Just one sec...
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

if there was an election tomorow

Announcements Posted on
Take our short survey, £100 of Amazon vouchers to be won! 23-09-2016
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    It probably would be the case. Without it, there's no working majority. There's also no real compromises to be made. The only people compromising are those in coalition - in the English example, the Tories only have to come to an agreement with UKIP. In the national example, they are just dealing with UKIP and the Ulster Unionists - and it won't be compromise - the little parties will just be making demands.And the losers? Well, no-one is compromising with them.

    Sure, you might like the idea that UKIP get 4m votes and get more seats. But the flip side of that is what might realistically happen. If you vote for a party, and that party wins - you expect to get that party's policies.

    Say you're a shipbuilder, staunch union man. You vote Labour, and Labour gets the biggest share, but has to throw in with the Greens to get a majority. The price the Greens demand is cancelling Trident upgrades, and you're out of a job. Never in your imagination could you have thought that voting for a party - that then wins - would lead to a policy directly against your own interest like this.
    You seem to be missing the point of a PR system.
    In Germany, parties are far more co-operative with each other. There's less of an us vs them mentality and far more collaboration.

    I want that here. I don't want 36% of the country to get everything they want and 64% to get nothing.

    I firmly believe that people should be represented fairly and proportionately. What happens after is largely irrelevant. UKIP get 18% of the vote, they deserve 18% of the MPs.

    PR systems work elsewhere. They can work here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Conservative.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    100% UKIP, though in the long-term I'm keeping Britain First in mind just in case UKIP go to pot with the new leadership.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Where do you think May stands economically in comparison to Cameron? At the moment she almost seems to be peddling an anti-uber wealthy type message such as 'make boardrooms publish pay' and 'go tough on tax avoiders' etc. Not that I expect her to do the latter though.
    She's left of anybody since Heath although a bit more socially conservative. It's probably down to her background (ordinary middle class background and daughter of a vicar).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lib dem don't stand a chance in hell sadly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    You get a magnified coalition effect, where a small party (or parties) get to act as kingmakers and can make all sorts of demands that would never be entertained - either in coalition, or to support a minority government.

    There was an IPSOS poll in August - just take that as an example. It has CON 40%, LAB 34%, LIB 8%, UKIP14%, GRN 4%.The realistic coalitions there are Con/UKIP or Lab/Lib/Green - either way, the big parties have to make policy that they almost certainly never would, or certainly not to the magnitude that can be demanded. LAB/LIB might not be too far off the reservation, but what price would the Greens ask to put Labour into power? Realistically they could name any one of their crackpot policies, and Labour would have to agree if they want to be in government. Similarly, what would UKIP demand from the Tories? Certainly not something they think the Tories might deliver anyway, like immigration controls. They might want a 4 places on the cabinet - for a party that has no hope of forming its own government.
    You are applying first past the post logic to a PR coalition. If we shift to PR the largest party would elect the leader. Policies would be cross party discussions, not the sole domain of the biggest party as they are currently. we may start to get policies developed which have broader support. It may take a few goes to get past the egos, but longer term we may get more balanced results.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by New- Emperor)
    if there was an election tomorrow who would you vote for? I think I would vet for
    Lib Dem as they want to take us back in to the EU.
    I can't tell you how conflicted I am on that question. I never thought there would be a time in my life where I wasn't extremely clear on who I would cast a ballot for. The idea that I wouldn't cast a ballot was unthinkable.

    I am a Labour man; I was a loyal party member during the Miliband years (I joined close to the beginning of the parliament). I worked extremely hard, along with many others (from all wings of the party; hard left, soft left, social democrats, centrists etc), to try to bring about a Labour government because we believed that was what was best for the country. I was also deeply involved in trade unions and I was a trade union officer.

