ChatterBank0 min ago
Well I Was Waiting For Mikey......
40 Answers
http://
Looks like Tory 112 seat majority.Wonder why mikey seems to have gone off Electoral Calculus, he was quoting it more or less daily in 2015!
Looks like Tory 112 seat majority.Wonder why mikey seems to have gone off Electoral Calculus, he was quoting it more or less daily in 2015!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the problem is that jim bemoans FPTP but doesn't seem to have a better system to suggest. By definition PR systems produce what you might call a fair result based on the arithmetic of the proportions. Sadly it hardly ever produces an effective government. Jim of course claims that there are other non PR systems that are better but we never seem to hear of them. I quite like goofy's idea of double the size of the constituencies and have the first 2 past the post. Need time to analyse though.
TTT....I will stick my neck out here and say that FPTP will remain for Parliamentary Elections for some time to come.
The only 2 Parties that can win an Election have too much at stake to change the status quo. The only reason we had the Ref. in May 2011, was an appeasement to the LibDems, something that is unlikely to happen again in near or medium future.
The only 2 Parties that can win an Election have too much at stake to change the status quo. The only reason we had the Ref. in May 2011, was an appeasement to the LibDems, something that is unlikely to happen again in near or medium future.
//I would if I was Labour such as Hilary B or Ben Bradshaw- yes the bad news is 'we' get dumped heavily, the good news is that we can throw the 'trouser press' (Corby) in the dump and one of us takes the leadership and the other the deputy role....and rebuild a more moderate and appealing platform. //
that presupposes the labour party (should it lose) abandons its current leftward leading path. three current MPs have said they won't be standing, but since all 3 have been saying off-message stuff that just means the party won't have to go to the trouble of deselecting them. how many other "moderates" will go the same way, now that momentum will be in full effect? and maybe diane abbott is right, labour have been doing badly because they're not left wing enough?
that presupposes the labour party (should it lose) abandons its current leftward leading path. three current MPs have said they won't be standing, but since all 3 have been saying off-message stuff that just means the party won't have to go to the trouble of deselecting them. how many other "moderates" will go the same way, now that momentum will be in full effect? and maybe diane abbott is right, labour have been doing badly because they're not left wing enough?
Mush....If doubt if it would make much difference who was Leader of Labour. There has been constant "what ifs" since Dave Milliband left for America.
Labour are in a similar position to what the Tories were in, after 1997. They tried various Leaders, all to no avail.
Labour will come back, as it always does.
Labour are in a similar position to what the Tories were in, after 1997. They tried various Leaders, all to no avail.
Labour will come back, as it always does.
//If doubt if it would make much difference who was Leader of Labour.//
I think it would - JC is a left wing leader of a largely moderate gaggle of MPs, which has been a recipe for conflict, and JC having to cobble together a cabinet from one of his darts playing partners, an ex-lover and a lot of masking tape. the same would apply for a moderate leader of a left wing collection of mps.
I think it would - JC is a left wing leader of a largely moderate gaggle of MPs, which has been a recipe for conflict, and JC having to cobble together a cabinet from one of his darts playing partners, an ex-lover and a lot of masking tape. the same would apply for a moderate leader of a left wing collection of mps.
" Jim of course claims that there are other non PR systems that are better but we never seem to hear of them."
This isn't entirely true -- I think around 2015 I was quite actively suggesting a couple of alternatives. It is true that lately I've just been moaning about FPTP, but since anyway the debate can only move forward if people accept its flaws -- and OG, in particular, seems keen to defend it as the best system possible, flying in the face of all the evidence (and also, curiously, regarding anything that is not FPTP as PR, which is also simply wrong) -- I'd tended to stick to just that.
The one generally regarded to be the best of all worlds is Single Transferable Voting, but for anyone interested enough they shouldn't have to rely on me naming systems to find out about them. There are plenty of places where systems, and how to evaluate them, are discussed far more thoroughly than I'm capable of.
Besides which, the answer of what is better is, as I've said, heavily dependent on what matters to you. A representative that you can regard as your own (in which case all pure PR systems automatically get trashed), or a parliament that reflects the varied opinions of its people as closely as possible (in which case constituencies become irrelevant)? Or both as once, if at all possible? STV can be regarded as "both at once", as it's well-suited to multi-seat constituencies without needing to be applied across the whole country.
I suppose the second consideration is, as you say, related to "effective government". I'd argue that non-FPTP systems haven't had a totally fair trial in practice because everyone distrusts them. Perhaps, if coalition governments occurred more often, they'd start to work better because they became the norm and people would be used to them. As it is, the Tories (and Labour, to a lesser extent) benefit from maintaining a system that locks them together in a cycle of power, to the expense of all other parties, who can just shout a bit loudly.
This isn't entirely true -- I think around 2015 I was quite actively suggesting a couple of alternatives. It is true that lately I've just been moaning about FPTP, but since anyway the debate can only move forward if people accept its flaws -- and OG, in particular, seems keen to defend it as the best system possible, flying in the face of all the evidence (and also, curiously, regarding anything that is not FPTP as PR, which is also simply wrong) -- I'd tended to stick to just that.
The one generally regarded to be the best of all worlds is Single Transferable Voting, but for anyone interested enough they shouldn't have to rely on me naming systems to find out about them. There are plenty of places where systems, and how to evaluate them, are discussed far more thoroughly than I'm capable of.
Besides which, the answer of what is better is, as I've said, heavily dependent on what matters to you. A representative that you can regard as your own (in which case all pure PR systems automatically get trashed), or a parliament that reflects the varied opinions of its people as closely as possible (in which case constituencies become irrelevant)? Or both as once, if at all possible? STV can be regarded as "both at once", as it's well-suited to multi-seat constituencies without needing to be applied across the whole country.
