|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 10, 2024 18:22:07 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%? I'm going by those who voted last time but didn't this time. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2024 18:22:24 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. As usual there is lots of nonsense, empty slogans and factually wrong assertions in their Red. More importantly though you have avoided answering the question you were asked. Could you try again. I’ll rephrase it if you like. You advocate “strong majority government”. Why do you think a system that results in an elected dictatorship with new laws on the whim of the elected dictator passing without effective challenge is likely to provide better governance for the UK than a more consensual system whereby representatives of 50% of the electorate must agree to pass it? |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jul 10, 2024 19:04:33 GMT
Pacifico
I don't doubt that's true Pacifico, but when you see recall instances in places where it HAS mattered, doesn't it make you wary of no longer being able to reject an individual that the Party might have in mind for you as your MP ? Think back just a few years to when Gawke, Anna Soubry, and a little gang on Tory backbench Remainiacs were doing everything in their power to block Brexit, even to the extent of travelling over to Brussels to collude with the Eurocrats in how best they could stifle the will of the British people. Come the General Election the Tories won and won handsomely, but didn't the voters in each of the relevant constituencies, chuck out every single one of those Tory Eurofanantics ? And if you had an EU fan such as Theresa May as Party leader, you can bet those Remainiacs would have all been on the list ready to be 'installed' by the Party.
There are those who would be happy to vote Labour and it WOULD make a difference to them if Keith Vaz was foisted upon them as he was 'on the list', because they would NOT have voted for him as an individual to represent them under FPTP.
PR is entrenching the Party system, next thing you know they'll be demanding public funding, and the hopes of a return to Independents and breaking the grip the Parties have over our national politics would be lost for good.
Electors should consider carefully before surrendering their power.
Remember the words of Tony Benn: “With all the defects of our democracy, the reason governments listen to people is because you get your power from the people. Being an MP you are in a very unusual position: you are one employee and have 60,000 employers. Every one in your constituency employs you – the bus driver, the street sweeper, the home help, the policeman: they employ you. They can get rid of you, and because they can get rid of you, you have to listen to them!”
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2024 19:05:13 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. Well of course not. We don't live in a democracy, you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2024 19:23:31 GMT
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. Well of course not. We don't live in a democracy, you know. But we do live in a democracy, thank god. One of the foibles of democracy, some might say one of the many foibles of democracy, is the fact that in a democracy whether to vote, or not, is a choice. Personally I think everyone should use their vote, but ultimately in a democracy it's up to the government to encourage people to vote. Is low turnout the result of a comfortable electorate who cant be bothered to vote for change, or a reflection on poor government? Personally, I'd say there's an element of both. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 10, 2024 21:41:43 GMT
Pacifico I don't doubt that's true Pacifico, but when you see recall instances in places where it HAS mattered, doesn't it make you wary of no longer being able to reject an individual that the Party might have in mind for you as your MP ? Think back just a few years to when Gawke, Anna Soubry, and a little gang on Tory backbench Remainiacs were doing everything in their power to block Brexit, even to the extent of travelling over to Brussels to collude with the Eurocrats in how best they could stifle the will of the British people. Come the General Election the Tories won and won handsomely, but didn't the voters in each of the relevant constituencies, chuck out every single one of those Tory Eurofanantics ? And if you had an EU fan such as Theresa May as Party leader, you can bet those Remainiacs would have all been on the list ready to be 'installed' by the Party. There are those who would be happy to vote Labour and it WOULD make a difference to them if Keith Vaz was foisted upon them as he was 'on the list', because they would NOT have voted for him as an individual to represent them under FPTP.
PR is entrenching the Party system, next thing you know they'll be demanding public funding, and the hopes of a return to Independents and breaking the grip the Parties have over our national politics would be lost for good. Electors should consider carefully before surrendering their power. Remember the words of Tony Benn: “With all the defects of our democracy, the reason governments listen to people is because you get your power from the people. Being an MP you are in a very unusual position: you are one employee and have 60,000 employers. Every one in your constituency employs you – the bus driver, the street sweeper, the home help, the policeman: they employ you. They can get rid of you, and because they can get rid of you, you have to listen to them!”
Well yes, that is the old argument. However we have seen in election after election across Europe where the establishment parties that have promoted the same ideas are swept from power by upstart populist parties responding to public disquiet (under PR). The old status quo is gone forever. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2024 11:03:13 GMT
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. As usual there is lots of nonsense, empty slogans and factually wrong assertions in their Red. More importantly though you have avoided answering the question you were asked. Could you try again. I’ll rephrase it if you like. You advocate “strong majority government”. Why do you think a system that results in an elected dictatorship with new laws on the whim of the elected dictator passing without effective challenge is likely to provide better governance for the UK than a more consensual system whereby representatives of 50% of the electorate must agree to pass it? No answer. No real surprise. I tried….. |
|
