0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
As was the Brexit vote.
I for one am getting pretty much fed up with the lot of them..Maybe if BOTH party's spent more time in concentrating on doing whats best for this country rather than constantly trying to score cheap pointless political digs at each other..Then maybe just maybe this country could move forward...
PR would probably be a fairer system. For instance, the 4 million votes UKIP gained in 2015 would have given them dozens of seats in the Commons as opposed to the ONE seat they ended up with!
True PR would have no constituencies as seats would be apportioned to the national vote
PR would lead to a) a much fairer representation of people's views in Parliament. If 10% of the electorate vote UKIP, UKIP should have 10% of the MPs. Any other distribution is immoral. b) Much more sensible structures of political parties. To win in our current system you cannot split the vote on your side. That was what happened when the SDP left Labour in the early 80s. At the 83 Election , SDP/Liberals and Labour together won over 50% of the vote while the Tories won 43%. But Thatcher won a 144 seat majority and was totally free to push her policies through despite a large majority of the country having voted against them. So in order to have a chance of winning, the Tories and Labour have to be big, all-encompasding parties appealling to a wide range of voters. So you get the ridiculous situation where Ken Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg are in the same party and so are Chukka Umunna and Dennis Skinner. Even though on many issues, Umunna and Clarke are in more agreement with each other than they are with the ones at the other side of their parties. Under PR, the two main parties would split. We'd have:A UKIP-like far right partyA moderate one-nation Tory partyA Liberal partyA Blair-like centre-left party A Corbyn-like far left party. The parties would then be able to campaign for what they REALLY believe. Corbyn could openly be anti EU and anti-NATO because he wouldn't have to pretend not to be to keep the centre-left happy. And then there would have to be compromised and deals after an election when every party had won about 20% of the vote. It's worked perfectly well in Germany for decades. There is no logical argument for us not having that system.