|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 13:58:15 GMT
Whats just my opinion? It's fact labour got a third of votes , 20% of the electorate , no mandate from the people , but fptp awarded them a disgraceful 64% of seats. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. most voting systems in the world award a proportionate amount of seats to votes cast. It's not the norm for a party to get a third of votes and 64% of seats disproportionately. So percentage of electorate within this context is not a red herring. Labour in a normal democracy should have got a third of seats to their third of votes, been the largest party , formed a coalition , and potentially become part of a coalition government via compromise to reflect the fact they couldnt convince the majority of the public to back them. They didnt , and wouldn't , because they knew the dodgy fptp system would reward their failure with power . |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 14:31:38 GMT
Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. most voting systems in the world award a proportionate amount of seats to votes cast. It's not the norm for a party to get a third of votes and 64% of seats disproportionately. So percentage of electorate within this context is not a red herring. Labour in a normal democracy should have got a third of seats to their third of votes, been the largest party , formed a coalition , and potentially become part of a coalition government via compromise to reflect the fact they couldnt convince the majority of the public to back them. They didnt , and wouldn't , because they knew the dodgy fptp system would reward their failure with power . I think you missed my point. It's percentage of the votes cast that is important, not percentage of the electorate. Anyone who has chosen not to vote makes themselves irrelevant for that election. No vote, no say. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 14:37:27 GMT
most voting systems in the world award a proportionate amount of seats to votes cast. It's not the norm for a party to get a third of votes and 64% of seats disproportionately. So percentage of electorate within this context is not a red herring. Labour in a normal democracy should have got a third of seats to their third of votes, been the largest party , formed a coalition , and potentially become part of a coalition government via compromise to reflect the fact they couldnt convince the majority of the public to back them. They didnt , and wouldn't , because they knew the dodgy fptp system would reward their failure with power . I think you missed my point. It's percentage of the votes cast that is important, not percentage of the electorate. Anyone who has chosen not to vote makes themselves irrelevant for that election. No vote, no say. I haven't missed your point as you are simply splitting hairs. There isnt any mass difference in the numbers we are talking about. Ive repeatedly said labour should have got a third of seats to match their third of vote share haven't I? you still aren't addressing the key point about the disproportionate amount of seats awarded to votes cast. Non voters are irrelevant to the nub of our discussion. you appear to be simply diverting. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 14:52:43 GMT
I think you missed my point. It's percentage of the votes cast that is important, not percentage of the electorate. Anyone who has chosen not to vote makes themselves irrelevant for that election. No vote, no say. I haven't missed your point as you are simply splitting hairs. There isnt any mass difference in the numbers we are talking about. Ive repeatedly said labour should have got a third of seats to match their third of vote share haven't I? you still aren't addressing the key point about the disproportionate amount of seats awarded to votes cast. Non voters are irrelevant to the nub of our discussion. you appear to be simply diverting. I agree with your point about the disproportionate seats distribution, the same as I did in 2019, hence why I didn't address that point. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 15:02:39 GMT
I haven't missed your point as you are simply splitting hairs. There isnt any mass difference in the numbers we are talking about. Ive repeatedly said labour should have got a third of seats to match their third of vote share haven't I? you still aren't addressing the key point about the disproportionate amount of seats awarded to votes cast. Non voters are irrelevant to the nub of our discussion. you appear to be simply diverting. I agree with your point about the disproportionate seats distribution, the same as I did in 2019, hence why I didn't address that point. what are we disagreeing on then? labour got twenty per cent of the electorate , but since many were so turned off voting such is the state of the two party system , barely 59% turned out ,lowest in modern history , and labour got a third of the voter turnout , but a disproportionate amount of seats. Why are non voters being brought into the equation as though you are making some sort of revelation? sorry Andrew , but again I point out it appears to be diversionary to the thrust of all I have been saying. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 15, 2024 7:24:45 GMT
Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. most voting systems in the world award a proportionate amount of seats to votes cast. It's not the norm for a party to get a third of votes and 64% of seats disproportionately. So percentage of electorate within this context is not a red herring. Labour in a normal democracy should have got a third of seats to their third of votes, been the largest party , formed a coalition , and potentially become part of a coalition government via compromise to reflect the fact they couldnt convince the majority of the public to back them. They didnt , and wouldn't , because they knew the dodgy fptp system would reward their failure with power . FPTP IS normal for the UK. It is how we do things in the UK so stop whinging. If you want a different system then work for it, whinging gets you nowhere. What is, is, its as simple as that. And the FACT is that Labour won the election. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2024 7:43:07 GMT
most voting systems in the world award a proportionate amount of seats to votes cast. It's not the norm for a party to get a third of votes and 64% of seats disproportionately. So percentage of electorate within this context is not a red herring. Labour in a normal democracy should have got a third of seats to their third of votes, been the largest party , formed a coalition , and potentially become part of a coalition government via compromise to reflect the fact they couldnt convince the majority of the public to back them. They didnt , and wouldn't , because they knew the dodgy fptp system would reward their failure with power . FPTP IS normal for the UK. It is how we do things in the UK so stop whinging. If you want a different system then work for it, whinging gets you nowhere. What is, is, its as simple as that. And the FACT is that Labour won the election. That is very true, however it would be an idiotic PM who did not consider the power of his mandate both in Parliament and in the country as a whole. He can take the house with him with the mandate there, the country is not so easy. Most PMs recognise this, some ignore it like Heath, some pander to it like Wilson but all know it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 15, 2024 8:01:55 GMT
FPTP IS normal for the UK. It is how we do things in the UK so stop whinging. If you want a different system then work for it, whinging gets you nowhere. What is, is, its as simple as that. And the FACT is that Labour won the election. That is very true, however it would be an idiotic PM who did not consider the power of his mandate both in Parliament and in the country as a whole. He can take the house with him with the mandate there, the country is not so easy. Most PMs recognise this, some ignore it like Heath, some pander to it like Wilson but all know it. IMO the apparent fact that Starmer's Labour is influenced by the New Labour government successes, is the important factor. While I don't expect the government to be perfect, it is intended to be a government that puts people and the country FIRST. That is what I expect, but we will just have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 15, 2024 12:58:44 GMT
Labour got a lot of seats with fewer votes . That’s all well and good but it will mean that the voters who put Labour into office because they were not Tories might well put the Tories back in because they are not Labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2024 14:22:02 GMT
That is very true, however it would be an idiotic PM who did not consider the power of his mandate both in Parliament and in the country as a whole. He can take the house with him with the mandate there, the country is not so easy. Most PMs recognise this, some ignore it like Heath, some pander to it like Wilson but all know it. IMO the apparent fact that Starmer's Labour is influenced by the New Labour government successes, is the important factor. While I don't expect the government to be perfect, it is intended to be a government that puts people and the country FIRST. That is what I expect, but we will just have to wait and see. Which people would he be putting first? I believe that British Citizens should come first, so far they have come a poor second as they have to move over and be taxed to support a huge array of people arriving from abroad and also those from abroad have in the main come in and taken the jobs at rates lower than British people would get. The system has been an absolute farce and the British Citizen and especially the British working man has trailed in the wake of vast amounts of cash thrown at new arrivals. It all needs fixing now, not after another 500,000 have arrived legally and another 50,000 illegally. What do Labour not understand about what the public want. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 15, 2024 15:04:01 GMT
IMO the apparent fact that Starmer's Labour is influenced by the New Labour government successes, is the important factor. While I don't expect the government to be perfect, it is intended to be a government that puts people and the country FIRST. That is what I expect, but we will just have to wait and see. Which people would he be putting first? I believe that British Citizens should come first, so far they have come a poor second as they have to move over and be taxed to support a huge array of people arriving from abroad and also those from abroad have in the main come in and taken the jobs at rates lower than British people would get. The system has been an absolute farce and the British Citizen and especially the British working man has trailed in the wake of vast amounts of cash thrown at new arrivals. It all needs fixing now, not after another 500,000 have arrived legally and another 50,000 illegally. What do Labour not understand about what the public want. The present system is IMO untenable and needs to be changed. But migrants who find work and who become entitled to be here are part of the people who I refer to. The present position where there is an apparently endless line of migrants are not the fault of any Party, Genuine asylum seekers are entitled to be here, that is the law the country has signed up to. I agree, the sooner its fixed the better, trouble is that no one has come up with a legal was of fixing it. And whinging about it certainly won't fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2024 16:21:38 GMT
Which people would he be putting first? I believe that British Citizens should come first, so far they have come a poor second as they have to move over and be taxed to support a huge array of people arriving from abroad and also those from abroad have in the main come in and taken the jobs at rates lower than British people would get. The system has been an absolute farce and the British Citizen and especially the British working man has trailed in the wake of vast amounts of cash thrown at new arrivals. It all needs fixing now, not after another 500,000 have arrived legally and another 50,000 illegally. What do Labour not understand about what the public want. The present system is IMO untenable and needs to be changed. But migrants who find work and who become entitled to be here are part of the people who I refer to. The present position where there is an apparently endless line of migrants are not the fault of any Party, Genuine asylum seekers are entitled to be here, that is the law the country has signed up to. I agree, the sooner its fixed the better, trouble is that no one has come up with a legal was of fixing it. And whinging about it certainly won't fix it. A 'genuine' asylum seeker will be more than happy to escape from whence he came and claim wherever he lands. The asylum system is being usurped and manipulated to allow a multitude of economic migrants, criminals and chancers to elbow their way in. Whingeing about is par for the course as we know it is legal loopholes, cynical lawyers and chancers that are taking us for a ride all in the guise of human rights. It could be fixed tomorrow and the fact it is not is indicative of the fact it is meant to happen and our government will not stop it through a multitude of excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 16, 2024 8:42:04 GMT
The present system is IMO untenable and needs to be changed. But migrants who find work and who become entitled to be here are part of the people who I refer to. The present position where there is an apparently endless line of migrants are not the fault of any Party, Genuine asylum seekers are entitled to be here, that is the law the country has signed up to. I agree, the sooner its fixed the better, trouble is that no one has come up with a legal was of fixing it. And whinging about it certainly won't fix it. A 'genuine' asylum seeker will be more than happy to escape from whence he came and claim wherever he lands. The asylum system is being usurped and manipulated to allow a multitude of economic migrants, criminals and chancers to elbow their way in. Whingeing about is par for the course as we know it is legal loopholes, cynical lawyers and chancers that are taking us for a ride all in the guise of human rights. It could be fixed tomorrow and the fact it is not is indicative of the fact it is meant to happen and our government will not stop it through a multitude of excuses. Asylum seekers will look for the best place for them to seek asylum, being able to speak the language is one of the main reasons for choice. Safety is another. Nonsense, it is impossible to determine who is a true asylum seeker and who is an economic migrant. That is part of the problem. An economic migrant would want to get registered and find a job so are probably better educated than most and a possible benefit to the UK. The Law is the Law, if you can't change it then don't be doing a Trump act by denigrating the law. Whinging happens when people are discontent but have no answers to the problems around them. While posters like yourself make excuses for whingers. If it could be "fixed tomorrow" it would have been fixed. Your opinions might help you to feel better but they certainly don't help to fix the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2024 9:54:10 GMT
A 'genuine' asylum seeker will be more than happy to escape from whence he came and claim wherever he lands. The asylum system is being usurped and manipulated to allow a multitude of economic migrants, criminals and chancers to elbow their way in. Whingeing about is par for the course as we know it is legal loopholes, cynical lawyers and chancers that are taking us for a ride all in the guise of human rights. It could be fixed tomorrow and the fact it is not is indicative of the fact it is meant to happen and our government will not stop it through a multitude of excuses. Asylum seekers will look for the best place for them to seek asylum, being able to speak the language is one of the main reasons for choice. Safety is another. Nonsense, it is impossible to determine who is a true asylum seeker and who is an economic migrant. That is part of the problem. An economic migrant would want to get registered and find a job so are probably better educated than most and a possible benefit to the UK. The Law is the Law, if you can't change it then don't be doing a Trump act by denigrating the law. Whinging happens when people are discontent but have no answers to the problems around them. While posters like yourself make excuses for whingers. If it could be "fixed tomorrow" it would have been fixed. Your opinions might help you to feel better but they certainly don't help to fix the problem. The law, the application of the law and the upholding of the law is something for the benefit of the citizens of the country within which that law applies and is a binding agreement with them and the government which they elect. International law is a binding agreement on governments in how to consider their own citizens and others in the wider world who happen upon their shore. The two are becoming increasingly incompatible as all laws and their application and enforcement depend on a consensus. So the law is never just the law so be it it has to be a consensus. That consensus for international law has been lost as those who arrive on our beaches are presented with protection of all aspects of the law whereas the ordinary British Citizen finds that the legal framework within which he expects to live is subject to a lack of application and enforcement. Even worse an increasing proportion of that breakdown in the law as applied at home is being brought about by many who land here illegally. These are observations of what is actually happening and in reality it could be fixed tomorrow if laws are applied without fear or favour and if International law allows the breaking of domestic law to go unpunished, which it does, then domestic law should take precedence. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 16, 2024 10:26:18 GMT
Asylum seekers will look for the best place for them to seek asylum, being able to speak the language is one of the main reasons for choice. Safety is another. Nonsense, it is impossible to determine who is a true asylum seeker and who is an economic migrant. That is part of the problem. An economic migrant would want to get registered and find a job so are probably better educated than most and a possible benefit to the UK. The Law is the Law, if you can't change it then don't be doing a Trump act by denigrating the law. Whinging happens when people are discontent but have no answers to the problems around them. While posters like yourself make excuses for whingers. If it could be "fixed tomorrow" it would have been fixed. Your opinions might help you to feel better but they certainly don't help to fix the problem. The law, the application of the law and the upholding of the law is something for the benefit of the citizens of the country within which that law applies and is a binding agreement with them and the government which they elect. International law is a binding agreement on governments in how to consider their own citizens and others in the wider world who happen upon their shore. The two are becoming increasingly incompatible as all laws and their application and enforcement depend on a consensus. So the law is never just the law so be it it has to be a consensus. That consensus for international law has been lost as those who arrive on our beaches are presented with protection of all aspects of the law whereas the ordinary British Citizen finds that the legal framework within which he expects to live is subject to a lack of application and enforcement. Even worse an increasing proportion of that breakdown in the law as applied at home is being brought about by many who land here illegally. These are observations of what is actually happening and in reality it could be fixed tomorrow if laws are applied without fear or favour and if International law allows the breaking of domestic law to go unpunished, which it does, then domestic law should take precedence. There is nothing new about the presence of illegal migrants. The law includes international law the UK has signed up to. So stop playing with words. Just dropping international law could make the way for more international political extremism. As there are very likely to be serious unseen consequences for the dropping of international law. The build up of objection to mass immigration regardless of cause, including by myself is taking place, with many people in many countries being understandably against it. BUT it is replacing present outdated laws with thought out and rationalised alternatives, that would need international cooperation and deep intense thinking about the way ahead that is the problem. In short there is no easy way out of the position countries find themselves in. Pointing out the problems caused by mass immigration, is just a whinge. Try coming up with a positive and legal way of sorting the problem out. Don't dismiss the unexpected consequences of drastic actions. |
|
