UK Politics

[Neil]

18 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

plus, I did say I might vote Green, not that I definitely would....would all depend etc etc...

The splitting of social solidarity will not increase solidarity in policies. the nhss is an example of solidarity in policy.

[Neil]

10 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

FPTP gives mainly Labour OR Tory Govs as the 2 largest parties. Within that, of the 2 there are more Tory govs cause they usually get more votes than labour and win more seats, not cause FPTP generally benefits them more.

A vote outcome is the result of the input the voters views. They stay the same no matter what voting system is used.

Edited February 18 by Neil

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

The splitting of social solidarity will not increase solidarity in policies. the nhss is an example of solidarity in policy.

I'm talking about if we had PR. It's all hypothetical. Labour might not exist under PR, Green might have different policies. Just saying if we had PR right now with the current parties I might vote Green, I might also vote Labour.

Actually - this is it with PR, how would it work? How does it work in other countries? You vote for top 3, or just one?

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

A vote outcome is the result of the input lot voters views. They stay the same no matter what voting system is used.

I don't quite follow this.

Are you saying that people vote the same under PR as they do under FPTP?

 

If that is what you are saying then it is wrong. EU elections in the UK used PR and the results and voting percentages were very different to GE under FPTP.

If that is not what you mean can you explain what it does mean.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Just more garbled nonsense from the pissed up auld fella hanging on the bar in the pub.

Below, party membership by country. 1%. Third bottom. Thats what we looks like is it? Thats solidarity?

Nobody gives a toss about politics in the uk because nobody feels like their opinion matters because it doesnt. Imagine thinking that thats a good thing. You’d have to be out of your tiny mind.

No one cares about politics but pr will make them care. Don't care enough to change the voting system. So how will they care enough to change the system.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm talking about if we had PR. It's all hypothetical. Labour might not exist under PR, Green might have different policies. Just saying if we had PR right now with the current parties I might vote Green, I might also vote Labour.

Actually - this is it with PR, how would it work? How does it work in other countries? You vote for top 3, or just one?

We would most likely have same system as Scotland. Where their politics is more f**ked up than Westminster. And claim it doesn't represent Scottish views 

Edited February 18 by Neil

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I'm talking about if we had PR. It's all hypothetical. Labour might not exist under PR, Green might have different policies. Just saying if we had PR right now with the current parties I might vote Green, I might also vote Labour.

Actually - this is it with PR, how would it work? How does it work in other countries? You vote for top 3, or just one?

True PR you get one vote and can vote for any party you want not just those that put candidates up in your constituancy - the vast majority of constituancies in the UK under FPTP are un democratic as you can only select form a few of the parties not all of them.

At our last council election we had Lib Dem, Tory and an Independant who was UKIP before.

Not much of a choice there and so not democratic at all.

[Neil]

And isn't green even with the greens in Govt 

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

True PR you get one vote and can vote for any party you want not just those that put candidates up in your constituancy - the vast majority of constituancies in the UK under FPTP are un democratic as you can only select form a few of the parties not all of them.

At our last council election we had Lib Dem, Tory and an Independant who was UKIP before.

Not much of a choice there and so not democratic at all.

Only you stopping you form standing.

[mattiloy]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

No one cares about politics but pr will make them care. Don't care enough to change the voting system. So how will they care enough to change the system.

They would if they could.

PR leads to higher voter turnout, higher engagement, more activism, larger party membership so a bigger pool of candidates to choose from (better representatives).

Its a no brainer. As in you have to have no brain to think that FPTP is better.

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

They would if they could.

 

you could stand as a politician to give people the choice you claim they crave, but you don't cos you don't care you only care about getting what you want. under the current system 405-ish of voters get what they want. but you refuse o recognise that.

 

 

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

PR leads to higher voter turnout, higher engagement, more activism, larger party membership so a bigger pool of candidates to choose from (better representatives).

larger party membership is not necessarily a good thing, just need to look at the momentum disaster.

 

 

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Its a no brainer. As in you have to have no brain to think that FPTP is better.

 

i don't think its better i was advocating for pr before you were born. i just realise its not magic, voters views are what voters views are. we'll still have tories winning.

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

question was asked if a referendum, public/voters said 'no'.wasn't because we don't have pr.

[fraybentos1]

33 minutes ago, Neil said:

A vote outcome is the result of the input the voters views. They stay the same no matter what voting system is used.

