Jump to content

is election reform really no.1 in the UKs priority


Thedelldays
 Share

Recommended Posts

Clegg has the opportunity to change the fortunes of the LDs forever by taking a PR bribe. He'd be mad not to do that.

 

The Tories have more to lose by offering PR than Labour.

 

They are not offering it, they have mentioned a review with presumably a referendum and the Tories will fight like mad (along with the Tory press) to get their slightly tinkered system through instead of a "dangerous and an end to strong govt" idea wanted by the Liberals.

 

This is not desirable territory for the Tories to be on, and it's a battle they would sooner not fight, but they will fight it and the Liberals will have a battle on their hands because in political terms this'll be a life or death fight for the establishment and Labour are part of that too .

Edited by dune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest i think it needs to be sorted fast. You can't have a system that is biased towards the party in power.

 

Look at it like this

 

Conservatives gained over 100 seats, while Labour lost nearly 100, conservatives had over 2m more votes then labour, if you look at the election map england is now vastly blue, lib dems got a hammering and actually did a lot worse then the last election.

Conservatives have about 50-60 more mps elected then labour. But they don't win?

 

How is it we could potentially have a prime minister who not only got less votes but a **** load less votes, has never won an election, got pm because someone else retired, and has obviously been rejected by nearly 100 previous labour constituency?

 

However you look at it based on votes and seat gains conservatives won, they have the most seats based on this election. This election shows how hard it is to get rid of a party already in goverment. It is like those carnival games that are rigged so you can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest i think it needs to be sorted fast. You can't have a system that is biased towards the party in power.

 

Look at it like this

 

Conservatives gained over 100 seats, while Labour lost nearly 100, conservatives had over 2m more votes then labour, if you look at the election map england is now vastly blue, lib dems got a hammering and actually did a lot worse then the last election.

Conservatives have about 50-60 more mps elected then labour. But they don't win?

 

How is it we could potentially have a prime minister who not only got less votes but a **** load less votes, has never won an election, got pm because someone else retired, and has obviously been rejected by nearly 100 previous labour constituency?

 

However you look at it based on votes and seat gains conservatives won, they have the most seats based on this election. This election shows how hard it is to get rid of a party already in goverment. It is like those carnival games that are rigged so you can't win.

 

 

Actually the Lib Dem share of the vote is up, but due to the electoral system the number of seats have gone slightly down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest i think it needs to be sorted fast. You can't have a system that is biased towards the party in power.

Thats not correct - the system is just plain and simple, not fair.

 

Look at it like this

 

Conservatives gained over 100 seats, while Labour lost nearly 100, conservatives had over 2m more votes then labour, if you look at the election map england is now vastly blue, lib dems got a hammering and actually did a lot worse then the last election.

Conservatives have about 50-60 more mps elected then labour. But they don't win?

Thats because if they went to Parliment tomorrow to pass a bill that only the conservatives supported, it would be rejected. You need 326 seats, although 323 would be enough as Sinn Fein don't take up theirs (5 seats).

 

How is it we could potentially have a prime minister who not only got less votes but a **** load less votes, has never won an election, got pm because someone else retired, and has obviously been rejected by nearly 100 previous labour constituency?

Its highly unlikely but possible. You just need to calm down, DC and NC will do a deal.

 

However you look at it based on votes and seat gains conservatives won, they have the most seats based on this election. This election shows how hard it is to get rid of a party already in goverment. It is like those carnival games that are rigged so you can't win.

