IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cameron or Brown and PR?
GMR
post May 9 2010, 11:39 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



Paddy Ashdown on the news today said that a coalition with Labour wouldn't work. I agree. The only option that Clegg has got is to support the Tories. Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called. In fact if Clegg was stupid enough to join forces with a disgraced PM and party that would also benefit Cameron as all he will have to do is sit back and pick up the pieces.

To be honest I can’t see a voting system happening either. Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas. According to the experts it will take at least about 2 years to set it up (discussions etc). By then the coalition could have collapsed or an election will have been called. On top of that Clegg has promised a plebiscite to the people (whoever agrees with Clegg; either Brown or Cameron they both will vote against it, or campaign against it). To be honest I see it as pie in the sky. However, that there has to be certain changes, which all agree.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 10 2010, 12:58 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called


yes because they did so well on May 6th.......not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post May 10 2010, 06:22 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2010, 01:58 PM) *
Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called


yes because they did so well on May 6th.......not.


Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined. The people rejected both LD's and labour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 10 2010, 06:25 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (GMR @ May 10 2010, 07:22 PM) *
Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined. The people rejected both LD's and labour.

The Liberals did not do very well last week. That is who were are talking about, no?

Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post May 10 2010, 06:49 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2010, 07:25 PM) *
The Liberals did not do very well last week. That is who were are talking about, no?

Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called
They did better than the last election in terms of number of votes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post May 10 2010, 07:03 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2010, 07:25 PM) *
The Liberals did not do very well last week. That is who were are talking about, no?

Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called



yes; I also thought you were referring to labourn though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 10 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (GMR @ May 10 2010, 08:03 PM) *
yes; I also thought you were referring to labourn though.

are you sure -

Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 10 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (user23 @ May 10 2010, 07:49 PM) *
They did better than the last election in terms of number of votes.

1% up. No wonder they want PR!

BNP up almost 2%.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post May 10 2010, 08:41 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2010, 08:35 PM) *
are you sure -

Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined



I was talking about MPs and not actual votes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post May 10 2010, 09:56 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2010, 08:35 PM) *
1% up. No wonder they want PR!
They want PR because they got 6,827,938 votes and only won 57 seats, whereas Labour got 8,604,358 votes and won 258 seats. Hardly seems fair.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post May 11 2010, 03:26 AM
Post #11





Guests






Open question to those who see the current situation as 'unfair'. How would PR or any other approach be fairer?

The way I see it, there is a need for constituencies in the UK as I think it's fair that each community is represented in parliament with the MP that earns the largest number of local votes. Given that (and you may not agree this itself is fair), how would PR work so that a proportionate number of MPs were in parliament?

How do you make up the numbers and still leave locals with their voice that they voted for? Create floating seats filled with those not strong enough to be elected but to make up the numbers?

Personally, I think it would be unfair for anyone to sit in the House of Commons who was not democratically elected. I'm all for alternatives, but haven't seen a truly workable solution that is any 'fairer' than the current setup.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 11 2010, 09:22 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (GMR @ May 10 2010, 09:41 PM) *
I was talking about MPs and not actual votes.

Yes 6 less MPs is doing better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 11 2010, 09:55 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Newbury Expat @ May 11 2010, 04:26 AM) *
Open question to those who see the current situation as 'unfair'. How would PR or any other approach be fairer?

The way I see it, there is a need for constituencies in the UK as I think it's fair that each community is represented in parliament with the MP that earns the largest number of local votes. Given that (and you may not agree this itself is fair), how would PR work so that a proportionate number of MPs were in parliament?

It seems that the favoured system is STV - Single Transferrable Vote - a complex system that uses larger constituencies represented by several MPs (harking back to the old days when the shires had multiple MPs). This system is used for most NI elections.

My personal favourite would be to elect the House of Commons by an Alternative Vote system and the House of Lords by list based PR voted for at the same time. This would allow the top brass in a party to go into the upper house (probably under a different name) and the MPs in the Commons could concentrate on representing their constituencies rather than running ministries.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post May 11 2010, 06:10 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2010, 10:22 AM) *
Yes 6 less MPs is doing better.


Six PMs less is doing worse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post May 11 2010, 06:55 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 11 2010, 10:55 AM) *
It seems that the favoured system is STV - Single Transferrable Vote - a complex system that uses larger constituencies represented by several MPs (harking back to the old days when the shires had multiple MPs). This system is used for most NI elections.

My personal favourite would be to elect the House of Commons by an Alternative Vote system and the House of Lords by list based PR voted for at the same time. This would allow the top brass in a party to go into the upper house (probably under a different name) and the MPs in the Commons could concentrate on representing their constituencies rather than running ministries.
My money is on us having AV for the next election. I'm not sure what the referendum will ask though, will it be a YES / NO between FPP and AV or PR or will it be a three way choice between the three systems?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post May 11 2010, 08:19 PM
Post #16





Guests






QUOTE (user23 @ May 11 2010, 11:55 AM) *
My money is on us having AV for the next election. I'm not sure what the referendum will ask though, will it be a YES / NO between FPP and AV or PR or will it be a three way choice between the three systems?


And if it's a 3 way choice of which none are voted for by the majority, will we see the two most popular options combined into a 'coalition' option which no-one actually voted for laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post May 11 2010, 09:14 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



Think the next election will be interesting. With Conservatives and Lib-dem voting together as one party, how will they criticise each other during the debates?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post May 11 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Considering how much the tories have slagged them off mainly for doing anything to get a bit of power, I'm saddened that they have sold themselves out for "a little bit of power"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post May 11 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Considering how much the tories have slagged them off mainly for doing anything to get a bit of power, I'm saddened that they have sold themselves out for "a little bit of power"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrumblingAgain
post May 11 2010, 10:21 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (Strafin @ May 11 2010, 10:16 PM) *
Considering how much the tories have slagged them off mainly for doing anything to get a bit of power, I'm saddened that they have sold themselves out for "a little bit of power"


Considering the number one priority was to remove Gordon Brown and the Labour party from Number 10, it was job done, by any means. Let's not forget that after the debates, Labour too were slagging off the Lib Dems. "Slagging off" the opposite parties is not really a crime.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th January 2022 - 12:17 PM