Voting Reform

[Gemmel]

Gordan Brown, announced a referendum on voting if he wins the next election (And understand the Lib Dems have been banging on about it for years) and I remember doing this at school (Long time ago) "proportional representation" and all that, but can anyone explain it and how it works in plain English.

 

Cheers

[Rattlehead]

Gordan Brown, announced a referendum on voting if he wins the next election (And understand the Lib Dems have been banging on about it for years) and I remember doing this at school (Long time ago) "proportional representation" and all that, but can anyone explain it and how it works in plain English.

 

Cheers

 

lol, I really wouldn't worry about it.

[Saint in Paradise]

We have that here in NZ and it means even more MPs :mad:

Also it can result in a local MP getting voted out but still remain at the trough as they become a list MP

and so still get all the perks :mad:

 

http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/two-ticks-too-easy.html

You have people standing in constituencies and also the Party has a list of people who can become MPs IF their

Party gets above a certain percentage of the total votes cast.

[J Bizzle]

Would definately help the BNP's case. No doubt there would be a couple of BNP candiudates in parliament.

[Berkshire Saint]

Would definately help the BNP's case. No doubt there would be a couple of BNP candiudates in parliament.

 

Not really. Any sort of PR system would probably have a threshold that would have to be passed in order to gain any seats (5/10% of the vote maybe). The BNP got less than 1% of the vote in 2005.

[J Bizzle]

Did pretty well in the European elections under PR. PR has helped other parties similar in stature to the BNP in the past, look at the PNF.

Edited 29 September, 2009 by J Bizzle

[Wade Garrett]

I don't think he'll want to change the voting system if he wins the next election outright.

 

I just see it as an olive branch to the Lib-Dems in case there is a hung parliament.

[Ponty]

It's a moot point on both cases, WG. Neither party you mention will be winning the next GE.

[bungle]

We have that here in NZ and it means even more MPs :mad:

Also it can result in a local MP getting voted out but still remain at the trough as they become a list MP

and so still get all the perks :mad:

 

http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/two-ticks-too-easy.html

You have people standing in constituencies and also the Party has a list of people who can become MPs IF their

Party gets above a certain percentage of the total votes cast.

 

That's one system of PR, but seeing as you are so hopelessly angry about everything, you probably don't realise that there are other methods.

 

p.s. We do need voting reform. At the last general election the Lib Dems got 1 in 4 votes, but merely 1 in 10 seats. How does our government actually reflect the views of the country?

[bungle]

It's a moot point on both cases, WG. Neither party you mention will be winning the next GE.

 

What, however, it does show is that Cameron wants to defend the status quo. He likes an unfair system that guarantees his party a certain number of 'safe seats'. Opposing electoral reform, as he has done, shows his true colours.

 

Edit: I have just read that Brown is proposing the Alternative Vote system. Clearly this system is rubbish, not truly proportional and, if given a chance, I would vote against using it.

Edited 30 September, 2009 by bungle

[Wade Garrett]

That's one system of PR, but seeing as you are so hopelessly angry about everything, you probably don't realise that there are other methods.

 

p.s. We do need voting reform. At the last general election the Lib Dems got 1 in 4 votes, but merely 1 in 10 seats. How does our government actually reflect the views of the country?

 

Lib Dems wouldn't get 1 in 4 votes in a PR system. Not when one of the main Lib tactics remains to encourage voters to tactically vote, rather than vote for them on their policies (which they like to keep quiet). This would negate their biggest card. People in, for example, Eastleigh, wouldn't have to tactically vote Lib-Dem in what is an unwinnable seat for the Labour party.

[norwaysaint]

You'd be surprised at how PR can change everything. We have it here and there are a lot more parties with an interest and there's a lot more back and forth.

 

Governments are almost always coalitions here as so many parties have a reasonable proportion of the vote, so it basically comes down to a right wing or left wing coalition. However, the smaller parties then wield a surprising amount of power as, for example, the conservative equivelant a few years ago needed help to get a large enough majority to hold power. They jpoined up with the "Christian" party, who said they wouldn't help unless there candidate was made prime minister.

 

So for years we had a prime minister from the smaller christian party.

 

People here are amazed when I tell them that so many people in Britain end up completely without representation in parliament.

