RIP Margaret Thatcher Page 74

  • Page

    of 78 First / Last

  • cubbymoore 18 Apr 2013 13:49:15 36,441 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I was on the fence on Thatcher, until her stupid funeral meant The Hairy Bikers wasn't on TV last night!
  • Retroid Moderator 18 Apr 2013 13:49:43 44,501 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I was a Lib Dem voter. Nick Clegg can FOAD. It's like voting Anti-Fascist & turning the TV on to find they'd formed a coalition with the BNP.
  • DaM 18 Apr 2013 13:56:04 12,611 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    AV was crap from the start, I can't believe the Lib Dems thought they were getting a good deal, the Tories must have been loving it- gaining power for giving away so little.

    Other forms of PR are working well in the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies - even for the Tories, they have a sizeable representation in the Scottish Parliament due to PR, yet only one MP at Westminster.
  • cubbymoore 18 Apr 2013 13:58:36 36,441 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It was amazing wasn't it. Clegg could have asked for the world and the conservatives would have given it, such was their position, and still they thought they could do no better than an AV referendum, when their manifesto had asked for PR.
  • Retroid Moderator 18 Apr 2013 14:00:31 44,501 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    AV was a decent idea, if imperfect. Better than FPTP.
  • RobTheBuilder 18 Apr 2013 14:10:33 6,521 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Retroid Definitely.

    There's certainly an irony that a lot of people who supported AV wanted it to help the Lib Dems get a fairer share of power, but in order to get that vote they took power with the devil, which in turn means less people want to vote for them.
  • glaeken 18 Apr 2013 14:12:17 10,977 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Retroid Yeah but it split the vote up. You had those who wanted to keep the current system and those who wanted real PR both voting no. Clegg made a terrible deal with the Tories to just end up with that. I would imagine his personal ambition trumped things. Offering him deputy prime minister was a sharp move by the Tories.

    Edited by glaeken at 14:12:44 18-04-2013
  • cubbymoore 18 Apr 2013 14:13:12 36,441 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It's better, but only just. It doesn't really alter FPTP in any significant way. You would hardly see any change in constituency to make it a worthwhile change, whereas PR would almost guarantee a fairer representation of the population.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:13:51 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Retroid wrote:
    AV was a decent idea, if imperfect. Better than FPTP.
    Don't just say this like it's a fact.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RobTheBuilder 18 Apr 2013 14:18:28 6,521 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @LeoliansBro I'm not aware of how it is worse than a system that means effectively only a tiny proportion of votes have any value.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:20:27 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It presupposed that you vote for a party rather than an individual, and disenfranchises everyone who would want to do the latter. It also removes any democratic say in who your local MP will be.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 14:22:20 38,899 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Proportional representation then. Fuck AV just go the whole way.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • RobTheBuilder 18 Apr 2013 14:23:10 6,521 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @LeoliansBro Well that's a fair point. It still works better than FPTP in providing a fair reflection of votes.
  • DFawkes 18 Apr 2013 14:23:42 22,063 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm not sure I follow. AV has it's faults, but those aren't really them - as far as I can see, neither AV or FPTP suffer those problems in regards to voting for the party and no say in your MP. I understand that those are definitely issues with PR though, I'm just not sure how they relate to AV which Retroid's comment stated.

    I think I missed a post though, probably was in reference to PR which is fair enough :)

    Edited by DFawkes at 14:25:52 18-04-2013

    I'd kick the living daylights out of the producers of Tipping Point - Ghandi

  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 14:26:04 38,899 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Why is that an issue with PR?

    You still get to vote for your MP but it matters less in the national count?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:26:16 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @LeoliansBro Well that's a fair point. It still works better than FPTP in providing a fair reflection of votes.
    No, that's exactly my point, it doesn't. You get zero say in which person ACTUALLY gets to represent you, or the party you believe in. There's some mandarin at the top of each political party giving jobs out to his mates under the banner you voted for.

    And that doesn't even get started on how fragmented a parliament PR creates. I know PR has benefits but I want a system where we end up with a political party able to get things done. 99/100 times action is better than inaction (I'm aware that there's a strong argument that we're experiencing the 1% of utter cock up at the mo). I also want to vote primarily for a person, not an ideology.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 14:26:51 18-04-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 18 Apr 2013 14:28:12 5,142 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    This is why PR necessitates having two houses, no? One local one national.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:29:19 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    This is why PR necessitates having two houses, no? One local one national.
    With the local one based on FPTP?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • imamazed 18 Apr 2013 14:29:21 5,455 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @LeoliansBro Well that's a fair point. It still works better than FPTP in providing a fair reflection of votes.
    No, that's exactly my point, it doesn't. You get zero say in which person ACTUALLY gets to represent you, or the party you believe in. There's some mandarin at the top of each political party giving jobs out to his mates under the banner you voted for.

    And that doesn't even get started on how fragmented a parliament PR creates. .
    I'm not arguing either way myself, but psephologists have been saying for a while now that Britain faces a period of hung parliaments under the existing FTPT system. The nature of the coalition cobbled together at the time will determine whether or not there'll be a "stong" government.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:31:00 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So, given we'll be facing coalitions based on FPTP or PR we should opt for the latter?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 14:31:15 38,899 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    This is why PR necessitates having two houses, no? One local one national.
    Yes or you have two counts?

    National and Local.

    Local is a straight count but when it comes to the national party the elected MP's count is...wait yeah two houses. :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 18 Apr 2013 14:32:51 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Tbh, I'd like a presidential system with full PR. Dunno about the nuts and bolts of the thing, but it always struck me as stupid that we make two decisions with one vote as things stand. PM and MP I mean.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 14:33:29 18-04-2013
  • imamazed 18 Apr 2013 14:33:06 5,455 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    So, given we'll be facing coalitions based on FPTP or PR we should opt for the latter?
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Just trying to point out FTPT isn't neccesarily the making of a "strong" government.

    Although you can have variants and hybrids of PR that at least try and facilitate a stronger government
  • disusedgenius 18 Apr 2013 14:37:08 5,142 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    With the local one based on FPTP?
    I think just based on smaller districts.

    Saying that, the old Liberals video had John Cleese explaining their proposed system: I'm pretty sure the idea was that, rather than doing PR nationally, you do it in areas. So you should end up with several local representatives so that a right winger in a Labour stronghold should, in theory, have someone who actually represents his views rather than just the majority view.

    Can't search for it at work, but it was quite interesting.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:39:19 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The smaller ths district though, the less difference there is between PR and FPTP. The whole point of the former was to give a voice to the vast swathes of people who voted for (let's be honest) the Lib Dems when it was always going to be a Tory/Lab victory in their constituency.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 14:39:59 38,899 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Wait why can't we have 2 counts?

    The local MP is based on a simple majority but each district has a different PR weighting depending on population?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:40:56 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So the local MP gets returned to Parliament. What does the PR side of the vote lead to?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 14:41:39 41,865 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Actually I think you're not really talking about PR there. Constituencies are pretty much already weighted by population (not a perfect science I know but that's the idea).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 18 Apr 2013 14:42:34 5,142 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Sure, the main thrust of the point was that trying to get one guy to represent you was a bad idea and a bit singular. By widening the districts to have a number of representatives you allow people to have a better change to get someone who they actually want in power, compared to the all-or-nothing FPTP method.

    Again though, this was from the 80s. No idea if that's what they're still proposing.
  • Page

    of 78 First / Last

Log in or register to reply