 

Actually, I would disagree because there is no law against a coalition government. If you can make up the 326 seats to gain a majority government, then the largest party may be sacrificied and in the case of the current general election, the Conservatives only make up 36% of the vote, would it not also be as unfair for the overwhelming majority (opposition) of 64% to form a government? Thats the whole point of having 326 seats, if you fail to make the cut, you have less that 50% of the seats, if you have less than 50% of the seats, the the majority would be the combination of the the people who got over 50% if a coalition could not be struck between the largest party etc. The conservatives can go alone, without a majority but you can't govern like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think UKIP will probably stop the Tories ever getting back to 40%+ levels. I noticed that in several close defeats for the Tories that if you'd topped up the Tory vote with the UKIP vote they'd have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with some rough calculations with 36% of the vote the Tories should have got 234 seats and the Lib Dems 149 with 23%. As it didn't quite stack up that way I'd rather have a lasting legacy that delivered proper electoral fairness. If this parliament delivers that it will have more of a legacy than many parliaments.

 

I doubt that, on the economy, any of the parties would act much diferently in terms of overall taxation although the burden of taxation would probably be different. As for cuts they'd all deliver the same - some would probably promise more but I doubt they'd deliver them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DC is painted into a corner. He won't want electoral reform as that will sound the death knell for his party. He won't get into power unless he backs electoral reform.

 

Turkeys (apt don't you think :D) don't vote for Christmas.

 

He will get into Power, there is no doubt in my mind about that. Brown does make me laugh though, what a sad little man, offering PR because he's so desperate to carry on as the unelected leader that never won an election.

 

The Liberals want PR, and PR will mean coalition governments forever, so here is their opportunity to work with the Conservatives and prove that the system can work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He will get into Power, there is no doubt in my mind about that. Brown does make me laugh though, what a sad little man, offering PR because he's so desperate to carry on as the unelected leader that never won an election.

 

The Liberals want PR, and PR will mean coalition governments forever, so here is their opportunity to work with the Conservatives and prove that the system can work.

 

I think you're being a little harsh on Brown. He's being fair at the moment, constitutionally he is entitled to try and form a government, but he is sitting on the sidelines because he respects the Tories have more legitimacy to try first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives gained over 100 seats, while Labour lost nearly 100, conservatives had over 2m more votes then labour, if you look at the election map england is now vastly blue, lib dems got a hammering and actually did a lot worse then the last election.

 

The map is always very blue even in 2005 with a Labour majority due to the physical size of the conservative seats bearing in mind alot of them are rural. If you select the proportional view on the BBC website it gives a fairer reflection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All votes cast should count for something. There should be UKIP, Green, BNP and whoever MPs. PR would still have meant the Tories were the largest party with about 234 seats followed by Labour on 188.

 

That's too simplistic. Had the system been PR all the main parties would have polled less and all the minority parties would have polled more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's too simplistic. Had the system been PR all the main parties would have polled less and all the minority parties would have polled more.

 

This is true. Also you have to factor in the fact that people might have voted differently this time if we'd had PR in operation.

 

BTF in agreement with Dune shocker :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's too simplistic. Had the system been PR all the main parties would have polled less and all the minority parties would have polled more.

 

This is true. Also you have to factor in the fact that people might have voted differently this time if we'd had PR in operation.

 

BTF in agreement with Dune shocker :shock:

 

Its not true. I divided 650 seats by the actual percentage of votes cast to get those figures. Obviously a real life PR election would have all kind of additional dynamics going on - but at heart that is what would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not true. I divided 650 seats by the actual percentage of votes cast to get those figures. Obviously a real life PR election would have all kind of additional dynamics going on - but at heart that is what would happen.

 

No it wouldn't because nobody votes for small parties like the Liberals in national elections because it's a waste of a vote, so you're using figures that from the FPTP system to PR that would not be the same under PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the economy is the priority but this first pass the post voting system is bust and we all know it.

i,ve always believed we should have a system which represents the will of the people in voting terms and a elected second chamber like most modern democracys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't because nobody votes for small parties like the Liberals in national elections because it's a waste of a vote, so you're using figures that from the FPTP system to PR that would not be the same under PR.

 

Absolutely right - there'd be far less tactical voting than at present for example (because there wouldn't be the same need).

