The Super-Reluctant Builder/Bidder and Us

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm happy to argue that point to exhaustion, too.

What a wonderful bank holiday weekend you must be having.

SFD was convincing me until his claim that the 34% who didn't bother to vote actually "voted" against the Tories. Errrm, you can only vote against if you vote. And SFD can argue that to the point of exhaustion for all I care, he will never convince me that that is anything other than bollocks. If the unions worked like that when they voted to go on strike there would be a lot less stoppages and strikes with most not bothering to vote, hence in SFD's world actually voting against strike action. Try telling the unions that.

Here we go again...

The logic is not mine. The logic is Sajid David's. The criteria he wishes to apply to the support level needed before a strike is going to be considered legitimate would, if applied to our voting process, render his own government illegitimate.

Are people around here feckin stupid or something - or is it just the right-wingers who struggle?

can this please be moved from the argyle section please it has sod all to do with them.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Here we go again...

The logic is not mine. The logic is Sajid David's. The criteria he wishes to apply to the support level needed before a strike is going to be considered legitimate would, if applied to our voting process, render his own government illegitimate.

Are people around here feckin stupid or something - or is it just the right-wingers who struggle?

Oh dear!  getting a bit hot under that collar Frank?

There's statistics and then there's statistics and this thread is full of the bleddy things.

FPTP is the fairest method and it works, has worked since MP's were stopped buying their seats, for me we should adopt Australia's example and make it the law that everybody whose eligible to vote must vote.
There's been a mention on this thread of voting for your local MP rather than a Prime Minister, which I think is what it should be, however that's not prevalent in the UK, I mean did anybody really expect that Milliband had the nous, charisma, motivational, oratory and communication techniques to lead this country ?

And this from an ex labour non Tory voter

FY 310 wrote:

More people voted for the Tories than any other party right ?  Any other "statistic" is irrelevant.

YES YES YES - thats it! Close the thread.
Well ....... actually I think its awful that the Tories only got 0.0000000456% of the total vote of the world population AND get in power - change the system.

I'd consider FPTP fairer if successive governments didn't mess with the constituency boundaries. It's the Tories turn this time who plan to mess with the constituencies with the idea of delivering 20 or more seats for them.

Dougie wrote:

I'd consider FPTP fairer if successive governments didn't mess with the constituency boundaries.  It's the Tories turn this time who plan to mess with the constituencies with the idea of delivering 20 or more seats for them.

That's what can happen when we have FPTP. Both main parties are as bad as each other for trying to change boundaries. There is a serious argument that coalition is the way forward - it represents more of the electorate and surely it can't be a bad thing to pick the best people from the main parties to form a government. It works well in other countries and does away with the ridiculous spectacle in the Commons of both sides throwing insults at each other. That isn't democracy in action, it's ya-boo politics.

Of course, it would mean the Tories and Labour having to work together, but in truth there hasn't been much difference between them until the right wing Cameron as his buddies got hold of the sweetie jar. Now there is a gulf in ideology, and more rabid right wingers like Gove and Fallon will be given their heads.

Speaking of which, Gove as Justice Minister - a man who supported bringing back hanging a few years ago. Together with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who co-authored a book on how to privatise the NHS. You really couldn't make it up. I really fear for this country over the next few years. If you thought Thatcher was divisive, you ain't seen nothing yet. The fabric of society will be tested by the rich get richer, who will get considerably richer and the poor, the disabled, even the middle class, who will be given the crumbs from the table and told to be grateful. I'm sure Cameron will do a MacMillan sometime in the next few years and tell us that we've never had it so good.

Think we may stay in Spain. Better weather too.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Dougie wrote:

I'd consider FPTP fairer if successive governments didn't mess with the constituency boundaries.  It's the Tories turn this time who plan to mess with the constituencies with the idea of delivering 20 or more seats for them.

That's what can happen when we have FPTP. Both main parties are as bad as each other for trying to change boundaries. There is a serious argument that coalition is the way forward - it represents more of the electorate and surely it can't be a bad thing to pick the best people from the main parties to form a government. It works well in other countries and does away with the ridiculous spectacle in the Commons of both sides throwing insults at each other. That isn't democracy in action, it's ya-boo politics.

Of course, it would mean the Tories and Labour having to work together, but in truth there hasn't been much difference between them until the right wing Cameron as his buddies got hold of the sweetie jar. Now there is a gulf in ideology, and more rabid right wingers like Gove and Fallon will be given their heads.

Speaking of which, Gove as Justice Minister - a man who supported bringing back hanging a few years ago. Together with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who co-authored a book on how to privatise the NHS. You really couldn't make it up. I really fear for this country over the next few years. If you thought Thatcher was divisive, you ain't seen nothing yet. The fabric of society will be tested by the rich get richer, who will get considerably richer and the poor, the disabled, even the middle class, who will be given the crumbs from the table and told to be grateful. I'm sure Cameron will do a MacMillan sometime in the next few years and tell us that we've never had it so good.

