|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 10, 2024 9:22:29 GMT
Votes lost by the Tories this year: 7,139,140 Votes lost by Labour this year: 591,257 Votes lost by the Lib Dems this year: 177,220 Votes lost by the SNP this year: 517,622 Votes gained by the Greens this year: 1,077,558 Votes gained by Reform (formerly the Brexit Party): 3,472,964
It's not just the effect of Reform splitting the Tory vote, a lot of voters (3.8 million) simply stayed home and who could blame them?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2024 10:52:47 GMT
An inevitable feature of FPTP disenfranchising large numbers of voters.
If voting is a waste of time, why bother?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 16:24:48 GMT
An inevitable feature of FPTP disenfranchising large numbers of voters. If voting is a waste of time, why bother? Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. PR will lead to the legitimisation of extremist parties who do not act in the interests of society. The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany can be directly attributed to the use of a PR system. Supporters of PR say this could never happen again, but why not? With PR of course it could. Many people in Germany insist AfD are far right, yet the only reason AfD are the second largest party in the German government is because of PR. PR also gives excessive power to party elites who control and manipulate the political agenda. A candidates success depends on party lists, therefor a candidates success depends upon their ability to curry favour with party officials rather than constituents. PR encourages a disconnect between MP and voters. It encourages coalitions often three or four way coalitions that spend years arguing, and is the death of strong majority governments. If someone cant be bothered to vote, the voting system becomes irrelevant. The trick is to encourage people to vote, not to change the entire voting system in the vain hope that a new system may be encouragement enough. I rest my case.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 10, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
An inevitable feature of FPTP disenfranchising large numbers of voters. If voting is a waste of time, why bother? Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. ... I rest my case. Codswallop.
FPTP does not guarantee any more connection with constituents than PR does.
What sort of connection do you think Sunak has with the voters in his North Yorkshire constituency, or indeed do any of the other ethnic parachuted into safe seats by all the Old Gang parties? Not to mention the all-female shortlists that were introduced as a 'temporary' measure to enhance diversity but now appear anything but temporary?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2024 16:56:26 GMT
Much of your post is nonsense Red. But if you are happy to have a sensible conversation I am interested in why you want “strong majority government” even for a government that commands only a little over one third support from the electorate. Effectively once a majority gets above say 30, the Government can do whatever it likes. There may be some noise in the HoC for a short time. The HoL May play ping pong for a week or two but eventually the law will pass, all on the whim of one person, the PM.
That may be fine if the PM is always right but he or she is only human and will sometimes get it wrong.
Why do you prefer a five year dictatorship over a system that (unless the electorate gives a party a majority of votes) means that new laws will be scrutinized and if not considered well thought through will not pass.
I don’t understand your logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 17:20:35 GMT
Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. ... I rest my case. Codswallop.
FPTP does not guarantee any more connection with constituents than PR does.
What sort of connection do you think Sunak has with the voters in his North Yorkshire constituency, or indeed do any of the other ethnic parachuted into safe seats by all the Old Gang parties? Not to mention the all-female shortlists that were introduced as a 'temporary' measure to enhance diversity but now appear anything but temporary?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Constituency MP's who serve a relitively small geographic area have a stronger connection with their constituents, who vote for their MP, than would otherwise be the case under PR. I cant help noticing you neglect to comment on any of the other excellent points I made which highlighted the pitfalls of PR. Are you pro PR and grabbing at straws?.. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 17:38:11 GMT
Much of your post is nonsense Red. But if you are happy to have a sensible conversation I am interested in why you want “strong majority government” even for a government that commands only a little over one third support from the electorate. Effectively once a majority gets above say 30, the Government can do whatever it likes. There may be some noise in the HoC for a short time. The HoL May play ping pong for a week or two but eventually the law will pass, all on the whim of one person, the PM. That may be fine if the PM is always right but he or she is only human and will sometimes get it wrong. Why do you prefer a five year dictatorship over a system that (unless the electorate gives a party a majority of votes) means that new laws will be scrutinized and if not considered well thought through will not pass. I don’t understand your logic. Christ I didn't think we'd be doing this, again.
PR systems typically produce coalitions often three or even four way coalitions which are viewed by many as weak and unstable, and unsuited to the traditional British political context of government and opposition. Many people also argue that coalitions lack transparency and accountability. On the other hand, FPTP helps underpin representative parliamentary democracy in the UK in a number of other ways. As I have already pointed out, the system maintains the MP/Constituency relationship and preserves an important geographical link in doing so, connecting communities to central politics, something likely to be lost under PR. Dappy, every EU state uses some form of PR, and the EU support PR, go figure. If we used PR there is absolutely no doubt we would still be in the EU because PR typically produces weak unstable coalition governments who can never agree on anything, see Belgium without a government for nearly two years because of PR. Many people in Germany including president Steinmeier insist AfD are far right, yet the only reason AfD are in government is because of PR. Listen, if you're pro PR fine, it matters not. With a huge majority Starmer is most unlikely to even discuss it. Thankfully. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 10, 2024 17:40:29 GMT
As perhaps you are unaware, there are a number of variations on the PR theme, so it is a little cartoonish to tar them all with the same brush.
