Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

If we vote no in the referendum, I am leaving the UK watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    I'm proper British. Born and raised in Manchester and though I would never leave but if the people of Britain vote no on what is the biggest democratic push in history, then I will leave. I will no longer identify with the people of Britain, my own kind. This referendum is the biggest political change in history so if you do not understand it but decided to vote no because you know the Lib's want it, then you deserve to be shot down. The FPTP system that we have now allows for the monopoly of Cons and Labour to consistently come first and second. This means that they know they can put piece of **** candidates like ex mp Howard Flight without fear of losing. BTW he's the one who likened the working classes to animals "breding". So next time you have an expenses scandal and the MP still retains his/her seat, remember it was your fault for saying no.
    I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous piece of exageration i've ever seen. Ever.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Okay then! Bon voyage! Have you decided where you would like to go? If not, pick 5 places you want to go and put them in preferential order on different aspects! And then eliminate potential places until you're left with your most preferred one, even though it may not be where you want to go, but you'll just have to deal with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Belle_)
    such a small percentage of people vote Lib Dem, therefore you are in the minority. Get over it, if the people of Britain wanted them in power, they would vote them in. Changing the voting system is counter-productive and less democratic.

    But each to their own. If you leave, you leave.
    Uhm, how?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    Whats wrong with it? It's not too rigid like the US. But it is unrealistic. The executive loves to have free range. ATM the HoL is ...just there really. Oh but they did delay the fox hunting bad, yay I guess?
    Clearly you haven't studied the topic much. The House of Lords is an extremely active chamber which provides a substantive impact on legislation and holding the Executive to account. It is more successful than the Commons in changing legislation and its members are much less heavily whipped.

    That aside the Commons is also a more effective chamber than people give it credit, within the bounds permissible in an elected chamber. It is whipped, but no worse than countries such as Germany, and it is capable of holding the Executive to account quite well.

    Having both Houses elected in a unitary parliamentary state as the UK would be kind of pointless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lawl at leaving the country.

    But on a serious note, the AV makes for a fairer voting system and thats something that no one can deny. Statistically more people don't want the parties in power than actually do want them. Is that really a democracy?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    That can also be a downside. Proportional systems like AV could potentially allow not only marginal parties into Parliament, but extremist parties, like the BNP and or others.
    AV is by no means proportional.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well you best pack your bags lol.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quadratic)
    Lawl at leaving the country.

    But on a serious note, the AV makes for a fairer voting system and thats something that no one can deny. Statistically more people don't want the parties in power than actually do want them. Is that really a democracy?
    It depends on what you consider fair, though. Lord Jenkins and Lord Owen for a start, both avid pro-PR people, decried AV strongly as being extremely erratic and unpredictable, and can give less fair results than FPTP.

    Speaking as someone agnostic on adopting PR, I would rather retain FPTP than go into the potential dog's dinner that AV is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I was going to vote yes.

    But if you PROMISE you'll leave ill definitely reconsider.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Clearly you haven't studied the topic much. The House of Lords is an extremely active chamber which provides a substantive impact on legislation and holding the Executive to account. It is more successful than the Commons in changing legislation and its members are much less heavily whipped.

    That aside the Commons is also a more effective chamber than people give it credit, within the bounds permissible in an elected chamber. It is whipped, but no worse than countries such as Germany, and it is capable of holding the Executive to account quite well.



    Having both Houses elected in a unitary parliamentary state as the UK would be kind of pointless.
    ---------
    "are much less heavily whipped."
    -they are unelected and have a huge amount of job security. No wonder.

    "holding the Executive to account."
    -Yeah 2 years of delay. Fantastic.

    also alot of the HoL are ex-lawyers which is good for the leg part but also makes them unrepresentative.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    Leave to where? Australia? The country with AV that are trying to get rid?
    Or one of them other countries with the same god damn voting system.

    I dont actually give a flying **** OP.
    Netherlands and Norway both use PR.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    That can also be a downside. Proportional systems like AV could potentially allow not only marginal parties into Parliament, but extremist parties, like the BNP and or others.
    The pro-AV letter I got through the door said that the BNP would be "shut out" under an AV system.

    Confusingly, anti-AV materials said that the BNP would be more successful under AV.


    They're probably both talking ****.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    ---------
    "are much less heavily whipped."
    -they are unelected
    And?

    and have a huge amount of job security. No wonder.
    Unpaid job. But yes, essentially.

    Fact is, once you elect a position, you make it a job, and you make it whippable. If you elect the Lords you're making a clone of the Commons, essentially.

    "holding the Executive to account."
    -Yeah 2 years of delay. Fantastic.
    You realise that's a nightmare for most governments? Particularly as when the Lords kicks up a stink, although constitutionally they can only delay, the very threat of delay is enough to draw people's attention to the issue that is in contention.

    That can be very embarassing for governments which are trying to sneak through legislation, and have a habit of overwhelming the Commons which such huge amounts of work that the Lords is left to pick up the pieces.

    It's no small wonder it was the Lords which forced the government to back down over, for example, 90 days, and not the Commons.

    also alot of the HoL are ex-lawyers which is good for the leg part but also makes them unrepresentative.
    A lot are, but not all. There's an enormous amount of scientists, businessmen, diplomats, soldiers, technicians, teachers, charity workers, social carers, doctors and university dons. You're correct that lawyer/businessman is overdone, but this can be rectified with a much stronger appointments system which is perfectly attainable.

    As for representative - what would they represent that differs from the Commons?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Quadratic)
    Lawl at leaving the country.

    But on a serious note, the AV makes for a fairer voting system and thats something that no one can deny. Statistically more people don't want the parties in power than actually do want them. Is that really a democracy?
    The only way you could always have more people voting for a party than against it would be if you only had a two party state.
    I appreciate that AV requires you to have a 50% share of the "vote" but I wouldn't consider the ranked choices "other than the first choice" to be as valid as the first choice. Essentially you're saying that you don't want that candidate to win because there's someone better. Reading that back makes me think I've not explained myself well. What I'm trying to say that if you, for example, ranked the tory candidate 6th out of 6 - that's really not a vote for them, that's a vote against them because you want them to win the least. I'm applying the same idea to the other ranks.


    If we do get AV, I doubt I'll be ranking candidates. I'll probably just put a 1 where I see fit and have done with it. I would be allowed to do that according to the electoral commission.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't like the idea of my vote going to a party that I don't support...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    Except its not just the Lib Dems is it? What about UKIP and the Green Party? I'm sure they would get many more seats.
    Yeah and who the hell wants a load of tree huggers in parliament?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    Except its not just the Lib Dems is it? What about UKIP and the Green Party? I'm sure they would get many more seats.
    So would the BNP.

    To the neg: the BNP getting more seats would be a bad thing :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melonhead12)
    I just don't like the idea of my vote going to a party that I don't support...
    don't rank a party you don't support them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    This referendum is the biggest political change in history so if you do not understand it but decided to vote no because you know the Lib's want it, then you deserve to be shot down.
    So the AV referendum is bigger politically than:
    • Magna Carta
    • English Civil War
    • The Restoration
    • Union of England and Scotland
    • Reform Act
    • Abolition of Slavery
    • Secret Ballot
    • Universal Suffrage
    • The list goes on and on....


    In the grand scheme of things it's just not that big of a deal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It depends on what you consider fair, though. Lord Jenkins and Lord Owen for a start, both avid pro-PR people, decried AV strongly as being extremely erratic and unpredictable, and can give less fair results than FPTP.

    Speaking as someone agnostic on adopting PR, I would rather retain FPTP than go into the potential dog's dinner that AV is.
    It's erratic because it means the mainstream parties have to get their act together. They can't just blag it anymore, with campaigns on why not to vote the others; they actually have to try and deliver on their "promises" and sell themselves. Because let's face it, labour and conservatives know theyll win a lot of seats regardless, so they dont ever really TRY. It's the same old, same old. An elite group of politicians, pretty much untouched by the views of the public. But when democracy really kicks in and we get a chance to have a fair say, these parties suddenly don't get in, or they do but we find out what they're really like. Consequently theres an erratic election of MP's, because MP's are being held more accountable for their actions.

    Perhaps you'd say that's bad, but I think it's fairer that way. Why should we be scared of what's ultimately right?

    I'll admit though that I know nothing about politics and that's just all my own viewpoint. I dont like mainstream parties.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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