[The Saturday Boy]

Lib Dems wouldn't get 1 in 4 votes in a PR system. Not when one of the main Lib tactics remains to encourage voters to tactically vote, rather than vote for them on their policies (which they like to keep quiet). This would negate their biggest card. People in, for example, Eastleigh, wouldn't have to tactically vote Lib-Dem in what is an unwinnable seat for the Labour party.

 

 

Here in Salisbury which is a safe Tory seat, a lot of Labour supporters always vote Lib Dems because they know that the Lib Dems have more chance of unseating the Tory MP and Labour have none at all.

I know that the singer Billy Bragg, who lives in Dorset now, campaigned at the last election for people who normally voted Labour to vote Lib Dems to unseat the Tory MP there too.

 

If a PR system is implemented, people are more likely to show their true colours and not try and tactically vote, which will probably do the Lib Dems more harm than good.

[bridge too far]

You'd be surprised at how PR can change everything. We have it here and there are a lot more parties with an interest and there's a lot more back and forth.

 

Governments are almost always coalitions here as so many parties have a reasonable proportion of the vote, so it basically comes down to a right wing or left wing coalition. However, the smaller parties then wield a surprising amount of power as, for example, the conservative equivelant a few years ago needed help to get a large enough majority to hold power. They jpoined up with the "Christian" party, who said they wouldn't help unless there candidate was made prime minister.

 

So for years we had a prime minister from the smaller christian party.

 

People here are amazed when I tell them that so many people in Britain end up completely without representation in parliament.

 

I'm fairly ambivalent about this but two things spring to mind.

 

Firstly, as shown above, small parties can wield a disproportionate amount of power by prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.

 

Secondly, a strong government (of whatever hue) is better for the country than one that is constantly looking over its shoulder to keep its coalition partners happy.

[bungle]

Equally, seeing as one of the most common phrases associated with the Lib Dems is "I'd vote for them, but I don't think they'll win", in a proportional system that element would be taken away, and so more people would vote Lib Dem.

[Wade Garrett]

Equally, seeing as one of the most common phrases associated with the Lib Dems is "I'd vote for them, but I don't think they'll win", in a proportional system that element would be taken away, and so more people would vote Lib Dem.

 

Unlikely, but I admire your optimism.

[badgerx16]

Look at the rate change for the administrations of Israel & Italy. PR at it's best !

[Johnny Bognor]

Gordan Brown, announced a referendum on voting if he wins the next election (And understand the Lib Dems have been banging on about it for years) and I remember doing this at school (Long time ago) "proportional representation" and all that, but can anyone explain it and how it works in plain English.

 

Cheers

 

This is one 'new' policy in a stream of new measures announced by the PM in his speech yesterday. So new in fact, that it was in the 1997 manifesto and it never happened. :rolleyes:

 

Secondly, a strong government (of whatever hue) is better for the country than one that is constantly looking over its shoulder to keep its coalition partners happy.

 

"The Conservatives remain opposed to a referendum, saying existing first-past-the-post rules create stable governments and maintain MPs' links with constituencies."

 

BTF are you coming round to their way of thinking?

[bridge too far]

This is one 'new' policy in a stream of new measures announced by the PM in his speech yesterday. So new in fact, that it was in the 1997 manifesto and it never happened. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

"The Conservatives remain opposed to a referendum, saying existing first-past-the-post rules create stable governments and maintain MPs' links with constituencies."

 

BTF are you coming round to their way of thinking?

 

 

I did say I was ambivalent - maybe I should have said I had some reservations.

 

There have been instances in recent history where we've had minority governments under the 'first past the post' system so it doesn't always produce a strong government.

 

Of course, a strong opposition is just as important. Something that's sadly lacking at this point in time.

[badgerx16]

Under the existing system the result is determined by about 20% of the electorate in about 20% of the seats. Each party has their share of 'safe' seats, and each also has it's core of voters who would vote for the proverbial donkey if it wore the correct colour of rosette. What decides the elections in this country is how successful Labour or the Conservatives are at influencing the voting choice of the 'chattering classes'; generally middle class, middle income, mortgage paying, car owners, with school age children. Which is why, in many cases, their policies are so similar.

 

And if anybody makes up their mind as to how to vote in the next election on the basis of todays SUN headline, they should have their mandate withdrawn immediately, as they are not fit to exercise it.

[View From The Top]

I'm sure we all know people who won't bother voting as they believe that their vote is wasted in they are in a "safe" seat.

