Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[Claymore]

It might be that people think about their vote in a general election a little more than X factor. It is right that as a party rises in public awareness it receives more scrutiny. As the general election approaches people tend to go back to the main parties because the quirky alternatives are fun to use to toy with the main parties but you wouldn't want them to have any real power.

Don't think this is true at all, its media influence nothing more, and where does this media influence/control come from. Chomsky wrote a book about media control.

All I'm hearing on the news is Ukip, this, farage that. Yet its Labour who took us to wars for oil (not peace or because there were tanks rolling into our country invading) and its Cameron who is selling off all our assets so the banks can invest low and sell high. Sure a couple of peeople doubled their £750 quid, maybe even 10k if they're lucky but the banks selected were asked for a price valuation then bought £46m worth each and sold it for a killing.

We don't know what the other parties would do, all we get is there same old two. How about we vote someone new in is the point, could they really do any worse? I won't vote BNP or anyone crazy like that but if someone got together, came up with an idea to get these two out, who lets be honest do sod all for us, then i'd be all up for it.

X factor was just an example because it involved people sick of it and rising up, and clearly people don't think more about politics over Xfactor because ten times+ more vote/watch these shows than Question time etc.

 

[Rowem]

What's the drawback with mandatory voting?

Uninformed/Disinterested people voting and skewering the results?

I imagine it would also lead to an increase in meaningless soundbites and petty attacks on opponents in order to win votes from those who are only voting because they have to.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

It could lead to a spike in the share of the vote for lunatic/fringe parties as people vote for them as a protest at being made to vote in the first place. If people wish to disengage from the process that's as much their democratic right as ours is to engage.

Makes sense. I'd imagine votes for people like BNP/UKIP would go through the roof. Probably for the best.

 

[Claymore]

Its sad that Don't Kill Bill is suggesting we either vote Conservative or Labour because no one else could win. He's basically saying no one else has a chance and/or would do well, very sad. There's the 'democracy' for ya. Media control more like.

 

[Lu Tze]

How can it be undemocratic when people have just voted to use it as the method for elections. Just because it has problems doesn't mean there is a better alternative which is free from flaws.

FPFP:

1) Makes it very hard for third parties to have their voices heard. Leads to a lot of 'wasted' votes.

2) Can result in 50+% of the population having no legislative voice in Parliament for 4/5 year periods. Often 20+% of the population will have little to no representation at all since they've voted for third parties.

3) Especially in the UK it often leads to one party having a monopoly on all the power in both the legislature and executive - allowing them to rule in a semi-dictatorial manner assuming they have a sufficient majority, such as New Labour, who very rarely failed to have their measures passed by the HoC due to the supermajority they possessed. This is generally considered a Bad ThingTM.

All this means it's less democratic than really any other voting system, according to any sort of democratic theory.

Really it's a relic. It's only there because it's the way it's always been done. If we were designing the political system from scratch again no-one would suggest a system in which 50+% of the population went without input on legislation for half a decade at a time.

 

[Plugsy]

Its sad that Don't Kill Bill is suggesting we either vote Conservative or Labour because no one else would do well. He's basically saying no one else has a chance and/or would do well, very sad. There's the 'democracy' for ya. Media control more like.

They're two parties that, like them or loathe them, are broadly inclusive of the majority of political opinion of people in this country. This is why, Lib Dems aside, most other parites are special interest/issue parties. There's a reason why nobody is launching a political party to call for moderate taxation, sensible investment in public services, a maintained relationship with Europe and a continuation of the current immigration policy - because that ground is already covered. More parties would just mean more single issue politics.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Don't think this is true at all, its media influence nothing more, and where does this media influence/control come from. Chomsky wrote a book about media control.

All I'm hearing on the news is Ukip, this, farage that. Yet its Labour who took us to wars for oil (not peace or because there were tanks rolling into our country invading) and its Cameron who is selling off all our assets so the banks can invest low and sell high. Sure a couple of peeople doubled their £750 quid, maybe even 10k if they're lucky but the banks selected were asked for a price valuation then bought £46m worth each and sold it for a killing.

