Out of date & out of touch!

PETWINA · 01-05-2008, 08:30 AM

44%
Just compare that with the % GE votes for Tony Blair (and hence Brown by default) and those for Ken Livingstone (including all the fraudulent votes)

Anthony Butcher · 01-05-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PETWINA

44%
Just compare that with the % GE votes for Tony Blair (and hence Brown by default) and those for Ken Livingstone (including all the fraudulent votes)

He won with a healthy distance from his competitors, certainly, but this was not 'overwhelming' - it wasn't even most of the votes. That was my point

Aardvark · 01-05-2008, 08:47 AM

Hitler won with 44% of the vote in a PR system.

Geoffrey Collier · 01-05-2008, 12:16 PM

There is no perfect electoral system, but we have particular difficulties that need to be addressed. That doesn't mean that we should necessarily abandon the, 'first past the post' system (SPTPS), but we must recognise the problems.

Presumsably, we all agree that our electoral system consists of three elements. (1) Constituents. (2) Representation and (3) Geographical area. As far as possible, these three elements are kept in balance, although compromises on occasions are necessary.
Geographically large constituencies, for example, have smaller electorates. Not necessarity ideal, but pragmatic.

The strength of our system, historically, lay in the Two Party system which dominated British politics for a couple of centuries or more. The other good point was the peaceful transformation of the dominant parties themselves: Whigs and Tories, to Liberal and Conservative. The system was also dynamic and avoided both Reactionary and Revolutionary politics, while at the same time not becoming fossilized political movements. This allowed distinct choices; the electorate could give a party, a parliamentary majority, but could take it away at the next election. This ensured the necessity, by party managers, to be mindful of the electorates concerns.

A further factor was the political allegiance of the electorate: broadly split 50/50. That was to further reinforce the overall strength of the system. But an important change was to occur over a couple of generations. At the GE of 1935, Stanley Baldwin was to be the last PM elected, having received with more than 50% of the popular vote. Labour nearly did it in 1945, and Harold MacMillan did even better in the 1959 GE. He didn't reach 50%, but was very close. To some extent, these subsequent changes limited the electorates chances of having governments, which represented any broad shift in political public opinion. This fragmentation in political allegiance, will be further institutionalised by PR in all its forms and manifestations. The (FPTPS) is underwritten by single member constituencis. You may have to vist MPs' those political allegiance you do not share, but it also an educative process for the MP himself. They become aware that not all the world thinks as they do. Again, another valuable unifying process.

PR increases the power of the party machine: the list system, possibly the more preferable, in my opinion, can, nevertheless, be manipulated, as we are seeing in UKIP at the present time. It should be a statutory requirement, that the members' selected candidate choices, are counted by neutral agencies. Trust must be paramount in any electoral system.

Following an election based on PR, governments emerge from the chaos, with compromise and instability endemic to the sysytem. That may be necessary, but it cannot ba a cause for rejoicing. Indeed corruption in politics will increase. Advocates of PR argue that one man one vote, must imply one vote one value. That is precisely what it doesn't guarantee, coalitions of small parties provide the majorities, without which, dominant parties cannot obtain power. (Hardly one vote one value).

Single Transferable Votes (STV) complicates and clouds the issue further. Not enthusiastic for PR, I feel that it will almost certainly arrive, but enthusiasm for it, should be deemed a compulsory notifiable illness.

charlie endell · 01-05-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatrix

That's because most pub regulars are smokers. People like me who now choose to stay at home rather than go down the pub. Why do I want to get up in the middle of my drink and conversation to go stand outside?

Also, how many non smokers who didn't go in pubs before now go in? I would hazard a guess , based on the number of pubs closing, that it's fewer than the number of smokers who stay at home.

My club is a private members club where the public can't just walk in. Why should we not be allowed to smoke there if we want to?

You managed to touch two bases here: drivel and pretentious.

Aardvark · 02-05-2008, 01:36 AM

Lover's tiff?

TannyD · 02-05-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie endell

You managed to touch two bases here: drivel and pretentious.

Quite an achievement then?

Bob FM · 02-05-2008, 04:44 PM

A leader is elected and 44% is a healthy percentage in any ones book, Labour won the last election with 25%. The average turnout yesterday was 32%. As I under it UKIP picked up 4 seats. In Hartlepool they now have two councillors which means than put motions down. Quite an achieve, it was only political complicity of would you believe Labour and the Conservatives that prevented UKIP from getting at least two more, one was missed by 2 votes. In my area, we stood in 11 wards and pushed the Lib-Dems into 4th place in 8 of them. As for the meeting no I wasn't outside having fag, I don't smoke. Whilst Piers's presentation was interesting it was also very negative. Trevor's presentation was fine and I heard it again a couple of weeks later. It could be argued that UKIP over post offices is being as devious as the other parties by pretending these referendums can stop closure.

Anthony Butcher · 02-05-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

As I under it UKIP picked up 4 seats.

Gained four, lost one for a net gain of three.
BBC NEWS | Election 2008 | Councils A-Z

Westcountryman · 02-05-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Gained four, lost one for a net gain of three.
BBC NEWS | Election 2008 | Councils A-Z

01-05-2008, 08:47 AM	#103 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,249	Hitler won with 44% of the vote in a PR system. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

02-05-2008, 01:36 AM	#106 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,249	Lover's tiff? __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

02-05-2008, 04:44 PM	#108 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 587	Who Leads and Who Follows A leader is elected and 44% is a healthy percentage in any ones book, Labour won the last election with 25%. The average turnout yesterday was 32%. As I under it UKIP picked up 4 seats. In Hartlepool they now have two councillors which means than put motions down. Quite an achieve, it was only political complicity of would you believe Labour and the Conservatives that prevented UKIP from getting at least two more, one was missed by 2 votes. In my area, we stood in 11 wards and pushed the Lib-Dems into 4th place in 8 of them. As for the meeting no I wasn't outside having fag, I don't smoke. Whilst Piers's presentation was interesting it was also very negative. Trevor's presentation was fine and I heard it again a couple of weeks later. It could be argued that UKIP over post offices is being as devious as the other parties by pretending these referendums can stop closure.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-05-2008, 08:30 AM	#101 (permalink)
PETWINA Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 155	44% Just compare that with the % GE votes for Tony Blair (and hence Brown by default) and those for Ken Livingstone (including all the fraudulent votes)

01-05-2008, 12:16 PM	#104 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 707	There is no perfect electoral system, but we have particular difficulties that need to be addressed. That doesn't mean that we should necessarily abandon the, 'first past the post' system (SPTPS), but we must recognise the problems. Presumsably, we all agree that our electoral system consists of three elements. (1) Constituents. (2) Representation and (3) Geographical area. As far as possible, these three elements are kept in balance, although compromises on occasions are necessary. Geographically large constituencies, for example, have smaller electorates. Not necessarity ideal, but pragmatic. The strength of our system, historically, lay in the Two Party system which dominated British politics for a couple of centuries or more. The other good point was the peaceful transformation of the dominant parties themselves: Whigs and Tories, to Liberal and Conservative. The system was also dynamic and avoided both Reactionary and Revolutionary politics, while at the same time not becoming fossilized political movements. This allowed distinct choices; the electorate could give a party, a parliamentary majority, but could take it away at the next election. This ensured the necessity, by party managers, to be mindful of the electorates concerns. A further factor was the political allegiance of the electorate: broadly split 50/50. That was to further reinforce the overall strength of the system. But an important change was to occur over a couple of generations. At the GE of 1935, Stanley Baldwin was to be the last PM elected, having received with more than 50% of the popular vote. Labour nearly did it in 1945, and Harold MacMillan did even better in the 1959 GE. He didn't reach 50%, but was very close. To some extent, these subsequent changes limited the electorates chances of having governments, which represented any broad shift in political public opinion. This fragmentation in political allegiance, will be further institutionalised by PR in all its forms and manifestations. The (FPTPS) is underwritten by single member constituencis. You may have to vist MPs' those political allegiance you do not share, but it also an educative process for the MP himself. They become aware that not all the world thinks as they do. Again, another valuable unifying process. PR increases the power of the party machine: the list system, possibly the more preferable, in my opinion, can, nevertheless, be manipulated, as we are seeing in UKIP at the present time. It should be a statutory requirement, that the members' selected candidate choices, are counted by neutral agencies. Trust must be paramount in any electoral system. Following an election based on PR, governments emerge from the chaos, with compromise and instability endemic to the sysytem. That may be necessary, but it cannot ba a cause for rejoicing. Indeed corruption in politics will increase. Advocates of PR argue that one man one vote, must imply one vote one value. That is precisely what it doesn't guarantee, coalitions of small parties provide the majorities, without which, dominant parties cannot obtain power. (Hardly one vote one value). Single Transferable Votes (STV) complicates and clouds the issue further. Not enthusiastic for PR, I feel that it will almost certainly arrive, but enthusiasm for it, should be deemed a compulsory notifiable illness.