    Ordinarily of course I would not just vote Labour but be out there leafletting, door knocking, phone banking and so on. But the current leader of the Labour Party changes the equation. There are many objections I have to him; his incompetence, his lack of leadership skills, his narrow-mindedness, his willingness to allow a cult of personality to develop around him and to instrumentalise these people as his political base. There are also substantive policy objections, not so much on the economic front (there are some there, but we mostly agree) but on the foreign policy front; his isolationism, his Trumpian contempt for NATO and our allies, his support for Russian imperialism and conquest, his desire to get rid of the nuclear deterrent and run down our armed forces.

    But the most important is his immorality and corruption. I could never countenance, or forgive, his decision to accept £20,000 from the government of Iran, a regime that lynches gay men from cranes and stones women to death, as payment to shill for them on TV. The moral turpitude that attaches to that act, his utter indifference to the ethical implications of that, makes him to my mind a completely unsuitable person to be party leader. That is without even getting into the money he took from outsourcing giant Capita, the expensive gift and business-class flight he accepted from an oil industry lobbyist, and his many friendships and associations of fascists, anti-semites and raving homophobes.

    I don't know if I can give approval to that state of affairs by casting a ballot for the Labour Party. I'm in an extremely safe Labour seat so it doesn't matter what I do, but abstaining from voting is probably the most likely outcome for me. I fundamentally disagree with the Tories on so many issues I couldn't support them, and the Liberal Democrats have what is, to me, an extremely obnoxious foreign and defence policy (anti-Trident, their poor attitude toward our allies like America, their willingness to be a home for anti-semites like David Ward) and on the economy I cannot support their free-market dogmas. I'm a socialist, not a liberal.

    So that all being said, abstention is probably what I will do. I am saddened, and in fact ashamed of my party, that it has come to that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You are applying first past the post logic to a PR coalition. If we shift to PR the largest party would elect the leader. Policies would be cross party discussions, not the sole domain of the biggest party as they are currently. we may start to get policies developed which have broader support. It may take a few goes to get past the egos, but longer term we may get more balanced results.
    I know exactly what you're saying, however at some point there would have to be a majority to pass legislation - and assuming that's set at 50%, exactly the same dynamics are going to come into play. So long as there are some relatively aligned parties that can make that threshold, there's no real need for cross-floor consent with total opponents.

    In practice, the situation you're outlining of a very pure PR system, has been in implemented in Israel for years - with party lists and seats in proportion to vote share -and I a former cabinet minister describes legislating in Israel as "writing poetry whilst standing on a ball".

    Can you see what I'm getting at? If what we vaguely term the left, or right, or centre, can command 50% of the PR vote share - there's no need for broader support. Let's just say for example, there were a "Blair Party" and a Tory Party - if they could jointly cross the threshold with centrist policy - the parties toward the edges of the political spectrum - the Corbyn party, UKIP, Green, Sinn Fein etc - would be completely excluded just as in FPTP. I don't see where the need for broadening comes from, unless all parties' vote shares fall dramatically.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I know exactly what you're saying, however at some point there would have to be a majority to pass legislation - and assuming that's set at 50%, exactly the same dynamics are going to come into play. So long as there are some relatively aligned parties that can make that threshold, there's no real need for cross-floor consent with total opponents.

    In practice, the situation you're outlining of a very pure PR system, has been in implemented in Israel for years - with party lists and seats in proportion to vote share -and I a former cabinet minister describes legislating in Israel as "writing poetry whilst standing on a ball".

    Can you see what I'm getting at? If what we vaguely term the left, or right, or centre, can command 50% of the PR vote share - there's no need for broader support. Let's just say for example, there were a "Blair Party" and a Tory Party - if they could jointly cross the threshold with centrist policy - the parties toward the edges of the political spectrum - the Corbyn party, UKIP, Green, Sinn Fein etc - would be completely excluded just as in FPTP. I don't see where the need for broadening comes from, unless all parties' vote shares fall dramatically.
    A 50% requirement would be a big step up from where we are now. In theory if the Tories stayed solid, they can pass every bill with only 36%. I think the reality as it developed would be that the alliance between parties would shift on a policy by policy basis. Some parties would have stronger support on employment rights, some stronger on business, some on environment etc. We already see 'rebels' within the larger parties, on a regular basis.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The funny thing talking about PR is we currently have an ~2pc majority, ConKip last election would also have been ~2pc, and it still would be.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The funny thing talking about PR is we currently have an ~2pc majority, ConKip last election would also have been ~2pc, and it still would be.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As much as I would dislike a Con-UKIP government, it would at least be more representative of what people voted for. If a party gets x% of the votes, they really should get x% of the seats.

    The only thing holding the labour and tory parties together is the electoral system. As others have said, it means Kendall and Corbyn are in the same party.

    FPTP favours a two party system massively and makes it very difficult for smaller parties to make a breakthrough. I support PR even though from a labour perspective, it would currently produce a more politically undesirable result.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I know exactly what you're saying, however at some point there would have to be a majority to pass legislation - and assuming that's set at 50%, exactly the same dynamics are going to come into play. So long as there are some relatively aligned parties that can make that threshold, there's no real need for cross-floor consent with total opponents.

    In practice, the situation you're outlining of a very pure PR system, has been in implemented in Israel for years - with party lists and seats in proportion to vote share -and I a former cabinet minister describes legislating in Israel as "writing poetry whilst standing on a ball".

    Can you see what I'm getting at? If what we vaguely term the left, or right, or centre, can command 50% of the PR vote share - there's no need for broader support. Let's just say for example, there were a "Blair Party" and a Tory Party - if they could jointly cross the threshold with centrist policy - the parties toward the edges of the political spectrum - the Corbyn party, UKIP, Green, Sinn Fein etc - would be completely excluded just as in FPTP. I don't see where the need for broadening comes from, unless all parties' vote shares fall dramatically.
    Requiring 50% of representative votes however is better than the current system where you just require the votes of MPs who are elected by 36% of the population.

    Not only would PR be more representative and democratic, it would also in my opinion help to change significantly the way politics is done. FPTP encourages a very tribalist, us v them two party system. Just take a look at PMQs. It is not collaborative.

    In countries such as Germany, there is a far more constructive political atmosphere with different parties talking to one another and coming up with broader policies, rather than policies which just appeal to 36% of the population.

    It would also rid us of gerrymandering and tactical voting. It would prevent safe seats and encourage higher turnouts. All are positives.

    It would also allow the tories and labour parties to split into coherent factions, so people actually know what they are voting for. It's ridiculous that you have the likes of Kendall and Corbyn in the same party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The funny thing talking about PR is we currently have an ~2pc majority, ConKip last election would also have been ~2pc, and it still would be.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I see what you mean but IMO there's a massive assumption in there that people would vote the same way as they do now if we had PR.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Requiring 50% of representative votes however is better than the current system where you just require the votes of MPs who are elected by 36% of the population.

    Not only would PR be more representative and democratic, it would also in my opinion help to change significantly the way politics is done. FPTP encourages a very tribalist, us v them two party system. Just take a look at PMQs. It is not collaborative.

    In countries such as Germany, there is a far more constructive political atmosphere with different parties talking to one another and coming up with broader policies, rather than policies which just appeal to 36% of the population.

    It would also rid us of gerrymandering and tactical voting. It would prevent safe seats and encourage higher turnouts. All are positives.

    It would also allow the tories and labour parties to split into coherent factions, so people actually know what they are voting for. It's ridiculous that you have the likes of Kendall and Corbyn in the same party.
    This.

    I could happily picture the moderate elements on either side working together on a govt that everyone could put up with and sidelining the nutcases on the outer wings.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    This.

    I could happily picture the moderate elements on either side working together on a govt that everyone could put up with and sidelining the nutcases on the outer wings.
    A great deal of MPs in the tory and labour party have more in common with each other than they do with many in their own parties. This was highlighted in the EU referendum.

    Both the conservatives and Labour are only held together by the electoral system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    A great deal of MPs in the tory and labour party have more in common with each other than they do with many in their own parties. This was highlighted in the EU referendum.

