains in place and carries out the basic functions of the federal government. But the role of federal government is much more limited in scope than in the UK. Foreign affairs, defence, budget. Local government is much more important with really lively elections for councils, because these really matter and the local politicians really have the power and budget to shape the local communities.
England needs a new constitutional settlement because the 'elected dictatorship' model has run its course and these current politicians are out of ideas and practically assured of re-election. Not only that, but the government in power has had its MPs vote to deny themselves oversight of the governments future actions and agreements, creating a situation where the cabinet is being handed extraordinary powers to make decisions unchallengeable by parliament. And who will put a stop to that? Hands up who is feeling inspired by Kier Starmer and Labour's new ideas? Hands up if you think they will still be the second biggest party after the next election?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 19, 2021 8:08:08 GMT
This thread made me think. The advantage of PR is that over time, as society changes, the proliferation of parties with a chance of getting a foothold in parliament leads to looser voter affiliation with a single party, and changing values and opinions lead to some once dominant parties falling away. The Christian Democrats and PvdA (Party of the Workers = roughly like the Labour Party of GB) used to alternate power in the 1980s, but are now also rans to a Liberal (Free trade-business) party, the socially liberal D66 and the right wing party of Geert Wilders. you can be sure that in 20 years time, the political picture will be different again The same cannot be said for the frozen in aspic parties of the UK. Nothing will change because these two parties have the power to make sure that it doesn't. The gradual reshaping of politics by PR can only be a good thing, bringing in new people, fresh ideas, and avoiding the problem that a party anchored in power for decades has, of political influence from wealthy outsiders insidiously corrupting the party. And the problem of an opposition party that has run out of ideas, frozen in time but unwilling to accept that the millions who vote for the Greens or UKIP successor party should have any chance of being represented in parliament. As i'm writing this political essay and haven't finished this glass of whisky (blended, I'm afraid), I would like to deal with the point made earlier that it takes PR countries longer to form governments after elections. This is a fact, but not of fundamental importance. All these countries have power much more devolved to regional and local levels. A caretaker government, essentially the previous government remains in place and carries out the basic functions of the federal government. But the role of federal government is much more limited in scope than in the UK. Foreign affairs, defence, budget. Local government is much more important with really lively elections for councils, because these really matter and the local politicians really have the power and budget to shape the local communities. England needs a new constitutional settlement because the 'elected dictatorship' model has run its course and these current politicians are out of ideas and practically assured of re-election. Not only that, but the government in power has had its MPs vote to deny themselves oversight of the governments future actions and agreements, creating a situation where the cabinet is being handed extraordinary powers to make decisions unchallengeable by parliament. And who will put a stop to that? Hands up who is feeling inspired by Kier Starmer and Labour's new ideas? Hands up if you think they will still be the second biggest party after the next election? Blended whisky you say?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993 
Likes: 5,134
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 19, 2021 9:25:26 GMT
The trouble is that all we are discussing is a method to choose our elite. Those who do not get the elite they want then go off and try and change the method of selection to get a different elite. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people saying I want a different mechanism when really they want a different result. Don't think this happens only at state level, but city, village council and club. I am chair of 2 organisations and a member of one other. The best of all of these is an organisation without constitution.... but I would not want that organisation to have control of the nuclear button.
The most stressful is one with 15 different governing documents.... I would not want that organisation to have the nuclear button either. The more energy that goes into the rules the less energy goes into getting things done Given the climate change crisis I think you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Yet none of those carping ever want to step forward and do anything themselves... It's always somebody else who should do it for them... Then they go and vote for the incumbents to have another five years. Disagree I don't want a different result per se - I argued strongly for PR even when a government closer to my views was in power via the old method. I argued that UKIP (obviously a complete anathema to me) should have representation when people said that it was great that First Past the Post kept them out of Parliament. It isn't the result that I dislike, its the unrepresentativeness and the subsequent polarisation of politics and the alienation of voters who aren't represented. Yet every single constituency in the country is represented by the single most locally popular candidate. There's a direct 1:1 between "my home area" and "my MP". For me, the biggest problem with FPTP is that people don't vote for the actual candidates. They simply don't look beyond the colour of the ribbon. That inevitably and demonstrably then means that we get idiot yes-men spending their entire lives doing no more than keeping a back-bench warm (occasionally, if they cba to turn up) and add a +1 to their party leadership when told. Unless, of course, you happen to get a central party apparatchik on the up, who probably couldn't have located the constituency to within 50 miles if handed a map before their selection. "I'm voting for [Boris/Corbyn/Farage]". No, you aren't. You don't live in their constituency. You're voting for THAT PERSON, the one whose name you just put an X next to. You say you're thinking about local residents and farmers and workers, then you vote for the PR person from the city you've only been to twice in your live and profess to loathe. You say you hate "career politicians" and want more support for local businesses, then you vote for a career politician who's never had a "proper job" in their life, rather than for the person who's built a successful business up ten miles away and lived in the area all their life. You've spent the last five years bemoaning at every opportunity... then you go and vote for the exact same person to have another five years doing exactly the same...
