[Archived] Election

[Eddie]

No one who votes for the BNP cannot be described as "salt of the earth" of my opinion, that is unless they are painfully idiotic salt of the earth who have no idea what the BNP stand for, who runs them or what their aims are.

[thenodrog]

No one who votes for the BNP cannot be described as "salt of the earth" of my opinion, that is unless they are painfully idiotic salt of the earth who have no idea what the BNP stand for, who runs them or what their aims are.

You are not making sense.....have you been drinking?

Oh and speaking of salt..... the salient point being that no matter what you think their vote counts for exactly the same as yours for all your expensive education. No more and no less.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

No one who votes for the BNP cannot be described as "salt of the earth" of my opinion, that is unless they are painfully idiotic salt of the earth who have no idea what the BNP stand for, who runs them or what their aims are.

I think you mean can instead of cannot Eddie. I couldn't agree more. I don't care how well meaning and patriotic a person may be, only a complete fool could fail to see through the evil, dangerous men at the top levels of the BNP.

[koi]

I've never met a BNP member that I've not wanted to punch and unfortunately I come across one on a daily basis and what a pathetic piece of work he is. Ironically, the person just mentioned has a Spanish father who fled from Spain during the Franco era and an Irish mother!

[koi]

A bit of light relief:

http://www.loonyparty.com/index.php?page=manifestoproposals-1

[cletus]

I think proportional representation should be introduced in this country. Millions of people voted Libdem & they will only be represented by 50 something MPs. I think it is just plain wrong.

If parliament has a figure of 650 MPs (for example) & the total of people who voted is 24million (for example) then the fairest way of electing people to parliament would be....

24,000,000 divided by 650 = 36,923.

Every party who racks up 36,923 votes should get 1 member elected into parliament. Each party should make a list in descending order of people they want to represent them (i.e Party leader, Chancellor, Home Sec, Foreign sec, etc....)

If a quarter of the voters vote for LibDems (like they did this year) then they should have a quarter of the MPs.

The current system is totally totally unfair & wrong.

[Eddie]

I did mean can.

And yes, their vote counts for just as much as mine and I would never say any different. Just a shame that they choose to use their vote to support racism, hatred and ignorance.

[Glenn]

Hmmmm. I'm not sure that I'm buying that one Glenn. Right wing scum as I have just said is not wholly applicable. This issue transcends political leaning. Would you say that Gillian Duffy is right wing scum too? I'd assume not but Gordon Brown certainly does!

Having views on immigration does not make you either a bigot or right wing scum. I also agree it transcends political leaning. But then each of the three main parties did include items in their manifestos that would further limit immigration.

It was a cross bench act of pure political madness over many years which has never imo been properly punished. Heaths jackbooted destruction of Powells political career came across more as an act of political suicide by Powell in his determination to do his duty by taking the views of his Wolverhampton constituents and highlighting their concerns and issues to the Commons. This ultimately lead to the opposite effect as any discussion on the subject has now become taboo amongst our massed ranks of career politicians and the reason. You are right to say that people need better representation but the downfall of Enoch Powell above is the reason they will never get it through mainstream politicians, and that banishment of one of the pillars of democracy the principle of freedom of speech is the fatal flaw of our democracy.

Whilst I am not well enough placed to comment on the origins on the current taboos around discussion of race, religion and immigration (for fear of being labelled a bigot or a racist) I am in agreement that the taboo is not only unnecessary, it's also quite destructive. As people who have been reading my rants over the years will know, I feel very very strongly about the importance of freedom of speech and I feel the current trend to avoid discussion of subjects likely to offend (normally offend by proxy too) helps nobody*.

Just like the eu migrants who come to fulfill the lower paid jobs now are obviously causing concern and when a little old lady asks a simple question through such concern she is immedietley labelled as a bigot. When the Labour Prime Minister is caught out using those terms about a normal person who is old enough to have seen many such changes and with genuine worries then it's no wonder that an increasing number of people feel let down and disenfranchised by the mainstream politicians is it?

I agree.

[* Just because I believe in freedom of speech, this site has many legal and social requirements that means that we have to impose certain rules on how certain opinions are voiced on here.]

I think proportional representation should be introduced in this country. Millions of people voted Libdem & they will only be represented by 50 something MPs. I think it is just plain wrong.

If parliament has a figure of 650 MPs (for example) & the total of people who voted is 24million (for example) then the fairest way of electing people to parliament would be....

24,000,000 divided by 650 = 36,923.

Every party who racks up 36,923 votes should get 1 member elected into parliament. Each party should make a list in descending order of people they want to represent them (i.e Party leader, Chancellor, Home Sec, Foreign sec, etc....)

If a quarter of the voters vote for LibDems (like they did this year) then they should have a quarter of the MPs.

The current system is totally totally unfair & wrong.

I agree. IF the local representative you voted for was allowed to act independently for the good of your local constituency then I could see some justification for the current system. But the party whip system means they are not, they are duty bound to vote along party lines and whilst that continues, PR means a fairer representation of peoples views.

[berkshireblue]

I can't believe the Lib-Dems are prepared to get into bed with the Cameronite public school clique. They'll be split from top to bottom. They'll be back to the days when all their M.P.s could fit in a London Taxi.

Tyrone - You need to check which school Mr Clegg went to?

Westminster - 3rd behind Eton and Harrow

[American]

I think proportional representation should be introduced in this country. Millions of people voted Libdem & they will only be represented by 50 something MPs. I think it is just plain wrong.

If parliament has a figure of 650 MPs (for example) & the total of people who voted is 24million (for example) then the fairest way of electing people to parliament would be....

24,000,000 divided by 650 = 36,923.

Every party who racks up 36,923 votes should get 1 member elected into parliament. Each party should make a list in descending order of people they want to represent them (i.e Party leader, Chancellor, Home Sec, Foreign sec, etc....)

If a quarter of the voters vote for LibDems (like they did this year) then they should have a quarter of the MPs.

The current system is totally totally unfair & wrong.

Just imagine if your constituency voted Labour first, Lib-Dem second and Tories third, but they stuck you with a BNP MP. Would that be fair?

[koi]

PR sound like a great idea but there are as many con's as pro's and the public need to hear a fair and thorough evaluation of all types of voting. Similarly, for every example where PR is said to be successful (Germany, I suppose) there's one where it isn't (Israel is a classic example). You also have to keep in mind that a lot of PR based systems has a President as the head of state.

I personally don't know what the answer is. For every pro you can argue a con. I don't want to lose the MP/constituency system. If you want to keep that, how do you split the MP's? As mentioned above someone will have to take the BNP MP. If the system for MEP voting is introduced I feel we will be far worse off.

BUT let's be honest here, only the Lid Dems have a justified argument for full PR. FPTP is biased towards Labour (even more so since the boundary changes) and any Labour supporter wanting PR is simply throwing the toys out of the pram.

PR isn't the panacea people think it is that's for sure.

[den]

BUT let's be honest here, only the Lid Dems have a justified argument for full PR. FPTP is biased towards Labour (even more so since the boundary changes) and any Labour supporter wanting PR is simply throwing the toys out of the pram.

That's just ridiculous Koi and suggests that you are simply biased towards the Tories.

I'm beginning to think that PR is ultimately for the best. You say that PR isn't a panacea - but is FPTP, where any elected majority party, can do exactly as they like no matter what was in their manifesto, the panacea?

[koi]

That's just ridiculous Koi and suggests that you are simply biased towards the Tories.

I'm beginning to think that PR is ultimately for the best. You say that PR isn't a panacea - but is FPTP, where any elected majority party, can do exactly as they like no matter what was in their manifesto, the panacea?

I said I don't know the answer but just to rush into a PR system would be wrong before we know the full facts.

Why is it ridiculous? look at the facts based on votes:

1997-

Lab 13,518,167 votes, 418 seats

Con 9,600,943 votes, 165 seats

2001-

Lab 10,724,953 votes, 413 seats

Con 8,357,615 votes, 166 seats

2005-

Lab 9,562,122 votes, 356 seats

Con 8,772,598 votes, 198 seats

2010 Part 1-

Lab 8,604,358 votes, 258 seats

Con 10,683,787 votes, 306 seats

The result that jumps out is the 2001 election, the results are very close to being a reversal of 2010 yet look at the results! You can say what you want about share of the vote etc but the truth is Labour get more seats per vote than the other parties.

The argument still stands that after 13 years the only mention of a change to the voting system is a report that nobody remembers. Labour had two massive majorities, they could have easily pushed through a change but no, they didn't want to move the goalposts because it didn't suit. Suggesting any different to that is simply ridiculous.

[den]

and any Labour supporter wanting PR is simply throwing the toys out of the pram.

That's the ridiculous part Koi.

[Cheeky Sidders]

Perhaps a palatable compromise (and this is a time of compromise) might be to have an elected second chamber with that elected by PR. I seem to recall from my politics degree (a long, long time ago) that this was recommended by an independent commission way back in the 70s. I think the recommended system was that employed in the then West Germany, although can't remember the intricacies of it. It certainly wasn't the dubious Single Transferable Vote nonsense that seems so widespread now. There are so many methods and despite it's failings I'm not sure any of them are any fairer than FTPT.

I apologise if any of the above has already been said but I've been up in the lakes for a couple of days and it has been splendid - no TV, radio only picking up static and no mobile phone signal. Mind you, a bit bloody cold sleeping under canvas for May!

[koi]

Perhaps a palatable compromise (and this is a time of compromise) might be to have an elected second chamber with that elected by PR. I seem to recall from my politics degree (a long, long time ago) that this was recommended by an independent commission way back in the 70s. I think the recommended system was that employed in the then West Germany, although can't remember the intricacies of it. It certainly wasn't the dubious Single Transferable Vote nonsense that seems so widespread now. There are so many methods and despite it's failings I'm not sure any of them are any fairer than FTPT.

I apologise if any of the above has already been said but I've been up in the lakes for a couple of days and it has been splendid - no TV, radio only picking up static and no mobile phone signal. Mind you, a bit bloody cold sleeping under canvas for May!

The problem with a second chamber is that it's another layer of government that will add a significant cost to the tax payers bill. But as you say, it may be a compromise.

Just a consideration; if you think our MP's are corrupt you should look at our European counterparts who use PR systems, Italy and Greece for example where their parliamentarians make our MP's look like saints.

That's the ridiculous part Koi.

Going round in circles. Labour win and all is fine Labour lose and they want the goalposts moving to suit. End of.

[jim mk2]

Going round in circles. Labour win and all is fine Labour lose and they want the goalposts moving to suit. End of.

Tories need the support of the Lib Dems to form a government and suddenly electoral reform is on the negotiating table and the Tory manifesto is being rewritten to suit the Lib Dems agenda. Goalposts not just being moved but shifted on to the neighbouring pitch.

[thenodrog]

My accountant thinks a coup d'etat followed by a good old fashioned military dictatorship might be the best way forward. Can't say I disagree too much either when I review some of the shennanigins that have gone on in recent decades under a democracy. It'd make an interesting change wouldn't it and would likely be better ecologically for the planet. This is the main issue facing all of us that has been swept under the carpet in favour of sideshow distractions like PR , health and jobs in the public sector.

[thenodrog]

Tories need the support of the Lib Dems to form a government and suddenly electoral reform is on the negotiating table and the Tory manifesto is being rewritten to suit the Lib Dems agenda. Goalposts not just being moved but shifted on to the neighbouring pitch.

Wonder where they got the idea from?

http://jonathanfryer.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/remembering-the-lib-lab-pact/

Parties need to tread carefully and recall the lessons of history. Getting into bed with the pillow biters didn't do Lab much good then did it?

another desperate plea from the ranks of the power crazed ......

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/general-election-2010/adonis-calls-for-lib-lab-pact-again-$1371356.htm

[jim mk2]

My accountant

another desperate plea from the ranks of the power crazed ......

Not power crazed but an extremely competant transport secretary, probably the best I can remember, and a minister who actually knows his subject.

[Cheeky Sidders]

The problem with a second chamber is that it's another layer of government that will add a significant cost to the tax payers bill. But as you say, it may be a compromise.

We already have a second chamber and reform of the House of Lords has always been half-arsed. Giving them clear geographic areas to represent and limiting their numbers to say 100 (purely as an example) and clear guidelines regarding their powers it could be a good thing. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get some half-arsed fudge of a plan at the end of it.

[den]

Going round in circles. Labour win and all is fine Labour lose and they want the goalposts moving to suit. End of.

Who are "they"?

Plenty of supporters of all parties have wanted some form of PR for many years.

As it stands we have a PM who is an unelected leader of his party, an unelected PM and now a defeated PM who has lead a party to their biggest loss in decades a result worse than that of Major's in 1997. Come on, get real GB and Labour have no right to be involved in governing the nation.

Have the Lib Dems, who mustered around 60 seats in the election any "right" to be involved in this election? No, no-one has any "right". Fortunately, Cameron has realised that going ahead with a minority government is no good for them or the country.

Another example of illogical thinking Koi.

[koi]

We already have a second chamber and reform of the House of Lords has always been half-arsed. Giving them clear geographic areas to represent and limiting their numbers to say 100 (purely as an example) and clear guidelines regarding their powers it could be a good thing. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get some half-arsed fudge of a plan at the end of it.

Never thought of it that way, not a bad idea. Would be a shame to see some of the unelected peers have to go for a vote. *cough* Mandleson *cough*

Tories need the support of the Lib Dems to form a government and suddenly electoral reform is on the negotiating table and the Tory manifesto is being rewritten to suit the Lib Dems agenda. Goalposts not just being moved but shifted on to the neighbouring pitch.

Come on Jim, you seriously think the Lib Dems will get what they really want coz I don't.

[broadsword]

Have the Lib Dems, who mustered around 60 seats in the election any "right" to be involved in this election? No, no-one has any "right". Fortunately, Cameron has realised that going ahead with a minority government is no good for them or the country.

Another example of illogical thinking Koi.

Huh? Presumably you meant to say: "any 'right' to be involved in governing this nation.

I would respond that since they are the third largest party in the House of Commons, where no party has an outright majority then I'd say that entitles them to put their case forward to be part of govt.

The fact is I don't remember any party other than the Lib Dem's advocating PR. For Mandelson to start wittering on about FPTP creaking at the seams, it's a little late in the day. It smacks of desperation in wanting to hold onto power for personal gain, rather than selfless public service on behalf of the Nation.

Both Cameron and Brown were happy to distance themselves from Clegg before the election, giving him a good digging. Now they're interested in how they can work with him, so they can have the keys to number 10. It's tragic and funny.

[koi]

Who are "they"?

Plenty of supporters of all parties have wanted some form of PR for many years.

Have the Lib Dems, who mustered around 60 seats in the election any "right" to be involved in this election? No, no-one has any "right". Fortunately, Cameron has realised that going ahead with a minority government is no good for them or the country.

Another example of illogical thinking Koi.

Never heard any of the senior Labour or Tory member talk about it before. I've heard them talk about superficial changes but that's all.

I don't disagree with your comment on the Lib Dems and for what it's worth I don't think they will have a seat in government, I think they'll offer there support for the key bills. I would imagine another election in Oct/Nov to try and get a mandate for a single party.

Thankfully, nothing illogical about my thinking.