PR

[Tankus]

Well the Liberals have been bleating about it for years , as "first past the post" does not give them the number of MP's in the house that they think that their overall total vote represents.

The Rev promised Charlie boy some action on it last year to get him to shut up...

Now that Rev has got in with still a sizable majority, after getting , overall, 60,000 less votes than the conservatives .......He is now going to give it some consideration

  Independent   Tony Blair had been accused of being "deaf to the public mood" on voting reform after putting John Prescott, the cabinet member most vehemently opposed to proportional representation, in charge of the committee that looks at electoral reform.

If you want something to fail ....get two Jags on the case ....... inspired ...!

Seen to be doing something ...while nothing gets done , but with a lot of noise .....

Proportionally represented down the Khazi .....and Jags pulls the chain ..!

[Agent Smith]

Hmmm, tough one this. Yes we really need to have a look at the way we vote, but I do not feel that PR is the correct way to go.

I would be happy to be corrected, but I think you will find that in all the countries which use PR, it does not benefit the country because it is almost impossible for a single party to gain total control. Now whilst some of you may think that that is a good thing, in general it causes more problems because everybody's policies need to be watered down and concessions made in order to get them voted in.

Whether you agree with them or not, you are actually better off when a government is able to fully implement the policies it feels are what it needs to do. At least this way, it is clear when they fail to work, and then another government can be given a chance.

However, this is where the problem arises. In my opinion, there are far too many people in the UK who do not actually know what they are voting for, but simply vote what they have always voted, or due to the area they live in, what they are expected to vote for.

I think it would make for a very interesting experiment, if we could re-stage the general election, but this time not tell anybody the names of the candidates, or the parties they represent. Simply give the electorate a list of policies etc. that the candidates supposedly stand for, and a random number, then ask them to vote on this. I suspect that we would have a totally different outcome.

Also, surely it is time we stopped these stupid candidates. In some areas, seats were won with very small majorities, which may have been different had the 257 idiots who voted for the looneys actually thought about their vote. I think that whilst some will scream about their civil liberties, it is time to get rid of the idiots. At the risk of upsetting some of you, I should stress that this would not include people like the BNP. As much as I detest these people and most of what they stand for, they do have genuine political agendas.

Then we have the idea of compulsory voting. Well, in my opinion, if this is made law, then we have to have some way of expressing dissatisfaction whereby deliberately spoilt papers are counted and taken into consideration. Perhaps MP's would be far more considerate to the voices of the people, if there was a genuine chance that the seat could be left vacant as the result of an election.

I do not have any answers as to what we really should be doing, but I think we are going to get some interesting comments.

[Angel]

However, this is where the problem arises. In my opinion, there are far too many people in the UK who do not actually know what they are voting for, but simply vote what they have always voted, or due to the area they live in, what they are expected to vote for.

I think it would make for a very interesting experiment, if we could re-stage the general election, but this time not tell anybody the names of the candidates, or the parties they represent. Simply give the electorate a list of policies etc. that the candidates supposedly stand for, and a random number, then ask them to vote on this. I suspect that we would have a totally different outcome.

Bingo.

I'd love to see an election where the names AND parties are not listed, simply the main policies the candidate has based thier campaign on. Not only would we have people changing thier mind about who they vote for, but I believe we would have a lot less spoiled ballots. Not to mention people would actually understand what they are voting for.

[catgate]

Would it not make sense to totally outlaw parties altogether. Then have worthy (in the real sense of the word) people as candidates, who , after election, asked the people of the country, through referenda, what policies they wanted instituted. The only reason for the existance of a "party" is to steamroller favoured policies through into law with as little trouble as possible. These policies however are rarely for the benefit of the populace but are usually for the benefit of the backers of the party, (be they indutrialists, workers, or other country's govenments).

PR would probably result in a stalemate hung parliament, because the touted "policies" would still be "spun" to gain votes, and could then, as now, be forgotton till the next electoral debacle.

[Scarecrow Man]

PR would probably result in a stalemate hung parliament, because the touted "policies" would still be "spun" to gain votes, and could then, as now, be forgotton till the next electoral debacle.

Indeed, policies would be "spun" to gain votes. This comes back to my post in the "bush" topic about, who will govern the government. You are very knowledgeable on this subject... As for a voting system, what would you suggest catgate?

[catgate]

As for a voting system, what would you suggest catgate?

That's a very good question. I put forward my "masterplan" quite a long time ago, and, as a result, a certain member of this forum would have strangled me had he not been situated in the midlands, well out of arms reach. If I now retell the long story that same individual may well have apoplexy, or even explode, so I will just give you the link to the site, where you can read about it quietly. But, if you do go and read, get yourself a nice pot of tea, or a beer, because it is a site singularly devoid of bells and whistles, and concentration is needed. Also it needs to be read with an open mind and not in a "defensive" manner.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/accord

Good luck, and let me know what you think.

Edit.....

p.s. Scarecrow Man, How does prosperity etc. of Alberta measure up to the rest of your country now that the Social Credit people have been swept away? They really put Alberta back on its feet when they were first elected into power way back in the depression days.

[Scarecrow Man]

Ah yes.. I remember visiting your site before. Looks a bit differen't now.

I will take some time and have a read. No beer as I am at work! :P

Edit.....

p.s. Scarecrow Man, How does prosperity etc. of Alberta measure up to the rest of your country now that the Social Credit people have been swept away? They really put Alberta back on its feet when they were first elected into power way back in the depression days.

I am an Ontarian but know people who live in Alberta, BC, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland.

Alberta is indeed at $0 debt. The first province in Canada to do so. But, the reason for this is the natural resources the province provides. Yes, I am talking about Oil. (also I hear there is a negative un-employment rate?) Canada as a whole is still in debt, and probably will be for a long time..... (the Liberals really messed things up... *cough*Sponsorship Scandal*cough*.......)

But to answer your question, "How does prosperity etc. of Alberta measure up to the rest of your country now that the Social Credit people have been swept away?" Alberta may have $0 debt, but is still a home for "rig pigs" and "natives" according to a friends who lives there. The only thing to do other than work is go to the local tavern, which is usually a fair hike. Other than the major cities like Calgary and Edmonton... Alberta is a desolace place. They may be debt-free... but the cost of living is VERY high compared to other areas on Canada.

never been to London then .....? arf

No, but I will go some day. :)

[Tankus]

but the cost of living is VERY high compared to other areas on Canada.

never been to London then .....? arf

PR would probably result in a stalemate hung parliament, because the touted "policies" would still be "spun" to gain votes, and could then, as now, be forgotton till the next electoral debacle.

Continually hung governments , with the one with the lowest vote being the king maker ..the only way Charlieboy going to get his shakin' hands on the keys

........ I guess it works for the Dutch ( although they are turning right wing , more and more )

Is there as big a difference, between labour and the conservatives ... as there used to be ...?........ but there's a lot of baggage left over from where they've come from ..New labours changed beyond all recognition ...and the Tories have been unable to respond ...

To be honest I'm a bit dubious about PR myself ....But the boundary changes made under Labour are pants , and a skewing seat results in their favour , but then I guess the cons would have done the same thing if the positions were reversed .....Its not the system thats at fault , its the quality of the politico s

Well wrong whats happening with the Lords ...it does provide an essential brake .

Fawkes and start again ...... from fresh ...... why not

[catgate]

They may be debt-free... but the cost of living is VERY high compared to other areas on Canada.

That is very interesting. Has there been any "explanation" of this or is it just accepted as "well that's the way it is". I have a feeling that had the S.C. people not been discarded things might well have been different (presumably the Banks have regained their previous malignant power.)

[Scarecrow Man]

They may be debt-free... but the cost of living is VERY high compared to other areas on Canada.

That is very interesting. Has there been any "explanation" of this or is it just accepted as "well that's the way it is". I have a feeling that had the S.C. people not been discarded things might well have been different (presumably the Banks have regained their previous malignant power.)

Explanation? It's a very desirable place to live.. British Columbia is of course, the most expensive, but Alberta is just over the mountains... People WILL pay the money to live there, and the government takes advantage of that. Example: A pack of cigarettes (fags) in Ontario is currenty $8.50 for major brands... Alberta is pushing $12....

Ontario is also home to a lot of "abusers" of the system.... They fake pain, get medication, and sell the medication on the streets for sometimes 500% mark-up. I believe the reason our government is in debt is because the government is giving it's money away, and turning a blind eye on what is really happening. I'll admit, I DO NOT want things like Health Care and Government Relief (welfare).. etc... canned, but if we did... Canada would be a very rich country.

:offtopic:

People will pay $40,000 for a new car.. but complain about $5,000 for college education.... If you ask me.. Canadians really don't know what they want.

[catgate]

Canadians really don't know what they want.

I do not think Canadians are alone in this. The entire world is in the same mess. For centuries the leaders (church and temporal) have told people what they should want, and have taken steps to ensure that people felt guilty if they did not want what they were supposed to want. Even things like

the boundary changes made

are accepted because we "want them". The admen say "by popular request" etc. when it is really by the request of the manufacturer for profit motives, but yet the latest silly fad catches on. This seems to me that this could be the root of one of the teething troubles that would occur with any form of self determining governmental system. Until the population learned that it was not possible to have their cake and eat it, there would be a lot of long faces and disillusionment, but, like children, they would have to grow up and face reality.

Fawkes and start again ...... from fresh ...... why not

It seems to me to be the only way. The current system is nothing but criminal deceit. However, history has shown that unless religion is left as a strictly personal thing (like a tooth brush), and not allowed to get into government, the unscroupulous power seeker will ride it. Look at the millions who have died unnecessarily, even in the last century, as a result of the influence of religious intolerance.