 

You can't extrapolate data from one system to a different system - it's like comparing apples and pears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plus side of PR would be seeing Caroline Lucas and Nick Griffin sat next to each other in the loony section (currently where the Liberals sit) because no main party would touch them with a barge pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plus side of PR would be seeing Caroline Lucas and Nick Griffin sat next to each other in the loony section (currently where the Liberals sit) because no main party would touch them with a barge pole.

will that include you and your extreme nutty views:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think UKIP will probably stop the Tories ever getting back to 40%+ levels. I noticed that in several close defeats for the Tories that if you'd topped up the Tory vote with the UKIP vote they'd have won.

 

Same for many constituencies when the anti-tory vote in Lib Dems or Labour hadn't quite come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is easy on this. Sir Humphrey would be proud of me having the imagination to think of it.

 

All the Conservatives need to do, is to suggest that while they are having the referendum on voting reform, for reasons of economy in these straightened financial times, we could hold the referendum on whether we remain in the EU or not at the same time. :D

 

I wonder how strong the clamour on this issue would be then? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're being a little harsh on Brown. He's being fair at the moment, constitutionally he is entitled to try and form a government, but he is sitting on the sidelines because he respects the Tories have more legitimacy to try first.

Don't forget that Brown has never been elected to the office of Prime Minister, and we don't actually have a constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the OP, no reform isn't the top issue at the moment. That'll be the economy. Reforming our unfair system of electing representatives is merely the second most important issue of the day, and I hope Clegg forces the issue.

 

Clegg has three options, and none of them is desirable. He could join the Tories, which won't get him the reform he desires, and will anger both his party, and a majority of the millions who voted for him. He could humour the Tory advances and get into bed with Labour. This should bring the reform the country needs, should go down well with the party and core lib dem vote, but will annoy swing lib dem voters and Tories. Finally he could stay neutral but allow the Tories to govern, he could then block any legislation he doesn't like, and force the Tories to make the worst of the cuts alone, and then to return to the polls within a few months. My guess is he is seeing how far he can push the Tories, while putting pressure on the nationalists to make their alliances with Labour, clearing the way for Clegg to announce that Tory talks have faltered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompted by something on another thread, I can revise my post a couple above.

 

Cameron can say that yes, he acknowledges that Electoral Reform is long overdue. He will promise to hold referenda on the the main issues that are a major concern of the electorate and the Lib/Dems and Labour parties.

 

There will be a referendum on the reform of the voting system in its entirety, exploring the preference for the status quo, or whether it should single transferable vote or proportional representation.

 

Simultaneously, also one on the membership of the EU

 

Another on whether England should have a separate Parliament exclusively for MPs of English constituencies, to vote on matters that affect only England.

 

By all means another on what mechanism there should be for the upper chamber.

 

Naturally, to save money, they would be all have to be voted on at one time.

 

I suspect that at this time of crisis and other more important matters to deal with, the appetite for this package of referenda and all it would entail in parliamentary debating time, the true expression of democracy that it would embrace would somehow evaporate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brown can offer voting reform, even though Labour has had 13 years to do something about it, but he has no hope of getting the legislation through the Commons. A Lib-Lab pact (again) would achieve nothing for the Liberals and would not produce a stable govenrment. There are only three people who can become Prime Minister. Clegg has no chance and Brown would quite rightly be chased out by the mobs. I expect to see fudges and empty promises until just after the party conferences followed by a new Labour leader and a General Election on October 14th. In the meantime the country carries on going down the pan until we join Greece and the others in bankrupcy. We are on a ship that is heading for the rocks and those on the bridge are not deciding which course to steer but are still arguing about how to even think about coming to that decision. It's the worst possible outcome to the election, almost about as bad as a Labour victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice what the Tories are pushing for is making constituencies the same size

 

This will benefit them big time - the only reason they have missed out on an overall majority is due to having just 1 seat in Scotland

 

Hold on a minute! Scotland has only 5Million people, but quite a number of seats, yet south of Liverpool the political map is a sea of blue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brown can offer voting reform, even though Labour has had 13 years to do something about it, but he has no hope of getting the legislation through the Commons.