 

The current system has huge flaws but if the alternatives are any better is a moot point.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm sure we all know people who won't bother voting as they believe that their vote is wasted in they are in a "safe" seat.

 

 

You say that, but tactical voting was used to good effect in the 1997 election. In tory safe seats, traditional labour voters were going for the Lib Dems and so reducing the tory chances of clinging on.

 

Having said that, based on recent polls, the Lib Dems will become the opposition (thus answering BTF's call for a strong opposition ) and Labour will become a marginal fringe party which is perhaps why they are now in favour of PR.

[View From The Top]

You say that, but tactical voting was used to good effect in the 1997 election. In tory safe seats, traditional labour voters were going for the Lib Dems and so reducing the tory chances of clinging on.

 

Having said that, based on recent polls, the Lib Dems will become the opposition (thus answering BTF's call for a strong opposition ) and Labour will become a marginal fringe party which is perhaps why they are now in favour of PR.

 

But it doesn't alter the fact that many (of all political colours) are disenfranchised under the current system.

[Johnny Bognor]

What decides the elections in this country is how successful Labour or the Conservatives are at influencing the voting choice of the 'chattering classes'; generally middle class, middle income, mortgage paying, car owners, with school age children. Which is why, in many cases, their policies are so similar.

 

You seem to imply there is something wrong with this. By the way, you left out tax-paying from your list and this is the most important attribute of this demographic. If you look at the breakdown of the adult population by class, this is the spread:

 

A = Upper Middle Class = 2m

B = Middle Class = 10m

C1 = Lower Middle Class = 14m

C2 = Skilled Working Class = 10m

D = Working Class - Semi Skilled = 8m

E = Subsistence living = 4m

 

The Middle Classes represent over 50% of the adult population and so surely this is where the power SHOULD lie.

 

As their tax rates are higher (Benefits claimants and the super rich don't pay tax), then it is the middle class tax payers who are the ones funding the system and as such are more likely to consider what they get in return. They have to make a choice between paying even more tax for improved public services (or not as the case may be) or lower tax for better value public services.

 

Therefore, as a political party, you have to win over the taxpaying majority as they are most likely to be ****ed off if you don't deliver.

 

Although policies are similar, I think there will be clear water between Labour and Tory as they try to differentiate themselves. If anything, Browns speech yesterday was the end of the Blair Witch Project (Sorry New Labour project) and if anything, Labour have started to move back to the left.

Edited 30 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Johnny, whilst I see where you're coming from, I think you've made one small error.

 

The 'upper middle class' as you call them are the uber-rich and the aristocracy. With a few notable and praiseworthy exceptions, this group will inevitably vote for the Conservative party (think of the root of the word 'conservative' - maintaining the status quo). So I think you should remove them from the 'over 50% middle class' calculation. The so-called middle class therefore make up JUST over 50% by your calculations (I've not checked them so I'll take your word for it).

 

But many of the middle class are altruistic and have a social conscience and a perception of what is fair. So it doesn't follow that they necessarily vote according to how their pockets are hit. In fact, recent polling suggests that a large number of people would rather pay MORE tax if it meant better public services.

 

However, there are probably an equal number of so-called working class who will vote Conservative.

 

I'm not quite sure where the Liberals fit into this demographic, however

[Johnny Bognor]

Johnny, whilst I see where you're coming from, I think you've made one small error.

 

The 'upper middle class' as you call them are the uber-rich and the aristocracy. With a few notable and praiseworthy exceptions, this group will inevitably vote for the Conservative party (think of the root of the word 'conservative' - maintaining the status quo). So I think you should remove them from the 'over 50% middle class' calculation. The so-called middle class therefore make up JUST over 50% by your calculations (I've not checked them so I'll take your word for it).

 

But many of the middle class are altruistic and have a social conscience and a perception of what is fair. So it doesn't follow that they necessarily vote according to how their pockets are hit. In fact, recent polling suggests that a large number of people would rather pay MORE tax if it meant better public services.

 

However, there are probably an equal number of so-called working class who will vote Conservative.