I suppose the second consideration is, as you say, related to "effective government". I'd argue that non-FPTP systems haven't had a totally fair trial in practice because everyone distrusts them. Perhaps, if coalition governments occurred more often, they'd start to work better because they became the norm and people would be used to them. As it is, the Tories (and Labour, to a lesser extent) benefit from maintaining a system that locks them together in a cycle of power, to the expense of all other parties, who can just shout a bit loudly.
jim; //Perhaps, if coalition governments occurred more often, they'd start to work better because they became the norm and people would be used to them//
Coalitions spell disaster, if you look at the German system the government is bogged down in compromises, the proverbial, 'house ruled by its nursery'.
Coalitions spell disaster, if you look at the German system the government is bogged down in compromises, the proverbial, 'house ruled by its nursery'.
The Alternative Vote is a non-PR alternative, for starters. There are another dozen or so that all start from the same principle of allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and all of them are demonstrably not proportional.
As to that suggestion -- it's interesting, although wouldn't the rules for voting would have to be altered alongside? Half the constituencies with the same number of MPs means that either every party has to put up two candidates to have any chance of obtaining a majority -- and if you are voting for party loyalty, which MP do you vote for? It could potentially make the spoiler effect flaw of FPTP even worse -- unless you modify the ballot card alongside, so that voters can select (and rank) more than one candidate.
As to that suggestion -- it's interesting, although wouldn't the rules for voting would have to be altered alongside? Half the constituencies with the same number of MPs means that either every party has to put up two candidates to have any chance of obtaining a majority -- and if you are voting for party loyalty, which MP do you vote for? It could potentially make the spoiler effect flaw of FPTP even worse -- unless you modify the ballot card alongside, so that voters can select (and rank) more than one candidate.
AV is PR at seat level, so it has some merit in the seat but makes little difference overall. The voting system has to be simple, all this ranking malarky is just too complex for many. I think you are over complicating goofy's idea, I think it would produce some "fairer" results if each party was in fact limited to one candidate per seat. Certainly I think we'd see more indys getting through and the minor partys may well pick up more seats and that should sate their desire for disastrous PR systems.
"AV is PR at seat level."
That doesn't really make sense though. PR at seat level would imply that one seat returned, say, one MP that was somehow half labour, a third Tory , a tenth Lib Dem etc... that doesn't happen. "PR at seat level" is not a thing. All AV does is ensure that the winning candidate has a majority share of the vote.
I thought the thing about one MP per party per seat, but two returned MPs per seat, is that it would be impossible to return a majority party, because there is then no way any one party can get more than half the seats. So that's why I tried to "overcomplicate" things.
That doesn't really make sense though. PR at seat level would imply that one seat returned, say, one MP that was somehow half labour, a third Tory , a tenth Lib Dem etc... that doesn't happen. "PR at seat level" is not a thing. All AV does is ensure that the winning candidate has a majority share of the vote.
I thought the thing about one MP per party per seat, but two returned MPs per seat, is that it would be impossible to return a majority party, because there is then no way any one party can get more than half the seats. So that's why I tried to "overcomplicate" things.
My system:
* Keep the Commons pretty much as-is. Perhaps fewer seats (e.g. 500)
* Reform the Lords and populate it on a PR basis, where members are drawn from a list published by each party in advance of the vote (e.g. #1 on the Tory list is bound to get in, #800 on the Tory list is almost bound not to)
* The same election vote populates the Commons and the Lords (so tactical votes for/against a Commons MP have implications on the Lords population too)
* Reform the Parliament Act to give the Lords a few more teeth - especially since it is now more legitimate, having been populated by PR
This creates a strong executive for getting things done, led by bigger parties; a strong legislature that can be influenced by smaller parties (e.g. UKIP would have had 12.6% of the seats in the Lords, and the Greens 3.8%, since 2015); and it's fairly easy to implement, since everything is already in place and it's quite similar structurally to what we already have. The tricky thing is the crossbenchers, but I'm sure somebody with a bit more time and experience could figure out something that accommodates them ...
* Keep the Commons pretty much as-is. Perhaps fewer seats (e.g. 500)
* Reform the Lords and populate it on a PR basis, where members are drawn from a list published by each party in advance of the vote (e.g. #1 on the Tory list is bound to get in, #800 on the Tory list is almost bound not to)
* The same election vote populates the Commons and the Lords (so tactical votes for/against a Commons MP have implications on the Lords population too)
* Reform the Parliament Act to give the Lords a few more teeth - especially since it is now more legitimate, having been populated by PR
This creates a strong executive for getting things done, led by bigger parties; a strong legislature that can be influenced by smaller parties (e.g. UKIP would have had 12.6% of the seats in the Lords, and the Greens 3.8%, since 2015); and it's fairly easy to implement, since everything is already in place and it's quite similar structurally to what we already have. The tricky thing is the crossbenchers, but I'm sure somebody with a bit more time and experience could figure out something that accommodates them ...
And for the Lords?
Well obviously 'peers' (meaning equals, not lords).
x many seats for trades unions (chosen by unions).
x many for medical profession (ditto).
x many for legal
x many for business
x many for ordinary bu****etc. (but count me out),
etc.
Elected for a fixed term, with 1/3 changed annually.
Well obviously 'peers' (meaning equals, not lords).
x many seats for trades unions (chosen by unions).
x many for medical profession (ditto).
x many for legal
x many for business
x many for ordinary bu****etc. (but count me out),
etc.
Elected for a fixed term, with 1/3 changed annually.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.