- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
FFS, I looked at my ballot paper and Coutinho was on the list.
But you still voted for Balotelli, right?FFS, I looked at my ballot paper and Coutinho was on the list.
The disadvantage of PR is you get lots of small parties doing well, more extremist parties and coalitions. Isn't that what we are already getting? Maybe the fringe parties would get bigger but at least people would feel their views were better represented and you wouldn't get every party clustering around the same centre ground.The Jenkins Commission recommended AV+, but i doubt whether that would satisfy some in this thread. Which system would you like to see implemented?
Many of these so-called reforms simply bring about new and different problems. If we were to be stuck with coalitions for the foreseeable, we would then need further measures to check against the inherent weakness of PR.
I think you'd see less people voting for extreme parties if their vote carried any weight. Or maybe more if the turnout increased and people thought it might lead to change. I don't know, ignore me.The disadvantage of PR is you get lots of small parties doing well, more extremist parties and coalitions. Isn't that what we are already getting? Maybe the fringe parties would get bigger but at least people would feel their views were better represented and you wouldn't get every party clustering around the same centre ground.
Just going on what happens in countries where you have pr. More small parties, more extreme parties.... More coalitions. I'm Germany you get grand coalitions which are between the biggest parties. So it's very consensual and arguably not that democratic.I think you'd see less people voting for extreme parties if their vote carried any weight. Or maybe more if the turnout increased and people thought it might lead to change. I don't know, ignore me.
The Jenkins Commission recommended AV+, but i doubt whether that would satisfy some in this thread. Which system would you like to see implemented?
Many of these so-called reforms simply bring about new and different problems. If we were to be stuck with coalitions for the foreseeable, we would then need further measures to check against the inherent weakness of PR.
I'd like to see a PR/FPTP hybrid.
Expand all constituencies so that the Country has 325 seats elected by FPTP, making each seat dependent on population to avoid the strange situation of a discrepancy in the vote-seat ratio in areas like Scotland. This would mean that there is still a local MP that represents their constituents. Then you'd have 325 MP's separately elected via Country wide proportional representation.
Most of the negatives associated with each electoral system would be rectified by this hybrid. You wouldn't get an extremist party having too much influence (the BNP would have a rather pointless 6 seats in 2010, rather than the 12 or so it'd have gotten via PR), there'd be local accountability and it'd be a lot fairer for most parties. It would also in part get rid of tactical voting. If you voted for the Greens it'd be because your vote would matter if not in your local constituency, then at least in the National PR part. You'd get rid of this moronic system where Tories are voting for the Lib Dems in Clegg's constituency or Green supporters are voting for Labour in Tory-Labour marginals.
To achieve that endgame, she and her party need to be popular. If they teamed up with the Tories to bring down Labour, I don't think they would be. Obviously Labour won't be able to take the piss out of them, but the manifestos are similar enough that most will be able to get through without much problem.Not right away perhaps, but it would be advantageous to any second referendum were the Prime Minister to be a Tory, and particularly if said individual has been playing on EVEL/English concerns. Sturgeon isn't in this for the good of Westminster, her endgame is one in which it becomes just another foreign parliament.
TUSC?I am the Other! I'll never tell.
No Phoenix no vote.More importantly has everyone voted for Britains National bird? It's only open today! Blackbird all the way. http://www.votenationalbird.com
The disadvantage of PR is you get lots of small parties doing well, more extremist parties and coalitions. Isn't that what we are already getting? Maybe the fringe parties would get bigger but at least people would feel their views were better represented and you wouldn't get every party clustering around the same centre ground.
More importantly has everyone voted for Britains National bird? It's only open today! Blackbird all the way. http://www.votenationalbird.com
May as well just go STV if you're going PR, it's the best system. Couple it with a vote share threshold of about 2%, job done.
To achieve that endgame, she and her party need to be popular. If they teamed up with the Tories to bring down Labour, I don't think they would be. Obviously Labour won't be able to take the piss out of them, but the manifestos are similar enough that most will be able to get through without much problem.
Can I ask why you considered voting UKIP?Voted Labour did the same in 2010, it was harder this time though. I looked at UKIP and then thought better of it.
I done democracied.
Creasy '25!
Of course it would, governments fall on a vote of no confidence, where they would be unequivocally partnering with the Tories to bring the Labour government down and usher in a Conservative one. You can't do that with any kind of subtlety. The last time they did it Thatcher got in, the SNP lost almost all their seats and went back to being an also ran for a couple of decades.It would be nothing so blatant as teaming up with the Tories, there would be some suitable pretext found. And growing dissatisfaction elsewhere in the union, something for which we can hold Labour personally responsible, only plays into the hands of the SNP.
The Commons of 2010 would have looked like this:
It would be nothing so blatant as teaming up with the Tories, there would be some suitable pretext found. And growing dissatisfaction elsewhere in the union, something for which we can hold Labour personally responsible, only plays into the hands of the SNP.
Can I ask why you considered voting UKIP?
Yeah I forgot about that constituency side of it, I never have any contact with my local MP, as far as I'm concerned she's just the fcker who spams the shit out of my door with leaflets. Her and the rest of the wannabes.Depending upon the system used there can also a loss of the constituency-MP relationship, . As we discussed earlier, coalition agreements do almost inevitably lead to a party breaking faith with the public; i'd consider the introduction of popular referenda (local and national) as a means of providing some accountability against such.
I honestly think a big problem with the Greens is that they're called the Green Party. The immediate assumption is that they're a bunch of hippies (which, to be fair, a decent number of them are). I think if they were a left-wing party with a different name they'd probably get taken way more seriously. When I was canvassing in Lewisham in 2010 half the people thought I was talking about Greenpeace.
I dislike Labour, but I don't think they can be the only ones held responsible for dissatisfaction in the union. Despite their current fall in the support, it's the Tories who Scotland have traditionally hated since the days of Thatcher, and the "No more Tory governments" line was one of the more popular ones during the referendum.
Not to mention that for all of Miliband's hostility towards the SNP and any deals, the Tories attitude to them has been pretty condescending, with Boris Johnson calling it a "jockalypse" and Theresa May calling their rise the biggest crisis since the abdication, ignoring the small case of a fecking World War which came after that. It's all worse when Cameron was telling us last September how important to the union Scotland was.
Both of the two main parties have stirred up a lot of dissatisfaction in Scotland.
The polls are saying it's going to be a dead heat, but many expect the Tories to open up a bit of a lead in the actual vote. How big that is is crucial, if it's ~1% then Labour will probably form the government, bigger than that and it becomes messy.Anyone know what way the vote is expected to go? or is it too close to call?
Anyone know what way the vote is expected to go? or is it too close to call?
I read 10:15 somewhere earlier today. Was very accurate last time despite Dimbleby and co thinking otherwise due to the fall in Lib Dem seats.Exit polls should appear shortly after 10pm. After that we wont really know much more til the bulk of the results roll in early tomorrow morning.
Edit: I say that, how long do exit polls normally take to appear?
After 10PM I think. My mum is counting the votes! Go My Mummy!When is the counting gonna start ?