    Both the conservatives and Labour are only held together by the electoral system.
    Well, the absurdity of the current situation is that Corbyn has almost nothing in common with the party he's leading, nor do most of the people who elected him.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Well, the absurdity of the current situation is that Corbyn has almost nothing in common with the party he's leading, nor do most of the people who elected him.
    It's exactly why we should have PR, so people actually get a genuine choice of who to vote for. There is a chasm of difference between Corbyn and Kendall yet they are only in the same party because of electoral system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For me it would have to be Labour. I think the prospect of Corbyn as PM is the most exciting thing about UK politics just now. A PM who we know values the many and will never break his principles for the few. I think it would lead to a nicer, prosperous, energized country. I really do have the feeling about Corbyn that he is someone who will be remembered fondly as a landmark in history.

    The televised debates would be very interesting, I think it will be on this platform that Corbyn can potentially win over the masses. I am a big supporter, incase that wasn't clear by now, but even I will admit that his "weakest" moments have been in PMQs and apart from his last showing before the leadership results, there really haven't been many "stand out" performance's from him. During rallies, and contests in front of an audience, however, the real man shines through. The honest, genuine, hard working, thoughtful, principled man he is.

    There will be some who disagree, I respect that. This is someone who I feel would make a great leader though, there really isn't anyone else around like him apart from maybe Bernie Sanders in the U.S.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    For me it would have to be Labour. I think the prospect of Corbyn as PM is the most exciting thing about UK politics just now. A PM who we know values the many and will never break his principles for the few. I think it would lead to a nicer, prosperous, energized country. I really do have the feeling about Corbyn that he is someone who will be remembered fondly as a landmark in history.

    The televised debates would be very interesting, I think it will be on this platform that Corbyn can potentially win over the masses. I am a big supporter, incase that wasn't clear by now, but even I will admit that his "weakest" moments have been in PMQs and apart from his last showing before the leadership results, there really haven't been many "stand out" performance's from him. During rallies, and contests in front of an audience, however, the real man shines through. The honest, genuine, hard working, thoughtful, principled man he is.

    There will be some who disagree, I respect that. This is someone who I feel would make a great leader though, there really isn't anyone else around like him apart from maybe Bernie Sanders in the U.S.
    The "real man" shines through when preaching to the converted, he's already shown he's weak as soon as he has to defend his position. It's easy to preach when people hang on every word, it's not so easy when you need to convince people and think on your feet.

    The irony of saying he's a nice guy is that more people would use nasty to describe him than May.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    For me it would have to be Labour. I think the prospect of Corbyn as PM is the most exciting thing about UK politics just now. A PM who we know values the many and will never break his principles for the few. I think it would lead to a nicer, prosperous, energized country. I really do have the feeling about Corbyn that he is someone who will be remembered fondly as a landmark in history.

    The televised debates would be very interesting, I think it will be on this platform that Corbyn can potentially win over the masses. I am a big supporter, incase that wasn't clear by now, but even I will admit that his "weakest" moments have been in PMQs and apart from his last showing before the leadership results, there really haven't been many "stand out" performance's from him. During rallies, and contests in front of an audience, however, the real man shines through. The honest, genuine, hard working, thoughtful, principled man he is.

    There will be some who disagree, I respect that. This is someone who I feel would make a great leader though, there really isn't anyone else around like him apart from maybe Bernie Sanders in the U.S.
    Interestingly i actually feel that it's the television debates which will utterly destroy him. As nice as you think he is, he'll have to go on TV and admit to being a republican, to not valuing the union or our overseas territories, to having sympathy for Russia, for being unwilling to fight ISIS.. these are fundamental things which i believe will ensure the electorate won't care whether he's nice or whether neoliberalism is bad.. they'll see on the one hand a PM who has done a reasonable job and on the other hand they'll see an extemist who wants their queen and the Falklands gone.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 27, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
How do you eat your pizza
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22

Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.