Electoral reform

[David Johnson]

"Polling results given in The Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail and The Times (websites mainly - they should still be online). Google "proportional representation 62% uk" and you'll find them...

"The polls suggested 62% wanted 'some form' of proportional representation. I don't know how much they know, or how well they can distinguish between mixed voting systems like AV. What's clear from the polls, I think, is that while we don't know how much knowledge of voting systems those people polled had, we do know that they know enough to realise the current FPTP system is unfair."


I had a glance at the polls which seemed to be on a very small number of people, 500 or so. The results are very vague "wanting some form of proportional representation" There doesn't appear to be any understanding at all in the description of the polls that the alternative vote system is not pr, for example.

"That's hard to speculate on. Given that 37% of the people voted Tory (who don't want PR) and given that those polls suggested that even 51% of Tory voters want PR, if you had to hold a gun to my head and force be to guess I'd say 'not much'. People, regardless of who they voted for, recognise that the system is antiquated and doesn't give an accurate representation of the people's wishes."

If the Lib Dems get together with the Tories I think it might damage the demand, if there actually is one, for changes to the electoral system. People who voted for a centre left party and then found that this centre left party had propped up the Tories, might be a tad let down and put off any system which might increase the number of hung parliaments as you get in Europe with proportional representation type systems.

"In similar news, it seems Labour, having been dangling PR in the Lib Dems' face ever since they realised it was hung parliament territory at about 11pm , May 6th, they're now backing away. Do you think this is inconsistent and leaves Labour voters wondering that voting Labour is like having a Christmas stocking above your bed?; leaving you never knowing what you're going to get"

This is pure guesswork on your part. THere was a Labour election manifesto commitment for a referendum on the alternative vote which is no less than the Tories offered.

CHeers
D

[Bob Singleton]

max_tranmere wrote:

> I've said before and will say again that the Prime Minister
> should be elected. Not a case of the individual having an
> election solely for them but you should be electing the party
> as lead by that person and if the person stands down then you
> vote again and choose a party as lead by the leaders standing
> at that election. Every time a PM has quit mid-term there have
> been calls for a election and it has always been refused, I
> know it is not required that there be one but it would be
> fairer and more democratic if there was one. Thatcher quit in
> 1990 and the opposition leader Neil Kinnock called for an
> election - there wasn't one and John Major just took over. In
> 2007 Blair quits and that dickhead who is now there just took
> over, he apparently considered having an election but didnt as
> he knew he wouldnt win. This can't be right or fair. And those
> who keep saying that you elect the party and not the leader,
> could they please tell me what the point of those recent
> Leaders Debates on TV were? If you were watching, were
> undecided, and, say, Cameron impressed you, then you would vote
> for the Tory Party as you wanted that party in office and for
> him to be its leader and to be the PM. If the rules say you
> could elect Cameron and the Tories and he could just resign the
> following day and that be ok because 'hey, after all, you just
> elect the party and not who runs it' then what was the point of
> the recent Leaders Debates?



Well the simple answer is that the majority of the electorate are stupid.

They are too stupid to realise we live in a Parliamentary democracy where you are supposed to vote for an MP to represent you in Parliament, and yet are also stupid enough to want Presidential style debates. You are a typical case in point. MPs are first and foremost REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. That you and many others choose to ignore this and vote primarily on which party leader you like best, is your own stupid fault!

It's only "recently" that people have been het up about PMs not being elected. Nobody worried about that with Churchill in 1940, for example!

The simple fact remains that under our current (largely unwritten) constitution the Prime Minister is the person (traditionally the leader of a party) who can command a majority in the House of Commons. That's all that is needed. It is not necessary to receive the max_tranmere seal of approval (and thank God for that, I say!)

[max_tranmere]

Bob Singleton,
I would be grateful if you didn't respond to points that I raise. I have always found you very rude and the last time I was posting on here (which was up until 6 weeks ago) you were as obnoxious as you could be in reply to points I raised and I actually officialy complained to the moderators of this forum about you several times. I am not here for 6 weeks, I start posting again yesterday, and within a day you are up to your old ways again. It is fine for people to disagree with me but there are politer ways to point this out than you always do. I find you a rude obnoxious person - on a forum where EVERYONE else is polite. Please ignore my threads and comments. If you do decide to repsond to any of them I won't read your replies.

[Bob Singleton]

max_tranmere wrote:

> Bob Singleton,
> I would be grateful if you didn't respond to points that I
> raise. I have always found you very rude and the last time I
> was posting on here (which was up until 6 weeks ago) you were
> as obnoxious as you could be in reply to points I raised and I
> actually officialy complained to the moderators of this forum
> about you several times. I am not here for 6 weeks, I start
> posting again yesterday, and within a day you are up to your
> old ways again. It is fine for people to disagree with me but
> there are politer ways to point this out than you always do. I
> find you a rude obnoxious person - on a forum where EVERYONE
> else is polite. Please ignore my threads and comments. If you
> do decide to repsond to any of them I won't read your replies.


Sorry if you find me rude and obnoxious.

I find you catastrophically ill-informed. For example many weeks ago you continued arguing about Brown and Cameron having to share No 10 in the case of a hung parliament, and how that sort of arrangement with two joint Prime Ministers would work when it was pointed out, not just by me, that such a thing could and would never happen for many reasons, not least from a constitutional point of view, and my frustration at having to deal with someone who seems totally incapable of grasping reality sometimes leads me to vent my frustrations in a manner I would not normally do.

Perhaps, instead of not reading my replies, you could actually try and educate yourself before posting your banalities!

[Bob Singleton]

max_tranmere wrote:


[SNIP]

In
> 2007 Blair quits and that dickhead who is now there just took
> over, he apparently considered having an election but didnt as
> he knew he wouldnt win.

[SNIP]

I realise you probably won't read this Max, but just to point out YET ANOTHER ERROR in your thinking... when Brown became PM he actually had a high approval rating and when he "dithered" about holding an election, the reason he didn't go to the country wasn't because he'd lose. Had he held an election then, he would have won, and he wouldn't have had to hold another election until 2012!!!

Bet he wishes he had called a snap election now!

[max_tranmere]

David, you mentioned at the top that William Hague confessed to necking 10 pints a night when he was younger, and how it never did him any harm. That was an interview in Loaded magazine, as I recall. I remember Nick Clegg being interviewed by Loaded aswell and, in order to try and sound 'laddish', like Hague had tried to do, Clegg confesed to bonking for England when he was at college, notching up a scorecard that would make one of The Rolling Stones jealous! Clegg's confession in Loaded magazine resonated like crazy across the wider media and across TV, and I think he regrettted saying it just as much as Hague regretted saying what he said!

[David Johnson]

Yes. Quite right Max. The Blessed Cleggie appears to be trying to shaft most of the Lib Dems as well as we speak.

CHeers
David

[Bob Singleton]

porn historian wrote:

> Ah yes my 87 year old Granny would be fine with that.Never used
> a computer or Mobile phone in her life.Now you expect her and
> others like her to vote with one.Any more half baked ideas
> Robert?.

I didn't say these were to be the ONLY methods! At the next election, for example, when your granny will be in her early 90s, I'm sure she'll still be allowed to use a postal vote or driven to a polling booth by a kindly party worker to put her cross on a ballot paper. However, change has to be introduced sooner or later.

Over a period of time these new methods can be introduced while 87 year old grannies pass away as one election follows another, leaving an electorate brought up on computers, interactive TV etc who won't be fazed by such modern tools.