We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Faith in the British electorate - RESTORED
Comments
-
No reason you can't have PR based on selection from a regional/county scale though - parties put up as many MPs for the region as are current MPs (or as many as they want) and get a selection based on share of votes. That way local people can stand as necessary.
The situation in Scotland really reflects the failings of FPTP, 56/59 seats for the SNP on a tick over 50% of the vote and UKIP getting double that of SNP and getting 1 seat.
PR is always asked for after the election by the losers - I wonder if the Labour party would have been happy with ~285 seats in 1997 (number under PR with 43.2% of the vote) and ~202 for the Tories (30.7%) rather than the 418 they won? That win gave them power on 30.8% of the turnout which was 71.3% so they ruled for 5 years with a majority of 253 over the Tories despite being voted for by about 1/4 of the country!
I am glad UKIP got only 1 seat but I don't discount the fact they had so many votes, to get nearly 1/3-1/2 of the major parties and get nothing for it is a joke. I dislike UKIP because of the rhetoric and shameless misquoting of stats by their supporters reflects the need for more education and fact in election work - I've seen the "cost" of EU membership rise from £32m a day to £55m a day quoted by UKIP supporters - not only is the £55m completely false and even UKIP don't quote that, they deliberately quote the payment figure not the net balance of payments (i.e. ignore the money that comes back) and also ignore the benefits of investment in some countries e.g. developing the economy opening out new markets for us.
The fact that Labour still, on average, need vastly fewer votes to get an MP than the Tories or LD thanks to constituency sizes also needs to be looked at.
the population of the uk is about 65 million and we have 650 MP
so on average 100,000 people per MP
what sort of size 'region ' would you have that would preserve the 'local ' MP feel?0 -
No reason you can't have PR based on selection from a regional/county scale though - parties put up as many MPs for the region as are current MPs (or as many as they want) and get a selection based on share of votes. That way local people can stand as necessary...
There's no reason why you can't have PR based on STV in multi-member constituencies. Which is what Ireland has, and what the Lib Dems mean by PR.
AMS is not the only option on the table.0 -
The conservative manifesto says they will push through the boundary review reducing number of mps to 600. I wonder how this will affect future elections whether held under PR, AV or FPTP. I am assuming as we already had a referendum on AV we will not get another.I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the Debt free Wannabe, Budgeting and Banking and Savings and Investment boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.
The 365 Day 1p Challenge 2025 #1 £667.95/£301.35
Save £12k in 2025 #1 £12000/£80000 -
enthusiasticsaver wrote: »The conservative manifesto says they will push through the boundary review reducing number of mps to 600. I wonder how this will affect future elections whether held under PR, AV or FPTP. ....
According to one analysis;
The overall net effect would have been to reduce the number of Conservative seats by 4, reduce the number of Labour seats by 36, reduce the number of Liberal Democrat seats by 6 and the number of seats by other parties by 4. This means that had the 2010 election been fought on the revised boundaries produced by the 6th review the Conservatives would have won a small overall majority of 4 seats, rather than there being a hung Parliament.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/boundaries-6th-review/
Of course, that was written before the recent election. Obviously the results would be different now; it is doubtful whether it would have much effect on the Lib Dems at all given that they only have 8 seats whilst, given that Scotland would lose about 9 seats, it is an absolute certainty that the SNP would have 6 fewer seats.
I also suspect that the Con-Lab distinction would be less pronounced given the recent results, but the change would still cost Labour something.enthusiasticsaver wrote: »...I am assuming as we already had a referendum on AV we will not get another.
I think that's a good bet.:)0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »A total of over 14 million voters who are all diametrically in opposition to the 11 million people who voted for the Tories.
Wrong. I voted Lib Dem, and got a Lib Dem MP, because it was *far* more important to me that labour lost than exactly who beat them.
As it happens, I don't object too deeply to Lib Dem policies, while those of Labour scare me stupid, so you can't make sweeping statements about what people do/don't want.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Not any more.:)
Yes I saw that - it has changed quite a lot, has been in Labour's favour for decades due to constituency boundary size - Scotland has less than 2 million people but due to the area they get 59 MPs, London has 4x as many people (around 8m) but smaller areas so have 73 MPs (Greater London)Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
There's no reason why you can't have PR based on STV in multi-member constituencies. Which is what Ireland has, and what the Lib Dems mean by PR.
AMS is not the only option on the table.
No it's just the one off the top of my head
I'm in favour of a better system where one party can't get as many seats as the SNP (or Labour in 1997) on so few votes and yet other parties can get far more votes and so few seats but want a local connection to the MP rather than just someone nominated from a central poolSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
the population of the uk is about 65 million and we have 650 MP
so on average 100,000 people per MP
what sort of size 'region ' would you have that would preserve the 'local ' MP feel?
Personally I would go for the size of boundaries councils use, to keep it sensible yet at least the MP has a connection to the area (I suppose county would work too but you'd have to allocate the MPs by weight of vote to certain areas I guess). Perhaps even size by population of the area - Scotland should not have 59 MPs for 2m people when Greater London has only 14 more for 8m + people - in the modern era we should be saving money and fuel by using constituency surgeries at a central spot and use phone/video conference where possible as well - just thoughts on a different approach that won't happen so long as the big 2 can rely on getting a majority directly or with a partnerSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
silverwhistle wrote: »Don't tell me, you read the Mail, and believe everything in it.
Don't tell me, you're a school teacher who only works seven months a year 0900-1530 and complains they don't get paid as much as private sector managers who can't take their four weeks because they're too busy, despite working 60hrs plus each week.
When you're not striking over your final salary pension of course...0 -
TheBlueHorse wrote: »Well done people.
Yeah long may the food banks continue!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards