|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 17, 2023 17:26:43 GMT
Unless I have the wrong end of the stick (which is entirely possible!), supporters of PR mean Preferential voting? Well, there is an even fairer (arguably) and more "accurate" system, and it's called Proportional voting. Google it. Under the moste excellente educatione I received in Oz in my formative years, the Proportional System was thoroughly explained to us and even then (age 13 or so) it made an impact and total sense to me. I also understand (and the knowledgeable on here will again correct me if I'm wrong) that designing a fair, reasonable, representative and accurate Voting System is nigh impossible, it's a challenge that mathematicians have been trying to come up with a solution since the dawn of democracy. PR is normally understood to mean Proportional Representation. that is true - but when the term "Proportional Representation" is used here in the UK, it tends to refer to any system other the FPTP that has some element to it which makes it more proportional than the system we have. In some minds that might even include some element of transferable vote ("preferential voting"). At least I would tend to view the term that way so I suspect others might as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 17, 2023 19:47:17 GMT
Sheer madness when it's projected to cost £100m and you've already overspent your budget by £900m. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66438471Assuming, for simplicity, 65m UK population, Westminster's 650 MPs administer the country at 1 MP per 100,000 people. By that measure, the 3 million population of Wales requires 30 Senedd members. We have 60, but apparently that still isn't enough and we really need 96... That is just the problem of all public spending in the UK. It's decided in Westminster what should be doled out to the regions and devolved governments by some bean counters making guesses. Because taxes are not high enough to properly fund anything except apparently pensions, nothing is funded adequately. As the linked article say WRT the budget deficit in Wales, Recent pay rises announced for teachers, and doctors in England did not trigger extra funds for Mark Drakeford's administration, meaning the money for pay deals in Wales also have to be found from elsewhere in Welsh government's funds.
Not sure we can trust that italicized comment at face value, because the Barnett formula should take it into account in due course. From Wikipedia: "Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments".
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,545
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 17, 2023 21:39:26 GMT
That is just the problem of all public spending in the UK. It's decided in Westminster what should be doled out to the regions and devolved governments by some bean counters making guesses. Because taxes are not high enough to properly fund anything except apparently pensions, nothing is funded adequately. As the linked article say WRT the budget deficit in Wales, Recent pay rises announced for teachers, and doctors in England did not trigger extra funds for Mark Drakeford's administration, meaning the money for pay deals in Wales also have to be found from elsewhere in Welsh government's funds.
Not sure we can trust that italicized comment at face value, because the Barnett formula should take it into account in due course. From Wikipedia: "Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments". It may be correct as from what I can see the pay rises are coming out of existing dept budgets so no additional funding in England won't require a BF uplift for Wales. That said funding still seems to be being determined so any extra funding for Wales won't be known until that is complete ... I would assume autumn statement will clarify all
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 18, 2023 6:15:34 GMT
Not sure we can trust that italicized comment at face value, because the Barnett formula should take it into account in due course. From Wikipedia: "Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments". It may be correct as from what I can see the pay rises are coming out of existing dept budgets so no additional funding in England won't require a BF uplift for Wales. That said funding still seems to be being determined so any extra funding for Wales won't be known until that is complete ... I would assume autumn statement will clarify all my recollection is that it was announced at the time that there was no new money for the pay rises in England. However, when I looked yesterday there appeared to be historic calls for more new money to be provided, so I'm not clear what the final outcome was.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Aug 18, 2023 11:24:11 GMT
Formulites, evidence would appear to sugest that the powers that be are watching this site and we may have influence. Since my fire comments above the latest photos of the barge indicate 3 gang planks to 3 different deck levels. Does Westminster callas a special adviser , Of course I was planning to spend more time with my family but should the nation call whom I am I to refuse. The pay ,the pension terms, future payed lecture tours.  Yes please |
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Aug 18, 2023 12:47:30 GMT
Formulites, evidence would appear to sugest that the powers that be are watching this site and we may have influence. Since my fire comments above the latest photos of the barge indicate 3 gang planks to 3 different deck levels. Does Westminster callas a special adviser , Of course I was planning to spend more time with my family but should the nation call whom I am I to refuse. The pay ,the pension terms, future payed lecture tours. Yes please can I be your driver...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,545
|
The barge
Aug 18, 2023 17:11:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by ilmoro on Aug 18, 2023 17:11:32 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 19, 2023 8:36:35 GMT
I can't get too excited about the concept of the barge for temporary accommodation - so long as all relevant safety and space standards are met. Therein lies the entire rub. This is a tale of entrenched and long-standing incompetence by the government. No more, no less. All the factors often quoted come back to that government incompetence. Inadequate public services. Government incompetence. Crime figures. Government incompetence. Social cohesion issues. Government incompetence. Ex-military mental health and street homelessness. Government incompetence. Housing crisis. Government incompetence. Because of the government incompetence in processing - or, rather, not - asylum claims, there is a massive need for accommodation to fulfil the government's basic obligations under international law and treaties. Every other potential source has been commandeered already. And, of course, this government being this government, there's bungs for the boys in it all. Various party donors and friends are making money hand-over-fist. Here in the 'shire, there's OUTRAGE! over two hotels having been taken over by Serco for housing those in the asylum processing queue. Both were of poor quality. One was previously in use as accommodation for the homeless, the other due for closure and demolition. Between the two, there's probably about 200 people going to be housed, leaving the county's proportion way below the national average. All the usual tropes are being thrown around, of course. As for this... The processing time is surely the root cause here. Would having adequate resources not be cheaper than the cost to accommodate migrants in hotels up and down the UK. Political parties really need to get a grip on this and pronto. I can see it becoming a hot topic(again)come the next election. Quicker processing might discourage further landings and a strict processing criteria would send a message the UK is not a soft touch. Slower processing, increasing the backlog, is the government aim. Having vast amounts of unprocessed asylum seekers is supposed to be a visible warning to others. Increase the sense of crisis. It plays well with the base. ...it raises some interesting questions. The government's defence to accusations of incompetence is that it's actually deliberate indolence? Wow. If processing claims faster did encourage people, is that not because those people believe they have genuine claims? If they do, then they are genuine refugees. We have an international legal obligation to them, via a variety of UN treaties going back many decades. Those treaties set the criteria for defining whether a claim is genuine or not. If we are concerned about the number of non-genuine claims, then processing quickly is surely a GOOD thing, because that enables those who fail to prove their case to be removed back to their safe home countries. Remember, the UK has always received far fewer asylum claims than other countries, per capita. If the government really want to stop the small boats, they simply need to establish safe and legal routes to apply to this country for asylum, and process the claims quickly. The UK is not "full". The population density across the entire country is 280 people/km 2. NL is 520. Belgium is 380. Japan is 340. Germany is 240, Switzerland 220, Italy 200. The local authority area of the UK nearest the average density is leafy commuterbelt Horsham. Many of the UK's most expensive and desirable areas are FAR denser than that average - nearly 70 of the 300+ local authorities have densities more than 10x the national average, only 80-odd are lower than the average. Even if it was, that's an argument - surely - against sending people to Rwanda... 570/km 2 - almost exactly twice the UK's density. But population change is not just asylum. 90,000 people applied for asylum last year. Net migration was over 600,000 - the difference, of course, being those who had visas issued by the UK government, or were returning UK nationals. The population of the country increased by about 250,000. Yes, that's lower than migration - because the population excluding migrants fell. 350,000 more people died here than were born here. Now think about the demographic curve involved in that... Working age versus pension age, how those pensions are going to get paid, and who's going to provide care for the elderly... |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 19, 2023 9:43:32 GMT
that is true - but when the term "Proportional Representation" is used here in the UK, it tends to refer to any system other the FPTP that has some element to it which makes it more proportional than the system we have. In some minds that might even include some element of transferable vote ("preferential voting"). At least I would tend to view the term that way so I suspect others might as well. While FPTP has its (major!) issues, the big benefit is direct constituency representation. Your MP might have only received the vote of ~30% of his constituents, but their job is to argue the corner of 100% of them. Any alternative voting method needs to keep that. Some kind of constituency-level STV may well work well. It wouldn't change the results in many current safe seats, though, including mine (52-63% of the vote for the incumbent in each of the last four elections, 37-45% of the electorate) - but, of course, the simple fact is that the incumbent may be a useless party-yes-man backbench-warmer who probably couldn't find most of his constituency on a map, but he is the preferred candidate for most of those who could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote. Even if his only attractive quality is the colour of his ribbon...
