I really don't think you understand what you are saying. STV is a system of voting for MPs. It is more proportionate than FPTP, and is therefore likely to produce a mix of MPs rather closer to the percentage of votes the parties garner than FPTP. In almost every country where any system of proportional representation is used, coalitions are the norm, not the exception. Your suggestion would lead to more, not fewer, coalitions: the very opposite of your stated aim. You might want to do some reading.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?
- Thread starter Giz
- Start date
I really don't think you understand what you are saying. STV is a system of voting for MPs. It is more proportionate than FPTP, and is therefore likely to produce a mix of MPs rather closer to the percentage of votes the parties garner than FPTP. In almost every country where any system of proportional representation is used, coalitions are the norm, not the exception. Your suggestion would lead to more, not fewer, coalitions: the very opposite of your stated aim. You might want to do some reading.
Yep.....old fashioned tax-and-spend left wing economics. Add the ridiculous promise for "quantitative easing for the people" (= printing money), and we'll have mega inflation such as we haven't seen for decades. This stuff doesn't work for long, and then the Conservatives have to come along and clean up the mess.... yet again.
If anyone doesn't think "higher taxation for the rich" hasn't been tried before......there was a 98% tax rate in the 70's. Remember the brain drain? The rich are remarkably flexible in where they live, as the French, trying the exact same strategy, are finding out to their cost.
Except when they paid out in advance, wrongly, against the results of the recent Greek referendum. I called it wrong but still got paid to the tune of a small crate of retsina.
And Tiger Woods at the 2009 USPGA, where he lost his lead after punters got paid.
But I think The Don is right - it's publicity at relatively little cost in the grand scheme of things.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,062
The funny part about that is that you see it as a negative, when the reality is that coalition governments formed in countries with sensible proportional representation work extremely well.
And in quite well-known countries, too!
Germany, Holland, Norway and Sweden to note a few.
A lot more.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,062
Ok then - they're not as clever as I expected them to be. I'd only seen them paying winners. Still, even the hundy they're paying out on Corbyn is very small potatoes if they get it wrong.
As you both say, probably more publicity than if they'd spent the 100k on ads.
Dead safe on this one, though.
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,544
Direct democracy, internet style. Could get interesting.
I am sure we are not going to agree but when the UK has more people in poverty than Hungary or the Czech Republic then I hardly think the Conservatives are cleaning up any mess. The evidence suggests that almost 30% of the UK population live in poverty, if that is not a mess then we have very different measurements of what constitutes a mess. This means that between 2.3 million (if you exclude housing costs which the conservatives do when talking about this subject) and 4.1 million children in the UK live in poverty (if you do not exclude housing costs). See the tables in the links below we don't do particularly well whatever slice of the poverty cake we look at. This is the real issue that Corbyn can tackle. I have included both the EU study and the UK parliaments own research briefing on poverty.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...020_indicators_-_poverty_and_social_exclusion
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf
Last edited:
megaresp
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 715
So far it hasn't proven 'dangerous' in New Zealand, or Germany.
What do you mean by 'dangerous?' Dangerous to who?
Perhaps it's worth comparing your opinion about PR with the outcomes produced by real coalition governments. You'll find they are, for the most part, no more 'dangerous' than the outcomes produced by FTP.
In my view, voting under MMP (the PR system I have experience of) is far more productive (as a voter) than voting under FTP, if you happen not to support one of the major parties.
In New Zealand I was able to cast my vote for the local MP I liked best, regardless of his/her party affiliation; and the party I liked most, knowing said party had a genuine chance at power (albeit as a junior coalition partner).
This is infinitely superior to the FTP system in play here in the UK, which New Zealander's had the good sense to dump decades ago. And, I'm happy to report, subsequently rejected all over again 10 years later.
ETA: In the last UK election I wanted to vote for my local MP (Labour), as he is a great local representative. The party I wanted to vote for was LibDem, but they attracted 13% of the vote in 2010 so...no point voting for them.
In the end, I voted for neither because FTP forced me to vote against Miliband. The current UK system is the palest possible shade of democracy.
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
You have it backwards. STV and all forms of voting that result in greater proportional representation than winner-takes-all, are more likely to deliver coalitions not less.
Which is good in my view. And more democratic yes
So careful what you wish for. (Shouldn't have told you probably)
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,062
Conservatives.
Their coalition partners are almost always a calming influence.
Best argument against STV is Clive Palmer.
And the last UK government provided support for that opinion.
To my shame during the coalition I did not give the LibDems enough credit for stifling the Conservatives' baser instincts
Francesca R
Girl
3 point 14 sees it as negative.
Francesca R
Girl
Yeah I remember all the "Thanks Clegg!" type posts made on this forum for five years.
There were one or two from me, and something along those lines from you too, I recall.
That's because people always forget how bad the tories are when in power and are always shocked when the tories do what they say they would do!
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
Somehow I had conflated the electing of an MP with the electing of a PM.
Your point is taken. That it may be difficult to find a system that will never produce a hung parliment.
I maintain that a coalition government is deeply undemocratic for the reasons outlined above.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
To my shame during the coalition I did not give the LibDems enough credit for stifling the Conservatives' baser instincts
I don't think any of us did.
angrysoba
Philosophile
To my shame during the coalition I did not give the LibDems enough credit for stifling the Conservatives' baser instincts
Not saying that you are wrong, but what exactly did the Lib Dems do in terms of restraining the Tories?
As far as I can see:
- They slowed the privatisation of the NHS - it has sped on apace since then
- They restricted benefits and welfare cuts - since the election the proposals have been swingeing
- They continued the green agenda. For example proposed changes to building regulations to make houses far more energy efficient (at the expense of slightly higher build costs) have been shelved
- They supported human rights by opposing the so-called "snoopers' charter" and the Conservatives' intention to scrap the Human Rights Act
- They tempered Conservatives' attack on the BBC and the handing over of British media to Dirty Digger and his cronies
- They put the brakes on the Conservatives' ongoing erosion of employment rights
I'm sure that there are more