UK Politics

[mattiloy]

52 minutes ago, Neil said:

that's how people vote under any system.

Nope. PR almost always leads to higher turnout and greater engagement with and trust in the system.

Exceptions shown in attached graph are australia (non pr but compulsory voting) and switzerland (pr but very decentralised and lots of referenda so not as important to vote in the nationals).

 

58 minutes ago, Neil said:

so most important to you is to deny democracy, pr might have stopped the referendum happening, but the result of a ref would be the same.

Above all else, the brexit vote was an opportunity for voters to express their dissatisfaction at a system that makes them feel as if they have no control. It was mainly a protest vote.

PR and the referendum outcome would have been different.

[kaosmark2]

17 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Which promises do you think he has dropped that are popular? Also for the popular policies do you believe the electorate are willing to pay for them?

I completely appreciate why you think labour have let you down, the reality is however the average voter has no clue about labour selections, party discipline etc.

Nationalising rail and "the green new deal" or however they're framing it now, along with a windfall tax on energy companies. I think with re-nationalising public services, no the electorate aren't really willing to pay for that, but I have a great sense that Labour have backtracked so much that they're no longer offering anything positive to the electorate, not just to me. 

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’s also on the MPs themselves and if they want to risk another Tory government. It’s essentially what Labour would do as a minority government, daring opposition parties to vote down a Kings Speech. 
 

Thats my point though, it’s all a risk and at this time I don’t think the country needs that. 

But this is the thing, the Lib Dems want PR, the Lib Dems want to prove that they can work with another party and it not come across as the same nonsense we had under Cameron. They're just starting to come back in after decimating their party in those years, and they'll just want to be quietly effective, showing themselves as a positive and constructive influence, and justify PR.

As long as Labour + Lib Dems combined have 30 clear, then that should justify a better electoral system long-term, and hopefully be a better government than what Starmer is promising.

[Ozanne]

32 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

But this is the thing, the Lib Dems want PR, the Lib Dems want to prove that they can work with another party and it not come across as the same nonsense we had under Cameron. They're just starting to come back in after decimating their party in those years, and they'll just want to be quietly effective, showing themselves as a positive and constructive influence, and justify PR.

As long as Labour + Lib Dems combined have 30 clear, then that should justify a better electoral system long-term, and hopefully be a better government than what Starmer is promising.

I don’t think you can completely trust the Lib Dem’s, at the moment they say they want to get the Tories out if they feel they can get something out of it then they’ll get into bed with the Tories as seen in 2010.

[Neil]

46 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nope. PR almost always leads to higher turnout and greater engagement with and trust in the system.

Exceptions shown in attached graph are australia (non pr but compulsory voting) and switzerland (pr but very decentralised and lots of referenda so not as important to vote in the nationals).

 

Above all else, the brexit vote was an opportunity for voters to express their dissatisfaction at a system that makes them feel as if they have no control. It was mainly a protest vote.

PR and the referendum outcome would have been different.

Nobome agrees fully with another individual and won't agree bfully with a party either. So the most attractive for anyone's vote is the party thats the least disagreeablem your wanting a cult not a political programme

Edited February 17 by Neil

[Neil]

Who have you agreed with so fully that they could be your cult leader?

[Nobody Interesting]

12 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I don’t think you can completely trust the Lib Dem’s, at the moment they say they want to get the Tories out if they feel they can get something out of it then they’ll get into bed with the Tories as seen in 2010.

Politics was very different in 2010. Cameron was where Starmer is now so close to the LD - there is no way at all they would work with the Tories and any suggestion they would is just scaremongering.

There is zero percent chance of it, none, nada, diddly squat.

[mattiloy]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

Nobome agrees fully with another individual and won't agree bfully with a party either. So the most attractive for anyone's vote is the party thats the least disagreeablem your wanting a cult not a political programme

Right… but this is true of pretty much every decision anybody ever makes. Shall we also only have two cereal brands to choose from? Two football teams to support?

[pink_triangle]

9 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Politics was very different in 2010. Cameron was where Starmer is now so close to the LD - there is no way at all they would work with the Tories and any suggestion they would is just scaremongering.

There is zero percent chance of it, none, nada, diddly squat.

I think they have already said they wouldn’t work with the torys. I think they are correct doing this, but it does weaken their hand.

[fraybentos1]

28 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 they can get something out of it then they’ll get into bed with the Tories as seen in 2010.

nonsense. It nearly killed their party last time

[Ozanne]

20 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Politics was very different in 2010. Cameron was where Starmer is now so close to the LD - there is no way at all they would work with the Tories and any suggestion they would is just scaremongering.

