• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The next general election in the uk

Plain old me said:
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.



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



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.



That situation would become even more likely under PR.



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.

There been a couple of elections over the past 100 years where the party with the most votes lost, this doesnt strike me as a particually fair system. If you ranked all the different voteing systems in terms of the amount of choice they gave the voter and how representative the system is F.P.T.P would come off worse on both counts.

I doubt proportional representation would give labour a majority because under p.r people would vote for the party they wanted rather than the party most likely to keep the concervatives out.

I wouldnt assume nothing would get done under a minority government as partys could still vote together even if not in a coalition.

In terms of nationalist partys haveing to much of an influence would be that much of a problem. The last time a nationalist party ended up in a coalition was when the irish nationalists ended up in a coalition with the liberals on the condition that the liberals implememted home rule for ireland [which led to the formation of the republic of ireland if i remember rightly] So i imagine the same would happen if the S.N.P or plaid cymru ended up in a coalition with someone except there would be a referendum.
 
Red_Dave said:
There been a couple of elections over the past 100 years where the party with the most votes lost, this doesnt strike me as a particually fair system. If you ranked all the different voteing systems in terms of the amount of choice they gave the voter and how representative the system is F.P.T.P would come off worse on both counts.

It is not as fair as it could be, I agree, but interms of fairness, AND neccerssary parliamentary stability I think FPTP is best there is for the UK.

Red_Dave said:
I doubt proportional representation would give labour a majority because under p.r people would vote for the party they wanted rather than the party most likely to keep the concervatives out.

Quite possibly.

Red_Dave said:
I wouldnt assume nothing would get done under a minority government as partys could still vote together even if not in a coalition.

But there would be so many votes-of-no-confidence we'd have an election every other week. Not to mention the fact that turning to PR would put a permanent Lib Dem government in power.
 
Plain old me said:
It is not as fair as it could be, I agree, but interms of fairness, AND neccerssary parliamentary stability I think FPTP is best there is for the UK.



Quite possibly.



But there would be so many votes-of-no-confidence we'd have an election every other week. Not to mention the fact that turning to PR would put a permanent Lib Dem government in power.

parlimentary stability is important but keeping crap governments the country doesnt want in power is the the name of parliamentart stability defeats the object a little. A less stable system would have its benefits in that the government would be under more pressure to actually do what the country wants. We,ve coped with minority governments and coailitions before and so do many other countrys.

A permeant lib-dem government is something i could live with personally :cool: . It would only happen if people continued to vote for them so i dont see the problem really.
 
Red_Dave said:
parlimentary stability is important but keeping crap governments the country doesnt want in power is the the name of parliamentart stability defeats the object a little. A less stable system would have its benefits in that the government would be under more pressure to actually do what the country wants. We,ve coped with minority governments and coailitions before and so do many other countrys.

A permeant lib-dem government is something i could live with personally :cool: . It would only happen if people continued to vote for them so i dont see the problem really.

Hey what are the Lib Dem's stances? I know the Conservatives' and Labour's and it's so much easier for you to tell me than me to go look it up. :mrgreen:
 
Kelzie said:
Hey what are the Lib Dem's stances? I know the Conservatives' and Labour's and it's so much easier for you to tell me than me to go look it up. :mrgreen:

All i can remember off the top of my head is

50% tax on the highest earners,

.more progressive local taxes
[the amount you pay is currently based of the value of your house rather than how much you earn]

.abolishing top up university fee's,

.free health care for the elderly.

Prportional representation in general elections [understandable]

.devolveing as much power as possible from westminster to local assemblies

. very Anti-iraq war

. against selling arms to opressive governments [unlike blair sadly]
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
All i can remember off the top of my head is

50% tax on the highest earners,

.more progressive local taxes
[the amount you pay is currently based of the value of your house rather than how much you earn]

.abolishing top up university fee's,

.free health care for the elderly.

Prportional representation in general elections [understandable]

.devolveing as much power as possible from westminster to local assemblies

. very Anti-iraq war

. against selling arms to opressive governments [unlike blair sadly]

There's the legalising Cannabis, strongly Pro-European, as well. And of the three main parties they're the ones that talk about coming up with an effective rehabilittion program, and also giving the vote to 16 year olds (wehey!)

I quite like the Lib Dems, certianly moreso then the tories. I disagree with their position on Iraq, PR (obviously!) and university fees, but I would like a time where they're the opposition to New Labour.

Back to the PR debate...I think this is where we reach an impass. You obviously feel the advantages of PR outway its disadvantages. I disagree. I think that its broadly democratically enough, whilst a system of PR would lead to ineffective government and too much power to the Lib Dems.
 
Red_Dave said:
All i can remember off the top of my head is

50% tax on the highest earners,

Doesn't that seem a bit much to you guys? Seriously though, with that high tax, businesses will defect elsewhere. This is the only thing I disagree with the Lib Dems.
 
Plain old me said:
There's the legalising Cannabis, strongly Pro-European, as well. And of the three main parties they're the ones that talk about coming up with an effective rehabilittion program, and also giving the vote to 16 year olds (wehey!)

I quite like the Lib Dems, certianly moreso then the tories. I disagree with their position on Iraq, PR (obviously!) and university fees, but I would like a time where they're the opposition to New Labour.

Back to the PR debate...I think this is where we reach an impass. You obviously feel the advantages of PR outway its disadvantages. I disagree. I think that its broadly democratically enough, whilst a system of PR would lead to ineffective government and too much power to the Lib Dems.

I agree with them on most thing except there stance on nationalisation/privitisation and the fact there so darn europhile. That said I,m a bit woirred about the traditional enthesis on free markets you get in liberalism but alot of them seam to be very into "fair" trade but then so are the concervatives in theory so il have to look into that.

The lib-dems would be good in opossition as ild expect it would force new labour to go more left-wing. You had a similar situation in the early 20th century when the labour party was on the rise and the liberals where in power. The result was that the liberal party did alot that was very radical at the time such as introduceing pensions, nationals insurance, free meals for schools e.t.c to try and steal labours thunder. Now that the lib-dems are in a similar situation to what labour was in the early 1900s you can see that labour could end up doing the same thing. I noticed one or two poilicies in the budget that where seamingly nicked from the lib-dems and i imagine the labour party would go further towards the left if the lib-dems ended up in opossition.

As regards to 50% tax on the highest earners much of mainland europe taxes alot more than us so i doubt rasing taxes on the rich a little would do that much harm.
 
Back
Top Bottom