Things like that, after I've sort of got over the shock of the election result, I can't understand I must admit. I don't like the result either - but this is a democracy.
I done a few riots in my time: Twickenham cop shop '87, Notting Hill '90, Royal Wedding. These days, more of an armchair connoisseur
I don't understand rioting. Especially when you live there: 'Wheh-heh-heh! I've just burned a car!' 'Whose car?' 'My car! And I've just smashed in the window of the place I work! I'll have to clean that up in my next shift! ... ah shit!'
I was intrigued by the 'Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol' party, who had 8,419 votes overall. Just imagine the rallies: "What do we want?" ". . . we've. . . forgotten." "When do we want it?" "Oh, just bring it round some time."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/09/anti-austerity-protesters-take-to-uk-streets-after-tory-election-victory
What do you think of the possibility of proportional representation? https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-reform-our-voting-system-to-make-it-fair-and-representative-makeseatsmatchvotes?source_location=trending_petitions_home_page&algorithm=curated_trending I think this might be a bad idea as it would mean coalition governments would be almost inevitable. A relatively small party could hold the balance of power and have far more influence in government than a more popular party. There could also be the situation where the party that won most votes in an election, found itself in opposition.
We had an AV referendum four years ago, apparently, and nobody gave a toss - they said on the radio... Though the Green party gained about parity with SNPs 1.5m votes and have gained one seat to the militants' fifty-six. Their twin party - this side of the border gained, again only a single Member whilst securing 5 million votes or something. Heh heh heh, ummm... Jannert's gonna hate me.
That was AV, not PR. The Tories are dead against PR because they know they'd never form a government again, and they've got in on a shock FPTP result. It's a daft system, but it's the system we've got. A landslide victory can be won on significantly under 50% of the vote (1997, 2001), and one year Labour won the popular vote but lost on seats due to where they were distributed - which buggers up the idea of a democratic mandate somewhat. No point rioting. Absolutely dreadful scenes in London. We need to accept we have the Tories in power and mobilise in a different way. We need strong voices, a shift back to the centre ground whilst maintaining the belief in fairness and equality, and to fundamentally debunk the lies which have sprouted up unchallenged due to the press and media orthodoxy. We're strangely helped by the fact the Tories can go it alone - their cruelty and lack of compassion will be laid bare in their ruthless attacks on the poor and vulnerable. Expect a Labour landslide in 2020 if we get it right. Also, Gove is Justice Secretary. The legal system is fundamentally buggered. Why not Grieve, unless the aim is, as I fear, further ideological demolition of legal aid and judicial review and the repealing of the Human Rights Act. Oh, and likening the SNP to UKIP is completely wrong. They espouse completely different types of nationalism and have different political creeds. That certain activists for the SNP seem to have a problem with other parties should not be allowed to reflect on the leadership's vision. I have a lot of respect for Nicola Sturgeon and her MPs, even if I disagree with the points she's made. She wants an inclusive, rather than an exclusive, Scotland which is part of a wider world, even if it is independent from the UK.
Yes, I made a mistake - thought I'd missed a chunk of recent history with a 'PR referendum.' I'll have to go google, but thought AV was a system like STV. You see, I don't think Labour needs to shift to the centre and address mortgage anxieties and such, I think the Labour movement has become detached from the population from which it came. Last week I had guys coming up to me saying: 'Which one is "the Conservatives?" They're the ones for working people, right?' Not that a single colleague even voted, and that's the point. I'll respectfully disagree about differences between nationalist parties. Your analysis focuses on policies whereas I consider why people voted for them....frustration with the status quo as they see it. Also, where you perceive Nicola Sturgeon's inclusive policies, I perceive naked career ambition of a political generation, and also a base prejudice in the rhetoric. But hey, when all is said and done, independence for Scotland may be a success for them, and also for, what must now be us: my previous indulgence [being] to never quite identify as a 'national individual.'
I know what you mean, the current system where the Conservative party governs a nation on all non-devolved issues, of which there are many (all the important ones) where they have not a single seat is much fairer. Better Together, you say? Be careful what you wish for Mr Cameron.
I don't think any system would be truly fair. A PR system would be fairer in some ways but not in others. Suppose the Labour party wins the most seats in an election but ends up in opposition to a Conservative/UKIP coalition. Would that be fair? Under a PR system, UKIP would have won 83 seats instead of 1. Suppose you're in one of those other 82 constituencies and find that your local MP is UKIP, even though the most popular party in your constituency was not UKIP. Would this be fair? Many of the Scottish constituencies where the SNP was the most popular candidate, would not have SNP MPs. Would this be fair? But why not have 83 UKIP members of parliament? That would be representative, or would it? The amount of power these people would have would very much depend on whether they were in the ruling coalition or not. If they were in the government, they could command a disproportionately large amount of influence in return for their co-operation. If they were not part of the coalition, like the other parties of opposition, they'd be reduced to voicing objections and being outvoted. Neither option seems particularly representative. It seems to me, that a system of proportional representation would not be particularly proportional or representative. It might still be better than the current system though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281
i reside in a staunchly conservative area, and i tell you what, i dont know who i want to slap more, the conservative guy or the UKIP guy, (both are bellends FYI), and thats coming from someone who is a green supporter!
Yep. Totally fair. It's the not the biggest party that gets to govern, it's the one that can form a majority. If Labour can't do that with other left-wing parties, it suggests more of the electorate voted right-wing. I can't answer your others, since I'm not sure how constituencies would work under a PR system.
But then isn't democracy about which party gets the majority vote, not just a majority in terms of how many people are in the group? If Labour gets most of the people's vote, then it stands to reason that they should be the ruling party, and not have to be in opposition with parties that did not get the majority support from the people but who happen to be strategic enough to band up like bullies to force ideologies through.
I don't think I understand the distinction you're making. For there to be a majority under proportional representation, one party or bloc would need more than 50% of the vote. That's how they get more than 50% of the seats. That's what 'proportional representation' means. If you get the most votes of any one party, but still can't make 50%, you need to work with enough people to get your bloc over the line.
The situation of the Labour party wining the most votes and seats in an election, but ending up in opposition to a Conservative/UKIP coalition could occur in either system. In a first past the post system, it is likely that the winning party will have an outright majority and therefore govern. In a PR system, the governing body is likely be an alliance of whatever parties have the political will to cooperate with each-other, which may or may not include the most popular one. I'm not saying a PR system would be wrong, only that it is not without problems of it's own (which are different to the current system). An alliance of parties that implements an odd mix of policies is something that no one even has an opportunity to vote for.
Is a minority government that rare or even possible in the UK? In Canada, it seems like about half the governments win less than half the seats and never partner with any party (unless to pass a bill or budget).
I can see that having an alliance could be a good thing - you would sorta neutralise each other's most extreme ideologies. Did the Tory/Lib Dem coalition bring any good last term tho? My maths is appalling but I was wondering, wouldn't the size of your party affect election results? (Always been a little foggy on how the election worked too)