There is zero percent chance of it, none, nada, diddly squat.

Sure it’s not likely but it’s more of a risk than with a strong majority Labour government. It’s not scaremongering, it’s true that the Tories win elections in this country and a hung-Parliament increases that the chance of another election. 

[steviewevie]

way polls are going Lib Dems will have fewer seats than Reform.

hoho.

Actually...with tactical voting thingy...I saw that apparently Lib Dem voters were more likely to vote Labour for tactical voting reasons than Green voters...not sure about Labour to Lib dem...

[steviewevie]

Another one of those SNP ceasefire votes next week.

[Ozanne]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

way polls are going Lib Dems will have fewer seats than Reform.

hoho.

Actually...with tactical voting thingy...I saw that apparently Lib Dem voters were more likely to vote Labour for tactical voting reasons than Green voters...not sure about Labour to Lib dem...

No way, Lib Dem’s will benefit from tactical voting and ironically from the voting system. Reform will have zero seats.

[Nobody Interesting]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

way polls are going Lib Dems will have fewer seats than Reform.

hoho.

Actually...with tactical voting thingy...I saw that apparently Lib Dem voters were more likely to vote Labour for tactical voting reasons than Green voters...not sure about Labour to Lib dem...

Reform wil get zero seats. Lib Dems at least 20 - cos that's how FPTP works. T#otally un democratic

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

No way, Lib Dem’s will benefit from tactical voting and ironically from the voting system. Reform will have zero seats.

I was kidding, hence the hoho. Lib dems are on to win 30ish seats at moment...but with current polling Reform will have a similar percentage of votes, which is why I'm sure they'll be calling for PR.

[Nobody Interesting]

33 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Sure it’s not likely but it’s more of a risk than with a strong majority Labour government. It’s not scaremongering, it’s true that the Tories win elections in this country and a hung-Parliament increases that the chance of another election. 

Given recent history a hung parliament increases the chance of a long term fixed parliament via the reinstated Parliament Act.

Recent history shows that a single party government has more regular elections that a stable coalition formed from a hung parliament.

Still, facts eh. Who needs them

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I was kidding, hence the hoho. Lib dems are on to win 30ish seats at moment...but with current polling Reform will have a similar percentage of votes, which is why I'm sure they'll be calling for PR.

Currently the only parties not calling for PR are Labour, Tory and SNP

Cos the system we have works for them.

It fails all the rest

[Ozanne]

Just now, Nobody Interesting said:

Given recent history a hung parliament increases the chance of a long term fixed parliament via the reinstated Parliament Act.

Recent history shows that a single party government has more regular elections that a stable coalition formed from a hung parliament.

Still, facts eh. Who needs them

The Fixed Term Parliament Act has been rescinded.

Recent history shows that a Tory government is more unstable. 

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The Fixed Term Parliament Act has been rescinded.

Recent history shows that a Tory government is more unstable. 

I know you find reading what is written tough but it clearly said ""via the reinstated Parliament Act."" REINSTATED

and yes, recent history shows Tory govts are unstable, my post eludes to that at the same time as stating that the coalition in a hung parliament was very stable - the two together prove  a hung parliament can be stable.

Hope you manage to read all of that this time LOL

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Right… but this is true of pretty much every decision anybody ever makes. Shall we also only have two cereal brands to choose from? Two football teams to support?

yes, but someone said you don't vote for the least objectionable party if using pr, i was pointing out, the least objectionable is always the best, it stays like that unless you have a full-match on all points (never going to happen).

[steviewevie]

I'm kind of for PR in that it gives voters more a reason to vote for who they want...but outcomes I reckon are similar...either a leftish govt or a rightish govt...it's just we don't have to go through the long periods of negotiation to get coalition govts formed..most of the time. But, with PR in europe at moment it seems you more likely to get an outright fascist as leader (Netherlands almost, Italy, more to come...).

Edited February 17 by steviewevie

[Neil]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I completely appreciate why you think labour have let you down,

for most of that type, they felt let down as soon as corbyn was dumped.

[Neil]

13 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

  a hung parliament can be stable.

can be, but mostly each partner is trying to get the other to ditch their biggest policies.

[Ozanne]

14 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I know you find reading what is written tough but it clearly said ""via the reinstated Parliament Act."" REINSTATED

and yes, recent history shows Tory govts are unstable, my post eludes to that at the same time as stating that the coalition in a hung parliament was very stable - the two together prove  a hung parliament can be stable.

Hope you manage to read all of that this time LOL

Yes sorry I miss-read that. What is the Parliament Act?