We don't know what the other parties would do, all we get is there same old two. How about we vote someone new in is the point, could they really do any worse? I won't vote BNP or anyone crazy like that but if someone got together, came up with an idea to get these two out, who lets be honest do sod all for us, then i'd be all up for it.

X factor was just an example because it involved people sick of it and rising up, and clearly people don't think more about politics over Xfactor because ten times+ more vote/watch these shows than Question time etc.

You have an odd, passive view of politics, as if your participation should just be ticking a box every five years.

My advice would be to join either the Labour party or the Tories (depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on) and get involved in politics. Vote in the leadership elections, attend the conference, contribute to policy reviews etc. Political parties are just collections of people and can be influenced from within.

 

[crappycraperson]

You have an odd, passive view of politics, as if your participation should just be ticking a box every five years.

My advice would be to join either the Labour party or the Tories (depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on) and get involved in politics. Vote in the leadership elections, attend the conference, contribute to policy reviews etc. Political parties are just collections of people and can be influenced from within.

I don't it is possible to change old established parties like Labour and Conservaties too much. What he is suggesting is that rather than hope for change from old parties, start or vote for new ones. A lot of people simply refuse to consider voting for smaller parties because it accounts to wasting a vote, the very reason why new parties never take off.

I personally find it baffling that how any one can just continue to vote for the same party out of loyalty no matter what. I think people who voted for Labour after it became clear that Blair had started an illegal war that resulted in numerous British and large number of Iraqi casualties are more worthy of contempt than any one who votes for BNP because of xenophobic factors.

 

[Lu Tze]

You have an odd, passive view of politics, as if your participation should just be ticking a box every five years.

My advice would be to join either the Labour party or the Tories (depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on) and get involved in politics. Vote in the leadership elections, attend the conference, contribute to policy reviews etc. Political parties are just collections of people and can be influenced from within.

You make it sound far easier than it it.

Every political party in this country is irrevocably broken due to the utterly retarded way the political/media system operates.

If you have an opinion you're fecked by the media.

If you actually succeed in getting elected and have an independent mind in Parliament you're fecked since the whips and party will ruin your political career and make you unelectable.

Therefore slick, media-oriented, interchangeable, may-be-lizard-people like Clegg, Cameron and Miliband are at the forefront of British politics, and there are plenty more career politicians waiting in the wings, ready to spout some new buzzwords.

There is no fixing it without fundamental reform, and that isn't happening any time soon.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Its sad that Don't Kill Bill is suggesting we either vote Conservative or Labour because no one else could win. He's basically saying no one else has a chance and/or would do well, very sad. There's the 'democracy' for ya. Media control more like.

So democracy in your view is people voting the way you want them to and when they don't its media control? Could it just be that people like to moan a lot about the problems we have but deep down they don't want to change very much about the way we do things?

 

[Ubik]

How can it be undemocratic when people have just voted to use it as the method for elections. Just because it has problems doesn't mean there is a better alternative which is free from flaws.

People did not vote to use it, people voted to keep it rather than use the Alternative Vote. AV is a better system, but still fairly flawed in legislative elections (although I suppose this depends on your view of whether most people vote thinking about their constituency as opposed to the makeup of the national assembly).

In general, Lu Tze's right on this. First-past-the-post is the biggest single roadblock to broader political choice at the moment. Claymore's also right that it's a shame we feel compelled to vote for one of the big two parties due to fears of wasted votes - if we had a proportional system there'd be more parties to choose from with wider ranging ideas, less squabbling over a muddy and indistinct "centre-ground". No more constituencies where the result is already decided, so that every vote really does count. No more riding roughshod over the country with a minority of support - Labour can currently get a comfortable majority in the Commons with about 35% of the national vote. With the support of slightly over a third of the country, they have huge power to put through their manifesto. With a "huge" 40%, you get Blair levels of domination and the accompanying recklessness.