 

There are only 400,000 millionaires in the UK (including property millionaires who have come of age due to the debt fuelled silly brownite house price bubble) and so the vast majority of the "Upper Middle Class" are working professionals. Royalty and the Ruling/Upper classes never seem to get analysed in the same way (perhaps they are the ones doing the analysing). The social grading is based on the following:

 

A= higher managerial, administrative or professional

B = intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

C1 = supervisory or clerical, junior managerial, administrative or professional

C2 = skilled manual workers

D = semi and unskilled manual workers

E = state pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest grade workers

 

 

However, this is now outdated by Acorn Profiling which recognises more specific groups of people:

http://www.caci.co.uk/acorn/acornmap.asp

 

I don't have a breakdown of the population by Acorn code, but ultimately it would show a similar pattern.

 

 

I'm not quite sure where the Liberals fit into this demographic, however

 

They will probably take a chunk of C1 and C2 along with D and E considering that they will become the official opposition in may next year.

Edited 30 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[the stain]

The time for Gordon Brown to announce a referendum on Voting Reform was about a year ago when the question was put to him. Frankly it has long been the only chance he had of success at the next election. Anything he says he's going to do next government is hot air because, as Ponty says, neither Labour nor Lib Dems will be in power then. Which is a shame as I've long been in favour of PR. Bum Twizzle might be right about the BNP making gains, but we'd be more likely to see Britain's fabled Silent Majority turning out for Lib Dems, Greens, etc as usual but this time being represented.

[badgerx16]

Whilst you may be correct with your statistical breakdown for defining 'middle class', etc, ( and by implication 'middle-income' peeps are 'tax payers' by default ), the point I was trying to make is that in the eyes of the political mischief makers, a large proportion of this group don't matter, as their votes, in their particular constituencies, won't make a jot of difference. They seek to influence the 'swing' voters in the 'swing' seats, so policies are derived that appeal to the 'middle Englanders' in these precise areas; the Tory south-east, and Labour North-east & Scotland won't find any favours from either side, as their results are taken as read.

 

All in my cynical opinion.

[Our Claus]

It has driven me mad today reading that Brown is "proposing the Alternative Vote system, a form of proportional representation."

 

Alternative Vote is NOT a for of PR. It is a majoritarian system, same as First Past the Post. On an individual level, when electing one MP - or a mayor, etc - it is better than FPTP, because it does ensure that the winner has an absolute majority. But on a national level it is no better than FPTP whatsoever, and indeed in some circumstances can lead to even more disproportionate representation than FPTP does.

 

(J Bizzle - AV would not help the BNP's case. It would make it even more impossible to win a seat at Westminster.)

 

And while I sincerely hope that the BNP never does get an MP, I do not think that that should be the aim of a voting system. I think it should be choosing a Parliament that accurately reflects the views of the people across the country. And it is proportional systems that do that. And you know what, if enough people believe the crap that the BNP spout, then they should get a seat. And then its up to the rest of us to convince their supporters otherwise, and to show the party up for the racists that they are.

 

I also don't hold much sway with arguments about strong governments. Sure, strong governments can be beneficial. But why should a party that the majority of people voted against, be able to impose their will on the country? Surely it is better that a coalition, accurately reclecting the country's views and for which a majority of the country voted for, governs based on mutually acceptable compromise? Will not that lead to decision-making that is more in agreement with the general will of the nation?

 

I also dispute the argument that PR would lead to the loss of a constituency link for MPs. Yes, if you went to a direct party list PR then it would be gone. But if you went to STV, then you would have slightly larger multi-member constituencies - a larger area to be sure, but potentially greater representation. And if you went to AMS or AV+, then you would retain the constituencies more or less as they are now (maybe slightly enlarged), and still be able to have a Parliament that more accurately reflects the political views of the country.

 

Anyway. Sorry for the rant, wrote my dissertation on electoral reform, and it helps if I get things off my chest sometimes...

[Rattlehead]

Brown also got on my t*ts this morning saying he wasn't going to consider means testing child benefit. Apart from the fact he should at least consider it, particularly given the state of the countries finances (which he seemed to suggest were in perfect condition), not giving cash to people who really don't need it would save a fortune.

 

Yet more bribing of voters at the expense of what is undoubtedly right for the country. The one eyed Scottish idiot.

[bridge too far]

Brown also got on my t*ts this morning saying he wasn't going to consider means testing child benefit. Apart from the fact he should at least consider it, particularly given the state of the countries finances (which he seemed to suggest were in perfect condition), not giving cash to people who really don't need it would save a fortune.

 

Yet more bribing of voters at the expense of what is undoubtedly right for the country. The one eyed Scottish idiot.

 

Sometimes it doesn't matter how well off a family unit is, sometimes, if the mother devotes her time to caring for her children rather than doing paid work as well, she doesn't get the wherewithall from her partner to support her children financially.

 

I speak as one who has been in that situation. Not allowed to 'work' but

not given enough money to buy enough clothes for my children. If it wasn't for Family Allowance (as it was in those days) I would have been in even direr straits.

 

No wonder I left him, dear reader

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

It made me laugh this morning when I heard The Sun had decided to back the Tories.

 

1)The Sun? Labour supporters?!!?!?

 

2) They are just doing the same as what they did in 97, backing the obvious winner, yet the countless gullible millions that read that 'newspaper' will be taken in by it all.

[bridge too far]

It made me laugh this morning when I heard The Sun had decided to back the Tories.

 

1)The Sun? Labour supporters?!!?!?

 

2) They are just doing the same as what they did in 97, backing the obvious winner, yet the countless gullible millions that read that 'newspaper' will be taken in by it all.

 

What's just as funny is the Sun's belief that it can sway opinion.

 

Firstly why does it suppose it has the right to claim this - it simply offers attention-grabbing headlines often far removed from the truth.

 

Secondly, if the Sun was to tell me to do something, I'd do the exact opposite.

[JackanorySFC]

So you think the Labour Party shouldn't be bothered about not having The Sun's backing? They were bothered enough to have Rebekah Brooks (CEO) Dominic Mohan (Editor) and James Murdoch in the front row of Brown's speech - the only media reps in that position.

 

Ultimately the Sun is the primary souce of information for 9m people every day in this country. Love it or hate it there's no other media as powerful in terms of reach (including the BBC).

[bridge too far]

.......

 

Ultimately the Sun is the primary souce of information for 9m people every day in this country. Love it or hate it there's no other media as powerful in terms of reach (including the BBC).

 

Wrong word there I think

[the stain]

What's just as funny is the Sun's belief that it can sway opinion.

 

Firstly why does it suppose it has the right to claim this - it simply offers attention-grabbing headlines often far removed from the truth.

 

Secondly, if the Sun was to tell me to do something, I'd do the exact opposite.

 

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I'm guessing you're not a Sun reader?

 

Of course the Sun sways opinion. It's lapped up by millions every day. It just doesn't sway your opinion.

 

Although I'm sure it was just a figure of speech, but if you did the exact opposite then you've been swayed by the Sun. [/pedant]

[Clapham Saint]

What's just as funny is the Sun's belief that it can sway opinion.

 

Firstly why does it suppose it has the right to claim this - it simply offers attention-grabbing headlines often far removed from the truth.

 

Secondly, if the Sun was to tell me to do something, I'd do the exact opposite.

 

A potential Tory voter lost then...

 

[bridge too far]

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I'm guessing you're not a Sun reader?

 

Of course the Sun sways opinion. It's lapped up by millions every day. It just doesn't sway your opinion.

 

Although I'm sure it was just a figure of speech, but if you did the exact opposite then you've been swayed by the Sun. [/pedant]

 

Good point, well made

 

However my voting pattern has never changed because I tend to support the party whose basic principles match mine. I don't chop and change according to the pound in my pocket - to use that hackneyed phrase.

 

I imagine a large number of conservative and liberal voters are the same. It's the voters who switch allegiance for relatively flimsy reasons that I don't understand.

[Mao Cap]

Cracked me up seeing the front page of the Sun today.

 

It was a shock I tell you, what with that newspaper's previous 12 years of unswerving commitment to liberal values and all

[the stain]

Good point, well made

 

However my voting pattern has never changed because I tend to support the party whose basic principles match mine. I don't chop and change according to the pound in my pocket - to use that hackneyed phrase.

 

I imagine a large number of conservative and liberal voters are the same. It's the voters who switch allegiance for relatively flimsy reasons that I don't understand.

 

If you'll forgive me begging your forgiveness two posts running, you might be 'of a generation' who were familiar with two main Parties having a set of grounding principles and extrapolating current policy from them. I'm not at all convinced that's still the case.

[bridge too far]

If you'll forgive me begging your forgiveness two posts running, you might be 'of a generation' who were familiar with two main Parties having a set of grounding principles and extrapolating current policy from them. I'm not at all convinced that's still the case.

