[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[drew]

The problem is in the undemocratic, outdated voting system. I am for any Party that seeks to provide a fairer alternative..... because at the moment we tend to vote negatively to prevent our least awful option getting in.

The most awful option is Johnston and I am sorry to say not voting is a passive endorsement of this mendacious government and its criminal Brexit policy...

Not quite sure how, when compared to a lot of other electoral systems, you can say FPTP is undemocratic. That said I'd prefer a PR system with compulsory voting.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem is in the undemocratic, outdated voting system. I am for any Party that seeks to provide a fairer alternative..... because at the moment we tend to vote negatively to prevent our least awful option getting in.

The most awful option is Johnston and I am sorry to say not voting is a passive endorsement of this mendacious government and its criminal Brexit policy...

its the parties that are outdated, wedded to near centrury old views and approaches to deal with modern world.

 

[Lever]

its the parties that are outdated, wedded to near centrury old views and approaches to deal with modern world.

... so it is time for a less confrontational, more consensual, fairer system of government. It would attract better political candidates. Agreed.

 

[Lever]

Not quite sure how, when compared to a lot of other electoral systems, you can say FPTP is undemocratic. That said I'd prefer a PR system with compulsory voting.

I speak only on my own behalf. I have voted at every election and my chosen candidate has never been elected, hence my views have never been adequately represented..... PR would be preferable.

 

[drew]

I speak only on my own behalf. I have voted at every election and my chosen candidate has never been elected, hence my views have never been adequately represented..... PR would be preferable.

I understand what you're saying but that doesn't make it undemocratic. For example, you might have voted labour at the last 3 elections but whilst your constituency MP might not have been labour, labour views were represented in parliament.

Or, you might have very minority views, eg Monster Raving Looney party and in that case they are unlikely to get enough votes even under PR to get a seat at the table.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Considering the options for you two going forward, I think you've made good decisions

Leaving the door open for Labour. Labour meltdown incoming...
Have a good day

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Considering the options for you two going forward, I think you've made good decisions

Lib Dems?

They would be the only ones I would vote for.

I assume that’s what you meant.

 

[Lever]

I understand what you're saying but that doesn't make it undemocratic. For example, you might have voted labour at the last 3 elections but whilst your constituency MP might not have been labour, labour views were represented in parliament.

Or, you might have very minority views, eg Monster Raving Looney party and in that case they are unlikely to get enough votes even under PR to get a seat at the table.

Fair enough, but most voters in the country did NOT want a Johnston Government and under FPTP winner takes all so the Conservatives got a huge majority with a minority of voters! True, that may be may been considered by some as 'democracy working' but it does not represent the majority......

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not quite sure how, when compared to a lot of other electoral systems, you can say FPTP is undemocratic. That said I'd prefer a PR system with compulsory voting.

Britain and Belarus are the only countries in Europe with a FPTP system. Everywhere else is PR. Coalitions work well because parties have to learn to cooperate instead of sniping at the opposition all the time.
I know people will remember the LD coalition of 2010 but the leader was Nick Clegg who was Tory in all but name. When he lost his seat, he went to work for Facebook (which tells you all you need to know).

 

[e77]

If you sit on the sidelines because you think that all politicians are the same then you are part of the problem. The reason indifferent or poor politicians stay in office is lethargy from the electorate.

It might be the least worst option to you but it is still your duty to turn up and vote.

 

[drew]

Fair enough, but most voters in the country did NOT want a Johnston Government and under FPTP winner takes all so the Conservatives got a huge majority with a minority of voters! True, that may be may been considered by some as 'democracy working' but it does not represent the majority......

Like I said, I'm for PR, always have been but our system is a form of democracy with free votes. You chose your words carefully in that you state 'most voters' did not want a johnson government but that's not the majority of the country as far too many don't exercise their right, which is a travesty. In a PR system you could still end up with a government you didn't vote for if the elected party got over half the votes and therefore don't need to enter a coalition!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

“Chancellor Rishi Sunak has asked the PM's independent advisers to review his declaration of interests, saying he is confident it will show he followed the rules.”

A reasonable use of tax payer’s money?

We all know that he and his wife are just on the right side of legality but are in the sewers when it comes to morality and hypocrisy.

I'm trying to find a source to verify this completely, but it seems that a green card holder cannot hold political office in other countries. So even if Sunak survives the British ire, he may well find his American interests scuppered.

Also, it makes you wonder why his wife has suddenly decided she will pay £20million tax a year to the UK, just to keep him in a job earning £150K?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If you sit on the sidelines because you think that all politicians are the same then you are part of the problem. The reason indifferent or poor politicians stay in office is lethargy from the electorate.

