Labour vs Conservatives

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Vote

1) Labour

2) Conservatives

3) The Ban Career Polititions & Party Politics Party <<<<<<<<<<<

*MF*

ShelfStacker wrote: »

I believe it's both. A fairer electoral system would give them a bigger say, but wouldn't be enough to get them anywhere near power.

But maybe reducing power, not exclusively but in particular swings from left to right, is what we need - can't help thinking that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have adopted a form of proportional representation, think of Stormont, think of Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling, as Scottish MPs voting on English education, health etc ...

Maybe it's time, and maybe in the current economic climate, now is a good time to address such issues - the Lib Dems would be up for it for sure, and maybe that is a reason to consider voting for them - not so that they win power but so that they can influence it???

Generali

*MF* wrote: »

But maybe reducing power, not exclusively but in particular swings from left to right, is what we need - can't help thinking that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have adopted a form of proportional representation, think of Stormont, think of Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling, as Scottish MPs voting on English education, health etc ...

Maybe it's time, and maybe in the current economic climate, now is a good time to address such issues - the Lib Dems would be up for it for sure, and maybe that is a reason to consider voting for them - not so that they win power but so that they can influence it???

The trouble with PR is that instead of the current system whereby a party with about 40% of the popular vote gains power, you have a party with 25% of the popular vote continually in Government acting as king makers.

The current system is certainly imperfect. PR is less perfect still.

I'll ban political parties and keep representative constituency based elections when I run things.

*MF*

Generali wrote: »

The trouble with PR is that instead of the current system whereby a party with about 40% of the popular vote gains power, you have a party with 25% of the popular vote continually in Government acting as king makers.

The current system is certainly imperfect. PR is less perfect still.

Understood, Italy and Israel immediately spring to mind - but I am not sure I wholly accept that it is doomed from the outset - on the one hand - yes, in fact it can make it even worse - the recent (initial) defeat of the Scottish budget was in the end down to two from the Green Party - and on the other hand - the fact that not getting the Budget through at all ensured consequent compromise from SNP, Tory, Labour and the Lib Dems.

Generali

*MF* wrote: »

Understood, Italy and Israel immediately spring to mind

They used to reckon you had to be careful on holiday in Italy as you might find you'd been made PM!

*MF*

I just don't like, and never have liked, the first past the post system -but principally the UK system where the result is determined by a key number of marginal constituencies - that, to me, contains near the same elements which can be set against PR as a system - and it shows in the votes cast as opposed to the seats won - as above..

epz_2

amcluesent wrote: »

Well, we're only a few months away from having to go cap in hand to the IMF, so economic policy will be decided by them for years to come. As an economic basket case, we'll have no say in fiscal policy for a decade.

Don't forget 80%+ of all legislation is set by Brussels, so Barroso runs Britain's social programme to all intents and purposes.

Whoever is in No.10 will be caught between the IMF and the EU, rubber stamping their diktats. I've no idea why we bothered defending these islands against National Socialism from 1939 to 1945.

Yeah, i was kind of the same opinion on sticking labour with the mess they made untill i remebered how fast mugabie destroyed zimbabwa.

epz_2

*MF* wrote: »

I just don't like, and never have liked, the first past the post system -but principally the UK system where the result is determined by a key number of marginal constituencies - that, to me, contains near the same elements which can be set against PR as a system - and it shows in the votes cast as opposed to the seats won - as above..

yeah but the problem with PR is you end up like israel where you need a war every time you change governemnt to get anything done.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

They used to reckon you had to be careful on holiday in Italy as you might find you'd been made PM!

In my first few months actually living in Italy I was permanantly convinced the country was on the brink of govermental collapse. I have since come to accept the down fall of PR is that the country's leader threatens to walk out every month when he feels he's not getting his own way and wants to rush something through. The amount of time that ios spent making decisions must be very, very expensive. I think it is a more flawed system than it appears when you don't have PR.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

*MF* wrote: »

I just don't like, and never have liked, the first past the post system -but principally the UK system where the result is determined by a key number of marginal constituencies - that, to me, contains near the same elements which can be set against PR as a system - and it shows in the votes cast as opposed to the seats won - as above..

Do you realise how much that reflects the party funding tables for the time of the last election?