Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Democracy Under Serious Threat


Recommended Posts

And this is one of them.

When even Labour MP's, ex ministers and peers are saying that imposing a new voting system without a referendum is just not on you know something is going badly wrong in the heart of Nu Labour.

I am 49 years old and this is the most serious threat this country has faced in my lifetime IMO - even worse than the 1970's.

I know that people may find this amusing and this thread will probably get shunted into off topic

BUT

This is actually really serious

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And this is one of them.

When even Labour MP's, ex ministers and peers are saying that imposing a new voting system without a referendum is just not on you know something is going badly wrong in the heart of Nu Labour.

I am 49 years old and this is the most serious threat this country has faced in my lifetime IMO - even worse than the 1970's.

I know that people may find this amusing and this thread will probably get shunted into off topic

BUT

This is actually really serious

:blink:

...they will not get it through like this ....think of the backlash in the next election ...which will not be far away if they go ahead ....Labour love this side issue as it takes the spotlight away from a dying economy..... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the last few days have served to highlight the shortcomings of our system, but agreeing changes to it behind closed doors as a sweetener to some kind of power sharing deal just makes things worse.

If we get the COAL (Coalition Of All Losers), I think there is a fair chance of mass civil unrest, especially in England, where the Labour vote was weaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is one of them.

When even Labour MP's, ex ministers and peers are saying that imposing a new voting system without a referendum is just not on you know something is going badly wrong in the heart of Nu Labour.

I am 49 years old and this is the most serious threat this country has faced in my lifetime IMO - even worse than the 1970's.

I know that people may find this amusing and this thread will probably get shunted into off topic

BUT

This is actually really serious

:blink:

Don't you think PR would be good for democracy? 30% of the UK population have imposed their views unchecked on the other 70% for at least the last 30 years and you think that was good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, why should we have to tolerate Brown as leader until Autumn. The power crazed freak will probably try and hang on to power by creating a new role for himself as Grand Overseer, Fuhrer or something else to feed his narcissism. The electorate have rejected him, he should go.

There's a good article here, it was posted a few days ago, it spells out the political and economic situation facing the country.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-07/u-k-vote-leaves-candidates-with-heads-in-sand-matthew-lynn.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally they at least keep the pretence of democracy up though.

You just need to look at Labour's negotiating team, 5 people and only 3 of them are elected!

What democracy?

You sure you are talking about the UK here?

EDIT: sorry, forgot the link...

Privy council

Screw your notions of dumbocrazy.

Edited by cashinmattress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a virtual parliament that consists of international investors, who can pull the plug on political policies that they find unfavourable. Unfortunately the citizens of this country do not have the same ability to affect political polices. IF we could change our vote whenever we wanted via internet, text, post office, bank etc then we would have the ability to hold our politicians to account, in the same way that the virtual parliament of international investors do. I bet the investors wouldn't like it if they could only buy and sell currency, shares and bonds once every four years.

Edited by enrieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think PR would be good for democracy? 30% of the UK population have imposed their views unchecked on the other 70% for at least the last 30 years and you think that was good?

Agreed... if it was about moving away from PR to the system we have no then we would have reason to be worried.

PR ensures a more democratic vote.

The reason Labour and Tory MPs are grumbling about is if it goes through it basically means the END of the entire way of life for the entire political class. Most Tory and Labour MPs would be sure of losing their seats at the next election.

People vote Labour to get the tories out or Tory to get Labour out. With PR they could vote for whoever they liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a chat about house prices with david laws on our doorstep at the last election. Don't think I really got through but he did at least listen and treated me with respect.

Just wanted to say that!

I don't think that changes should go through without ref. But equally the av system is no different to fptp so people shouldn't get ton upset. But if all tory's are offering is a vote on av and labour offering ref on some form of pr, then I may be swinging back to labour. It won't be good for country or lib dems or labour but right now I say f*ck the economy, it needs a good kicking anyway. A better voting system is not something we get everyday, not even once a generation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a coup d'état going on?

This is not democracy... in what has been an astonishing year politically, this is quite surreal. If politics was seen to be rotten, it is now putrid.

Labour clinging on, a big V sign to the British public.

John Reid was pretty on the money with this.

Meet the new boss, same as the old one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baad-a-bing. Nail on head. OP's style is too hysterical. PR is a better system in many ways not so good in some ways and worse in one or two ways. Hey-ho. One BIG plus, there will never be an out of control government, Labour, Conservative or anything else ever again if this is passed. It'll mean an end to our country's bi-polar political system. How awful.

But which form of PR is it that would be installed without our consultation? Shouldn't we have a choice before we change our voting system. After all, the current one has been around for a while.

This is honestly something that a lot of people are now feeling strongly about. Perhaps strongly enough to to take to the streets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baad-a-bing. Nail on head. OP's style is too hysterical. PR is a better system in many ways not so good in some ways and worse in one or two ways. Hey-ho. One BIG plus, there will never be an out of control government, Labour, Conservative or anything else ever again if this is passed. It'll mean an end to our country's bi-polar political system. How awful.

PR:

more greens, more BNP, more libdems, less tories, less labour.

tories separate into two parties (eurosceptic right joins ukip, leaving weakened tory-centrists), perhaps old labour left splits from remnants of new lab.

overall result: a far higher number of 'progressive' MPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed... if it was about moving away from PR to the system we have no then we would have reason to be worried.

PR ensures a more democratic vote.

The reason Labour and Tory MPs are grumbling about is if it goes through it basically means the END of the entire way of life for the entire political class. Most Tory and Labour MPs would be sure of losing their seats at the next election.

People vote Labour to get the tories out or Tory to get Labour out. With PR they could vote for whoever they liked.

The country has turned into a snakepit of extremist political ideologues (left and right) busy abusing the other side in turn and the rest of the disenfranchised population all the time. Frankly I can't wait for PR, I think it's even worth a wrecked parliament until the next elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is honestly something that a lot of people are now feeling strongly about. Perhaps strongly enough to to take to the streets...

:lol:

You mean Tory and Labour hardcore supporters, oh yes I'm sure they'd protest for that if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me of the benefits of our current electoral system again.

1) Decisive, powerful, majority governments..... :unsure:

2) Constituency MPs kept honest and in touch with the people by their accountability to a local electorate..... :unsure:

3) Providing a unequivocal democratic mandate to the prime minister and the government in the implementation of their clearly articulated policies.... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PR:

more greens, more BNP, more libdems, less tories, less labour.

tories separate into two parties (eurosceptic right joins ukip, leaving weakened tory-centrists), perhaps old labour left splits from remnants of new lab.

overall result: a far higher number of 'progressive' MPs.

*nod*

More democracy, less attention to reality classic end of days politics for a fading empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

You mean Tory and Labour hardcore supporters, oh yes I'm sure they'd protest for that if nothing else.

Labour turned in their worst GE performance since the 1920s... and yet they still might be in power!

And then, the icing on the cake, they decide to change the electoral system, without the say of the electorate, and you think that's funny!

Well, I think you probably deserve what comes next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threats to democracy - over and above what we've always suffered - are the Westlothian issue, gerrymandering, and electoral fraud. Not changing the voting system to AV, which is what both Tories and Labour now seem to accept.

AV isn't proportional. It just adds a post to pass (so first past the post means something), and it rids us of the fundamentally antidemocratic phenomenon of tactical voting. That's the only difference it makes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threats to democracy - over and above what we've always suffered - are the Westlothian issue, gerrymandering, and electoral fraud. Not changing the voting system to AV, which is what both Tories and Labour now seem to accept.

AV isn't proportional. It just adds a post to pass (so first past the post means something), and it rids us of the fundamentally antidemocratic phenomenon of tactical voting. That's the only difference it makes.

in detail:

How the System Works:

The same constituency boundaries are used and voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an 'X' against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting '1' next to their favourite, a '2' by their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system. It looks most similar to the current electoral system.

The system is used:

in the Australian House of Representatives

Arguments used in favour:

* The alternative vote retains the same constituencies and so the bond between members and their constituents is not lost.

* Extreme parties would be unlikely to gain support by AV and coalition governments would be no more likely to arise than they are under First-Past-The-Post.

* All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents.

* It prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote. In 2005, only 34% of British MPs were elected by more then 50% of the votes in their constituencies. This is a decline from 2001, when half of MPs could claim 50% support of their constituents.

* It removes the need for negative voting. Electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.

Weaknesses:

* Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.

* It also does very little to give a voice to those who have been traditionally under-represented in parliament.

* There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.

[me: that is not PR]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.