General Election 2010 Page 114

Most of Europe uses PR right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Quote: chipolata @ May 8 2010, 5:59 PM BST

Well, it can be. Italy had a Proportional Representation voting system between the end of the second world war and the early nineties, and had something like forty odd different governments in that time. Massively corrupt and incompetent governments, I should add. And the Italians know how to do corruption and incompetence properly. Not like us.

:D

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 8 2010, 6:10 PM BST

Most of Europe uses PR right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Most of Europe use a single currency and different languages. Doesn't make it right, or indeed right for us.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 6:12 PM BST

Most of Europe use a single currency and different languages. Doesn't make it right, or indeed right for us.

Clearly. Just pointing out that taking one example of a f**ked up PR nation decades ago doesn't really mean anything.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 8 2010, 6:14 PM BST

Clearly. Just pointing out that taking one example of a f**ked up PR nation decades ago doesn't really mean anything.

Except that it indicates that there are dangers to PR and we shouldn't just jump into it willy-nilly.

Quote: chipolata @ May 8 2010, 6:20 PM BST

Except that it indicates that there are dangers to PR and we shouldn't just jump into it willy-nilly.

Only if the Italian governments' ineptitude and corruption was the fault of PR.

The system favoured by Labour is Single Transferable Vote, which would keep the loonies out, and ensure that the candidate who is most palatable to the most voters is elected. I don't buy the argument that no-one gets the MP they really want, most people are not that keen on any of them, and there is no reason why 60% of he electorate should be represented by someone they despise because the other 40% voted for them.

The great thing about a hung parliament is that it stops the Executive from doing really stupid things. Like introducing Poll Taxes or wasting a fortune on ID cards.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 6:26 PM BST

The great thing about a hung parliament is that it stops the Executive from doing really stupid things. Like introducing Poll Taxes or wasting a fortune on ID cards.

You could also argue that it stops governments from doing anything truly radical or visionary. It means that you have governments that are essentially eunuchs.

Except that history tells us this does not happen in practice. Look at Europe after the war, some momentous decisions were made and carried out, including the forming of the EU, and the majority of govts there were coalitions.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 6:48 PM BST

Except that history tells us this does not happen in practice. Look at Europe after the war, some momentous decisions were made and carried out, including the forming of the EU, and the majority of govts there were coalitions.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems are going to have to make some pretty drastic cuts. It'll be interesting to see if they can, or if they won't have the balls for it.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 6:26 PM BST

The great thing about a hung parliament is that it stops the Executive from doing really stupid things. Like introducing Poll Taxes or wasting a fortune on ID cards.

And if that's the worst our British governments have ever done to its people then it's pretty inconsequential. And a bit of a laugh in the Poll Tax case, since they tried it on the Scottish first.

Quote: bigfella @ May 8 2010, 4:46 PM BST

Nick Griffin the big winner! Not good.

But can our system be fair where labour got 9 million votes and the lib dems 6 million and there is such a differance in the number of seats.

Maybe people would have voted differently if we'd had PR. Tactical voting would change completely.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 6:26 PM BST

The system favoured by Labour is Single Transferable Vote, which would keep the loonies out, and ensure that the candidate who is most palatable to the most voters is elected. I don't buy the argument that no-one gets the MP they really want, most people are not that keen on any of them, and there is no reason why 60% of he electorate should be represented by someone they despise because the other 40% voted for them.

The great thing about a hung parliament is that it stops the Executive from doing really stupid things. Like introducing Poll Taxes or wasting a fortune on ID cards.

Nope AFAICS, labour want the Alternative Vote system http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492272.stm
and Lib Dem want STV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

My mistake, it was the Alternative Vote system I had in mind. I confess to being baffled by STV.

what really grabs me is the amount of time politicians do spend debating , most people don't get paid unless they produce some output , I mean tackling these so called important issues is one thing the question is how important are politicians ive racked my brain and can,t think of anything they do other than argue like f**k all the time and get drunk its like the proverbial football indifference were people just get brought up to drink and fight over a game , I take politics seriously when I want to but the country really is run by the civil service lets face it I know if the is a war we need someone to push all those so called buttons etc ,if we have proportional rep etc we would of been nuked waiting for them to agree who pushes the f**ken thing , I mean what are politicians needed for
this sounds weird why don't we all vote on all issues by referendum it makes sense cut down on the politicians entirely and get the military commander in chief to take care of any button pushing and the security council , and there we have it .

Quote: micky v @ May 8 2010, 11:44 PM BST

what really grabs me is the amount of time politicians do spend debating , most people don't get paid unless they produce some output , I mean tackling these so called important issues is one thing the question is how important are politicians ive racked my brain and can,t think of anything they do other than argue like f**k all the time and get drunk its like the proverbial football indifference were people just get brought up to drink and fight over a game , I take politics seriously when I want to but the country really is run by the civil service lets face it I know if the is a war we need someone to push all those so called buttons etc ,if we have proportional rep etc we would of been nuked waiting for them to agree who pushes the f**ken thing , I mean what are politicians needed for
this sounds weird why don't we all vote on all issues by referendum it makes sense cut down on the politicians entirely and get the military commander in chief to take care of any button pushing and the security council , and there we have it .

Erm, welcome. I'll get in before the grammar/punctuation Gestapo. Tidy it up a bit.

Quote: micky v @ May 8 2010, 11:44 PM BST

what really grabs me is the amount of time politicians do spend debating , most people don't get paid unless they produce some output , I mean tackling these so called important issues is one thing the question is how important are politicians ive racked my brain and can,t think of anything they do other than argue like f**k all the time and get drunk its like the proverbial football indifference were people just get brought up to drink and fight over a game , I take politics seriously when I want to but the country really is run by the civil service lets face it I know if the is a war we need someone to push all those so called buttons etc ,if we have proportional rep etc we would of been nuked waiting for them to agree who pushes the f**ken thing , I mean what are politicians needed for
this sounds weird why don't we all vote on all issues by referendum it makes sense cut down on the politicians entirely and get the military commander in chief to take care of any button pushing and the security council , and there we have it .

I thought we had a coalition government through most of WW II

The prior one-party (?) govmt had old wishy-washy Chamberlain in charge.