Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank8 mins ago
OK let's assume we are gong to end up with some sort of PR
Without further argument about PR v FPTP, can some kind soul give me some Idea how it would work, from what I can gather there would be a proportionate number of MP's based on the percentage of the vote by party, so does that mean that constituencies are pointless? ie if the Geezer party wins 30% of the vote do I just name how ever many MP's add up to 30% of the seats, ie with 650 seats there would be 195 Geezer party MP's. Now I know there are N variations, anyone know what one is the most likely if we do end up with electoral reform, thanks
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you voted in the Euro election last year, then you have already participated in a PR election. I do not recall a huge outcry at the injustice of the election then.
// The European Parliament election was the United Kingdom's component of the 2009 European Parliament election, the voting for which was held on Thursday 4 June 2009, coinciding with the 2009 local elections in England. Most of the results of the election were announced on Sunday 7 June.
In total, 72 Members of the European Parliament were elected from the United Kingdom using proportional representation. (This figure would have been 73 if the Lisbon Treaty had entered into force by June 2009.) England, Scotland and Wales used the D'Hondt method of PR, whilst Northern Ireland used Single Transferable Vote (STV). Owing to the expansion of the European Union, the number of members elected for the United Kingdom was fewer than in 2004. This is because the total number of MEPs increased temporarily with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, but was subsequently reduced again in accordance with the Treaty of Nice. The number of members elected from each region was modified by the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission, based on the size of the electorate in each region.
Notable outcomes were the significant drop in support for the Labour Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) finishing second in a major election for the first time in its history, and the election of two British National Party (BNP) candidates. It was the first time the Scottish National Party won the largest share of the European election vote in Scotland, and it was the first time since 1918 Labour had failed to come first in a Welsh election. It was the DUP's worst ever European election result: the party had previously topped the poll in every European election in Northern Ireland since the first one in 1979.] //
// The European Parliament election was the United Kingdom's component of the 2009 European Parliament election, the voting for which was held on Thursday 4 June 2009, coinciding with the 2009 local elections in England. Most of the results of the election were announced on Sunday 7 June.
In total, 72 Members of the European Parliament were elected from the United Kingdom using proportional representation. (This figure would have been 73 if the Lisbon Treaty had entered into force by June 2009.) England, Scotland and Wales used the D'Hondt method of PR, whilst Northern Ireland used Single Transferable Vote (STV). Owing to the expansion of the European Union, the number of members elected for the United Kingdom was fewer than in 2004. This is because the total number of MEPs increased temporarily with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, but was subsequently reduced again in accordance with the Treaty of Nice. The number of members elected from each region was modified by the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission, based on the size of the electorate in each region.
Notable outcomes were the significant drop in support for the Labour Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) finishing second in a major election for the first time in its history, and the election of two British National Party (BNP) candidates. It was the first time the Scottish National Party won the largest share of the European election vote in Scotland, and it was the first time since 1918 Labour had failed to come first in a Welsh election. It was the DUP's worst ever European election result: the party had previously topped the poll in every European election in Northern Ireland since the first one in 1979.] //
You don't have one MEP - you have several for the region you live in.
http://www.europarl.o...n/your-meps/your-meps
http://www.europarl.o...n/your-meps/your-meps
You have a number
If you are in South East England you can choose to go to a Tory like Danniel Hannan, Peter Skinner - Labour a lib dem like Sharron Bowles or Even a U-Kipper - Nigel Farage (as long as it's not for flying lessons)
This is an advantage - If you want to go to your MP who is a member of the governing party to protest government policy you are on a hiding to nothing.
Where you have a number to choose from you can pick the most sympathetic
If you are in South East England you can choose to go to a Tory like Danniel Hannan, Peter Skinner - Labour a lib dem like Sharron Bowles or Even a U-Kipper - Nigel Farage (as long as it's not for flying lessons)
This is an advantage - If you want to go to your MP who is a member of the governing party to protest government policy you are on a hiding to nothing.
Where you have a number to choose from you can pick the most sympathetic
Just a tit bit - re the negotiations going on between Lib Dems Tories Labour - under PR In Belgium this process takes usually between 1 month and 3 months sometimes a bit longer - a four year consensual legislative programme is worked out by parties forming coalition and afterwards smoothly executed over the term of office
“[the agreed programme] ...smoothly executed over the term of office.”
A wonderful system which last month saw (since you raised it) the collapse of the five party Belgian coalition following a row over which language should be used in a multi-lingual district. In 2008 a similar dispute saw the country without an effective government for over six months. If that’s smooth I’d hate to see rough.
In effect everybody gets what virtually nobody actually wants, and they are given a bit of what they are prepared to put up with just to keep them quiet.
Just what the UK could do with at the moment.
PR can be used in elections to the European “Parliament” because Euro MPs are neither use nor ornament and nobody really cares how they are elected, or indeed if they are elected at all.
A wonderful system which last month saw (since you raised it) the collapse of the five party Belgian coalition following a row over which language should be used in a multi-lingual district. In 2008 a similar dispute saw the country without an effective government for over six months. If that’s smooth I’d hate to see rough.
In effect everybody gets what virtually nobody actually wants, and they are given a bit of what they are prepared to put up with just to keep them quiet.
Just what the UK could do with at the moment.
PR can be used in elections to the European “Parliament” because Euro MPs are neither use nor ornament and nobody really cares how they are elected, or indeed if they are elected at all.
With PR if the country is attacked they all sit down and discuss how to react. The Tories say fight , the Lib/dems would say let everyone disarm and Labour would only react as long as it didn't infringe the enemies human rights. The enemy would then be invited to attend meaningful negotiations in the interest of the country.
New Judge - I always like your informative posts but I have to disagree with you on PR
All systems are imperfect but FPP is innately unfair - in a nutshell it’s Disproportionate Representation - a distorted unfair system. Whilst no doubt you can cite examples of occasional problems with PR systems elsewhere, I suggest that if PR generally didn’t work well then most of Europe wouldn’t be using it on the scale that countries in Europe do now .
Today in a BBC article on the UK coalition: 'Why the rush?' a Dutch journalist Gert-Jan van Teeffelen
London correspondent for De Volkskrant in a BBC writes:-
“From a Dutch perspective, the coalition horse-trading going on in London now is completely normal. But the feverish nature of the negotiations, and the impatience of the media, is not.
I was looking yesterday at the results of the 1974 general election in the UK: the Liberal Party won six million votes, and got 14 seats in parliament, Labour and the Conservatives won twice as many votes, and got 20 times as many seats, about 300 each.
If this happened in a Dutch election there would be riots!
The system used in the Netherlands, in Germany and most of the Nordic countries may look messy from a British perspective. But if you look at the end result, and ask if the countries are stable and prosperous, the answer has to be yes. “
I believe in time PR can evolve to work well and fairly for the UK - our current conditioned mindset and the tribal interests of the established political order are the real obstacles to preventing PR.
All systems are imperfect but FPP is innately unfair - in a nutshell it’s Disproportionate Representation - a distorted unfair system. Whilst no doubt you can cite examples of occasional problems with PR systems elsewhere, I suggest that if PR generally didn’t work well then most of Europe wouldn’t be using it on the scale that countries in Europe do now .
Today in a BBC article on the UK coalition: 'Why the rush?' a Dutch journalist Gert-Jan van Teeffelen
London correspondent for De Volkskrant in a BBC writes:-
“From a Dutch perspective, the coalition horse-trading going on in London now is completely normal. But the feverish nature of the negotiations, and the impatience of the media, is not.
I was looking yesterday at the results of the 1974 general election in the UK: the Liberal Party won six million votes, and got 14 seats in parliament, Labour and the Conservatives won twice as many votes, and got 20 times as many seats, about 300 each.
If this happened in a Dutch election there would be riots!
The system used in the Netherlands, in Germany and most of the Nordic countries may look messy from a British perspective. But if you look at the end result, and ask if the countries are stable and prosperous, the answer has to be yes. “
I believe in time PR can evolve to work well and fairly for the UK - our current conditioned mindset and the tribal interests of the established political order are the real obstacles to preventing PR.
It depends what you want a government for, OD.
When I was young there were only three TV channels to choose from and we only had one TV. When there was a dispute between my parents, my siblings and me over what we should watch we did not watch the first ten minutes of “Wagon Train”, the middle ten minutes of “Gunsmoke” and the last ten minutes of “Wyatt Earp”. We took a vote and the majority held sway.
So long as party politics exists and so long as there are more than two parties Governments elected by any sort of PR system will never be able to enact their entire programme. They will always watch ten minutes of each western. When there is disagreement about what a government should do it is no use pussyfooting around trying to please all the people all the time. It cannot be done. Voters elect MPs but Governments are chosen by those MPs to govern not appease every minority that shouts loudly enough. It’s called democracy and it means that everybody cannot always have what they all want.
The current situation is a rarity and has been dealt with as well as possible. Indeed it would not have happened had the present system been fair by making all constituencies the same size. If either of the two main parties had secured an outright majority this issue would never have been on the table and Brown would not have made his death-bed conversion to PR.
Any PR system will always result in this situation following elections. Just because it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to follow suit.
When I was young there were only three TV channels to choose from and we only had one TV. When there was a dispute between my parents, my siblings and me over what we should watch we did not watch the first ten minutes of “Wagon Train”, the middle ten minutes of “Gunsmoke” and the last ten minutes of “Wyatt Earp”. We took a vote and the majority held sway.
So long as party politics exists and so long as there are more than two parties Governments elected by any sort of PR system will never be able to enact their entire programme. They will always watch ten minutes of each western. When there is disagreement about what a government should do it is no use pussyfooting around trying to please all the people all the time. It cannot be done. Voters elect MPs but Governments are chosen by those MPs to govern not appease every minority that shouts loudly enough. It’s called democracy and it means that everybody cannot always have what they all want.
The current situation is a rarity and has been dealt with as well as possible. Indeed it would not have happened had the present system been fair by making all constituencies the same size. If either of the two main parties had secured an outright majority this issue would never have been on the table and Brown would not have made his death-bed conversion to PR.
Any PR system will always result in this situation following elections. Just because it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to follow suit.
