Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Cameron or Brown and PR?
Posted by: GMR May 9 2010, 11:39 AM
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.
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2010, 12:58 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.
Posted by: GMR May 10 2010, 06:22 PM
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.
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2010, 06:25 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
Posted by: user23 May 10 2010, 06:49 PM
Not to do so will back fire and could turn against Clegg and his party if another election is called
Posted by: GMR May 10 2010, 07:03 PM
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.
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2010, 07:35 PM
are you sure -
Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2010, 07:35 PM
1% up. No wonder they want PR!
BNP up almost 2%.....
Posted by: GMR May 10 2010, 08:41 PM
Actually they did very well. A lot better than labour and LD votes combined
I was talking about MPs and not actual votes.
Posted by: user23 May 10 2010, 09:56 PM
Posted by: Newbury Expat May 11 2010, 03:26 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?
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.
Posted by: dannyboy May 11 2010, 09:22 AM
Yes 6 less MPs is doing better.
Posted by: blackdog May 11 2010, 09:55 AM
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.
Posted by: GMR May 11 2010, 06:10 PM
Six PMs less is doing worse.
Posted by: user23 May 11 2010, 06:55 PM
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.
Posted by: Newbury Expat May 11 2010, 08:19 PM
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
Posted by: Jayjay May 11 2010, 09:14 PM
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?
Posted by: Strafin May 11 2010, 09:16 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"
Posted by: Strafin May 11 2010, 09:16 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"
Posted by: GrumblingAgain May 11 2010, 10:21 PM
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.
Posted by: GMR May 11 2010, 10:25 PM
I agree. Also; a lot of them are friends anyway. It is just part of politics.
Posted by: dannyboy May 11 2010, 11:31 PM
LOL!!
Posted by: blackdog May 11 2010, 11:34 PM
I think the deal between Cameron and Clegg involves a referendum on AV - STV/PR are anathema to the Tories. Apparently Brown was offering to implement AV ASAP and to hold a referendum on STV. If this was the only issue the 'rainbow coalition' would be in charge by now.
Posted by: Andy1 May 12 2010, 09:37 AM
The thing I find strange about the Con-Lab coalition is that to me it looks like the Lib Dems got quite a lot of the seats in Scotland. I wouldn't have thought the Scots would have voted Lib Dem with the view of a Con - Lib coalition.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)