UK Politics Hamsterwheel Mk III
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,999
Originally Posted by Torquetalk
You mean THAT coalition in which the LibDems sold their soul to be in power and acquiesced on swinging austerity measures driving many citizens into greater relative and absolute poverty? The coalition that, for example, cancelled the savings scheme for new borns, which helped to assure a saving ethic and a little modest capital for the future? Or the one in which that junior partner was almost extinguished at the ballot box in the following election because they represented, er, no one?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack
As much as I dislike how first past the post makes my vote meaningless, it does at least give some sort of stability
I've read and re-read that again and again and I still cannot find even a trace of logic involved!! The theory (undelivered!) of universal suffrage was to allow choice of a State's governance according to individual wishes. What we have been saddled with is a modified version of 'Hobson's Choice', the modification being in the hands of an unelected 'elite'. Look for a representative parallel to that and what do we find ? - PRC, Russia, North Korea ! ... and you think that is a good idea ?
I've read and re-read that again and again and I still cannot find even a trace of logic involved!! The theory (undelivered!) of universal suffrage was to allow choice of a State's governance according to individual wishes. What we have been saddled with is a modified version of 'Hobson's Choice', the modification being in the hands of an unelected 'elite'. Look for a representative parallel to that and what do we find ? - PRC, Russia, North Korea ! ... and you think that is a good idea ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by WB627
CJ my Tory MP has such a large majority, that who I vote for can never change the result. In fact, if all the other parties in the constituency just put up one candidate between them, it would still make no difference. I still vote, but only as a protest against the party of the sitting MP.
Even if all those who voted Green and Liberal Democrat decided to vote for Labour they still wouldn't change the outcome. It's been like this around here for years, and shows no sign of ever changing. The ~22,000 people (~40%) who didn't vote Conservative here are effectively unrepresented within parliament.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,025
Even if all those who voted Green and Liberal Democrat decided to vote for Labour they still wouldn't change the outcome. It's been like this around here for years, and shows no sign of ever changing. The ~22,000 people (~40%) who didn't vote Conservative here are effectively unrepresented within parliament.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by VP959
Much the same here:
Even if all those who voted Green and Liberal Democrat decided to vote for Labour they still wouldn't change the outcome. It's been like this around here for years, and shows no sign of ever changing. The ~22,000 people (~40%) who didn't vote Conservative here are effectively unrepresented within parliament.
Even if all those who voted Green and Liberal Democrat decided to vote for Labour they still wouldn't change the outcome. It's been like this around here for years, and shows no sign of ever changing. The ~22,000 people (~40%) who didn't vote Conservative here are effectively unrepresented within parliament.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Grayfly
Before CJ does the much appreciated maths, it would appear that there were around 78,000 potential voters and the winner got less than half of the potential votes. I wonder if making voting compulsary would make any difference. Some of those forced to vote may vote against the sitting MP just for spite. There's a lot of it about.
I've long thought that compulsory voting might be a good option. I believe it's been tried in some places (Australia?), not sure how well it works. It seems to me that we often have candidates who get elected by the apathy of those who don't bother to vote. My wife's typical, I practically had to drag her to the polls last year, as her view was that her vote wasn't going to make a jot of difference, so why bother? I doubt that her view is unique, anyone living around here has had decades of being represented by a Tory, and many who don't support the Conservative party probably feel they are wasting their time by going to vote, as they know nothing's going to change.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Grayfly
How about, if there is less than a 95% turnout, the apathy votes are awarded to second place candidate. That would really stir things up a bit.
Brilliant idea!
Sometimes, I really wish there was a "like" button here.
The problem with apathy and voting seems to me to be related to the length of time a seat has been held by a single party. The last time we had anything other than a Conservative MP here was for two years between 1922 and 1924, when we had a Liberal. After nearly a century of Conservative representation, it's got to the point where we've had several generations, who may well have held different political views, but who have learned that nothing's ever going to change.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 431
The only way people are going to know that their vote counts is with PR.
The two big parties would be the biggest losers therefore it will never happen.
As depressing as it may be that is the reality of the situation.
The two big parties would be the biggest losers therefore it will never happen.
As depressing as it may be that is the reality of the situation.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,886
Originally Posted by pilotmike
Are you sure about that? £1507 per week is £78,364 per year. Even knowing MPs appear to have a unique ability to be 'creative' with the taxes they pay, deductions of just £1,636 per year in tax and NI is over-creative even for them! It just doesn't add up.
The reality is a £80,000 income comes to around £1,056 take home per week at standard allowance / rates.
The reality is a £80,000 income comes to around £1,056 take home per week at standard allowance / rates.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,686
Brilliant!
I am going to start a new Party.
Called...."None of the Above".
I would be elected in many constituencies.
But not Beaconsfield. In Beaconsfield, dead donkeys are put up by the Tories and get in every time.
So I don't get a vote.
I am going to start a new Party.
Called...."None of the Above".
I would be elected in many constituencies.
But not Beaconsfield. In Beaconsfield, dead donkeys are put up by the Tories and get in every time.
So I don't get a vote.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by ATNotts
That would be the same coalition government that pushed through a LibDem policy of a radical increase in personal tax allowance that would never have been done by the Tories, or I suspect, Labour on their own. I would suggest that without the moderating influence of the LibDems there would have been a deal more benefits removed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by ATNotts
That would be the same coalition government that pushed through a LibDem policy of a radical increase in personal tax allowance that would never have been done by the Tories, or I suspect, Labour on their own. I would suggest that without the moderating influence of the LibDems there would have been a deal more benefits removed.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,390
MPs do (or can do) a lot besides trooping through the counting lobby in response to a 3 line whip.
... and so they bloody well should - that's what they get paid £80K a year for, PLUS second house allowance, secretarial allowance, travel allowance, the 'freebie' catalogue items (now slightly reduced) and a pension when they get kicked into second careers. What they don't do, in the majority of cases, is demonstrate any sort of individualism or backbone in respect of the Nation's needs versus the Party's dogma (whichever Party) The pitifully few who buck the system are consigned to 'outer darkness' , "pour encourager les autres". Liberal Democracy ? ... it's NOT liberal and most definitely NOT Democracy!!
... and so they bloody well should - that's what they get paid £80K a year for, PLUS second house allowance, secretarial allowance, travel allowance, the 'freebie' catalogue items (now slightly reduced) and a pension when they get kicked into second careers. What they don't do, in the majority of cases, is demonstrate any sort of individualism or backbone in respect of the Nation's needs versus the Party's dogma (whichever Party) The pitifully few who buck the system are consigned to 'outer darkness' , "pour encourager les autres". Liberal Democracy ? ... it's NOT liberal and most definitely NOT Democracy!!