Hello Judge
////So long as party politics exists and so long as there are more than two parties Governments elected by any sort of PR system will never be able to enact their entire programme///. - they don’t anyway under FFP - policies are changed, dropped, broken. PR is all about sensible compromise where more of voting population gets some of if not all of what they want .
. ///When there is disagreement about what a government should do it is no use pussyfooting around trying to please all the people all the time. It cannot be done./// - I agree you cant please all the all the people all the time - but you can please a wider spectrum (if that is what the vote throws up) rather than to unfairly keep pleasing the same disproportionate sections/tribes. Compromise and fainess is what its all about .
////Voters elect MPs but Governments are chosen by those MPs to govern not appease every minority that shouts loudly enough. It’s called democracy and it means that everybody cannot always have what they all want.//// PR is also called democracy and also means that everybody cannot always have what they all want - but you get a fairer chance and fairer distribution of wants met .
///Any PR system will always result in this situation following elections. Just because it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to follow suit. ///
I have no problem with the current situation and really hope it works with honest goodwill - as apparently do Cameron & Co and Clegg & Co - its fairer than just one of the 2 tribes on its own - even the Tribes are coalitions ! we should follow suit
Have done you a bit more on separate post
////So long as party politics exists and so long as there are more than two parties Governments elected by any sort of PR system will never be able to enact their entire programme///. - they don’t anyway under FFP - policies are changed, dropped, broken. PR is all about sensible compromise where more of voting population gets some of if not all of what they want .
. ///When there is disagreement about what a government should do it is no use pussyfooting around trying to please all the people all the time. It cannot be done./// - I agree you cant please all the all the people all the time - but you can please a wider spectrum (if that is what the vote throws up) rather than to unfairly keep pleasing the same disproportionate sections/tribes. Compromise and fainess is what its all about .
////Voters elect MPs but Governments are chosen by those MPs to govern not appease every minority that shouts loudly enough. It’s called democracy and it means that everybody cannot always have what they all want.//// PR is also called democracy and also means that everybody cannot always have what they all want - but you get a fairer chance and fairer distribution of wants met .
///Any PR system will always result in this situation following elections. Just because it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to follow suit. ///
I have no problem with the current situation and really hope it works with honest goodwill - as apparently do Cameron & Co and Clegg & Co - its fairer than just one of the 2 tribes on its own - even the Tribes are coalitions ! we should follow suit
Have done you a bit more on separate post
Local government proves 'hung parliaments' can work. Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority
Britain has largely come to terms with coalition government and administrations where one party manages to stay in control without commanding an overall majority. A sweeping statement? Maybe once, but no longer. Yet, surprisingly, many senior politicians seem unaware that, away from the Westminster village, sharing power is often the norm, rather than the exception.
From a national perspective, coping with what some call a "hung parliament", and others label a "balanced" legislature, may seem a step into the political unknown, a recipe for indecision, compromise and weak government. In a party election broadcast last week, the Conservatives even parodied a "hung parliament party". They should have known better.
Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority. In Scotland, where proportional representation has been introduced for local elections, only three of the 33 councils have majority control, while the Scottish government itself is run by an SNP minority administration.
During the last decade, Labour has lost control of a string of large towns and cities, and the political make-up of "local Britain" has changed beyond recognition. For some councillors, this "new normal" in town halls provides a fascinating insight into how Westminster might function
Britain has largely come to terms with coalition government and administrations where one party manages to stay in control without commanding an overall majority. A sweeping statement? Maybe once, but no longer. Yet, surprisingly, many senior politicians seem unaware that, away from the Westminster village, sharing power is often the norm, rather than the exception.
From a national perspective, coping with what some call a "hung parliament", and others label a "balanced" legislature, may seem a step into the political unknown, a recipe for indecision, compromise and weak government. In a party election broadcast last week, the Conservatives even parodied a "hung parliament party". They should have known better.
Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority. In Scotland, where proportional representation has been introduced for local elections, only three of the 33 councils have majority control, while the Scottish government itself is run by an SNP minority administration.
During the last decade, Labour has lost control of a string of large towns and cities, and the political make-up of "local Britain" has changed beyond recognition. For some councillors, this "new normal" in town halls provides a fascinating insight into how Westminster might function
Thanks for the comprehensive and well thought out reply, OD.
I won’t prolong the debate any further as I think we both know each other’s points of view. Time will tell whether the “new politics” we are now dealt with works or not. I sincerely hope it does. I just want the UK to do well and, whatever one’s colours, I think most of us accepted that it was clearly suffering under the last regime in many respects, not only financial.
Nice to have a pleasant and grown up debate for a change without it degenerating into a “Loonie Left vs Rabid Right” slanging match!
I won’t prolong the debate any further as I think we both know each other’s points of view. Time will tell whether the “new politics” we are now dealt with works or not. I sincerely hope it does. I just want the UK to do well and, whatever one’s colours, I think most of us accepted that it was clearly suffering under the last regime in many respects, not only financial.
Nice to have a pleasant and grown up debate for a change without it degenerating into a “Loonie Left vs Rabid Right” slanging match!
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.