Old Bexley and Sidcup

[AuroraSaab]

Representation of minority parties is a direct result of PR. It happens in other countries and their political systems manage the consequences.

In the UK I don't think BNP members, or equivalent extremists from the left would have much influence. If however there had been ten UKIP members after 2010 or 15 they could have been much more difficult to deal with. More so in what might have been early years of a PR parliament where large numbers carry legacy baggage from FPTP and haven't the nous to form alliances or work across the gangway.

I can't recall the exact figure but I understand that, at their best showing, Ukip would have held the balance of power in parliament under a PR system (depending which one was used obviously). I agree with you about the UK system - the big parties don't work well together, and the electorate don't really go for tactical voting, or even loose coalitions once in power. We do seem to prefer an outright winner rather than a power share.

Fptp does keep extremists out but it would be nice if the main parties could look for things they do agree on and work at pushing those things through. There must be some common ground somewhere.

 

[newfhouse]

Fptp does keep extremists out

Are you entirely sure that’s true?

 

[icowden]

Are you entirely sure that’s true?

I think what @AuroraSaab means is that the extremists might be present, but they aren't in government, as most of the time they will have to form some sort of coalition which in turn moderates the policies that a party can enact. Cameron couldn't have put Brexit on the table whilst in coalition with the Lib Dems for example.

It doesn't matter if you have 15 BNP supporters as you will most likely have a much larger of Green Party, Lib Dem etc to balance them out.

 

[icowden]

Proportional representation is for losers - as shown on this thread.
Or rather, it's only ever supporters of losing parties who call for it.

Hang on while I pick myself up off the floor. You mean to say that if a political party have worked themselves into an advantageous position where they find it easy to win elections, that they don't want to change the process? And those that are massively disadvantaged by it and feel that their supporters are not represetnd want to change it?

Well blow me down. Next you'll be telling me that ursine's deposit their faecal matter in the woods and il Papa has a Catholic disposition.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Are you entirely sure that’s true?

Depends what you mean by extremist, I suppose. I suspect we have different definitions.

I think what @AuroraSaab means is that the extremists might be present, but they aren't in government, as most of the time they will have to form some sort of coalition which in turn moderates the policies that a party can enact. Cameron couldn't have put Brexit on the table whilst in coalition with the Lib Dems for example.

It doesn't matter if you have 15 BNP supporters as you will most likely have a much larger of Green Party, Lib Dem etc to balance them out.

Under a simple PR system, Ukip would have had 80 MP's in 2016. A fairer reflection of their share of the vote certainly, but an opportunity to influence government policy that most people probably wouldn't want to see.

https://fullfact.org/news/how-many-seats-could-ukip-have-under-different-voting-system/

PR would likely make both Labour or Conservative unable to gain a majority. Someone will hold the balance of power, whether it's the Lib Dems or Ukip. Would Corbyn's ambitious programmes have been enacted under a PR coalition Labour/Anybody government?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ortional-representation-labour-party-lib-dems

"The FPTP system in Britain gives a boost to the major party of the left, making leftwing majority governments possible where they might not otherwise be."

Changing the system was voted against in 2011 so it's unlikely to be back on the table as an option any time soon anyway.

 

[cookiemonster]

I see there are at least 151 idiots in Bexley - the people who voted for the Rejoin EU candidate.

I see that there’s just shy of 12,000 idiots that think BJ’s doing a great job.

 

[newfhouse]

Depends what you mean by extremist, I suppose. I suspect we have different definitions.

I guess so. I think Johnson, Raab, and Patel are dangerously extreme, and many of their financial backers are even more so. YMMV,

 

[newfhouse]

I think what @AuroraSaab means is that the extremists might be present, but they aren't in government,

I think some are.

 

[cookiemonster]

I think some are.

Some?

 

[newfhouse]

Some?

Some aren’t bright enough to be extremists on their own, they’re just easily led.

And I will probably get thrown out of the lefty club for saying that a few are wrongheaded rather than evil.

But not many.

 

[cookiemonster]

Oooo…. Is there a Lefty club?

Where do I sign up?

 

[Pale Rider]

Hang on while I pick myself up off the floor. You mean to say that if a political party have worked themselves into an advantageous position where they find it easy to win elections, that they don't want to change the process? And those that are massively disadvantaged by it and feel that their supporters are not represetnd want to change it?

Well blow me down. Next you'll be telling me that ursine's deposit their faecal matter in the woods and il Papa has a Catholic disposition.

A poor attempt at satire.

I said exactly the same thing when Blair got elected, even though it looked likely the Tories would be in the wilderness for some time.

You'd be better off aiming your fire at all those who want to change the rules purely to give them a better chance of winning a seat or two.

 

[cookiemonster]

A poor attempt at satire.

I said exactly the same thing when Blair got elected, even though it looked likely the Tories would be in the wilderness for some time.

You'd be better off aiming your fire at all those who want to change the rules purely to give them a better chance of winning a seat or two.

Or a better chance of having their voice heard. How can a government gain just 43% of the vote but get an 80 seat majority? That's not anywhere close to democracy.

 

[swansonj]

.....
You'd be better off aiming your fire at all those who want to change the rules purely to give them a better chance of winning a seat or two.

Ah. Like the conservatives for redrawing constituency boundaries, you mean. Or the conservatives again for instituting voter ID. Yes, I agree, disgraceful.

 

[winjim]

I wonder if it might be possible to have a system which enables proper democratic representation and decision making on behalf of the country without invoking the rather confrontational language of 'winning' and 'losing'. I find it all rather childish tbh, we ought to be able to have conversation and debate like the grown adults we are. A lot of the discourse since the last big constitutional decision we made a few years ago has been like watching my children squabbling.

No winners, no losers, just grown up decision making. Is it possible?