The next general election in the uk

[Plain old me]

Maybe not chaos, so much as more like America? It is very hard to get laws passed here, because the houses are so divided, which is what Britain would have with proportional representation. It creates an artificial majority, which can be helpful sometimes, unless it is abused. I find it interesting that the only party that calls for proportional representation is the one that's not in power. Labour was calling for it too, before they won, with Conservatives shooting it down. Now the situation's reversed.

As Naughty said, politicians are hypocrites, it's true the system has failings, as all do, but I think it works better then pr would.

However, if we had a different system here, perhaps Phoney Bliar would have to behave himself a bit better!

Phoney Bliar?...but isn't it Ton...oh, wait, I get it!:lol:

Er, yes, anyways...I'd just like to throw this other bone into the debate...it seems that not only did Labour win with the smallest percentage of the vote in a loooong time, but it also turns out that they actually got less seats in England then the tories...do we need a seperate English Parliament? Like Scotland and Wales?

 

[Androvski]

Much as I dislike"new Labour"the thought of another tory government sends shivers down my spine.I left school in 1982 right smack in the middle of Thatcher's "reign of terror"there was absolutely no bloody employment anywhere,bad days and grim memories!
No need to worry about the next general election,as there won't be one.By then I will have taken control of the country in the forthcoming revolution and glorious Comrade Androvski will be supreme leader of the new Socialist republic of Britain.
It's alright Plain old me,I won't bump the royal family off like the Russians did,I've got jobs for em all in Tesco and a nice little house on the Gurnos council estate in Merthyr Tydfil:lol:

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Androvski for Supreme Leader!

(keeping on his good side just in case)

 

[Androvski]

Androvski for Supreme Leader!

(keeping on his good side just in case)

It's ok Naughty,you had a place for me in the whitehouse,so I've got one for you in Buck house.I'll put you in charge of kitting our forces out with their new uniforms:smile:

 

[Plain old me]

No need to worry about the next general election,as there won't be one.By then I will have taken control of the country in the forthcoming revolution and glorious Comrade Androvski will be supreme leader of the new Socialist republic of Britain.
It's alright Plain old me,I won't bump the royal family off like the Russians did,I've got jobs for em all in Tesco and a nice little house on the Gurnos council estate in Merthyr Tydfil:lol:

Naughty Nurse has a point, I haven't considered the idea that a Gay Welsh Socialist (hmm, GWS, has a ring to it, maybe you should form a political party?) may one day enact a revolution and seize control of parliament. Better start erasing my royalist tendencies.

:2ukflag: Long Live the Revolution :2ukflag:

Hmmm, Her Majesty in a supermarket? Oh the possibilities...

Thats ASDA price, *ching* *ching*

 

[Androvski]

I suppose it would be a bit unfair to make the Queen work at Tesco,after all she's getting on some now.We'll put her on a pension and send her off on regular trips to castle Bingo with the OAP group at the local community centre.
I can picture it if she won,jumping up and shouting Palace and the old dear sitting next to her saying "no love it's house".

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I suppose it would be a bit unfair to make the Queen work at Tesco,after all she's getting on some now.We'll put her on a pension and send her off on regular trips to castle Bingo with the OAP group at the local community centre.
I can picture it if she won,jumping up and shouting Palace and the old dear sitting next to her saying "no love it's house".

But if she worked at Tesco, she'd get staff discount and her pension would go further. Quite a few Corgis to feed.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

It's ok Naughty,you had a place for me in the whitehouse,so I've got one for you in Buck house.I'll put you in charge of kitting our forces out with their new uniforms:smile:

I'm just going to check your inside leg measurement, sir. :3oops:

 

[Androvski]

I'm just going to check your inside leg measurement, sir. :3oops:

:2funny: What would llife be without A laugh hey?

 

[Aryan Imperium]

who do you see winning?

The same people who won it last time, the time before that, the time before that, etc.
Der ewige Jude!

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Ah yes another fantastic post. Backed up by hard evidence. So if the jews won the general election, please Ayran Imperium share us the actual evidence that supports your claim.