 

Im not sure thats true. All Labour would have to promise is a referendum. The combined seats of Labour, LDs, Green and UKIP give a majority over the Tories. It would be hard for any MP to vote against a referendum, their electorate would want the chance to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure thats true. All Labour would have to promise is a referendum. The combined seats of Labour, LDs, Green and UKIP give a majority over the Tories. It would be hard for any MP to vote against a referendum, their electorate would want the chance to vote.

It's a very slender majority and from what I've read would be unlikely to get through the Commons. Meanwhile, the damage would have been done to the Liberals. Add to that the uncertainty over the seats where the voters were turned away plus the by-election and nothing is likely to happen for some time.

 

That's without the civil unrest caused by Brown squatting in number 10 ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be hard for any MP to vote against a referendum, their electorate would want the chance to vote.

 

If it would be so hard for the MPs to vote against the holding of referenda, why have they denied the voters the chance to vote on Europe, the various treaties that have reduced our Parliamentary soveignty, Capital Punishment, the establishment of separate governments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or any of the other issues that have periodically been high on the publics' agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it would be so hard for the MPs to vote against the holding of referenda, why have they denied the voters the chance to vote on Europe, the various treaties that have reduced our Parliamentary soveignty, Capital Punishment, the establishment of separate governments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or any of the other issues that have periodically been high on the publics' agenda.

 

 

There is a major difference between a government not offering a referendum on an issue, as has been the case in the past - and a government offering a referendum but the opposition MPs voting it down. That would be seen as flying in the face of the public being given a choice and following self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice what the Tories are pushing for is making constituencies the same size

 

This will benefit them big time - the only reason they have missed out on an overall majority is due to having just 1 seat in Scotland

 

Hold on a minute! Scotland has only 5Million people, but quite a number of seats, yet south of Liverpool the political map is a sea of blue

 

Sadly you are right, the Union is no longer feasible. Alex Salmond wants a referendum on independance, I say no, it was Scotland that begged England for a Union in the early 18th Century because they were bankrupt and they needed us to save them. They were not conquered by England - they asked us to rule them. Therefore it is my view that Scotland is morally Englands property and therefore it should be for the English to decide whether we wish them to remain a posession of ours or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sadly you are right, the Union is no longer feasible. Alex Salmond wants a referendum on independance, I say no, it was Scotland that begged England for a Union in the early 18th Century because they were bankrupt and they needed us to save them. They were not conquered by England - they asked us to rule them. Therefore it is my view that Scotland is morally Englands property and therefore it should be for the English to decide whether we wish them to remain a posession of ours or not.

I like the cut of your jib, sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly you are right, the Union is no longer feasible. Alex Salmond wants a referendum on independance, I say no, it was Scotland that begged England for a Union in the early 18th Century because they were bankrupt and they needed us to save them. They were not conquered by England - they asked us to rule them. Therefore it is my view that Scotland is morally Englands property and therefore it should be for the English to decide whether we wish them to remain a posession of ours or not.

 

Not quite.

 

England imposed severe trade embargoes on Scotland in the late 1600's to "discourage" their attempts to have a separate monarch and also stated that property in England owned by Scots would be confiscated.

 

This persuaded the Scottish aristocracy and the big land owners that the Union may be a good idea.

 

It was strongly opposed by the Scottish people and violence broke out in many towns, so much so that martial law was declared in order to restore order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clegg strikes a deal with the Tories, it will be difficult to swallow for the grassroots Lib Dems. If he strikes a deal with the Tories based on electoral reform, it won't be so bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Wilko, I don't want the Lib Dems to strike a deal with anyone if it means that we compromise on PR. For the Libs to get almost 7m votes at this election and get only 54 seats is ridiculous, the system needs to change. I understand that with proportional representation, parties such as UKIP and BNP will get more power, but they will still be minority parties in the grand scheme of things, and I doubt that any of the main political parties would take any notice of them in the house of commons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})