Sir Ed Davey - Lib. Dem Leader
Discussion
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
Derek Smith said:
In the 2010 GE, the LDs polled 23% of the votes. (That's some camel.) It is open to speculation what their percentage might have been if voters thought there was a chance of them gaining power. As it was, 23% of the population wanted neither Cameron nor Brown to lead them and many voted for the least objectionable; at least I did. Also, when the SDLP started, one of the opinion polls put them at over 40% of the vote as to which party people wanted in power.
23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
Its even more unreasonable that 65.9% of voters did not want Cameron but he got a clear majority. Even in 2019 BJ got a massive majority but 56.1% voted for someone else. 23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
SpeckledJim said:
And reduces the power given to fringe and single-issue nutters.
In the end there’s no perfect system, but if you believe that representation should more accurately reflect actual votes then FPTP falls well short, it just enables a two party system with the same party in power most of the time.On the point about single issues, whatever your politics it’s fair to say that the U.K. under FPTP has seen its ruling party infected by a single issue for many years, resulting in the rise of politicians like Dorries, Mogg, Anderson, Coffey, Braverman, Patel, Truss, Brigden et al, meaning that FPTP is hardly a glowing advertisement for avoiding nutters.
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
FPTP has delivered fringe single issue nuttery in spades these last 7 years.
Edited by Bannock on Thursday 11th May 09:44
Blue62 said:
SpeckledJim said:
And reduces the power given to fringe and single-issue nutters.
In the end there’s no perfect system, but if you believe that representation should more accurately reflect actual votes then FPTP falls well short, it just enables a two party system with the same party in power most of the time.On the point about single issues, whatever your politics it’s fair to say that the U.K. under FPTP has seen its ruling party infected by a single issue for many years, resulting in the rise of politicians like Dorries, Mogg, Anderson, Coffey, Braverman, Patel, Truss, Brigden et al, meaning that FPTP is hardly a glowing advertisement for avoiding nutters.
crankedup5 said:
Blue62 said:
SpeckledJim said:
And reduces the power given to fringe and single-issue nutters.
In the end there’s no perfect system, but if you believe that representation should more accurately reflect actual votes then FPTP falls well short, it just enables a two party system with the same party in power most of the time.On the point about single issues, whatever your politics it’s fair to say that the U.K. under FPTP has seen its ruling party infected by a single issue for many years, resulting in the rise of politicians like Dorries, Mogg, Anderson, Coffey, Braverman, Patel, Truss, Brigden et al, meaning that FPTP is hardly a glowing advertisement for avoiding nutters.
Across the bench, have mostly never been in power. We’ll find out how good they are in the coming years, either in power, or part of a coalition.
They could never be as bad as the shower they replace.
Blue62 said:
crankedup5 said:
All elected by their constituents, glance across the bench at the red rosette nutters, all elected.
The point was that FPTP offers no more protection from nutters than PR, one you’ve inadvertently agreed with I think. What it doesn't do is make a zero-nutters guarantee.
I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying IMO it's approximately the least bad of the options.
Derek Smith said:
In the 2010 GE, the LDs polled 23% of the votes. (That's some camel.) It is open to speculation what their percentage might have been if voters thought there was a chance of them gaining power. As it was, 23% of the population wanted neither Cameron nor Brown to lead them and many voted for the least objectionable; at least I did. Also, when the SDLP started, one of the opinion polls put them at over 40% of the vote as to which party people wanted in power.
23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
You aren't 'disenfranchised' because you don't get what you want. You get to vote. You're not entitled to have that vote to be significant.23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
If more people agreed with you than agreed with anyone else then you would win. That's pretty democratic.
The current way isn't perfect. But we saw the abject s
tshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.James6112 said:
crankedup5 said:
Blue62 said:
SpeckledJim said:
And reduces the power given to fringe and single-issue nutters.
In the end there’s no perfect system, but if you believe that representation should more accurately reflect actual votes then FPTP falls well short, it just enables a two party system with the same party in power most of the time.On the point about single issues, whatever your politics it’s fair to say that the U.K. under FPTP has seen its ruling party infected by a single issue for many years, resulting in the rise of politicians like Dorries, Mogg, Anderson, Coffey, Braverman, Patel, Truss, Brigden et al, meaning that FPTP is hardly a glowing advertisement for avoiding nutters.