Well if we had PR other parties would have more seats and more influence and then people would feel more able to vote for them cause it isn't a wasted vote. All things equal in 2010 if we had a more proportional system then the lib dems would have got like 150 seats. And that is with a vote percentage based on no one expecting them to actually win.

PR would change the political landscape.

[Guest]

Well this is disgusting. 

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

you could stand as a politician to give people the choice you claim they crave, but you don't cos you don't care you only care about getting what you want. under the current system 405-ish of voters get what they want. but you refuse o recognise that.

 

so less than half get what they want and also a chunk of them will only vote tory cause they know it is a wasted vote going for anyone else other than the big 2 parties

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

question was asked if a referendum, public/voters said 'no'.wasn't because we don't have pr.

AV isn't PR, it was a referendum between bad and slightly less bad and the voters chose bad due to a lot of lies told by the winning side

[fraybentos1]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

i don't think its better i was advocating for pr before you were born.

wait so are you for or against it now?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

you could stand as a politician to give people the choice you claim they crave, but you don't cos you don't care you only care about getting what you want. under the current system 405-ish of voters get what they want. but you refuse o recognise that.

 

 

larger party membership is not necessarily a good thing, just need to look at the momentum disaster.

 

 

 

i don't think its better i was advocating for pr before you were born. i just realise its not magic, voters views are what voters views are. we'll still have tories winning.

 

 

 

 

 

question was asked if a referendum, public/voters said 'no'.wasn't because we don't have pr.

You’ll still get Tories winning under PR but you wouldn’t get Tory majorities so the more extreme elements of their policies would be diluted. 

[Neil]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You’ll still get Tories winning under PR but you wouldn’t get Tory majorities so the more extreme elements of their policies would be diluted. 

not diluted, you'd have ukip wagging the tory dog (more than it does now).

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

not diluted, you'd have ukip wagging the tory dog (more than it does now).

There could be many, many outcomes. It isn't really that relevant to the main argument which is votes should count.

If X amount of people want to vote reform or UKIP then they should get X amount of seats. 

[Neil]

10 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

wait so are you for or against it now?

i'm for it, i just don't think it cures the problems that mattiloy say, with the same voters (input) we'll get much the same result (output).

current govt might not suit you, but it does suit the many happy tories this country has. not everyone sees our system as a failure the only people who are happy with any system  are those who get the result they want.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

not diluted, you'd have ukip wagging the tory dog (more than it does now).

Hmmm that could happen but I reckon it would be pretty rare. 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

There could be many, many outcomes. It isn't really that relevant to the main argument which is votes should count.

If X amount of people want to vote reform or UKIP then they should get X amount of seats. 

could be many outcomes but we know with certainty theres a majority who'll go along with ukip

so one certain outcome is govts of both left and right which are more kipper.

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Hmmm that could happen but I reckon it would be pretty rare. 

we'd end up with something more kipper than we get now.

[mattiloy]

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

not diluted, you'd have ukip wagging the tory dog (more than it does now).

This is the weirdest argument out there. Across Europe, right wing populist parties have governed in coalition with other right wing parties, and yet it is the UK, with its allegedly extremist proof system which has left the eu, puts refugees on planes to rwanda, turns a blind eye to Russian money funding one of the major parties, and from the ppe scandal to the teesside freeport deal- allows corruption and cronyism to run rife at every level of government.

Its a bizarre argument and speaks of the self obsession of brits. Absolutely clueless as to what actually happens outside of that sh*tty little bubble.

[steviewevie]

35 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You’ll still get Tories winning under PR but you wouldn’t get Tory majorities so the more extreme elements of their policies would be diluted. 

they'd forn coalitions with Reform/BNP/BritainFirst/Greens.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

This is the weirdest argument out there. Across Europe, right wing populist parties have governed in coalition with other right wing parties, and yet it is the UK, with its allegedly extremist proof system which has left the eu, puts refugees on planes to rwanda, turns a blind eye to Russian money funding one of the major parties, and from the ppe scandal to the teesside freeport deal- allows corruption and cronyism to run rife at every level of government.

Its a bizarre argument and speaks of the self obsession of brits. Absolutely clueless as to what actually happens outside of that sh*tty little bubble.

but still we have far right parties outside Tory...so maybe they're not that right wing relative to some of those far right parties making up coalitions in europe at moment.