Jump to content

FAO Bungle


dune
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it is hillarious how some libdems (seen on various news reports) are still outraged by this coming together..

 

didnt they want some sort of proportional representation...???

 

now they have it and a few still moan like fuk

 

It's not really PR though I don't think. I do think they've sold themselves short on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really PR though I don't think. I do think they've sold themselves short on this.

well, what did they expect..? to be put on a level field as the tory party..?

 

where in most parts of the country they had more voters to represent..?

 

they have been giving a bit of power for the first time since when..?

they are able to keep in check some of the tory ideas..

they are able to implement some of their own ideas that people voted for..something which would have been just a pot smoking dream 1 year or even 2 years ago when the torys were waaaaay ahead in the polls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really PR though I don't think. I do think they've sold themselves short on this.

 

The Lib Dems wanted a different system to the one that the Conservatives are offering. Personally, I didn't fancy either of those systems, why we can't just have simple PR i'll never know! Surely having a % of MPs related to the number of votes is just logical!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, what did they expect..? to be put on a level field as the tory party..?

 

where in most parts of the country they had more voters to represent..?

 

they have been giving a bit of power for the first time since when..?

they are able to keep in check some of the tory ideas..

they are able to implement some of their own ideas that people voted for..something which would have been just a pot smoking dream 1 year or even 2 years ago when the torys were waaaaay ahead in the polls

 

I think you are right, it will be a healthy check on less savoury Tory ideas. Will ultimately collapse when they have to debate the far more unsavoury offerings from Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the spirit of our new found friendship I need to clarify what we are to call ourselves.

 

Are we ConLibs, ConDems, LibCons, Libservatives, or do you have another suggestion?

How about Tories, you can be a Blue Tory and Bungle can be a Yellow Tory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lib Dems wanted a different system to the one that the Conservatives are offering. Personally, I didn't fancy either of those systems, why we can't just have simple PR i'll never know! Surely having a % of MPs related to the number of votes is just logical!?

 

That is the rough intention. That's why the Boundaries Commission exists in a way. The issue is demographics and also the good requirement to vote for local candidates.

 

Mikey, if you just cut the vote on national percentages, how would you have local representatives? It would just be a spread and there would be no local candidates for particular issues in an area. i.e. no real MPs.

Edited by TopGun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the rough intention. That's why the Boundaries Commission exists in a way. The issue is demographics and also the good requirement to vote for local candidates.

 

Mikey, if you just cut the vote on national percentages, how would you have local representatives? It would just be a spread and there would be no local candidates for particular issues in an area. i.e. no real MPs.

 

You can't sensibly have countrywide PR as regional parties (such as Plaid or SDLP would be squeezed out).

 

Likewise PR STV on existing consituency seats (AKA AV) would essentially give the same biased results as the existing system.

 

Therefore what is needed is a regional system of PR STV, where the country is divided into regions of about 4-5 million voters, with each region allocated a number of seats relative to the number of voters. Under this system, you'd get a healthy balance between proportional voting, and local representation (NB, as pointed out on a different thread, PR can actually increase local representation, as under FPTP the personal politics of the local representative determines whether a local issue gets raised in the Commons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't sensibly have countrywide PR as regional parties (such as Plaid or SDLP would be squeezed out).

 

Likewise PR STV on existing consituency seats (AKA AV) would essentially give the same biased results as the existing system.

 

Therefore what is needed is a regional system of PR STV, where the country is divided into regions of about 4-5 million voters, with each region allocated a number of seats relative to the number of voters. Under this system, you'd get a healthy balance between proportional voting, and local representation (NB, as pointed out on a different thread, PR can actually increase local representation, as under FPTP the personal politics of the local representative determines whether a local issue gets raised in the Commons).

 

Can't argue with that! Although the Tories want to eradicate existing regional bodies as they view them as unnecessary quangos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the Lib Dem voters who are unhappy with the coalition.

 

I voted Lib Dem and when the talks were ongoing the two outcomes as I saw it were.

 

1. No coalition, completely Tory government, Lib Dems the insignificant third party with no influence.

 

2. Coalition, Lib Dems having influence in Westminster, Lib Dem MP's in the cabinet, some Lib Dem policies being considered, workable government.

