Democracy in action - The young uns must be wondering

[Donnywolf]

I was chuffed to see such a huge surge of the younger set registering to Vote AND it seems actually carrying out their right to Vote by doing it

However they must be wondering what the hell is going on with the Tory / DUP non-Coalition goings on

Personally I cannot believe that the Tories are desperately offering to join forces with the DUP just to cling on to "power" although they have the right to do of course due to being the biggest Party but what annoys me the most (is it just me?) is that the DUP can seemingly call the shots even with their scant number of votes - and that is why PR should be in and in to stay

The DUP attracted 292,316 votes IN TOTAL although of course they could only be voted for in Northern Ireland and they have 10 Seats (which are very attractive to the Tories). However the Lib Dems polled 2,371,772 lets call it 9 times more votes and got the staggering total of 12 Seats and despite having some good ideas have no chance of getting them listened to by anyone / they have no say whatsoever

The Green Party weighed in with 525,371 votes and got just one Seat - a tenth of the DUP for 1.75 times more votes than them and that is what is galling me. Such a tiny Party with such a tiny UK wide support get to call for whatever they want (and it seems they are doing) yet the Lib Dems for one get nothing

The Election Result has left us in the s**t and I for one would vote in a Referendum (if it were offered) to swap to PR with immediate effect. It has its detractors and faults but surely the Pro's not least making my vote exactly equal to every other voter in the UK must be worth it ?

[Donnywolf]

I cant find a 2017 outcome yet but this is the 2015 one comparing what happened to what may have happened using PR

UKIP would have fared much better and the SNP much worse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

[wing commander]

   Interesting points Donnywolf...Even as a Tory I would have to agree,i'm not comfortable with bribing the DUP just to secure the majority vote...Of course you could swing it the other way and say how can Corbyn claim that May doesn't have a mandate and Labour is a government in waiting when he has even less of a mandate...
   With the Labour party now back to being a left wing socialist party again there wont be much common ground at parliamentary votes and it will go back to the days that nothing much of anything will manage to pass a vote through the chambers without getting blocked...
  So yes for the good of the country PR would be a better system...Although it wont happen..
   

[drfchound]

I cant remember the exact numbers but no doubt one of our political experts will know, but didn't the SNP secure 50 odd seats in the last GE with fewer votes cast than votes cast in Yorkshire alone?


I am sure i read something along those lines somewhere.

[selby]

It will all come out in the wash,we will stay in the EU money will talk.

[idler]

I signed the petition calling for PR last year.
The problem is the two big parties would be the biggest losers and they are the ones that would have to back it.
PR would be much fairer and more representative of the whole electorate's views. I just can't see it getting support from the ones that matter unfortunately.

[Donnywolf]

You were right I suspect as the SNP got 1,454,436 votes in 2015 which got them 59 Seats

Labour in Scotland got 707,147 votes - so lets say 50 % less than the SNP and for that they got 1 (yes just one ) Seat. Surely that just cant be right

Check out the 2015 PR "results" above and see what each Party would have got ! A bit different to 56 - 1 and it should never end that way. 50% of the votes cast get 95% of the Seats

[Donnywolf]

   Interesting points Donnywolf...Even as a Tory I would have to agree,i'm not comfortable with bribing the DUP just to secure the majority vote...Of course you could swing it the other way and say how can Corbyn claim that May doesn't have a mandate and Labour is a government in waiting when he has even less of a mandate...
   With the Labour party now back to being a left wing socialist party again there wont be much common ground at parliamentary votes and it will go back to the days that nothing much of anything will manage to pass a vote through the chambers without getting blocked...
  So yes for the good of the country PR would be a better system...Although it wont happen..
   

Cheers - I generally steer well away from Politics because the whole thing annoys me so much

I am finding it hard to articulate what I mean here but basically it is not an anti Tory rant - just what I see as a total injustice with the DUP having "access" or "opportunity" to influence mainstream issues in their own Country and more importantly (to me) in ours with so few Votes whilst others (Lib Dems / Greens) are totally without such influence even though they have massed many more votes here and there and have some very valid points / policies.

