|
P.R.
May 10, 2010 15:44:38 GMT
Post by Ben Lomond on May 10, 2010 15:44:38 GMT
So let's see. We now have a hung parliament. It is a fairly rare occurrence under FPTP. It does happen of course, and it has happened in the past. But with P.R. it would happen EVERY time. Under PR, NO party could ever hope to achieve a working majority which would enable it to implement the policies in its manifesto, and, as now, there would be a period of wheeling and dealing, in which all the parties involved would press their own interests, while all the time pretending to work in the national interest.
I am well aware of the arguments against FPTP. The composition of the government never reflects the wishes of the electorate in purely percentage terms. But at least, FPTP does allow for firm government most times. So the issue really is this. Do we want to always have "hung" parliaments, with the resultant tenuous, and self centred dealing that goes on; with the ability of a party to bring down a government almost at will by withdrawing support, or do we want a government with a working majority, able (assuming a large enough majority) to govern for the full term.
I can see both sides of the argument. But I notice there is a tendency for PR to be regarded as a sort of panacea; where politicians will put aside personal differences and work together for the good of the electorate. It isn't, and they wont, of course. PR governments are at best uneasy compromises in which the difficult decisions are put aside, and every effort is made by the majority party to keep the alliances intact.
And there is also one other thing in favour of FPTP. If we had had PR this time round, the BNP would now have 12 MPs, and UKIP 24. What price would they demand for their support, I wonder?
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 7:28:57 GMT
Post by mouse on May 11, 2010 7:28:57 GMT
am very much against pr......it opens the door to all sorts of unsavoury creatures and stops real politics... whats the point of having a manifesto if all you can do are deals.....pr is the losers option
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 9:04:44 GMT
Post by jade on May 11, 2010 9:04:44 GMT
Mouse, look at what happened just now - FPTP is what brought us to a position where the least numerous parties are now in the highest position of leverage
it has opened the door to all sorts of unsavoury creatures and has stopped real politics (if that means delvering the manifesto)
so why not have the real thing?
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 9:18:48 GMT
Post by jean on May 11, 2010 9:18:48 GMT
Trouble with FPTP is that you write your manifesto with an eye to the floating voters in marginal constituencies, who are the only people under the present system whose votes cout for anything at all.
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 10:23:45 GMT
Post by mouse on May 11, 2010 10:23:45 GMT
Mouse, look at what happened just now - FPTP is what brought us to a position where the least numerous parties are now in the highest position of leverage it has opened the door to all sorts of unsavoury creatures and has stopped real politics (if that means delvering the manifesto) so why not have the real thing? real politics is governing the country in the interests of the people.....not party political interests which is what is happening before our eyes and to have a hung parilent once or twice in a life time doesnt mean the voting system is wrong.... the best way to resolve this is to call another election within days if not weeks for a clear majority peronally i cannot see why the cons cannot be the government they had the most votes and the most mp,s..they could well be if politos passed bills on consience rather than party lines and i would have thought the same way had it been labour with the same majority parties and politos selling them selves for 30 pieces of silver is most unedifying
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 11:14:59 GMT
Post by jade on May 11, 2010 11:14:59 GMT
o mouse how can you say that? There is NO objective view of what is in the interests of the people - each party is utterly convinced that what it thinks is best is indeed best.
So passing bills on conscience is precisely the same as passing them along party lines.
Take for example a bill on paying for care in old age - the tories would vote to not pay anything unless it was a case of life and death, the socialists would vote for paying for a decent old age with care and medicine for all that need it, the liberals would go for a middle ground
and each would be voting according their conciences
and as for calling an election within days - we have just told Wesrtminster where our votes lie, what difference would a day make? Would you change your vote?
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 11:37:04 GMT
Post by randomvioce on May 11, 2010 11:37:04 GMT
the best way to resolve this is to call another election within days if not weeks for a clear majority There is no evidence that you would get a clear majority with a second election anyway, it could end up with a huge waste of money. Money you say we cannot afford anyway. Of course, now that Gordon Brown is stepping down, Labour will have got a big boost in the polls... peronally i cannot see why the cons cannot be the government they had the most votes and the most mp,s.. But nowhere near enough to form a majority. A point driven home in sharp relief by the antics of the last four days. If they can get a majority then good luck to them, but right now they cannot. They will have to pull something out of the bag if they want to form the next Government.
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 13:15:14 GMT
Post by mouse on May 11, 2010 13:15:14 GMT
o Would you change your vote? no but i know serveral who would..who voted for ukip and .the libddems[i also know they would go back to voting for labour or the conservatives and mp,s do not always vote as consience dictates but as the whips dictate..a free vote does not always follow the party line we cannot aford full free care for all elderly..we just happen to be broke and living on borrowed monies...monies we will have to repay and as we have had a so called socialist gov in power for the last 13 yrs who havent paid out for a decent old age or all that old people need so i find your faith rather naive..same with education...i am judging them on their record not on promices of a future paradise..and the liberals say a lot of things but havent yet looked at the books...but the overall effect of liberals in local gov does not fill me with great confidence vast numbers of pensioners do in fact have quite a decent life...
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 14:32:19 GMT
Post by jade on May 11, 2010 14:32:19 GMT
Tell you what then
How about we just pu tup Tories and Labour next time?
Bugger all the people wanting anything else. sod them all, the whinging uncertain bastards!
Why cant they just make up their minds between red and blue?
Don't they know we only deal in a game of two halves?
Green? pah!
|
|
|
P.R.
May 11, 2010 14:33:33 GMT
Post by jade on May 11, 2010 14:33:33 GMT
o Would you change your vote? we cannot aford full free care for all elderly..we just happen to be broke and living on borrowed monies...monies we will have to repay and as we have had a so called socialist gov in power for the last 13 yrs who havent paid out for a decent old age or all that old people need vast numbers of pensioners do in fact have quite a decent life... tad contradictory there mouse
|
|
|
P.R.
May 12, 2010 8:14:17 GMT
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 8:14:17 GMT
life is contradictory jade..and thats a fact but it is fact that vast numbers of pensioners do have a decent life...me for one with enough to eat..warmth..holidays..clothes etc etc ..my friends too. the people around me....a couple of them have problems heating their homes in the coldest weather.....but if they choose to live in houses far too large to heat that is hardly the governments fault be that gov labour or conservative.. my other point is that IF after 13 or so years of labour in one of the most free spending of eras the problems of pensioners havent been adressed...then it beggers beliefe that another 5yrs when we are broke broke broke will solve the problem.......
|
|
|
P.R.
May 12, 2010 8:18:47 GMT
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 8:18:47 GMT
Tell you what then How about we just pu tup Tories and Labour next time? Bugger all the people wanting anything else. sod them all, the whinging uncertain bastards! Why cant they just make up their minds between red and blue? Don't they know we only deal in a game of two halves? Green? pah! ehh !!!!!!when a vote isnt decisive..then have a revote...simples or as has been done the majority reaches an acomadation.... and yes indeed whinging uncertain bastards. ;D. great many of em about....nail on head
|
|