I'm waiting......

 

[Red_Dave]

Maybe not chaos, so much as more like America? It is very hard to get laws passed here, because the houses are so divided, which is what Britain would have with proportional representation. It creates an artificial majority, which can be helpful sometimes, unless it is abused. I find it interesting that the only party that calls for proportional representation is the one that's not in power. Labour was calling for it too, before they won, with Conservatives shooting it down. Now the situation's reversed.

Arguably its better not pass alot of legislation through then to pass crap legislation through that most of the country disagrees with [eg tuition fees, fox hunting ban, iraq war e.t.c]

 

[Red_Dave]

I understand where you're coming from, but I would argue this is still democracy, you still get to choose, even if it's just the case the majority vote against you.

I have to say though that the idea of STV sounds more and more interesting, but I wonder how you think it would effect the makeup of parliament?

I completely agree with No. 2, we need to elect our Head of State directly.



They can vote for a party that represents their opinion, and contribute to that parties victory, but having considered and voted for that party I would want that party in charge, not a mix of that parties values and policies and anothers.

S.T.V would make paliment alot more muli-party but to me that seams a good thing because it would give people more choice than the 3 very similar parties
we have at the moment. It would also mean that alot views that where previously unrepresented would stop being so. For example iam a socialist so traditionally the party to go for would be labour, however now that the labour has been hijacked and brought to the right and is led by someone who is clearly currupt,
iam stuck for a party that represents my views. By suporrting one of the smaller left wing partys like the greens, respect , socialist alliance e.t.c all i would be doing is splitting the left-wing vote and makeing the problem even worse.

I dont think a coalition would be undemocratic because the more seats each party in a coalition gets the more influence it has.

Democracy is literally translated "peoples rule" or something along those lines.
This is not the situation in the uk because the people just choose between two concervative leaders and are largely ignored for the next 4 years.

 

[Red_Dave]

Much as I dislike"new Labour"the thought of another tory government sends shivers down my spine.I left school in 1982 right smack in the middle of Thatcher's "reign of terror"there was absolutely no bloody employment anywhere,bad days and grim memories!
No need to worry about the next general election,as there won't be one.By then I will have taken control of the country in the forthcoming revolution and glorious Comrade Androvski will be supreme leader of the new Socialist republic of Britain.
It's alright Plain old me,I won't bump the royal family off like the Russians did,I've got jobs for em all in Tesco and a nice little house on the Gurnos council estate in Merthyr Tydfil:lol:

Dammit my topic has been inflitrated by Comunists *Grabs pitch fork and flameing torch*

 

[Androvski]

Dammit my topic has been inflitrated by Comunists *Grabs pitch fork and flameing torch*

Haha,we'll brainwash you yet,hell with a handle like Red Dave,we're halfway there already hahhahahahaha.

 

[Plain old me]

S.T.V would make paliment alot more muli-party but to me that seams a good thing because it would give people more choice than the 3 very similar parties
we have at the moment. It would also mean that alot views that where previously unrepresented would stop being so. For example iam a socialist so traditionally the party to go for would be labour, however now that the labour has been hijacked and brought to the right and is led by someone who is clearly currupt,
iam stuck for a party that represents my views. By suporrting one of the smaller left wing partys like the greens, respect , socialist alliance e.t.c all i would be doing is splitting the left-wing vote and makeing the problem even worse.

I agree with your point regarding the closeness of the parties, it seems the lib dems are taking Labours old spot...what with increased taxes on the richest 1%.

And Respect? George Galloway? Gaah, only mildly preferable to the BNP.

I dont think a coalition would be undemocratic because the more seats each party in a coalition gets the more influence it has.

For the large parties this is true, but it would give smaller parties, such as the SNP or Plaid Cymru far more influence then they deserve.

Democracy is literally translated "peoples rule" or something along those lines.

Uh-huh, from the greek 'Demos' meaning people, and krasis, meaning power.
Sorry, just had politics today. :2razz:

This is not the situation in the uk because the people just choose between two concervative leaders and are largely ignored for the next 4 years.