Think we may stay in Spain. Better weather too.

How's their economy doing el bhey?

If the electorate 100% voted for an MP to represent them at Westminster then FPTP is the ideal.
In each constituency if an MP is voted for, then whatever party that MP represents wins because he has the majority of the vote, it's simple and fair.
However if your interests are in voting for a Party or a Prime Minister then obviously PR floats your boat for political reasons only.
Depends what you wish for I suppose

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Dougie wrote:

I'd consider FPTP fairer if successive governments didn't mess with the constituency boundaries.  It's the Tories turn this time who plan to mess with the constituencies with the idea of delivering 20 or more seats for them.

That's what can happen when we have FPTP. Both main parties are as bad as each other for trying to change boundaries. There is a serious argument that coalition is the way forward - it represents more of the electorate and surely it can't be a bad thing to pick the best people from the main parties to form a government. It works well in other countries and does away with the ridiculous spectacle in the Commons of both sides throwing insults at each other. That isn't democracy in action, it's ya-boo politics.

Of course, it would mean the Tories and Labour having to work together, but in truth there hasn't been much difference between them until the right wing Cameron as his buddies got hold of the sweetie jar. Now there is a gulf in ideology, and more rabid right wingers like Gove and Fallon will be given their heads.

Speaking of which, Gove as Justice Minister - a man who supported bringing back hanging a few years ago. Together with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who co-authored a book on how to privatise the NHS. You really couldn't make it up. I really fear for this country over the next few years. If you thought Thatcher was divisive, you ain't seen nothing yet. The fabric of society will be tested by the rich get richer, who will get considerably richer and the poor, the disabled, even the middle class, who will be given the crumbs from the table and told to be grateful. I'm sure Cameron will do a MacMillan sometime in the next few years and tell us that we've never had it so good.

Think we may stay in Spain. Better weather too.

Bovisand's not bad this time of the year

Graiser wrote:

If the electorate 100% voted for an MP to represent them at Westminster then FPTP is the ideal.
In each constituency if an MP is voted for, then whatever party that MP represents wins because he has the majority of the vote, it's simple and fair.
However if your interests are in voting for a Party or a Prime Minister then obviously PR floats your boat for political reasons only.
Depends what you wish for I suppose

First FPTP wouldn't be quite so bad if the constituencies had roughly similar numbers of voters in them but they don't. I think the biggest by electorate is the Isle Of Wight with 110,000 potential voters; I think the constituency with the smallest electorate is Arfon (north west Wales) with about 41,000. By area the biggest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber (approx 12,000 sq km) and the smallest Islington (approx 7 sq km)

The typical size of constituencies differs between parts of the UK. The Office for National Statistics gives the average (median) total parliamentary electorate across constituencies of about 72,400 in England, 69,000 in Scotland, 66,800 in Northern Ireland and 56,800 in Wales.

But it's a mess with the IoW being a good example of why. 110,000 is loads more than Arfon's 41,000 and well above the English notional average so why not half it and standardise at 55,000 people per constituency? Well the electorate numbers about 47,000,000 meaining that we'd need about 850 MPs to do the same all over the country. We currently have around 650. 850 MPs won't physically fit into the House Of Commons! So that's no good.

If we assume that 650 MPs is the maximium we can have then each constituency should have about 72,000 in it. Back to the IoW: where would you draw the line and where would the extra 38,000 voters go: Pompey or Southampton? Make it 600 MPs: same problem different arbitrary line.

And how many constituents is it possible for an MP to represent anyway? Surely that ought to be a factor...

It's all a huge mess with similar problems cropping up all over the country that will take years of careful negotiation to sort out - by which time the natural ebb and flow of population will render the new answers meaningless - in a fair way.

I actually have huge sympathy with Cameron on this one. It does all need sorting out. Where we disagree is that he wants to tinker (which coincidentally is thought to favour his party - boundary changes always favour the government of the time whoever it is because if they did not they wouldn't want to change them, would they?) and I want to see it all scrapped completely because it is a nonsense.

And keep the current system because it is simple? Are you serious? Keep something really crap just because it is simple? Maybe its inherent crapacity is because of its simplicity? That's hardly a grown-up way to accept a solution ("because, and I know it is crap, it is simple") is it? It's not even juvenile. Infantile gets close though. Maybe I was right earlier and right wingers - I'm thinking Cameron here - really are dense. Or maybe its just those that believe them...

Call it what you like but don't call what we have now democracy because it isn't - and it's not even acceptably close to being one.