[drfchound]

If the DUP agree a deal with the Conservatives, will Arlene Foster get the Deputy PM title in the same way as Clegg did?

[RedJ]

Probably not. Can't see it being a formal coalition, I think (though no doubt someone who knows more on the matter) that might go against the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

[Glyn_Wigley]

If the DUP agree a deal with the Conservatives, will Arlene Foster get the Deputy PM title in the same way as Clegg did?

No, because a Confidence and Supply arrangement isn't a coalition.

As for PR, as was mentioned earlier in this thread - if you think the Tories trying to thrash out a deal with the DUP is a mess, PR would almost certainly guarantee negotiations to try and form a government after every election.

[idler]

Maybe that is better than a pendulum swinging far right to far left disregarding a lot in the middle that might work.
A good idea for the country is a good idea whichever party comes up with it. Compromise can work.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Maybe that is better than a pendulum swinging far right to far left disregarding a lot in the middle that might work.
A good idea for the country is a good idea whichever party comes up with it. Compromise can work.

Maybe, but would compromise have created the Welfare State just after the war or given Thatcher the strength to implement her reforms?

[Donnywolf]

Maybe if the Welfare State and the National Health HAD been created by collective thinking and action then maybe that same ethos would enable them to take collective ownership of the problems (particularly the NHS) has rather than each side blaming the other.

If the Tories do anything then they are accused of open privatisation or back door privatisation - whereas Labour suggesting more money leads to claims of unsustainable spending leading to "overspending" and a rise in the "national" debt

Both are probably right but we are getting nowhere. Each is a kind of extremism and those in the middle ground who suggest third ways get nowhere as they are decribed as "really really minority Parties" but the thrust of my OP was that the DUP are now in a position because of our failing democratic process to name their price *

* I dont believe everything that I read but I have seen the DUP wanted 2 billion Pounds to engage to save the Tories - One Billion for Northern Ireland and One Billion for Heathcare there.

If the Greens had asked for even half a billion for cleaner Transport across the Country they would have been laughed at out loud but they have twice the clout of the DUP in votes they attracted but otherwise NO clout whatsoever

[Glyn_Wigley]

Maybe if the Welfare State and the National Health HAD been created by collective thinking and action then maybe that same ethos would enable them to take collective ownership of the problems (particularly the NHS) has rather than each side blaming the other.

If the Tories do anything then they are accused of open privatisation or back door privatisation - whereas Labour suggesting more money leads to claims of unsustainable spending leading to "overspending" and a rise in the "national" debt

Both are probably right but we are getting nowhere. Each is a kind of extremism and those in the middle ground who suggest third ways get nowhere as they are decribed as "really really minority Parties" but the thrust of my OP was that the DUP are now in a position because of our failing democratic process to name their price *

* I dont believe everything that I read but I have seen the DUP wanted 2 billion Pounds to engage to save the Tories - One Billion for Northern Ireland and One Billion for Heathcare there.

If the Greens had asked for even half a billion for cleaner Transport across the Country they would have been laughed at out loud but they have twice the clout of the DUP in votes they attracted but otherwise NO clout whatsoever

The problem is that's a big 'maybe'. Certainly Churchill was dead against it, and if there was a PR Commons after the 1945 election it is definitely less likely that the NHS as we know it would have been created - even if anything had been managed to be set up, it would have been 'compromised' into something a lot different in order to achieve anything at all.

[Donnywolf]

Maybe !

[BobG]

By their very nature proportional representation systems encourage the development of a lot of small parties - each devoted to some special interest or interests. It's not common therefore to find an outright winner of an election in such systems - unless there is quite a high bar that has to be reached before a party gets even one seat. In theory at least, a first past the post system should deliver both a working government, and, centrist policies since the usual way to win is to attract votes from mildly left of centre as well as mildly right of centre voters. Those that then vote proper left or proper right get outvoted by what is, in effect, a centrist coalition. That's what Tony Blair did so succesfully for example and it's what both Harold Wilson and Ted Heath practised. There is, of course, an alternative: the conviction politician of either left or right who is given an opportunity through voter boredom, disdain for or disgust with the long term results of the centrist approach. That's how Maggie got into office - presenting herself as something new at a time of crisis. That's what that wally in the US has done. Once in power a conviction politician of either left or right then has the major problem of figuring out how to win the next election. Maggie was lucky - she was presented with a freeby war she could hardly fail to win in the long run and then, the next time, she was presented with a lunatic union leader who made the whole concept of 'left' more unpalletable than the dirt on your shoe.

By the by, what we are seeing today with the relaxation of austerity, the focus on housing, the removal of things like grammar schools and such like from the political agenda are all examples of the Conservative party moving back towards the centre ground. The right wing impulse, at least at the moment, has had its day. It is in retreat and Jeremy Corbyn is benefitting hugely from it.

Cheers

BobG

[wilts rover]

Come on Bob be a bit more generous than that. If Theresa May had won another 30 seats do you think we would be seeing this roll back of austerity? Jeremy Corbyn hasn't benefited from it - he caused it!

We had a referendum on PR only 6 years ago. Less than half the population bothered to turn out to vote and of those who did two thirds voted against it. So I can't see it being brought in any time soon.

[Geoff Blakesley]

I was chuffed when it was a hung Parliament. Now they will have to talk things through and come to a consensus which is how it should be in my opinion. I dread to think what would have happened to our country with a big mandate for the Tories. More fox hunting - more poor pensioners - the destruction of the NHS - introduction of more divisive Grammar Schools -  further lining of the pockets of the wealthy, yipppeee !

[RedJ]

Come on Bob be a bit more generous than that. If Theresa May had won another 30 seats do you think we would be seeing this roll back of austerity? Jeremy Corbyn hasn't benefited from it - he caused it!

We had a referendum on PR only 6 years ago. Less than half the population bothered to turn out to vote and of those who did two thirds voted against it. So I can't see it being brought in any time soon.

No we didn't. We had a referendum on AV. That is not full PR.

[BobG]

I agree Wilts. Full on right wing Toryism was the plan and it would have been implemented too if she had won another 30 seats. But 10 years is a long time for any political ism to survive. Maybe some people are starting to think again now...? A reaction setting in with some people worried too late about the risks of Brexit; the catastrophe in Kensington highlighting some of the hidden costs of radical Toryism; the never ending cries of anguish about the health service and public services generally; the perpetual raping of the many for the benefit of the few.  She might have prolonged right wingery for a few more years but it looks as if it's day, for now, is waning. If there was any reasonable alternative conservative I'd wish she would wane with it. But nobody could seriously want that blond lunatic as PM could they?

BobG

[Akinfenwa]

As always when this topic comes up, AV is not a proportional voting system. It would reduce the spoiler effect and the need for tactical voting at constituency level but overall the picture wouldn't change all that much.

I would support the introduction of PR, or at least some kind of hybrid system such as MMP used in Germany (if you're keen on electing a local MP). After all, the whole purpose of Parliament in a representative democracy is to create policy and make decisions on behalf of the electorate. The FPTP system usually results in a Parliament make up that doesn't represent the electorate very well at all. Here, one of the two main parties usually ends up with near enough full control for a full term with less than 40% of the total vote (except this year of course). The remaining > 60% can be safely ignored. How is that representative?

For any individual voter, unlike the EU Referendum where everyone's vote was of equal value, in FPTP only a small section of the total electorate actually decide the result. You basically have to be voting for one of two parties in one of a certain number of marginal constituencies for your vote to be of high importance. This must disenfranchise a lot of people who can't actually vote for the party who they like the most without rendering their vote to be of very little value, or those who happen to live in a constituency where their vote is of little value no matter what. A fairer system may well help to increase voter engagement and decrease apathy.

FPTP always produces a two party dominated system and I personally don't think it'd be a bad thing if we were to open up the political landscape with PR and move away from that. If it fairly represents the majority of the electorate then I think coalitions and compromises are absolutely fine. The problem with FPTP is that it forces the electorate to make these compromises which have too much influence over voting behaviour at the ballot box, instead we should leave that to the politicians when they're to form and then run a government which truly is on the behalf of the majority of the population.

[Donnywolf]

Staggeringly good post Akifenwa - DONT disagree with a word of it and it goes right to the heart of the matter

(I am still livid about the power now vested in 250000 votes as in my OP when much more well supported Parties are being totally ignored)

I have just one question - how the HELL can we bring this about - because I am sure it is a fairer - NO-  much fairer system of voting and one which the vast majority of people reading your Post or having the injustice of the current system explained to them would be in no doubt supportive of

Bring it on !

[Donnywolf]

Found this Powerpoint on MMP on Youtube which explained MMP (to me for a start) and led to another as they do on Youtube applying MMP to our 2015 General Election and which would have given UKIP a massive (and probably deserved given their groundswell of support) 83 Seats instead of what they got (was it one or 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

I am now looking for "pressure groups" dedicated to MMP or something at least better than FPTP

[Donnywolf]

Even BETTER I have seen the Makevotesmatter Website and the move towards PR is well alive and kicking. I am heartened

They produced the 100,000 votes required to "force" a debate in Parliament on PR (mostly of course unwanted by the big 2 Parties) and which was squashed by irony of ironies the recent General Election

However they will be back and I for one cant wait for my vote to be equal to all others cast in a future election - and there is a Rally tomorrow outside Parliament - and this just needs to get into peoples consciousness as a real issue - before one of the big 2 get a landslide with 42% of the votes cast and kick it into the long grass again

[Glyn_Wigley]

Making sure no one party has a majority might be desirable, but you could end up getting the problems - and instability - that Italy and Belgium have had,

[BobG]

Thank you Glyn. My fingers were poised to make that very point. To be any use at all, a proportional representation system has to be thought through very carefully indeed. Generally, they lead to paralysis. If they don't do that it's because  some tiny party has weilded huge power despite being totally unrepresentative of the electorate. Their ship will have come in and holding the balance of power gives them an almost blank cheque. Pork barrel politics as the Yanks call it in a different context.

If there is no single, clear winner, you simply can't avoid small parties holding the balance of power no matter what the voting system. It's a function of an election without a clear result. That inevitably means a small party somewhere will have huge power as it is bribed to join with a bigger party to form an often short lived government. Without huge care and thought, it can be a disastrous system. That's the main advantage of first past the post: it does, usually, give a clear winner and a stable government. There are worse things than not being fully representative you know....

Cheers

BobG

[idler]

That's right Bob but we have seen some right disasters with first past the post as well.
Parties look after the people more likely to vote for them or the businesses and businessmen that fund them. They usually drift a bit too far left or right and then lose the middle ground and the process starts again.
I honestly wonder how many MPs actually care more about the country or their party.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Another problem with PR is that you'll lose the connection between an MP and the constituency they represent. Which MP would you go to if you had a problem, as at present?

Also, as parties would decide which people fill the number of seats they win, there's no way for the electorate to get rid on an MP - for example, in 1997 Tatton was able to unseat Neil Hamilton. With the party list system, the Tories could have kept him in Parliament for as long as they wanted regardless of what the electorate wanted. The same goes for David Mellor, Ed Balls, Nick Clegg etc.

[not on facebook]

Some very very good points there mr, Glynn that have never entered my damaged head .

After reading the above and especially the part about losing contact with a local mp Iam all for the oresent day system.