FPTP was designed for when we barely even had a party system, it was binary and therefore made sense at the time. To still be using it at a time with historically the lowest level of support for the two main parties is thick as hell.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

FPFP:

1) Makes it very hard for third parties to have their voices heard. Leads to a lot of 'wasted' votes.

2) Can result in 50+% of the population having no legislative voice in Parliament for 4/5 year periods. Often 20+% of the population will have little to no representation at all since they've voted for third parties.

3) Especially in the UK it often leads to one party having a monopoly on all the power in both the legislature and executive - allowing them to rule in a semi-dictatorial manner assuming they have a sufficient majority, such as New Labour, who very rarely failed to have their measures passed by the HoC due to the supermajority they possessed. This is generally considered a Bad ThingTM.

All this means it's less democratic than really any other voting system, according to any sort of democratic theory.

Really it's a relic. It's only there because it's the way it's always been done. If we were designing the political system from scratch again no-one would suggest a system in which 50+% of the population went without input on legislation for half a decade at a time.

On the other hand given we have just had a vote on the issue and decided not to change the system that would suggest it has support. Or to put it another way for every fault you outline there are is at least an equality of failings in any other system you could name but you want to impose that system against the wishes of the majority in the name of making it more democratic. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Lu Tze]

On the other hand given we have just had a vote on the issue and decided not to change the system that would suggest it has support. Or to put it another way for every fault you outline there are is at least an equality of failings in any other system you could name but you want to impose that system against the wishes of the majority in the name of making it more democratic. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

Not everything is equal with equal flaws. PR is a far better system by any measure other than the ability for a party with a majority to run a Parliamentary dictatorship. It is more representative. It ensures that no votes are wasted. It promotes compromise - which should be the lifeblood of democracy. It promotes cooperation. Everything that FPTP does not.

Just like democracy is the best system of a bad bunch, PR is a far better system than any other method. I used to honestly think that FPTP was the best system because it promotes 'strong governance' - and what a shitshow that is - a few years back but since I got really interested in Britain's political system it is apparent that it is to put it lightly, a fecking clusterfeck omnishambles of a voting system.

edit: and also the whole reason we even have government is partially to avoid the majority being really stupid.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

People did not vote to use it, people voted to keep it rather than use the Alternative Vote. AV is a better system, but still fairly flawed in legislative elections (although I suppose this depends on your view of whether most people vote thinking about their constituency as opposed to the makeup of the national assembly).

In general, Lu Tze's right on this. First-past-the-post is the biggest single roadblock to broader political choice at the moment. Claymore's also right that it's a shame we feel compelled to vote for one of the big two parties due to fears of wasted votes - if we had a proportional system there'd be more parties to choose from with wider ranging ideas, less squabbling over a muddy and indistinct "centre-ground". No more constituencies where the result is already decided, so that every vote really does count. No more riding roughshod over the country with a minority of support - Labour can currently get a comfortable majority in the Commons with about 35% of the national vote. With the support of slightly over a third of the country, they have huge power to put through their manifesto. With a "huge" 40%, you get Blair levels of domination and the accompanying recklessness.

FPTP was designed for when we barely even had a party system, it was binary and therefore made sense at the time. To still be using it at a time with historically the lowest level of support for the two main parties is thick as hell.

I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

On the other hand given we have just had a vote on the issue and decided not to change the system that would suggest it has support. Or to put it another way for every fault you outline there are is at least an equality of failings in any other system you could name but you want to impose that system against the wishes of the majority in the name of making it more democratic. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Ubik]

I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

On the other hand given we have just had a vote on the issue and decided not to change the system that would suggest it has support. Or to put it another way for every fault you outline there are is at least an equality of failings in any other system you could name but you want to impose that system against the wishes of the majority in the name of making it more democratic. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

And as I mentioned at the top of the post you just quoted, we had a vote putting it up against the Alternative Vote. Not any form of PR. So that kind of negates your point.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Not everything is equal with equal flaws. PR is a far better system by almost any measure other than the ability for a party with a majority to run a Parliamentary dictatorship. Just like democracy is the best system of a bad bunch, PR is a far better system than any other method. I used to honestly think that FPTP was the best system a few years back but since I got really interested in Britain's political system it is apparent that it's to put it lightly, a fecking clusterfeck omnishambles of a voting system.

You see the faults of the system we use because we use it and you don't like the result. If we changed systems you would see the faults of that system if you didn't like the result, which is where this all comes from. I don't see how much more fair we could be than have a referendum and go with the system with most support.PR is as deeply flawed as FPTP all the voting systems are.

 

[Lu Tze]

You see the faults of the system we use because we use it and you don't like the result. If we changed systems you would see the faults of that system if you didn't like the result, which is where this all comes from. I don't see how much more fair we could be than have a referendum and go with the system with most support.PR is as deeply flawed as FPTP all the voting systems are.

What are the deep flaws in PR then, enlighten me. That parties have to compromise, have to argue out their differences? Have to co-operate to represent their portion of the electorate? All of that is exactly what a democracy should be. Not Tony Blair or Maggie running roughshod over the executive and the legislature, passing laws on a whim. A strong PM in the UK with a large majority can genuinely act in a dictatorial manner. That is not democracy.

Almost every democratic thinker on the planet agrees that FPTP is a retarded system since 30 odd% of the people can control 100% of the legislative power. It is literally the worst conceivable voting system in a democracy.

In PR 43% of the vote = 43% of the seats and a fair portion of the power.

In FPTP 43% of the vote = 64% of the seats and a total monopoly on government.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

And as I mentioned at the top of the post you just quoted, we had a vote putting it up against the Alternative Vote. Not any form of PR. So that kind of negates your point.

Not really because I think the result would have been the same. The champions of electoral reform chose the system which suited them best as an alternative. Proving the point I've made over and over again in this thread. There is no perfect system or even just one form of PR. No other system has the support that FPTP has in the UK, so like it or lump it that is the system we should use. Otherwise the process would be called into question all the time when as always happens in every election ever, someone loses and doesn't like it very much and wants the system changed back so they can win.

 

[Lu Tze]

Not really because I think the result would have been the same. The champions of electoral reform chose the system which suited them best as an alternative. Proving the point I've made over and over again in this thread. There is no perfect system or even just one form of PR. No other system has the support that FPTP has in the UK, so like it or lump it that is the system we should use. Otherwise the process would be called into question all the time when as always happens in every election ever, someone loses and doesn't like it very much and wants the system changed back so they can win.

Do you think it is a good thing that Tony Blair's 1997 supermajority could pass laws through the HoC without so much as discussing it with other parties, parties which had 57% of the popular vote - 14% more than Labour did. Do you really?

FPTP is a disaster.

 

[Ubik]

What are the deep flaws in PR then, enlighten me. That parties have to compromise, have to argue out their differences? Have to co-operate to represent their portion of the electorate? All of that is exactly what a democracy should be. Not Tony Blair or Maggie running roughshod over the executive and the legislature, passing laws on a whim. A strong PM in the UK with a large majority can genuinely act in a dictatorial manner. That is not democracy.

Almost every democratic thinker on the planet agrees that FPTP is a retarded system since 30 odd% of the people can control 100% of the legislative power. It is literally the worst conceivable voting system in a democracy.

In PR 43% of the vote = 43% of the seats and a fair portion of the power.

In FPTP 43% of the vote = 64% of the seats and a total monopoly on government.

It does have certain flaws - the constituency link is less established and individual MPs are far less accountable to the public, and extreme parties will find it far easier to gain representation. However, there are ways to minimise their importance and they're nowhere near as deep and integral flaws as those of FPTP.

Not really because I think the result would have been the same. The champions of electoral reform chose the system which suited them best as an alternative. Proving the point I've made over and over again in this thread. There is no perfect system or even just one form of PR. No other system has the support that FPTP has in the UK, so like it or lump it that is the system we should use. Otherwise the process would be called into question all the time when as always happens in every election ever, someone loses and doesn't like it very much and wants the system changed back so they can win.