Across the bench, have mostly never been in power. We’ll find out how good they are in the coming years, either in power, or part of a coalition.
They could never be as bad as the shower they replace.
Blue62 said:
SpeckledJim said:
And reduces the power given to fringe and single-issue nutters.
In the end there’s no perfect system, but if you believe that representation should more accurately reflect actual votes then FPTP falls well short, it just enables a two party system with the same party in power most of the time.That's perfectly possible under FPTP of course, but that system incentivises voters to vote for the 'least worst' or to 'keep the [x] party out' because any vote for a party outside the two largest is all-but wasted. If results are truly proportional then a vote for an acceptable alternative to keep a 'nutter' out counts for just as much as any other vote. So under PR you'd hope to see a reduction in the number of 'nutters' elected simply by the colour of their rosette or because FPTP perpetuates the two-party system.
Of course PR doesn't prevent 'nutters' in the sense of "has radical politics that I dislike" being elected, but it does usually mean that some voter base somewhere has actually positively chosen them because the candidate aligns with their values and desires. Unlike the UK's system (of which FPTP is a part) where parliament is packed with people with completely different political views even to their own parties, let alone their electorate. And then they wonder why people are so disinterested or disillusioned with politics...
SpeckledJim said:
The current way isn't perfect. But we saw the abject stshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.
From what I recall the main condition the DUP had for backing the Conservatives was an extra £1bn of public spending in NI. Not that welcome if unjustified but hardly a "stshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.tshow". It also made negotiations with the EU more interesting as well, but none of her proposals commanded support with, or without, the DUP.
SpeckledJim said:
You aren't 'disenfranchised' because you don't get what you want. You get to vote. You're not entitled to have that vote to be significant.
You are entitled for that vote to be as significant as any other, though, surely?I currently live in one of the safest Conservative constituencies in the country (although the ward I live in and the ones surrounding it have voted any other colour than Blue for decades, but let's put that to one side...). The second party (Labour) was 40% behind the Conservatives in 2019 and nearly 30% behind in 2017. So, effectively, any individual Conservative vote makes very little difference, an individual Labour vote is futile and a vote for anything else is entirely pointless. The strength of the Conservative vote in the constituency is ignored, and it counts as much in parliament as that one in Bury that the Tories hold with a 100-ish vote majority. The ebbs and flows of the Labour vote (which has gone up and down by 25-30 per cent over the past 20 years) makes no difference to either the constituency or to parliament.
Under FPTP any votes in excess of a plurality are, effectively 'null'. Once you're the biggest party, the size of your majority and the number of votes you get beyond that doesn't matter. Equally you can gain votes but lose seats (as happened with Labour in 1951). FPTP makes votes have wildly different significance, which surely isn't right?
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
JagLover said:
SpeckledJim said:
The current way isn't perfect. But we saw the abject stshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.
From what I recall the main condition the DUP had for backing the Conservatives was an extra £1bn of public spending in NI. Not that welcome if unjustified but hardly a "stshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.tshow". It also made negotiations with the EU more interesting as well, but none of her proposals commanded support with, or without, the DUP.
tshow. As is having to pander to a nutter when negotiating the direction of a large nation. SpeckledJim said:
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Equally, why should the party which received 37% (I think it was) of votes cast at the last election have total power? And remember, that's 37% of, what, 70% (I think it was) of registered voters, so in actual fact a very small portion of the total population of the country. The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Just because you're the "most popular", doesn't mean you deserve a majority government.
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Equally, why should the party which received 37% (I think it was) of votes cast at the last election have total power? And remember, that's 37% of, what, 70% (I think it was) of registered voters, so in actual fact a very small portion of the total population of the country. The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Just because you're the "most popular", doesn't mean you deserve a majority government.
Maybe the wrong things get done, granted. If they make a poor job of applying that power, then we can give the power to someone else next time.
SpeckledJim said:
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Equally, why should the party which received 37% (I think it was) of votes cast at the last election have total power? And remember, that's 37% of, what, 70% (I think it was) of registered voters, so in actual fact a very small portion of the total population of the country. The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Just because you're the "most popular", doesn't mean you deserve a majority government.
Maybe the wrong things get done, granted. If they make a poor job of applying that power, then we can give the power to someone else next time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff