The end of punch and judy politics?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:13 am

Brown ponders voting referendum on poll day - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

It'll never happen-it means neither labour or the tories would ever get such overwhelming power with so little support in the electorate. It's too good a fiddle for them. But if they also banned companies and individuals from making large donations to the political parties as well?

Leading article: Broken promises and democratic renewal - Leading Articles, Opinion - The Independent

For those with long memories, our report today on Labour's plans to go into the next election promising an overhaul of our electoral system will feel ominously familiar. When Labour was swept to power in the electoral landslide of 1997, one of its manifesto pledges was a referendum on reforming the voting system. Needless to say, such bold intentions did not survive the transition from opposition to office.

I remember that. so the bullshit begins.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:25 am

Are you sure you want some sort of proportional representation rather than first past the post? That's the way the European Elections go and it's why there's a BNP Euro-MP. The advantage of the current system is that it keeps the fringes out of the House.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:39 am

spot;1240513 wrote: Are you sure you want some sort of proportional representation rather than first past the post? That's the way the European Elections go and it's why there's a BNP Euro-MP. The advantage of the current system is that it keeps the fringes out of the House.

Correction Sir:

There are 2 BNP MEP's:

Nick Griffin

Andrew Brons

Do try to keep up old chap.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:03 am

That rather makes my point then.

I'm not keen on the idea of hung parliaments and coalitions either. I quite like what we've had for the last forty years though I'd be happy to see the voting age reduced to coincide with the start of secondary school.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:12 am

spot;1240513 wrote: Are you sure you want some sort of proportional representation rather than first past the post? That's the way the European Elections go and it's why there's a BNP Euro-MP. The advantage of the current system is that it keeps the fringes out of the House.

The first thing they all do is gerrymander the electoral boundaries to suit. New labour has less than 35% of the overall vote but 100% of the power and we can't hold them to account. It was the same with Maggie Thatcher-most people in this country did not want her in power. You can't possibly argue that that is a good thing. The argument that we would end up with hung parliaments is a spurious one-at least that would mean they might actually work together for the common good rather than for their careers. The commons is supposed to be paramount but we essentially have rule by by a party machine that bullies MP's in to obeying or bribes them with jobs and the kind of MP's that are in it only for the money. I didn't vote for gordon brown as PM and neither did anyone in the labour party vote for him as leader. The whole thing is farcical.

PR works in scotland, without it Labour would rule with no one to oppose them, the tories would have no seats at all-now scots tories think it wonderful. The SNP know they are on a knife edge but either way it is unlikely that any party will get to power in a way that allows their party machine to call the tune. Yes the BNP get in and whether you like it or not they do have their supporters-so do ukip. But most people don't bother voting because they don't think it makes any difference. People seem more likely to vote in the scottsh election because it DOES make a difference. The last three decades have been an unmitigated disaster for this country and a large part of that is due to the first past the post system allowing 30-35% of the electorate decide who rules.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:16 am

All valid points. It comes down to whether you want a government capable of governing or you want to end up like the Italians or Israelis.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:27 am

spot;1240523 wrote: All valid points. It comes down to whether you want a government capable of governing or you want to end up like the Italians or Israelis.

Another spurious argument, the problems in italy are due to the italians not the electoral system-same in Israel-with first past the post you could well have a far right party in power. Besides why just pick those two -in Western Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Apart from that I would dispute we have a government here that is capable of governing. With PR New labour would not be in power. I didn't vote for them and neither did over 60% of my fellow countrymen. Only a complete moron or a die hard labour supporter would argue they have a legitimate hold on power.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:03 am

I'm not sure I'd call myself a die-hard Labour supporter. The fellow I quite fancied as next PM ruled himself out a few months ago by becoming Speaker. I want a PM with brains and charisma and an ability to gain consensus. David Trimble would have been a great choice but he's ennobled as is that Peter Mandelson chap. Either would have been interesting alternatives otherwise.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:55 am

spot;1240544 wrote: I'm not sure I'd call myself a die-hard Labour supporter. The fellow I quite fancied as next PM ruled himself out a few months ago by becoming Speaker. I want a PM with brains and charisma and an ability to gain consensus. David Trimble would have been a great choice but he's ennobled as is that Peter Mandelson chap. Either would have been interesting alternatives otherwise.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Art least I hope yo are being humorous, if you're not you have my sympathy and understanding. I thought Thatcher would go down in history as the worst prime minister of he 20th century but I think Tony Blair has just pipped her at the post and both would have lost out to gordon brown except he is the next century however he had got to be in the running for the worst chancellor of the exchequer, a numpty of staggering proportions.

