Non - Brexit

Since I was about 10 yrs old I've never understood why Proportional Rep isn't the format we use for democracy...there are several forms of it and a semi version....I just cannot see how the other way(s) are as democratic.....ok it would invariably lead to many coalitions but I can't see that being bad for the country...I mean ..look at this carp that comes from the present system. Parties that represent pockets of rich areas, ignoring all else. Brazen self - servers like the infamous DUP!

Sweden, Switzerland, Norway,South Africa, Denmark, Austria, South Korea, Russia and many others use P.R. Germany and Aussie similar or Semi versions!
Over the years, all this f##k assing about, doctoring the boundaries to suit voting outcomes, in particular the Tories....it's a bloody insult to the electorate!
Yeah....we need something different alright....when you get 12 year olds questioning it and making fun of what they've learnt of it 6 years before they can vote...there is a need for change!
and jettison all that Hear! Hear ! B#llocks!
 
Last edited:
For me voting leave was always about the EU overreaching, and guess what, they're at it again;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6468199/EU-drops-plans-10-000-strong-border-force.html


Looks like several countries are getting wise because this 10,000 strong EU Border Force has been stopped, for now.

The EU are very clear that they want their own armed forces, border forces, currency, etc and what they don't want is nations making decisions for themselves.

Brexit might me be a mess but staying in would be disastrous… unless you're Germany or France.
 
BillMcgarrycherry said:
Over the years, all this f##k assing about, doctoring the boundaries to suit voting outcomes, in particular the Tories....it's a bloody insult to the electorate!
Click to expand...
Bill I think you will find it is universally accepted that the electoral boundaries favour Labour by some margin, that is why the independent Boundaries Commission have recommended sweeping changes that are currently before parliament to consider.
 
redharry said:
Bill I think you will find it is universally accepted that the electoral boundaries favour Labour by some margin, that is why the independent Boundaries Commission have recommended sweeping changes that are currently before parliament to consider.
Click to expand...
Down in the depths of Devon and Cornwall, apart from Plymouth it's always been between the Tories and Libs on that issue, so i'm off target with that on the whole country issue. I've heard many arguments contrary to what you have said when I lived in the north( Hull in the 80s) and from my people in Poole( mainly Labour). I have swung between the two, only ever voting on policies. It depends what you read and who you listen to. Labour would appear to be favoured at present but why should anyone be favoured is my point!
 
redharry said:
Bill I think you will find it is universally accepted that the electoral boundaries favour Labour by some margin, that is why the independent Boundaries Commission have recommended sweeping changes that are currently before parliament to consider.
Click to expand...

Surely the system is biased in the Tories favour - they got 42% of votes and 49% of seats last time. Labour got 40% of both. The Tories need a smaller % lead in vote share to win a majority than labour.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Surely the system is biased in the Tories favour - they got 42% of votes and 49% of seats last time. Labour got 40% of both. The Tories need a smaller % lead in vote share to win a majority than labour.
Click to expand...

No, at present the size of each constituency varies hugely e.g. 110,000 for 1 MP on the Isle of Wight to 55,000 in Newcastle Central. The simple facts are that most city and urban areas especially in London and the more industrial North and Midlands have smaller population sizes and require far fewer votes to elect an MP than in semi urban and rural areas. Historically those smaller urban constituencies have been most likely to return Labour MP's.
The Boundaries Commission is there to ensure that constituency sizes are roughly equal as over time they are bound to change. The result of the current planned equalising constituency size is reckoned by most experts to be worth about 20 extra seats to the Tories. Now if you believe everybodies vote should carry the same weight then same size constituencies should be the norm.
This is a pretty good summary
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...g-system-labour-theresa-may-dup-a8538971.html
 
So .....who makes up / sits on ..the Boundaries Commission? They, individually must have leanings..
Commissions, Quangoes, secretaries to Ministers, enquiries...all of it so very secretive..what can we really know ..let's face it...we dont, we wont....all we can do is vote and observe the fallouts!
 
redharry said:
No, at present the size of each constituency varies hugely e.g. 110,000 for 1 MP on the Isle of Wight to 55,000 in Newcastle Central. The simple facts are that most city and urban areas especially in London and the more industrial North and Midlands have smaller population sizes and require far fewer votes to elect an MP than in semi urban and rural areas. Historically those smaller urban constituencies have been most likely to return Labour MP's.
The Boundaries Commission is there to ensure that constituency sizes are roughly equal as over time they are bound to change. The result of the current planned equalising constituency size is reckoned by most experts to be worth about 20 extra seats to the Tories. Now if you believe everybodies vote should carry the same weight then same size constituencies should be the norm.
This is a pretty good summary
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...g-system-labour-theresa-may-dup-a8538971.html
Click to expand...

Click on the link in the article that says 'biased in labour's favour' - it explains about the bias towards the Tories, which more than compensates for any bias in electoral boundaries.
 
Is this a good/bad/clever/stupid move by Corbyn?

"In a speech on the first day of the two-day event attended by Labour’s sister parties around Europe, Corbyn said of Brexit: “In a country where a million families are using food banks, over 4 million children are living in poverty, and real wages are lower today than they were in 2010, the British people voted to leave the EU. We respect that decision; it’s our job to shape what comes next.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...austerity-opens-door-to-far-right-corbyn-says
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Click on the link in the article that says 'biased in labour's favour' - it explains about the bias towards the Tories, which more than compensates for any bias in electoral boundaries.
Click to expand...
if I could be bothered this late I could post links to any no of articles inc The Guardian that confirm the current boundaries act in favour of Labour. go check it out. I am genuinly surprised that you don't know this. the consensus is that it is worth 15 - 20 seats to Labour
 
redharry said:
if I could be bothered this late I could post links to any no of articles inc The Guardian that confirm the current boundaries act in favour of Labour. go check it out. I am genuinly surprised that you don't know this. the consensus is that it is worth 15 - 20 seats to Labour
Click to expand...

I don't think you have understood my point. I'm not arguing that the boundaries aren't in labour's favour but that this is more than offset by the other biases within our system. The Tories benefit from our electoral system more than labour.
 
I don't know how boundary changes have affected things in recent years but Tories averaged 41,705 votes per seat, labour 50,176 votes per seat and lib Dems
265,226 votes per seat.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Click on the link in the article that says 'biased in labour's favour' - it explains about the bias towards the Tories, which more than compensates for any bias in electoral boundaries.
Click to expand...

I have read that article you quote re bias towards the Tories. it can be summarised as
1. Tory supporters are currently more likely to turn out and vote particularly in marginal constituencies and
2. The strong influence of other (non Tory) party blocs in specific areas such as the SNP in Scotland.
Neither of those in my view (or the writer of the piece) are in any way a systemic electoral bias towards the tories, its simply that the Tory voters get off their arses and vote and labour has totally screwed up in Scotland.
Both of those situations could be reversed without any change to the electoral system.
Simple fact is that constituencies should be as close to the same population size as possible. thats what the independent boundaries Commission is set up to do and imo it should be reviewed and implemented every 10 years and not need a parliamentary vote to approve it.
 
redharry said:
I have read that article you quote re bias towards the Tories. it can be summarised as
1. Tory supporters are currently more likely to turn out and vote particularly in marginal constituencies and
2. The strong influence of other (non Tory) party blocs in specific areas such as the SNP in Scotland.
Neither of those in my view (or the writer of the piece) are in any way a systemic electoral bias towards the tories, its simply that the Tory voters get off their arses and vote and labour has totally screwed up in Scotland.
Both of those situations could be reversed without any change to the electoral system.
Simple fact is that constituencies should be as close to the same population size as possible. thats what the independent boundaries Commission is set up to do and imo it should be reviewed and implemented every 10 years and not need a parliamentary vote to approve it.
Click to expand...

An even simpler fact is that all votes should carry equal weight. As it stands Tory votes (and SNP) carry more weight than Labour. You and the guy that wrote that article can say that isn't bias - but it obviously is.
 
Comes down to how people can best be represented. Ministers mostly don't have any idea about the area they represent. They should have to have some qualification in their field. So Sarah Wollaston could be Minister for health for example. Mostly they're crooks and shysters.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
An even simpler fact is that all votes should carry equal weight. As it stands Tory votes (and SNP) carry more weight than Labour. You and the guy that wrote that article can say that isn't bias - but it obviously is.
Click to expand...
you have ignored the reasons given, its all about getting the voters out in marginal seats, always has been , each vote in those marginals carries equal weight. whether tory, labour or monster raving looney. The fact is tories currently win more marginals, labour win more safe seats with big margins in small urban constituencies- thats not bias thats effective electioneering. If you want to make every vote count equally then abolish the first past post and go to proportional representation.
?
 
France and Germany are not the big deal these days that some people bang on about......India. China S.Korea are in the mix now...filling up the container vessels...
Take the Wine out of France and take the Cars out of Germany.......
a pair of old fogies p#ssing their pants!
 
redharry said:
you have ignored the reasons given, its all about getting the voters out in marginal seats, always has been , each vote in those marginals carries equal weight. whether tory, labour or monster raving looney. The fact is tories currently win more marginals, labour win more safe seats with big margins in small urban constituencies- thats not bias thats effective electioneering. If you want to make every vote count equally then abolish the first past post and go to proportional representation.
?
Click to expand...

I would do exactly that. It doesn't matter what the reasons are if it produces unfair results, which our system does. One of the very few things that Nigel Farage and Caroline Lucas agree on.

I think PR and more coalition governments would help change our system for the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;