Gordon Brown is dead...

[Shay HTFC]

...excited about potential vote reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492272.stm

Still not proportional representation though!

[CHIEF]

Feck' i was genuinely excited then!

Edited by CHIEF on Monday 1st February 22:59

[El Guapo]

There were not millions of people dancing in the streets, so I knew it not to be true.

[mybrainhurts]

You utter bastid, you ruined my day...

[EDLT]

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

Like the current one, where there has been a will they/won't they leadership challenge every year since Blair announced he would step down?

[mybrainhurts]

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

[AJS-]

mybrainhurts said:

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

Are hung governments really so bad? Imagine if the government had not been able to do anything for the last 13 years, how much better the country would be now?

[Don]

mybrainhurts said:

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

This suggestion isn't proportional representation though. It's just a fk up. It means that the candidate most people chose as their number 1 choice doesn't necessarily win.

I call that fiddling the books.

[Mclovin]

lies lies lies, they lie about everything and people are still rooting for them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIMh--EZbDk&fea...

[keltik]

mybrainhurts said:

Think ...

...hung governments!

A bit harsh but may get popular support.

[mattviatura]

Carlsberg don't do news flashes........

[jesusbuiltmycar]

mybrainhurts said:

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

PR would result in about 30 BNP MPs

[grumbledoak]

Beeb said:

But our correspondent said a growing number of senior ministers were keen on the move as a way of trying to depict the Conservatives as opponents of political reform.

So, really this is a strawman; it exists only to push the Conservatives into a position that Labour think will be advantageous. Gordon really doesn't care for anything except his own election as PM. Not that this will be a surprise to anyone.

[Bing o]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

mybrainhurts said:

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

PR would result in about 30 BNP MPs

And if they are a legal party, that accurately reflect the views of their voters, where is the issue?

I personally believe that the Lords should be chosen by PR, perhaps a vote for your MP to sit in the Commons, and a second vote for the Party you want to sit in the Lords. Or just full on PR. We really cannot preach to the rest of the world about democracy when most of our votes don't count for anything.

[10 Pence Short]

Bing o said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

mybrainhurts said:

EDLT said:

The conservatives really are useless:

"The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments."

No they're not...

Proportional representation gives small pressure groups more authority than they deserve...

Think greenfreaks...

And hung governments...

PR would result in about 30 BNP MPs

And if they are a legal party, that accurately reflect the views of their voters, where is the issue?

I personally believe that the Lords should be chosen by PR, perhaps a vote for your MP to sit in the Commons, and a second vote for the Party you want to sit in the Lords. Or just full on PR. We really cannot preach to the rest of the world about democracy when most of our votes don't count for anything.

I prefer the Lords to be unelected. This gives them the freedom to scrutinise potential legislation without fear of having to tow the party line or making unpopular but necessary decisions that might otherwise see them unelected.

If the current Upper House had been elected, it would now be heavily Labour influenced and its effectiveness as a bullsh*t filter would have been reduced to a little above useless. Seeing how much frightening legislation they've already got through, it makes me shudder thinking what they might have got away with with an elected Lords.

[Bing o]

10 Pence Short said:

I prefer the Lords to be unelected. This gives them the freedom to scrutinise potential legislation without fear of having to tow the party line or making unpopular but necessary decisions that might otherwise see them unelected.

If the current Upper House had been elected, it would now be heavily Labour influenced and its effectiveness as a bullsh*t filter would have been reduced to a little above useless. Seeing how much frightening legislation they've already got through, it makes me shudder thinking what they might have got away with with an elected Lords.

But surely the way it stands is worse - with Goredoom free to pick and choose people like Sugar and even giving Mandy a vestige of power when the man is unelectable?

If you look at the last election results then there would have been quite an even split between Lab-Con which may well have put the breaks on some of the legislation that was passed, all IMHO

[grumbledoak]

Mr 10p is quite right. For all the perceived flaws and potential for abuse, an unelected Upper House is considerably better than another bunch of largely the same people. Witness, e.g. Lawson's book and work against the tide of MMGW ste. No MP would dare touch this.

[Bing o]

grumbledoak said:

Mr 10p is quite right. For all the perceived flaws and potential for abuse, an unelected Upper House is considerably better than another bunch of largely the same people. Witness, e.g. Lawson's book and work against the tide of MMGW ste. No MP would dare touch this.

I see your point, but at the same time, if you increase the coverage of the Lords to include smaller parties, then you would be more likely get people challenging stuff like MMGW - ie UKIP. And let's face it, there are enough of us on here who would probably vote for a Con MP and a UKIP upper member, so that would influence policy making, maybe?

[10 Pence Short]

Bing o said:

10 Pence Short said:

I prefer the Lords to be unelected. This gives them the freedom to scrutinise potential legislation without fear of having to tow the party line or making unpopular but necessary decisions that might otherwise see them unelected.

If the current Upper House had been elected, it would now be heavily Labour influenced and its effectiveness as a bullsh*t filter would have been reduced to a little above useless. Seeing how much frightening legislation they've already got through, it makes me shudder thinking what they might have got away with with an elected Lords.

But surely the way it stands is worse - with Goredoom free to pick and choose people like Sugar and even giving Mandy a vestige of power when the man is unelectable?

If you look at the last election results then there would have been quite an even split between Lab-Con which may well have put the breaks on some of the legislation that was passed, all IMHO

Over a period of time the Lords ends up a mixture of all political walks of life so that, rather than being in constant alignment with the current Commons majority; it's always a more eclectic and therefore less easy to influence group of people. Notwithstanding the fact that the age of members in the Lords usually means there's a natural right leaning tendancy, which in my eyes isn't such a bad thing.

[10 Pence Short]

Bing o said:

I see your point, but at the same time, if you increase the coverage of the Lords to include smaller parties, then you would be more likely get people challenging stuff like MMGW - ie UKIP. And let's face it, there are enough of us on here who would probably vote for a Con MP and a UKIP upper member, so that would influence policy making, maybe?

The Lords should be as far removed from being party political as possible.