But surely you are over-egging the pudding anyway in claiming that FPTP results in a system in which MPs have a stronger connection to their constituents? Presumably, what means is that MPs elected under the present system are more inclined to listen to what their constituents want and to act accordingly in Parliament? If that were the case, how come immigration legal and illegal is running at record levels, major cities have been turned into third-world pest-holes of crime, disease, corruption and decadence, and DEI has become the state religion.
Is this all, and much more, indicative of the symbiotic relationship between MP and constituents that you appear to believe is a fundamental feature of an FPTP system, especially one in which there are effectively only two parties? Or, if you were to be really cynical, just the one operating under different brand-names.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 10, 2024 17:44:14 GMT
An inevitable feature of FPTP disenfranchising large numbers of voters. If voting is a waste of time, why bother? Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. And? - in my over 6 decades on life on this planet I have never had any interaction with my local MP. If he we installed from a random list of names it would make absolutely no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 17:52:20 GMT
Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. And? - in my over 6 decades on life on this planet I have never had any interaction with my local MP. If he we installed from a random list of names it would make absolutely no difference. I'm bound to say, the fact that you have never had any interaction with your local MP is your choice and irrelevant to the point in question. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2024 17:55:44 GMT
An inevitable feature of FPTP disenfranchising large numbers of voters. If voting is a waste of time, why bother? Rubbish. With PR, voters and MP's are not well connected. With FPTP in which MP's represent a relatively small geographic area, there is a strong connection between MP and constituents. This connection does not exist with PR. PR will lead to the legitimisation of extremist parties who do not act in the interests of society. The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany can be directly attributed to the use of a PR system. Supporters of PR say this could never happen again, but why not? With PR of course it could. Many people in Germany insist AfD are far right, yet the only reason AfD are the second largest party in the German government is because of PR. PR also gives excessive power to party elites who control and manipulate the political agenda. A candidates success depends on party lists, therefor a candidates success depends upon their ability to curry favour with party officials rather than constituents. PR encourages a disconnect between MP and voters. It encourages coalitions often three or four way coalitions that spend years arguing, and is the death of strong majority governments. If someone cant be bothered to vote, the voting system becomes irrelevant. The trick is to encourage people to vote, not to change the entire voting system in the vain hope that a new system may be encouragement enough. I rest my case. LOL! 
Then enjoy your new Labour dictatorship - as endorsed by a whole 20% of the electorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 18:08:56 GMT
As perhaps you are unaware, there are a number of variations on the PR theme, so it is a little cartoonish to tar them all with the same brush. But surely you are over-egging the pudding anyway in claiming that FPTP results in a system in which MPs have a stronger connection to their constituents? Presumably, what means is that MPs elected under the present system are more inclined to listen to what their constituents want and to act accordingly in Parliament? If that were the case, how come immigration legal and illegal is running at record levels, major cities have been turned into third-world pest-holes of crime, disease, corruption and decadence, and DEI has become the state religion. Is this all, and much more, indicative of the symbiotic relationship between MP and constituents that you appear to believe is a fundamental feature of an FPTP system, especially one in which there are effectively only two parties? Or, if you were to be really cynical, just the one operating under different brand-names. As I stated previously, pay attention there's a good chap, all EU states use some form of PR, some more complicated and convoluted than others but it's all PR. It's a little fanciful to suggest FPTP is responsible for record immigration, crime, disease, corruption and decadence in the UK when the situation is much the same or even worse in the EU, where FPTP is not used. Is PR to blame for that? As for DEI, it's a fad, and like all trans Atlantic fads, it will pass. In California, the wokest of US states DEI has already been replaced with MEI [Meritocracy Equity and Inclusion] Left wing fads like woke come and go. |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Jul 10, 2024 18:14:40 GMT
Votes lost by the Tories this year: 7,139,140 Votes lost by Labour this year: 591,257 Votes lost by the Lib Dems this year: 177,220 Votes lost by the SNP this year: 517,622 Votes gained by the Greens this year: 1,077,558 Votes gained by Reform (formerly the Brexit Party): 3,472,964
It's not just the effect of Reform splitting the Tory vote, a lot of voters (3.8 million) simply stayed home and who could blame them?
it must have been more than 3.8 million who didnt vote, as the turnout was only 60%? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 18:17:36 GMT
Then enjoy your new Labour dictatorship - as endorsed by a whole 20% of the electorate. Enjoy...Mmmm, probably not. But in my defence I never said FPTP is a perfect system, no system is. But given the pro's & cons of FPTP v PR, I'll stick with FPTP every time, and I'll tell you something else, with a huge majority there's no way Starmer will entertain any talk of electoral reform. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 18:21:07 GMT
Votes lost by the Tories this year: 7,139,140 Votes lost by Labour this year: 591,257 Votes lost by the Lib Dems this year: 177,220 Votes lost by the SNP this year: 517,622 Votes gained by the Greens this year: 1,077,558 Votes gained by Reform (formerly the Brexit Party): 3,472,964
It's not just the effect of Reform splitting the Tory vote, a lot of voters (3.8 million) simply stayed home and who could blame them?
it must have been more than 3.8 million who didnt vote, as the turnout was only 60%? Well spotted. |
|