Well Cameron has proposals to reduce the volume of MP's so according to your thesis that'll be a bit of a bugger.
No it's not a democracy if it doesn't suit political agendas, but it definitely is if it's an MP your voting for!

Cameron wants to cut the number of MPs. Fair enough. 650 is an arbitrary number anyway. Why not have a different one?

I think capacity at the HoC has a lot to do with it and they struggle to cope with the 650 they have but cutting numbers because of that is rather like the tail wagging the dog, isn't it?

Cutting 50 MPs means the abolition of 50 constituencies and the re-positioning of God alone knows how many constituency boundaries. Does that sound like less or more democracy? It sounds like less to me. Did you wake up this morning thinking "I know what the problem is - too much democracy! That's what." No.  Of course you didn't and neither did anybody else ever so this isn't about better democratic representation at all.

So the motivation behind this is to grab a few seats the Tories wouldn't otherwise have had - but then it always is no matter whether it is a red or blue government that does it as I have already said. Which is neither here nor there, really, when the whole systems stinks to high heaven.

Our democracy may not suit your political agenda but it's sure as hell better than most in this world of ours.

Is it?

It's not my "political agenda" that causes me to think that the system is rubbish. I don't actually think this is either a right or left wing issue at all. Only one thing is certain and that is that at virtually every step whenever there has been change to the electoral system it has been resisted by the Tories - before they eventually lost.

Here's a timeline of events that lead to, but do not end at, where we are today.

Quote :

1969: Justice Act - lowering the voting age for everybody to 18 - resisted by the Tories.

1963: Peerage Act - women allowed to take up a hereditary peerage in the Lords - resisted by the Tories.

1958: Life Peerages Act - women allowed to take a life peerage in the Lords - resisted by the Tories.

1949: House of Lords votes to admit women - resisted by the Tories.

1928: Universal suffrage - Equal Franchise Act enabled women to vote when 21 - resisted by the Tories.

1919: The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act - women allowed to stand for election; first female MP (Nancy Astor) took her seat - resisted by the Tories.

1918: Votes for all men over 21; women older than 30 (the first votes for women but only those who passed the property owning criteria); first female MP elected (Constance Markiewicz - Sinn Fein (did not take up her seat) - resisted by the Tories.

1884: 3rd reform Act - all men (including the working class men), but only men, granted a vote -- resisted by the Tories.

1867: 2nd reform act - property owning men and men paying rent of over £10 per year were all allowed to vote - resisted by the Tories.

1832: The Representation of the People Act 1832, known as the first Reform Act - abolished "rotten boroughs" limited the number of MPs per seat to one; men were required to possess property worth £10 to be eligible - resisted by the Tories.

1689: Bill of Rights - Parliament is assigned supremacy over the crown (Tories not yet in existence but I think we can guess...)

1642: start of the English Civil War (things get complicated here for a bit so I'll leave it at that)

1215: Magna Carta - basically the monarchy stopped being the be all and end all of decision making.

The truth of it is that every single time there has been electoral reform it has been after a long, hard, often bloody, struggle. Nobody ever planned that our electoral system should be where it now is. We are where we are by virtue almost of accident rather than design and we have a system riddled with nonsenses (we still have hereditary peers, for instance) as a result.

Electoral reform does not end here. One day FPTP, amongst other things, will go and the sooner it does the better.

FPTP is barely democratic - don't let them tell you lies.

A government that 63% did not vote for is not even close to democracy.

76% not 64%, Pave. Do keep up.

There's a good chap.

Oh FFS, another gibbon joins in.

How many more times. Of those that voted, more voted for the Tories than any other party.

Why are you both suddenly behaving as if you've been cheated ?
Whether the voting system is right or wrong, antiquated or whatever it is the same system that was in place prior to the election, everyone knew the rules then as they do now.

FY 310 wrote:

Oh FFS, another gibbon joins in.

How many more times. Of those that voted, more voted for the Tories than any other party.

Why are you both suddenly behaving as if you've been cheated ?  
Whether the voting system is right or wrong, antiquated or whatever it is the same system that was in place prior to the election, everyone knew the rules then as they do now.

losers often make excuses for not winning or try and change the rules so they can win.

The rules were pants before and they're pants still now. And the rules do not have to be these rules.

We're not talking evolution, gravity or relativity here which are all absolute, undeniable, unchangeable fact. We're talking about a stage on a continuum that so far has not passed and will continue to fail the tests of time because it isn't fit for purpose and delivers incongruous, demonstrably unrepresentative, undemocratic outcomes.

That apart it's great!

Simple, anyway.

Definitely simple.

We had a referendum on PR and FPTP won, unfortunately,

pepsipete wrote:

We had a referendum on PR and FPTP won, unfortunately,

How else could a referendum be judged ?