It might be the least worst option to you but it is still your duty to turn up and vote.

Absolutely. Women went to prison, and some died so that I could vote. If I didn't agree with any of the candidates, I have spoiled my paper. 'None of the above are fit to stand for election'.
All spoiled papers are viewed by the candidates so it is a good protest move.

 

[drew]

Britain and Belarus are the only countries in Europe with a FPTP system. Everywhere else is PR. Coalitions work well because parties have to learn to cooperate instead of sniping at the opposition all the time.
I know people will remember the LD coalition of 2010 but the leader was Nick Clegg who was Tory in all but name. When he lost his seat, he went to work for Facebook (which tells you all you need to know).

PR doesn't guarantee a coalition though. Also, look at Italy, 8 different prime ministers in the last 11 years!!

Our own experience of a coalition was a disaster with Clegg getting into bed with the Tories when, historically, you'd have thought the libdems were more aligned towards labour philosphy!

 

[Lever]

Like I said, I'm for PR, always have been but our system is a form of democracy with free votes. You chose your words carefully in that you state 'most voters' did not want a johnson government but that's not the majority of the country as far too many don't exercise their right, which is a travesty. In a PR system you could still end up with a government you didn't vote for if the elected party got over half the votes and therefore don't need to enter a coalition!

Good debate and thanks.

There is no perfect system but I think we need a system in which as far as possible all votes count and the candidates better represent the values of the public in all its diversity; hopefully that would persuade many non voters to take the trouble to participate.

If you have the time and inclination, I recommend reading Isabel Hardman's book 'Why we get the wrong politicians' (if you haven't already).... it explains much better than I can what is awful about the system at present.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/why-we-get-the-wrong-politicians/isabel-hardman/9781782399759

 

[drew]

Absolutely. Women went to prison, and some died so that I could vote. If I didn't agree with any of the candidates, I have spoiled my paper. 'None of the above are fit to stand for election'.
All spoiled papers are viewed by the candidates so it is a good protest move.

Like I said in a previous post, for the reasons you've given about winning the right to vote, voting should be compulsory but you would of course include as a voting option 'None of the Above'.

 

[beorhthelm]

Fair enough, but most voters in the country did NOT want a Johnston Government and under FPTP winner takes all so the Conservatives got a huge majority with a minority of voters! True, that may be may been considered by some as 'democracy working' but it does not represent the majority......

agree that PR might lead to less confrontational politics. it does not mean you automatically vote for the winning government, or that government truely represents a majorty. look at Germany, only 25% voted SPD, they get SPD leader Scholz as Chancellor. 75% voted for other parties and leaders. yes they benefit from some other parties getting into government by parties compromising (letting down or u-turning in British political terms). we tried this accidently just a decade ago and everyone seemed quite unhappy about it. would you be content with Johnson at the head of a Conservative/UKIP/Unionist coalition that had 51% of the vote?

 

[drew]

Good debate and thanks.

There is no perfect system but I think we need a system in which as far as possible all votes count and the candidates better represent the values of the public in all its diversity; hopefully that would persuade many non voters to take the trouble to participate.

If you have the time and inclination, I recommend reading Isabel Hardman's book 'Why we get the wrong politicians' (if you haven't already).... it explains much better than I can what is awful about the system at present.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/why-we-get-the-wrong-politicians/isabel-hardman/9781782399759

It is. I think we are basically singing from the same hymn sheet. We had a fantastic opportunity to change this system when we had the coalition but it was scuppered by Cameron and a weak Clegg.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

PR doesn't guarantee a coalition though. Also, look at Italy, 8 different prime ministers in the last 11 years!!

Our own experience of a coalition was a disaster with Clegg getting into bed with the Tories when, historically, you'd have thought the libdems were more aligned towards labour philosphy!

Churchill formed a coalition government in 1940 which worked. No system is perfect but PR is better than FPTP.

 

[Seagull27]

PR doesn't guarantee a coalition though. Also, look at Italy, 8 different prime ministers in the last 11 years!!

Our own experience of a coalition was a disaster with Clegg getting into bed with the Tories when, historically, you'd have thought the libdems were more aligned towards labour philosphy!

Was it a disaster? From the Lib Dems point of view perhaps, but in hindsight that government was far more balanced, stable and effective than any we've had since.

I was a Lib Dem voter who was horrified at the time, and thought the party deserved everything they got in subsequent elections for abandoning their key principles. But as a government the coalition was relatively decent.