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,379
Likes: 2,782
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 19, 2021 9:41:38 GMT
The trouble is that all we are discussing is a method to choose our elite. Those who do not get the elite they want then go off and try and change the method of selection to get a different elite. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people saying I want a different mechanism when really they want a different result. Don't think this happens only at state level, but city, village council and club. I am chair of 2 organisations and a member of one other. The best of all of these is an organisation without constitution.... but I would not want that organisation to have control of the nuclear button.
The most stressful is one with 15 different governing documents.... I would not want that organisation to have the nuclear button either. The more energy that goes into the rules the less energy goes into getting things done Given the climate change crisis I think you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Yet none of those carping ever want to step forward and do anything themselves... It's always somebody else who should do it for them... Then they go and vote for the incumbents to have another five years. Disagree I don't want a different result per se - I argued strongly for PR even when a government closer to my views was in power via the old method. I argued that UKIP (obviously a complete anathema to me) should have representation when people said that it was great that First Past the Post kept them out of Parliament. It isn't the result that I dislike, its the unrepresentativeness and the subsequent polarisation of politics and the alienation of voters who aren't represented. Yet every single constituency in the country is represented by the single most locally popular candidate. There's a direct 1:1 between "my home area" and "my MP". For me, the biggest problem with FPTP is that people don't vote for the actual candidates. They simply don't look beyond the colour of the ribbon. That inevitably and demonstrably then means that we get idiot yes-men spending their entire lives doing no more than keeping a back-bench warm (occasionally, if they cba to turn up) and add a +1 to their party leadership when told. Unless, of course, you happen to get a central party apparatchik on the up, who probably couldn't have located the constituency to within 50 miles if handed a map before their selection. "I'm voting for [Boris/Corbyn/Farage]". No, you aren't. You don't live in their constituency. You're voting for THAT PERSON, the one whose name you just put an X next to. You say you're thinking about local residents and farmers and workers, then you vote for the PR person from the city you've only been to twice in your live and profess to loathe. You say you hate "career politicians" and want more support for local businesses, then you vote for a career politician who's never had a "proper job" in their life, rather than for the person who's built a successful business up ten miles away and lived in the area all their life. You've spent the last five years bemoaning at every opportunity... then you go and vote for the exact same person to have another five years doing exactly the same... I remember being taught some random subject at college by a very odd vicar, who recommended voting for the opposition to keep democracy strong. When in doubt I have done that. He also recommended learning esperanto I didn't do that.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 19, 2021 12:53:27 GMT
The trouble is that all we are discussing is a method to choose our elite. Those who do not get the elite they want then go off and try and change the method of selection to get a different elite. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people saying I want a different mechanism when really they want a different result. Don't think this happens only at state level, but city, village council and club. I am chair of 2 organisations and a member of one other. The best of all of these is an organisation without constitution.... but I would not want that organisation to have control of the nuclear button.
The most stressful is one with 15 different governing documents.... I would not want that organisation to have the nuclear button either. The more energy that goes into the rules the less energy goes into getting things done Given the climate change crisis I think you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Yet none of those carping ever want to step forward and do anything themselves... It's always somebody else who should do it for them... Then they go and vote for the incumbents to have another five years. Disagree I don't want a different result per se - I argued strongly for PR even when a government closer to my views was in power via the old method. I argued that UKIP (obviously a complete anathema to me) should have representation when people said that it was great that First Past the Post kept them out of Parliament. It isn't the result that I dislike, its the unrepresentativeness and the subsequent polarisation of politics and the alienation of voters who aren't represented. Yet every single constituency in the country is represented by the single most locally popular candidate. There's a direct 1:1 between "my home area" and "my MP". For me, the biggest problem with FPTP is that people don't vote for the actual candidates. They simply don't look beyond the colour of the ribbon. That inevitably and demonstrably then means that we get idiot yes-men spending their entire lives doing no more than keeping a back-bench warm (occasionally, if they cba to turn up) and add a +1 to their party leadership when told. Unless, of course, you happen to get a central party apparatchik on the up, who probably couldn't have located the constituency to within 50 miles if handed a map before their selection. "I'm voting for [Boris/Corbyn/Farage]". No, you aren't. You don't live in their constituency. You're voting for THAT PERSON, the one whose name you just put an X next to. You say you're thinking about local residents and farmers and workers, then you vote for the PR person from the city you've only been to twice in your live and profess to loathe. You say you hate "career politicians" and want more support for local businesses, then you vote for a career politician who's never had a "proper job" in their life, rather than for the person who's built a successful business up ten miles away and lived in the area all their life. You've spent the last five years bemoaning at every opportunity... then you go and vote for the exact same person to have another five years doing exactly the same... Quite. Hence a system that gives you constituency vote (for a person, ideally with preferential voting as you might indeed have an order of preference for the person who will be your local MP) and an additional party vote (for a proportional top up - like Scotland, or the Jenkins Commission proposed for Westminster) is ideal to sort that issue out. You can then vote for a decent MP even if they aren't your preferred party whilst ensuring separately you can vote for your preferred party. EDIT: this is also the system for the London Assembly - at least until Pritti Patel and the Tories get their way to go back to first past the post.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,620
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Mar 19, 2021 14:11:04 GMT
adriancand with too much written into the constitution you end up with a farce, a la the Handforth Parish council fiasco where the next meeting spent more time discussing if they could discuss things, and people saying the constitution doesn't allow ... The issue with the Dutch system as I see it is that any party gaining more votes as a percentage than the total number of votes cast divided by the number of MPs gains one seat. In the UK this would give the Lib Dems and Greens more seats ( which is probably a good thing in democratic terms ) but would lead to the odious BNP etc getting seats. Personally I think maybe a combination system 2/3 elected on first past the post the other 1/3 on regional lists. I also think MPs should be more accountable to the electorate. Perhaps like Switzerland we should offer the public more referendums ( or is it referenda ).
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 19, 2021 16:37:01 GMT
adrianc and with too much written into the constitution you end up with a farce, a la the Handforth Parish council fiasco where the next meeting spent more time discussing if they could discuss things, and people saying the constitution doesn't allow ... The issue with the Dutch system as I see it is that any party gaining more votes as a percentage than the total number of votes cast divided by the number of MPs gains one seat. In the UK this would give the Lib Dems and Greens more seats ( which is probably a good thing in democratic terms ) but would lead to the odious BNP etc getting seats. Personally I think maybe a combination system 2/3 elected on first past the post the other 1/3 on regional lists. I also think MPs should be more accountable to the electorate. Perhaps like Switzerland we should offer the public more referendums ( or is it referenda ). I agree with this, but I can't let it pass that it 'would lead to the odious BNP etc getting seats'. If people voted for them in enough numbers, it is not right to refuse those voters representation. In practice, far right parties struggle to get much traction in PR systems. Usually a mid-right party steals their wind by moving right a bit towards their territory to gain enough of their voters, as Geeert Wilders' party did to the wonderfully named 'Centrum Democraten' - the Centre Democrats, and the Belgian NVA did to Vlaams Belang. And indeed, as the Tories did to UKIP. But the point remains, you can't say 'it would be good to have a system that gave the Lib Dems and Greens representation matching their vote but not X party you don't like. www.statista.com/statistics/1222604/dutch-general-election-results/Wouldn't you all have liked to choose between this array of parties? Although looking at the results, the Labour Party and the Socialist Party, and the Greens and the Party for the Animals should have a talk with each other. Actually, I love it that the Party for the Animals has eaten the Greens vote. www.partijvoordedieren.nl/ Go animals!
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Mar 19, 2021 17:06:49 GMT
I agree with this, but I can't let it pass that it 'would lead to the odious BNP etc getting seats'. If people voted for them in enough numbers, it is not right to refuse those voters representation. Totally agree with that. I'm also not sure it's a bad thing for such parties to get a seat in parliament amongst many other political viewpoints. Several small parties with only a single MP wouldn't have much power to further their more extreme goals but they might make an impact where they agree with other small parties (Just imagine if you had a far right party, a communist party and a party for sharia law all voting together against the likes of the Tories/Labour - that could lead to interesting debates!)
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,620
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Mar 19, 2021 17:33:36 GMT
I suppose PR is a slightly dodgy issue
given that lets say on average the Tories and Labour each win 35% of the votes cast then then would get 35% of the seats, at the moment Labour and the Lib Dems would back PR cos they would be stronger in parliament and the Tories would oppose it, but would we have PR down to a country level, otherwise the SNP and Plaid are not going to vote for something that wipes them out.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 19, 2021 18:22:08 GMT
I suppose PR is a slightly dodgy issue given that lets say on average the Tories and Labour each win 35% of the votes cast then then would get 35% of the seats, at the moment Labour and the Lib Dems would back PR cos they would be stronger in parliament and the Tories would oppose it, but would we have PR down to a country level, otherwise the SNP and Plaid are not going to vote for something that wipes them out. We already have PR in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and (previously) the European Elections. We don't have it for Westminster or local elections.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 19, 2021 18:26:54 GMT
adrianc and with too much written into the constitution you end up with a farce, a la the Handforth Parish council fiasco where the next meeting spent more time discussing if they could discuss things, and people saying the constitution doesn't allow ... The issue with the Dutch system as I see it is that any party gaining more votes as a percentage than the total number of votes cast divided by the number of MPs gains one seat. In the UK this would give the Lib Dems and Greens more seats ( which is probably a good thing in democratic terms ) but would lead to the odious BNP etc getting seats. Personally I think maybe a combination system 2/3 elected on first past the post the other 1/3 on regional lists. I also think MPs should be more accountable to the electorate. Perhaps like Switzerland we should offer the public more referendums ( or is it referenda ). Which is more or less what the Jenkins Commission recommended in 1998 - 500 constituency seats and 150 top up proportional seats. The Labour government implemented something similar in Scotland and decided to see how it worked in practice with a plan to come back to it for Westminster, but never got around to it due to a) the fact they were winning landslide majorities on the old system and b) dinosaurs in the party like Jack Straw and John Prescott. Then it was too late and here we are, with the Tories trying to gerrymander the system and reintroduce first past the post.
|
|