But the only way for true, extreme democracy to work would be to go back to Greek times, and run things with referendums in city states. We elect representatives, Labour got the most, and the most votes overall. This legitamises their government. PR would seriously drag British politics down. We cannot hand over every decision to the people, we leave it to the representatives we elect.

BTW...fox hunting? Since are most against the ban?

 

[Red_Dave]

I agree with your point regarding the closeness of the parties, it seems the lib dems are taking Labours old spot...what with increased taxes on the richest 1%.

And Respect? George Galloway? Gaah, only mildly preferable to the BNP.



For the large parties this is true, but it would give smaller parties, such as the SNP or Plaid Cymru far more influence then they deserve.



Uh-huh, from the greek 'Demos' meaning people, and krasis, meaning power.
Sorry, just had politics today. :2razz:



But the only way for true, extreme democracy to work would be to go back to Greek times, and run things with referendums in city states. We elect representatives, Labour got the most, and the most votes overall. This legitamises their government. PR would seriously drag British politics down. We cannot hand over every decision to the people, we leave it to the representatives we elect.

BTW...fox hunting? Since are most against the ban?

I think i direct democracy could work, it worked farily effectivly Greek times as far as i know and the Swiss run a directly democratic system . Any petition with more then 1 million signatures has to be voted on in a referendum and then passed as a law if the referendum is sucessful. Much better then our system in my view. This could be tricky to implement in the UK cause there are more people but could work if our system was more devolved.

I thought about joining Respect for a while because they where the only entirely socialist party left in parliament but Galloway admitedly comes out with some very worrying stuff so i didnt.

How would the S.N.P e.t.c get to much inlfluence . Surely the ammount of influence the party had would depend on how many seats they had.

If our system was anything near democratic blair would have been
re-elected because the brittish people liked him and his policys. This didnt happen. Many [if not most] voted for labour because it wasnt the conservative party and voteing for anyone else would "let the concervatives in through the back door". The Labour party basicially used a carrot and stick aproach , Browns takeover being the carrot [although i imagine his takeover isnt as eminent as they make it out to be] and the concervatives being the stick. In a democracy the labour party would be elected through good policys rather than mainipulation.


As regards fox hunting Ive seen lots of countryside alliance posters around recently saying "60% say keep hunting" so asumed [maybe wrongly] that most where. Some Anti hunting organisations claim that 60% of the country are against fox hunting so who knows?

 

[Plain old me]

I think i direct democracy could work, it worked farily effectivly Greek times as far as i know and the Swiss run a directly democratic system . Any petition with more then 1 million signatures has to be voted on in a referendum and then passed as a law if the referendum is sucessful. Much better then our system in my view. This could be tricky to implement in the UK cause there are more people but could work if our system was more devolved.

I disagree, I do believe in democracy to an extent, people should choose their representatives, but once they are chosen we should let them do their job. I mean, very very few of us are experts in the Iraq War, or Tuition fees.

I thought about joining Respect for a while because they where the only entirely socialist party left in parliament but Galloway admitedly comes out with some very worrying stuff so i didnt.

Yeah, I suppose if there's one thing you can say about Dear Georgy its that he's a committed socialist.

How would the S.N.P e.t.c get to much inlfluence . Surely the ammount of influence the party had would depend on how many seats they had.

Sure, if the SNP get 3% of the vote, they get 3% of the influence. However, this is not the case. If it came to a close call...as PR would have given last election, then all the small parties become very important, as they can swing the majority one way or the other with promises of coalitions. This means the main parties may have to bend over backwards to accomodate them.

If our system was anything near democratic blair would have been
re-elected because the brittish people liked him and his policys. This didnt happen. Many [if not most] voted for labour because it wasnt the conservative party and voteing for anyone else would "let the concervatives in through the back door". The Labour party basicially used a carrot and stick aproach , Browns takeover being the carrot [although i imagine his takeover isnt as eminent as they make it out to be](I concur) and the concervatives being the stick. In a democracy the labour party would be elected through good policys rather than mainipulation.

Alas, democracy is not perfect, but I don't see how PR would remedy this? Labour would still use the trick of letting the tories in through the back door, people would still vote for policies rather then Blair. Democracy is a tricky thing to get perfect, but I think the current system is the best we can have.

As regards fox hunting Ive seen lots of countryside alliance posters around recently saying "60% say keep hunting" so asumed [maybe wrongly] that most where. Some Anti hunting organisations claim that 60% of the country are against fox hunting so who knows?

Indeed, I think this issue has become so skewed that no-one knows who supports what!

 

[Red_Dave]

I disagree, I do believe in democracy to an extent, people should choose their representatives, but once they are chosen we should let them do their job. I mean, very very few of us are experts in the Iraq War, or Tuition fees.



Yeah, I suppose if there's one thing you can say about Dear Georgy its that he's a committed socialist.



Sure, if the SNP get 3% of the vote, they get 3% of the influence. However, this is not the case. If it came to a close call...as PR would have given last election, then all the small parties become very important, as they can swing the majority one way or the other with promises of coalitions. This means the main parties may have to bend over backwards to accomodate them.



Alas, democracy is not perfect, but I don't see how PR would remedy this? Labour would still use the trick of letting the tories in through the back door, people would still vote for policies rather then Blair. Democracy is a tricky thing to get perfect, but I think the current system is the best we can have.

Although i would idealy like to see a direct democracy i would be happy to settle for a representive democracy if that was what we had. Our "representaive democracy" doesnt represent peoples views because the left have no one to vote for. Like i said if i could vote where i live in south dorset then i would only have a choice between two concervatives [the labour candidate is very blairite]. Although i would like to vote/campain for the libdems or another more left-wing party all this would do is split the left-wing vote and give ed matts and the concervatives [spit here] more of a chance. I imagine quite alot of those who would like to vote lid-dem ended up voteing labour due to a big tactical voteing campain across dorset and not wanting to waste there vote thus letting the concervatives in. To me a situtiation where anyone to the left of tony blair is not represented effectivly is not a representative democracy.

I remember seeing a lib-dem advert in the torygraph which showed the results of a survey they asked how many people in each consituency would vote lib-dem if they thought the lib-dems had a chance of winning the consituency in question. In most consituencys the majority of people said they would.Although this survey is admitedly very biased, if it is to be trusted it means that the brittish people effectivly elected a government that they didnt want.

Proportional representation would solve this problem because under S.T.V you would be less worried about your votes being wasted on third parties. Under a party lists system like the e.u's the number of seats are actually determind by the number of votes so theres little risk of wasteing your vote. Any P.R system would give third parties more of a look in and remove the right-wing monopoly on parliament.

I can see your point about small parties haveing to much influence but if the s.n.p stayed the size it did then a suituation where they where needed to form a coalition would be very unlikely. If they got bigger it wouldnt be that much of a problem as they would be representing quite alot of people anyway.

Very few of us are experts on the iraq war but you dont have to be an expert to see the real reasons for it. Experts would have more influence in a direct democracy anyway I imagine people would want to know what they thought before voteing.

 

[Plain old me]

Although i would idealy like to see a direct democracy i would be happy to settle for a representive democracy if that was what we had. Our "representaive democracy" doesnt represent peoples views because the left have no one to vote for. Like i said if i could vote where i live in south dorset then i would only have a choice between two concervatives [the labour candidate is very blairite]. Although i would like to vote/campain for the libdems or another more left-wing party all this would do is split the left-wing vote and give ed matts and the concervatives [spit here] more of a chance. I imagine quite alot of those who would like to vote lid-dem ended up voteing labour due to a big tactical voteing campain across dorset and not wanting to waste there vote thus letting the concervatives in. To me a situtiation where anyone to the left of tony blair is not represented effectivly is not a representative democracy.

We do have a representative democracy, the vast majority of the time, the party with most votes wins, this even happened in 2005. It is true, PR would be far more representative, far more democratic, all main parties would have the influence they deserve, the smaller ones would have far more, but the I believe the problems of PR in the UK would far outway the benefits, whilst the benefits of FPTP outway the problems.

I remember seeing a lib-dem advert in the torygraph which showed the results of a survey they asked how many people in each consituency would vote lib-dem if they thought the lib-dems had a chance of winning the consituency in question. In most consituencys the majority of people said they would.Although this survey is admitedly very biased, if it is to be trusted it means that the brittish people effectivly elected a government that they didnt want.

This is how it goes. Unfortunately the majority who didn't want Labour divided their vote.

Proportional representation would solve this problem because under S.T.V you would be less worried about your votes being wasted on third parties. Under a party lists system like the e.u's the number of seats are actually determind by the number of votes so theres little risk of wasteing your vote. Any P.R system would give third parties more of a look in and remove the right-wing monopoly on parliament.

Proportional representation would still give Labour the majority, but such a tiny one that nothing would get done. We'd have votes of no-confidence all over the place and an election every month. The Lib-Dems have put a coalition as an impossibility with either party, and I cannot see the Tories joining Labour. Even so, I would say it is just as bad to vote for one party on their policies, and find that although they've won, some of those policies you wanted have been thrown out the window simply in order to shift a majority into parliament.

I can see your point about small parties haveing to much influence but if the s.n.p stayed the size it did then a suituation where they where needed to form a coalition would be very unlikely. If they got bigger it wouldnt be that much of a problem as they would be representing quite alot of people anyway.

That situation would become even more likely under PR.

Very few of us are experts on the iraq war but you dont have to be an expert to see the real reasons for it. Experts would have more influence in a direct democracy anyway I imagine people would want to know what they thought before voteing.

The Iraq War is just an example. How many of the ordinary man on the street can be bothered to read a dossier on invasion plans, intelligence reports, budget issues, NHS reports, education statistics, environment reports, and god knows how many things the commitees have to consider? We elect these people to have the time, and willingness to do this so they can vote, with an informed vote, on our behalf. Rather then the whimmed, Daily Mail influenced vote that would be the undoubtable result of consulting the people on each issue.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

Ah yes another fantastic post. Backed up by hard evidence. So if the jews won the general election, please Ayran Imperium share us the actual evidence that supports your claim.

I'm waiting......

Where have you been? Never read a book?
Unaware the the jew controls the media, every aspect of it and all means of conditioning the masses are in the hands of the jew?

 

[Red_Dave]

Where have you been? Never read a book?
Unaware the the jew controls the media, every aspect of it and all means of conditioning the masses are in the hands of the jew?

The jewish guy lost actually............Anyhow which jews du think control the media? if anyone controls the meida its rupert murdoch and he's not jewish as far as i know.......

 

[Plain old me]

who do you see winning?

Now Ken Clarke's out of the race for the tory leadership...almost certianly Labour. He was probably the only one who could beat them.

 

[GarzaUK]

Now Ken Clarke's out of the race for the tory leadership...almost certianly Labour. He was probably the only one who could beat them.

Ken Clarke never really did it for me, he always seemed lazy to me - I don't know why. A lazy Churchill more like.

As a liberal I hope David Cameron wins, better than the hard core right wing Fox and Davis. Plus he dabbled in illegal drugs so he can't be that much of a conservative stiff. If it was Cameron vs Brown, I think Cameron would win - especially now that the economy is stuttering. I'm sick of Labour and Blair to be honest.

Also unfortunatly if Cameron takes over, the Lib Dems won't have a chance. I like the Lib Dems foreign policy but I heard they will order a 50% tax for over 40 grand a year salaries, since I might be making that in a couple years time I really really don't like the sound of it. lol

 

[Plain old me]

Ken Clarke never really did it for me, he always seemed lazy to me - I don't know why. A lazy Churchill more like.

As a liberal I hope David Cameron wins, better than the hard core right wing Fox and Davis. Plus he dabbled in illegal drugs so he can't be that much of a conservative stiff.

I agree, I think now Clarke's gone Camerone is the best chance the tories have to upseat labour, but I reckon Clarke had the best chance.

It's a good job Fox is out of the race now, a little (as in a lot) too right for me, and I think the country.