 

Basically a choice between the party I voted for having no influence and having a little bit. Makes no sense to me to be unhappy about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly 7,000,000 people still voted Liberal Democrat, only 3.8m short of the conservative tally... in PR they'd have 150 seats and much more say in what goes on. It annoys me that people really can't get their heads around more than 2 party politics.

but in most of those areas they were the minority....that is a FACT

 

would it be fair to put a Liberal MP in a place that has more tory voters..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the Lib/Dems not spoken to Labour, you'ld have had lefties complaining that they did a deal "without even talking to Labour", so they couldn't win either way.

 

They had 2 options, a minority Tory Govt, that would have lasted till about Oct. Or to go into Govt with them and get some of their policies implemented. They also now have the chance to show the British people that hung parliaments can work and that they are a serious party which can govern well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but in most of those areas they were the minority....that is a FACT

 

would it be fair to put a Liberal MP in a place that has more tory voters..?

 

What a retarded point. It's the UK as a whole that matters, you are like those people who say the Conservatives have no right to rule in scotland, because they came 4th there, well Labour came 3rd in the south east region, does that mean that their 13 year premiership was illegitimate? Does Basingstoke having a Tory MP mean that no other party should ever have any say over what goes on here? No. As long as we are the UK, we have to represent the the UK as a whole, we are one big constituency if you like...

 

But, I do see your point about constituent link(it is important), but remember under first past the post, normally more people voted against the incumbent MP than voted for it. This is why I like STV, most people get a representitive that speaks up for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly 7,000,000 people still voted Liberal Democrat, only 3.8m short of the conservative tally... in PR they'd have 150 seats and much more say in what goes on. It annoys me that people really can't get their heads around more than 2 party politics.

You can't take the results of elections held under one election system and extrapolate them to a set of results under another set of results. If we had PR then people would vote in different ways, we might even have different parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take the results of elections held under one election system and extrapolate them to a set of results under another set of results. If we had PR then people would vote in different ways, we might even have different parties.

 

Well, tactical voting would probably cease and I think that would mean the Lib Dem vote net would go up, and so would parties like the Green party, but the main 2's vote wouldn't collapse either. Either way, the Lib Dem number of seats would still be 150+ under PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a retarded point. It's the UK as a whole that matters, you are like those people who say the Conservatives have no right to rule in scotland, because they came 4th there, well Labour came 3rd in the south east region, does that mean that their 13 year premiership was illegitimate? Does Basingstoke having a Tory MP mean that no other party should ever have any say over what goes on here? No. As long as we are the UK, we have to represent the the UK as a whole, we are one big constituency if you like...

 

But, I do see your point about constituent link(it is important), but remember under first past the post, normally more people voted against the incumbent MP than voted for it. This is why I like STV, most people get a representitive that speaks up for them.

so, who would have the seat in the areas where the torys have the most votes...therefore, require the representation..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, who would have the seat in the areas where the torys have the most votes...therefore, require the representation..?

 

Yes, so under STV, the 40% of people who say under FPTP would have elected just one MP leaving 60%(the majority) unrepresented would still get represented. It just means the 60% are also represented, what is wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, so under STV, the 40% of people who say under FPTP would have elected just one MP leaving 60%(the majority) unrepresented would still get represented. It just means the 60% are also represented, what is wrong with that?

so, in an area where the tory voter was the majority (which would have been quite common) who gets the seat..tory or liberal..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, in an area where the tory voter was the majority (which would have been quite common) who gets the seat..tory or liberal..?

 

Multi-Member constituencies... so if the tories are in the majority, they would get the most seats, but the people who did note vote with the people who voted tory are still represented. This is more often than not more than 50%, most MP's are not elected with the majority of people wanting them. Everyone is represented and no votes are wasted under STV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-Member constituencies... so if the tories are in the majority, they would get the most seats, but the people who did note vote with the people who voted tory are still represented. This is more often than not more than 50%, most MP's are not elected with the majority of people wanting them. Everyone is represented and no votes are wasted under STV.

so, you want to dramatically increase the size of parliament..?

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})