Most people don't care about the system itself, even if they hate politics due to the effects of the system in use (see Claymore's earlier posts).

There's a fairly decent chance the next election will result in a pretty chaotic result where Labour may end up with more seats than tories with less of the popular vote. We'll see if people still want FPTP then.

 

[Lu Tze]

It does have certain flaws - the constituency link is less established and individual MPs are far less accountable to the public, and extreme parties will find it far easier to gain representation. However, there are ways to minimise their importance and they're nowhere near as deep and integral flaws as those of FPTP.

On the topic of extremist views, I don't see that as a negative of PR at all. If there are enough racist/hateful/extreme people that a party can receive a seat in the legislature, the best way to combat their views is via debate, rather than trying to shut people up and sweep the issue under the rug. But I get that some people see it as a problem.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Do you think it is a good thing that Tony Blair's 1997 supermajority could pass laws through the HoC without so much as discussing it with other parties, parties which had 57% of the popular vote - 14% more than Labour did. Do you really?

FPTP is a disaster.

Yes.

Everyone who stood knew the system and how it works. The people who voted understood the system and how it works. That was the way things worked out and everyone knew it could happen before hand. No surprises no arguments (well just the usual containable ones). You can't complain about being beaten under the rules of the game.

PR is a rank system which doesn't suit the UK at all. If we want to change it we can. The majority don't want the system changed so leave it be otherwise you risk the charge that you are picking a system with no mandate or support through self interest.

 

[Ubik]

On the topic of extremist views, I don't see that as a negative of PR at all. If there are enough racist/hateful/extreme people that a party can receive a seat in the legislature, the best way to combat their views is via debate, rather than trying to shut people up and sweep the issue under the rug. But I get that some people see it as a problem.

I'd agree in general, and if people were still bothered about it it's fairly standard to put in a minimum vote-share requirement anyway. I think the relative unaccountability of a list system is the biggest problem, but again not insurmountable by any means.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

It does have certain flaws - the constituency link is less established and individual MPs are far less accountable to the public, and extreme parties will find it far easier to gain representation. However, there are ways to minimise their importance and they're nowhere near as deep and integral flaws as those of FPTP.


Most people don't care about the system itself, even if they hate politics due to the effects of the system in use (see Claymore's earlier posts).

There's a fairly decent chance the next election will result in a pretty chaotic result where Labour may end up with more seats than tories with less of the popular vote. We'll see if people still want FPTP then.

Classic argument from self interest. We are going to set the bar just high enough to keep out those we don't like but low enough to give us more clout.

 

[Lu Tze]

Yes.

Everyone who stood knew the system and how it works. The people who voted understood the system and how it works. That was the way things worked out and everyone knew it could happen before hand. No surprises no arguments (well just the usual containable ones). You can't complain about being beaten under the rules of the game.

PR is a rank system which doesn't suit the UK at all. If we want to change it we can. The majority don't want the system changed so leave it be otherwise you risk the charge that you are picking a system with no mandate or support through self interest.

I support Labour generally...it is entirely against my self interest to support PR I do so because it's the right thing to do regardless of self interest.

 

[Ubik]

Classic argument from self interest. We are going to set the bar just high enough to keep out those we don't like but low enough to give us more clout.

The context of that is actually looking to minimise the importance of all of the flaws, not solely extreme parties, so that the public would be happy to use the system. And like Lu, I'm a Labour voter. I just think the system is a ton of shit, based on 19th century political divisions.

Full disclosure of my own self-interest - I live in a Tory walkover and I'm quite interested in my vote being more than a statistic for political scientists of the future.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

What are the deep flaws in PR then, enlighten me. That parties have to compromise, have to argue out their differences? Have to co-operate to represent their portion of the electorate? All of that is exactly what a democracy should be. Not Tony Blair or Maggie running roughshod over the executive and the legislature, passing laws on a whim. A strong PM in the UK with a large majority can genuinely act in a dictatorial manner. That is not democracy.

Almost every democratic thinker on the planet agrees that FPTP is a retarded system since 30 odd% of the people can control 100% of the legislative power. It is literally the worst conceivable voting system in a democracy.

In PR 43% of the vote = 43% of the seats and a fair portion of the power.

In FPTP 43% of the vote = 64% of the seats and a total monopoly on government.

I wouldn't want a PR system for various reasons. I like that each MP is directly elected by a constituency and represents them in parliament - this gives a voice to regions who have specific issues that would otherwise not register on the political spectrum. It also allows specific MPs to be removed from parliament if they misbehave or displease the electorate. It's much more difficult to target politicians in a list based system.

Another big drawback of PR (and coalitions in general) is that the voter cannot really tell which policies their chosen party will trade in negotiations. It's all very well saying parties should compromise, but when they compromise away the very reason you voted for them, it makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

It can also be argued that PR gives a disproportionate amount of power to minor parties as they are often able to demand a high price for their support in coalition negotiations as the so called kingmakers.

There are many ways to skin a cat, and personally I would have been happy with the AV system, but wouldn't like a move to PR.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

FPFP:
1) Makes it very hard for third parties to have their voices heard. Leads to a lot of 'wasted' votes.

Full disclosure of my own self-interest - I live in a Tory walkover and I'm quite interested in my vote being more than a statistic for political scientists of the future.

I've never really understood the point about 'wasted' votes. As far as I can tell people just mean voting for a candidate that didn't win.

If you live in a constituency where one party has a dominant majority, then that indicates that the local people really want to be represented by that party. It's not the case that if you vote for any other party you've wasted your vote, certainly no more than if you were on the losing side in a close race.

 

[Lu Tze]

I've never really understood the point about 'wasted' votes. As far as I can tell people just mean voting for a candidate that didn't win.

If you live in a constituency where one party has a dominant majority, then that indicates that the local people really want to be represented by that party. It's not the case that if you vote for any other party you've wasted your vote, certainly no more than if you were on the losing side in a close race.

When large swathes of the country have no representation in government - and will never have unless they move or an atomic bomb hits their constituency - since they live in seats dominated by a single party, that's a wasted vote and a flawed system.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I don't it is possible to change old established parties like Labour and Conservaties too much.

Blair and co certainly changed Labour, which is an 'old established party'. It can be done again.

What he is suggesting is that rather than hope for change from old parties, start or vote for new ones.

Don't 'hope for change' - get involved and try to make it happen. No party is ever going to represent your views exactly - they are collections of people and as such have to represent and compromise amongst a broad spectrum of opinions and interests.

I personally find it baffling that how any one can just continue to vote for the same party out of loyalty no matter what. I think people who voted for Labour after it became clear that Blair had started an illegal war that resulted in numerous British and large number of Iraqi casualties are more worthy of contempt than any one who votes for BNP because of xenophobic factors.

I don't agree with that. I continue to vote Labour (and remain a member) because they best represent my views. I didn't personally agree with the Iraq war but as I said, no party will ever represent your views exactly on every issue.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

When large swathes of the country have no representation in government - and will never have unless they move or an atomic bomb hits their constituency - since they live in seats dominated by a single party, that's a wasted vote and a flawed system.

That doesn't follow for me. Elections mean there will be losers as well as winners. Just because you lose doesn't make it a 'waste'.

 

[Ubik]

I've never really understood the point about 'wasted' votes. As far as I can tell people just mean voting for a candidate that didn't win.

If you live in a constituency where one party has a dominant majority, then that indicates that the local people really want to be represented by that party. It's not the case that if you vote for any other party you've wasted your vote, certainly no more than if you were on the losing side in a close race.

Of course it is. A large proportion of people (I'd say a large majority but don't have any stats to back this up, so take or leave it) vote based on the national picture, it's not an atomised race in their local area that they're voting on. With me, I'm not voting based on whatever drab local issues the Tory MP is banging on about, I'm voting about national issues - the NHS, welfare, the environment, the economy. Given that my vote is restricted to this local one horse race, it's wasted as a means of contributing towards my chosen party. The Greens don't even bother standing here because it's a waste of their deposit. It's this kind of limitation of choice that does my head in.

The constituency link is positive, but there are ways to get this into a PR system - Scotland uses an additional member system for instance with FPTP at local levels (AV would be preferable but people would complain about complexity) and then the national level has a top-up system to make the overall parliament more proportional; Germany uses a mixed-member proportional system which is largely the same thing.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I support Labour generally...it is entirely against my self interest to support PR I do so because it's the right thing to do regardless of self interest.

The majority don't agree with you and don't want PR would you impose it on everyone else if you could? Once we switched to PR everyone would see how bad that system is. They would blame it for the kind of politics it creates which they wouldn't like because we never like politicians. They would blame the ills of today on PR instead of FPTP. The real problem with politics is people don't engage because they don't think anything will change. PR just makes that problem worse. You would soon be as pissed off as the students who voted Liberal to stop student fees only to find out that that policy was just a bargaining tool, given away to get into govt. PR would reduce accountability.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Of course it is. A large proportion of people (I'd say a large majority but don't have any stats to back this up, so take or leave it) vote based on the national picture, it's not an atomised race in their local area that they're voting on. With me, I'm not voting based on whatever drab local issues the Tory MP is banging on about, I'm voting about national issues - the NHS, welfare, the environment, the economy. Given that my vote is restricted to this local one horse race, it's wasted as a means of contributing towards my chosen party. The Greens don't even bother standing here because it's a waste of their deposit. It's this kind of limitation of choice that does my head in.

The constituency link is positive, but there are ways to get this into a PR system - Scotland uses an additional member system for instance with FPTP at local levels (AV would be preferable but people would complain about complexity) and then the national level has a top-up system to make the overall parliament more proportional; Germany uses a mixed-member proportional system which is largely the same thing.

I still don't understand this point about 'wasted' votes.

I've lived in several different places and have voted in elections where my candidate won and elections where they have lost. I didn't feel my vote was any more 'wasted' in the elections where my candidate wasn't elected. I genuinely don't get it.

 

[Ubik]

I still don't understand this point about 'wasted' votes.

I've lived in several different places and have voted in elections where my candidate won and elections where they have lost. I didn't feel my vote was any more 'wasted' in the elections where my candidate wasn't elected. I genuinely don't get it.

Because they count towards a local election only, not a national election. In many of these local races, results can be predicted about 30 years in advance. Parties also regard them as wasted votes, they prefer a more efficient spread. One reason why Labour can win majorities with a small popular vote is because they're good at losing big, winning small.

 

[Drifter]

UKIP candidate William Henwood defends Lenny Henry tweet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27176803

 

[Plugsy]

UKIP being in the spotlight is most enjoyable. It used to irk me when Farage was invited on every single political programme seemingly every other week. Now I look forward to it. Not everyone in UKIP is a nutter or a BNP defector - but a lot are.

 

[Sweet Square]

UKIP are the wet dream party of Daily Mail readers. Funny enough when you take a quick glance at Farage's background/personal life he sort of person UKIP voters would hate.

I think this actually makes Farage worse than if he believed in the shite he's spouting out.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I think it is time for MPs to be fitted with training collars, like those you can get for dogs with options ranging up to electroshock. In this way the Speaker can hand out instant punishments for disorderly conduct in the Commons, like today when a group chatted/joked all of the way through a question on "honour crimes" and FGM.

I haven't followed PMQs regularly for at least a couple of years and i don't think i'll be changing that policy. This generation don't even possess much skill at verbal sparring or wit to enhance the process either.

 

[Plugsy]

UKIP are constantly hilarious. As are their supporters. Twitter fills up with messages of defiance at the outting of a latest mental member's ramblings

"I don't care if they say things that are overtly sexist, racist, homophobic, nationalist or anti-Semitic - they'll still get my vote," they all seem to cry.