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Aug 19, 2023 9:44:36 GMT
Have a hundred upvotes. EDIT: The one on immigration / asylum / population density / housing / comprehensive government incompetence.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Aug 19, 2023 11:21:51 GMT
that is true - but when the term "Proportional Representation" is used here in the UK, it tends to refer to any system other the FPTP that has some element to it which makes it more proportional than the system we have. In some minds that might even include some element of transferable vote ("preferential voting"). At least I would tend to view the term that way so I suspect others might as well. While FPTP has its (major!) issues, the big benefit is direct constituency representation. Your MP might have only received the vote of ~30% of his constituents, but their job is to argue the corner of 100% of them. Any alternative voting method needs to keep that. Some kind of constituency-level STV may well work well. It wouldn't change the results in many current safe seats, though, including mine (52-63% of the vote for the incumbent in each of the last four elections, 37-45% of the electorate) - but, of course, the simple fact is that the incumbent may be a useless party-yes-man backbench-warmer who probably couldn't find most of his constituency on a map, but he is the preferred candidate for most of those who could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote. Even if his only attractive quality is the colour of his ribbon... are you saying as I think you are that in some places if you painted a Pig Blue and put it up as a conservative candidate, and here in Wales you dye a sheep red and put it up as Labour candidate they would get in, not because of their ability merely because they have the right party affiliation. I have to say I'm in total agreement, and perhaps too few of us consider the candidate rather than the Party. I posted elsewhere or maybe even on this thread that at the last local election I voted Labour as I knew that it was the only way to remove the incompetent incumbent independents. I have a leaning towards some green policies, however at the last WG election the green candidate came across as a complete numpty, even tried to tell me that solar could supply all my energy needs in December and January, when my roof faces East/West couldn't get her to accept the truth even when I have the figures that show I can get as little as 50kWh in the month. I personally can't vote for someone who really doesn't understand what they are campaigning for
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 19, 2023 11:54:41 GMT
While FPTP has its (major!) issues, the big benefit is direct constituency representation. Your MP might have only received the vote of ~30% of his constituents, but their job is to argue the corner of 100% of them. Any alternative voting method needs to keep that. Some kind of constituency-level STV may well work well. It wouldn't change the results in many current safe seats, though, including mine (52-63% of the vote for the incumbent in each of the last four elections, 37-45% of the electorate) - but, of course, the simple fact is that the incumbent may be a useless party-yes-man backbench-warmer who probably couldn't find most of his constituency on a map, but he is the preferred candidate for most of those who could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote. Even if his only attractive quality is the colour of his ribbon... are you saying as I think you are that in some places if you painted a Pig Blue and put it up as a conservative candidate, and here in Wales you dye a sheep red and put it up as Labour candidate they would get in, not because of their ability merely because they have the right party affiliation. Yes, absolutely. "Perhaps"? The vote counts to the person. Not the party, certainly not the party leader, but the individual named on the ballot paper. If that person changes party, they remain MP.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Aug 19, 2023 12:02:59 GMT
And therein lies the problem with the party list part of proportional representation. No top echelon of a political party is going to want independent original people anywhere on there preferred lists, sheep and pigs every time thanks ,the dumber and compliant the better.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 19, 2023 12:04:01 GMT
And therein lies the problem with the party list part of proportional representation. No top echelon of a political party is going to want independent original people anywhere on there preferred lists, sheep and pigs every time thanks ,the dumber and compliant the better. Well, quite. Vote for the colour of the ribbon, multiplied.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Aug 19, 2023 13:53:08 GMT
"Perhaps"? The vote counts to the person. Not the party, certainly not the party leader, but the individual named on the ballot paper. If that person changes party, they remain MP. and yet I know people "up North" who voted Conservative last time because they wanted Boris as PM rather than Corbyn. they don't seem to understand that they vote for the local MP it is only those in the constituency of Boris who got to choose if he became their MP let alone PM. And therein lies the problem with the party list part of proportional representation. No top echelon of a political party is going to want independent original people anywhere on there preferred lists, sheep and pigs every time thanks ,the dumber and compliant the better. and so we get a dumbed down parliament ye Gods it does feel more and more like Blackadder
|
|
Yes please 