 

Yes you're right to some extent. But I do still think that the basic tenets drive the two main parties still.

 

However, I can't confidently say the same about the Liberals as they always have, and still seem to, adapt their policies to suit the situation.

 

That's fine - except that I can't ever be sure how they're going to approach issues that aren't a current concern - which way they're going to jump off the fence. I do know with some certainty which way the two major players would react.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm not sure about this playing down of the impact of the Sun's switched allegiances.

 

It was important to them in the past:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/mar/08/pressandpublishing.ukgeneralelection2001

 

It is ironic that the Guardian claim that the Sun is the most influential paper during elections - well it wouldn't be the Guardian would it.

 

New Labour have been totally obsessed by spin and media presentation, so for them to pretend they don't care is total ********.

[View From The Top]

I surprised people actually still buy daily newspapers with t'internet 'n all.

 

The Sunday Times is the only one worth my time.

[Rattlehead]

Sometimes it doesn't matter how well off a family unit is, sometimes, if the mother devotes her time to caring for her children rather than doing paid work as well, she doesn't get the wherewithall from her partner to support her children financially.

 

I speak as one who has been in that situation. Not allowed to 'work' but

not given enough money to buy enough clothes for my children. If it wasn't for Family Allowance (as it was in those days) I would have been in even direr straits.

 

No wonder I left him, dear reader

 

With respect, I don't think it should be left to the state to fund families who can afford to support their own children but the parents cannot be grown up enough to talk to each other about it.

 

Let's not forget that we are talking about those who can actually afford it here. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

[bridge too far]

With respect, I don't think it should be left to the state to fund families who can afford to support their own children but the parents cannot be grown up enough to talk to each other about it.

 

Let's not forget that we are talking about those who can actually afford it here. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

 

Couldn't agree with you more. But it happens - I know.

[bridge too far]

I'm not sure about this playing down of the impact of the Sun's switched allegiances.

 

It was important to them in the past:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/mar/08/pressandpublishing.ukgeneralelection2001

 

It is ironic that the Guardian claim that the Sun is the most influential paper during elections - well it wouldn't be the Guardian would it.

 

New Labour have been totally obsessed by spin and media presentation, so for them to pretend they don't care is total ********.

 

Probably because that's the world we live in now. Everything and everybody is instantly judged on appearance and soundbites. Such a shame.

 

Labour are not the only ones so obsessed. As has been said before about Cameron - all spin / style and no substance.

[Johnny Bognor]

Probably because that's the world we live in now. Everything and everybody is instantly judged on appearance and soundbites. Such a shame.

 

Labour are not the only ones so obsessed. As has been said before about Cameron - all spin / style and no substance.

 

 

Hmm, it is the world we live in now, but wasn't it Mandelson and Alistair Campbell that ratcheted up the spin when compared to previous governments (of either persuasion) and almost made it an art form.

 

New Labour changed the rules....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1841213.stm

http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/blogs-mainmenu-29/nicholas-jones-mainmenu-85/5276-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-spin-doctor

 

Live by the sword, die by the sword (and all that)

 

As for Cameron, he himself was a former Spin Doctor and so he is the re-incarnation of Blair-Campbell-Mandelson all rolled into one.

Edited 30 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[View From The Top]

As for Cameron, he himself was a former Spin Doctor and so he is the re-incarnation of Blair-Campbell-Mandelson all rolled into one.

 

So he's a c*** then?

[Thedelldays]

Back to the OP

 

I'm still waiting for my "vote" on the European constitution

[solentstars]

Here in Salisbury which is a safe Tory seat, a lot of Labour supporters always vote Lib Dems because they know that the Lib Dems have more chance of unseating the Tory MP and Labour have none at all.

I know that the singer Billy Bragg, who lives in Dorset now, campaigned at the last election for people who normally voted Labour to vote Lib Dems to unseat the Tory MP there too.

 

If a PR system is implemented, people are more likely to show their true colours and not try and tactically vote, which will probably do the Lib Dems more harm than good.

good post the present system is a failue which only benefits labour or tories.

labour voters in the south could have 35% of the vote and no mps and the same with tories in the north , so why bother voteing in these areas its the same with council elections.

if people felt their votes mattered you might see higher turnouts ie council elections etc.

the present system is a joke.