Can't see him without the word running through my head.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:13 am

gmc;1240555 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Art least I hope yo are being humorous, if you're not you have my sympathy and understanding. I thought Thatcher would go down in history as the worst prime minister of he 20th century but I think Tony Blair has just pipped her at the post and both would have lost out to gordon brown except he is the next century however he had got to be in the running for the worst chancellor of the exchequer, a numpty of staggering proportions.

Can't see him without the word running through my head.
Please use capital letters when refering to our Illustrious leader.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:40 am

oscar;1240558 wrote: Please use capital letters when refering to our Illustrious leader.

your wish is my command O' deluded one

GORDON IS A MORON

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:51 am

gmc;1240566 wrote: your wish is my command O' deluded one

GORDON IS SEXY Thankyou. That's much better.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:03 pm

:wah::wah::wah:

There's going to be no end to Punch and Judy politics - PR or no PR - while you two wind eachother up!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:50 pm

Clodhopper;1240675 wrote: :wah::wah::wah:

There's going to be no end to Punch and Judy politics - PR or no PR - while you two wind eachother up!
Yeah, the haggis and me... regular comedians.

He does read the Daily Mail you know... He pretends he doesn't but he does. He found one on a bus once and became addicted.

Wayne Smith · Post by **Wayne Smith** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:35 pm

The BNP also have three local Council members—elected under first-past-the-post.

Don't blame the voting system. Blame the voters—and the major parties who were so unpopular they were abandoned in the EU elections.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:39 pm

Wayne Smith;1240772 wrote: The BNP also have three local Council members—elected under first-past-the-post.

Don't blame the voting system. Blame the voters—and the major parties who were so unpopular they were abandoned in the EU elections. Hello Wayne... are you a BNP supporter?

Wayne Smith · Post by **Wayne Smith** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:28 am

I am in Canada, and have no allegiance in UK politics.

I am interested in voting systems and feel that winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting encourages "Punch and Judy" politics.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:33 am

Wayne Smith;1240871 wrote: I am in Canada, and have no allegiance in UK politics.

I am interested in voting systems and feel that winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting encourages "Punch and Judy" politics.
You seem to have quite some knowledge about the BNP and their council seats posting from Canada. Most Canadians have no idea of who the BNP are let alone how many council seats they have won which I understand stands at the current figure of 109 across England. Do you favour a more hung Parliment system of representation?

Wayne Smith · Post by **Wayne Smith** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:53 am

As I say, I am interested in voting reform, and I follow developments around the world. There has been a lot of discussion in the UK recently about electoral reform in the wake of the expenses scandal, and also in the context of the EU elections.

Some have expressed a concern that proportional voting allows "extremists" to get elected. In fact, proportional voting allows voters to decide who gets elected. I think that's a good thing.

As for "hung" parliaments, minority and coalition government are the norm in most developed countries, as most of them have proportional voting systems. In general, they tend to have governments that are stable and effective while being flexible and responsive.

Winner-take-all voting generates phony majority governments, sometimes with fewer than 40% of the votes. Single-party monopoly government, as can easily be seen in the UK, Canada and elsewhere, generates arrogance and corruption.

I don't want to overstate the case here—proportional voting is no panacea. However, it tends to generate a more consensual type of government and a more civilized style of politics.

Above all, having a vote that actually makes a difference gives voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:09 am

Wayne Smith;1240880 wrote: As I say, I am interested in voting reform, and I follow developments around the world. There has been a lot of discussion in the UK recently about electoral reform in the wake of the expenses scandal, and also in the context of the EU elections.

Some have expressed a concern that proportional voting allows "extremists" to get elected. In fact, proportional voting allows voters to decide who gets elected. I think that's a good thing.

As for "hung" parliaments, minority and coalition government are the norm in most developed countries, as most of them have proportional voting systems. In general, they tend to have governments that are stable and effective while being flexible and responsive.

Winner-take-all voting generates phony majority governments, sometimes with fewer than 40% of the votes. Single-party monopoly government, as can easily be seen in the UK, Canada and elsewhere, generates arrogance and corruption.

I don't want to overstate the case here—proportional voting is no panacea. However, it tends to generate a more consensual type of government and a more civilized style of politics.

Above all, having a vote that actually makes a difference gives voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable.

I thought with a name like wayne you were going to be an essex boy-so much for preconceptions. I'm sure i read somewhere Canada are thinking about it as well?

Agree with most of your post there.

posted by oscar

Do you favour a more hung Parliment system of representation?

That's the kind of asinine comment those who can't construct a logical argument come out with. A hung parliament is better than one where a minority party has all the power. New labour have less than 35% of the vote but 100% of the power. How on earth is that good for democracy? Voters don't bother voting in this country because it seems to make no difference at all. At least punch and judy is entertaining what we get is depressing to watch.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:54 pm

gmc;1240920 wrote:

That's the kind of asinine comment those who can't construct a logical argument come out with. . Just testing :sneaky: