Your voting intentions
Poll: Your voting intentions
Total Members Polled: 1251
Discussion
Bill said:
bad company said:
I like Nigel Farage though, he seems fearless & honest.
Anyway, the poll is interesting. Labour is ahead, which is iirc unprecedented on PH, and Reform have barely scraped double figures. If they don't "speak for the silent majority" on PH they're f
ked in the real world.Farage does come across very well when doing interviews though, and he certainly knows what buttons to press. That Tice bloke is a vote-loser though, wetter than Davey.
bad company said:
My current thoughts which could change by tomorrow:-
Conservative. I generally approve of their policies but they failed to deliver on many previous promises. Also some terrible leadership over recent years.
Labour. The policies look ok but very worried about taxes they haven’t mentioned and could increase. Also worried about likely increased union power. Kier Starmer seems bland and uninspiring. Will he stand up to the left wing?
Lib/Dem. They’ve said they’d raise taxes which is at least honest. Ed Davey comes across as a clown to me. What on earth is he doing being photographed falling into the water. Does he really think that’ll win him votes?
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he seems fearless & honest.
Green. Unelectable imo though they have my gratitude and respect for influencing the major parties to adopt some green policies.
The general consensus where I've heard it being discussed is that Ed Davey has played it very well. To understand why, just ask yourself, in an election where everything is about impending Torygeddon, seats Labour are likely to win for the first time ever and the rise of Reform here against a backdrop of populism rising across Europe, how much attention would the Libdems have got at all without the prat falls? The fact that they're seeing even modest lifts in the polls suggests that when he did the serious stuff, it did get an audience.Conservative. I generally approve of their policies but they failed to deliver on many previous promises. Also some terrible leadership over recent years.
Labour. The policies look ok but very worried about taxes they haven’t mentioned and could increase. Also worried about likely increased union power. Kier Starmer seems bland and uninspiring. Will he stand up to the left wing?
Lib/Dem. They’ve said they’d raise taxes which is at least honest. Ed Davey comes across as a clown to me. What on earth is he doing being photographed falling into the water. Does he really think that’ll win him votes?
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he seems fearless & honest.
Green. Unelectable imo though they have my gratitude and respect for influencing the major parties to adopt some green policies.
I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
Kermit power said:
The general consensus where I've heard it being discussed is that Ed Davey has played it very well. To understand why, just ask yourself, in an election where everything is about impending Torygeddon, seats Labour are likely to win for the first time ever and the rise of Reform here against a backdrop of populism rising across Europe, how much attention would the Libdems have got at all without the prat falls? The fact that they're seeing even modest lifts in the polls suggests that when he did the serious stuff, it did get an audience.
I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
Good post. Completely agree regarding Ed Davey - it’s a very clever campaign and their local strategy is first class. Hoping the LDs do really well in the SE and clean up a few Tory ministers. 30/35 seats - maybe more??I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
Kermit power said:
bad company said:
My current thoughts which could change by tomorrow:-
Conservative. I generally approve of their policies but they failed to deliver on many previous promises. Also some terrible leadership over recent years.
Labour. The policies look ok but very worried about taxes they haven’t mentioned and could increase. Also worried about likely increased union power. Kier Starmer seems bland and uninspiring. Will he stand up to the left wing?
Lib/Dem. They’ve said they’d raise taxes which is at least honest. Ed Davey comes across as a clown to me. What on earth is he doing being photographed falling into the water. Does he really think that’ll win him votes?
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he seems fearless & honest.
Green. Unelectable imo though they have my gratitude and respect for influencing the major parties to adopt some green policies.
The general consensus where I've heard it being discussed is that Ed Davey has played it very well. To understand why, just ask yourself, in an election where everything is about impending Torygeddon, seats Labour are likely to win for the first time ever and the rise of Reform here against a backdrop of populism rising across Europe, how much attention would the Libdems have got at all without the prat falls? The fact that they're seeing even modest lifts in the polls suggests that when he did the serious stuff, it did get an audience.Conservative. I generally approve of their policies but they failed to deliver on many previous promises. Also some terrible leadership over recent years.
Labour. The policies look ok but very worried about taxes they haven’t mentioned and could increase. Also worried about likely increased union power. Kier Starmer seems bland and uninspiring. Will he stand up to the left wing?
Lib/Dem. They’ve said they’d raise taxes which is at least honest. Ed Davey comes across as a clown to me. What on earth is he doing being photographed falling into the water. Does he really think that’ll win him votes?
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he seems fearless & honest.
Green. Unelectable imo though they have my gratitude and respect for influencing the major parties to adopt some green policies.
I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
Kermit power said:
The general consensus where I've heard it being discussed is that Ed Davey has played it very well. To understand why, just ask yourself, in an election where everything is about impending Torygeddon, seats Labour are likely to win for the first time ever and the rise of Reform here against a backdrop of populism rising across Europe, how much attention would the Libdems have got at all without the prat falls? The fact that they're seeing even modest lifts in the polls suggests that when he did the serious stuff, it did get an audience.
I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
Agreed here too.I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
turbobloke said:
Sure the theory sounds great, but in real-world UK, AV was unacceptable and as a result, PR will be acceptable? Wakey wakey. Politics is often said to be the art of the possible.'
Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
AV was opposed by the Tories and Labour.Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
PR is the opposite of totalitarian, unlike FPTP.
turbobloke said:
Sure the theory sounds great, but in real-world UK, AV was unacceptable and as a result, PR will be acceptable? Wakey wakey. Politics is often said to be the art of the possible.'
Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
AV is NOT Proportional Representation.Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
It can actually produce even less proportional representation than FPTP in some circumstances, and that's not just theoretical circumstances either. As this article shows, AV would've further exacerbated the distortions of FPTP in the 2015 General Election.
If you scroll down, you'll see a table showing the relative returns under each different system. Keeping to UKIP, as the forerunners of Reform today, they polled 12.6% of the national vote, so in a system giving as close to true proportionality as you can get, they should've had 82 MPs in parliament (since you can't have .774 of an MP). They didn't get 82 MPs, of course, so you tell me which you think would've been the fairest outcome from those shown below? All you need to do is give us the number, although you're welcome to explain your reasoning if you'd like.
1. Under FPTP, they got one single MP, and the Greens, SNP & Plaid Cymru combined got 60 MPs having polled a total of 9.1% of the national vote between them.
2. Under AV, they would still have only got 1 seat. and the Greens, SNP & Plaid would have fallen back slightly, winning a mere 58 seats.
3. Under Single Transferrable Vote (one form of PR), UKIP would've received 54 MPs for their 12.6% of the vote, with the other three receiving 40 for their 9.1%.
4. Under List PR, UKIP would've received 80 seats (and remember, true proportionality would've given them 81.77), and the others would've received 55 between them.
So you tell me. Which of those do you think would have been fairest, and which comes closest to "some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition", whatever that actually means?
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Sure the theory sounds great, but in real-world UK, AV was unacceptable and as a result, PR will be acceptable? Wakey wakey. Politics is often said to be the art of the possible.'
Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
AV is NOT Proportional Representation.Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
Kermit power said:
So you tell me. Which of those do you think would have been fairest, and which comes closest to "some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition", whatever that actually means?
It means politicians imposing PR without including it as the main plank of their manifesto, or giving the voters a say in a referendum. Obvious, really, almost as obvious as me not claiming AV is the same as PR.The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
turbobloke said:
t means politicians imposing PR without including it as the main plank of their manifesto, or giving the voters a say in a referendum. Obvious, really, almost as obvious as me not claiming AV is the same as PR.
The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
Bold 1 - Who do you fear is going to do this, when, and how? What's the path to this imaginary event?The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
Bold 2 - Utterly meaningless in the wider national context. But if I were to bite, I'd say that it is indeed unreal, that such an apparently right-wing biased subset of people should be showing a clear preference for Labour. And that, were we operating under PR, that might actually be quite, quite different.
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Sure the theory sounds great, but in real-world UK, AV was unacceptable and as a result, PR will be acceptable? Wakey wakey. Politics is often said to be the art of the possible.'
Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
AV is NOT Proportional Representation.Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
Kermit power said:
So you tell me. Which of those do you think would have been fairest, and which comes closest to "some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition", whatever that actually means?
It means politicians imposing PR without including it as the main plank of their manifesto, or giving the voters a say in a referendum. Obvious, really, almost as obvious as me not claiming AV is the same as PR.The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
Kermit power said:
The general consensus where I've heard it being discussed is that Ed Davey has played it very well. To understand why, just ask yourself, in an election where everything is about impending Torygeddon, seats Labour are likely to win for the first time ever and the rise of Reform here against a backdrop of populism rising across Europe, how much attention would the Libdems have got at all without the prat falls? The fact that they're seeing even modest lifts in the polls suggests that when he did the serious stuff, it did get an audience.
I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
A very good post.. I don't agree with the vast majority of their referendum, but feel I have to vote for them because I find the level of support for Reform truly horrifying, and I think we need PR to address that.
You may view it differently, but I don't anyone will be voting Reform because they're actually the party that anyone wants in power. Farage has once again excels at what he does. He's sat down with his cronies and crafted a "contract" with a dog whistle clause for every single separate breed of dog, then thrown in some cat whistles and a couple of squirrel whistles for good measure, knowing he'll never have to worry about what happens if you put dogs, cats and squirrels in a room together.
We have a broken democratic system that has allowed the two main parties to ignore vast swathes of the electorate for decades, either by being the least worst option, or because those voters are too evenly distributed around the country to get the concentration required to win individual seats.
Reform are the Schrodinger's cat of politics. In a wealthy Western nation they simply shouldn't exist, but at the same time if 15% of the people feel so badly let down that they're going to vote for them, then they should have 15% of the seats in parliament.
Get PR working properly, and the major parties are left with two options. They can change their own policies to reengage with the disenfranchised, thus putting Reform back in the box, or they can accept having to eventually share power with Reform at the expense of having to let them implement some of their policies.
When this happens, politics is likely to become less polarised and more consensual, either because more people are feeling listened to, or because the more extreme parties fail to actually walk the walk when given the chance.
Of course, someone will be along in a moment to point out that the populists and the far right are still rising under PR in Europe and that's true, but I'd argue that that's because the mainstream parties there are attempting to do what our mainstream parties do, which is to ignore the disenfranchised and then refuse to work with the parties they vote for. That, to me, is just as much an affront to democracy as FPTP, with the difference being that if they keep not listening, eventually the extremists will take power as the largest party. They'll doubtless then fail, with much more damage being done to their countries, but so be it. I'd like to see PR brought in with some sort of law that precludes that sort of thing. Maybe parties become classified as generally left/right (other tribes may be created), and then if a large party in one of those tribes refuses to work with another in the same tribe that would've given them an overall majority, it triggers a new election?
I think the issue with modern politics is by trying to appeal to everyone, the main parties are really appealing to nobody. Trust in the political system is long gone for many, and now it seems that you are simply voting for whatever your favourite tie colour, as unlike when I was a kid, there are no longer really two opposing parties..
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
So you tell me. Which of those do you think would have been fairest, and which comes closest to "some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition", whatever that actually means?
It means politicians imposing PR without including it as the main plank of their manifesto, or giving the voters a say in a referendum. Obvious, really, almost as obvious as me not claiming AV is the same as PR.The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
There are only two parties who are ever realistically going to win power under FPTP, so strangely enough neither of those parties are including a commitment to PR in their manifestos and are never likely to, yet you think that for it to come about via any other means would be an "undemocratic totalitarian imposition"?
Meanwhile, whole swathes of the electorate carry on getting ever more frustrated and angry with their disenfranchisement. How do you see that working out for democracy in the long run?
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
So you tell me. Which of those do you think would have been fairest, and which comes closest to "some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition", whatever that actually means?
It means politicians imposing PR without including it as the main plank of their manifesto, or giving the voters a say in a referendum. Obvious, really, almost as obvious as me not claiming AV is the same as PR.The notions of fair and fairest are subjective, that carries implications for use as any kind of justification.
Meanwhile Labour remains only 7 points ahead in this PH poll. That's unreal!
There are only two parties who are ever realistically going to win power under FPTP, so strangely enough neither of those parties are including a commitment to PR in their manifestos and are never likely to, yet you think that for it to come about via any other means would be an "undemocratic totalitarian imposition"?
Meanwhile, whole swathes of the electorate carry on getting ever more frustrated and angry with their disenfranchisement. How do you see that working out for democracy in the long run?
If a referendum was called, and I mentioned AV not because I thought it was PR but because there's been a referendum on it, the chances of PR winning out are also remote, given AV was roundly rejected.
These two points together are why I also posted previously that it's fine to look at such things in theory, but it's not going to happen. Like brexit, this means those who want something else will need to accept reality.
When PR supporters have enough backing from an electable third Party (e.g, LibDems in a previous life before they imploded on brexit) then it'll become a realistic possibility. Until then things will carry on as now.
Super Sonic said:
Will be interesting to see how this poll compares to the actual election results. Will give an idea how much this place differs to the UK as a whole, politically.
Suspect pH will be more right wing than the public in general.
(No kidding Columbo!)
It’s not really PH though is it - just NP&E. Suspect pH will be more right wing than the public in general.
(No kidding Columbo!)
S600BSB said:
Super Sonic said:
Will be interesting to see how this poll compares to the actual election results. Will give an idea how much this place differs to the UK as a whole, politically.
Suspect pH will be more right wing than the public in general.
(No kidding Columbo!)
It’s not really PH though is it - just NP&E. Suspect pH will be more right wing than the public in general.
(No kidding Columbo!)
turbobloke said:
Sure the theory sounds great, but in real-world UK, AV was unacceptable and as a result, PR will be acceptable? Wakey wakey. Politics is often said to be the art of the possible.'
Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
Orange juice was unacceptable 13 years a go so, as a result, apple juice will be acceptable today?Or, is some form of undemocratic totalitarianist imposition being championed? Because 'we' know best?
I would never have voted for AV but, like many people, would have voted for PR. Very few people who support electoral reform were asking for AV. The cynic might think we were given a vote on something that interested no one precisely so people could say 'Sorry but we did a vote on electoral reform'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff