Sunak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The Tories sometimes manage to pull 4 out of 10 voters and that's enough as the opposition is divided .

That still means that 6 out of 10 people who vote don't vote Tory

So if the tory stranglehold on power is to be loosened we need a decent labour party, a decent liberal party or a united opposition .

---

And Tony Blair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

And Tony Blair

---

I think if Labour had a decent leader ......and before he invaded Iraq Blair was that man .....it would probably have enough in the tank to defeat the Tories.

But not with Starmer in charge . That's my view . He's not up to it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I think if Labour had a decent leader ......and before he invaded Iraq Blair was that man .....it would probably have enough in the tank to defeat the Tories.

But not with Starmer in charge . That's my view . He's not up to it .

---

Spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The Tories sometimes manage to pull 4 out of 10 voters and that's enough as the opposition is divided .

That still means that 6 out of 10 people who vote don't vote Tory

So if the tory stranglehold on power is to be loosened we need a decent labour party, a decent liberal party or a united opposition .

---

Put like that, it’s bleeding obvious that we need proportional representation not just to get the Tories out, but also to ensure a fairer representation of what the voters wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Put like that, it’s bleeding obvious that we need proportional representation not just to get the Tories out, but also to ensure a fairer representation of what the voters wanted.

---

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats.

This would mean that lots of constituencies in a general election would be represented by an MP who failed to gain the most votes.

Would that be an acceptable scenario in your constituency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats.

This would mean that lots of constituencies in a general election would be represented by an MP who failed to gain the most votes.

Would that be an acceptable scenario in your constituency?

---

I’d prefer that to .the current system where we always end up with Governments that around 40 per cent of the voters want.

Anyway, you’ve described one example of proportional representation there, there are others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats.

This would mean that lots of constituencies in a general election would be represented by an MP who failed to gain the most votes.

Would that be an acceptable scenario in your constituency?

---

Constituencies would have to change. PR would have a ripple effect right through the political system.

We could be into bigger constituencies backed up by regional lists for top-up MPs to achieve proportionality, or any of dozens of other models in use around the world that have been designed to achieve PR.

What can't work is 650 constituencies that operate just like now but with 'allocated MPs' from some national PR machine.

Although as others have said in most constituencies the sitting MP who 'represents the area' and does all the casework was not voted in by the majority of the electors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats.

This would mean that lots of constituencies in a general election would be represented by an MP who failed to gain the most votes.

Would that be an acceptable scenario in your constituency?

---

I would certainly accept it over the current system. One overarching benefit is that PR would tend to exclude more extremist policies from either side of the Great Divide.

I think there is a better than fair chance this approach would result in more pragmatic politics better suited to tackle challenging issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’d prefer that to .the current system where we always end up with Governments that around 40 per cent of the voters want.

Anyway, you’ve described one example of proportional representation there, there are others.

---

I don’t see any other way of getting things done than first last the post.

All others lead to deadlock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

I don’t see any other way of getting things done than first last the post.

All others lead to deadlock.

---

Back in 2019:

Attachment 5059

Attachment 5060

Tories had 70 more seats that they would have done under ‘simple’ P.R.

Labour had 14 fewer.

Lib Dems were the party with the most to gripe about, given the share of their vote. However many of these votes cast for Lib Dems were probably protest votes i.e. anything but Tory or Labour.

Ditto for ‘Green’ voters.

SNP got more than they ‘deserved’.

The ‘rest’ are largely insignificant in terms of making an argument for P.R.

So basically 45% voted Tory and 45% voted Labour / Lib Dem.

Not sure whether P.R. would be that much fairer.

Chaos would ensue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

I don’t see any other way of getting things done than first last the post.

All others lead to deadlock.

---

Judging by how many swivel eyed loons are currently engaged as politicians, deadlock and inaction might prove a blessing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

I don’t see any other way of getting things done than first last the post.

All others lead to deadlock.

---

Or compromise. Politics is too confrontational and increasingly too extreme so something needs to change.

We will never have pr in this country

It helps out the liberals and others who get a fair amount of support yet few seats

The liberals went in with the Tories for a chance of a form of pr but the country wasn't even interested in getting off its arse to vote

I think even the labour party campaigned against pr ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

Or compromise. Politics is too confrontational and increasingly too extreme so something needs to change.

---

I can't stand corbyn and his gang in the same way I don't mind moderate Tories like the Ken Clarke of twenty years ago

John Major was a moderate fella too

If we could have a centrist party with liberal social policy it would get my vote

I thought the defection of a few liberal , tory and Labour mps with that chukka ummuna was the start but it was a damp lettuce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

We will never have pr in this country

It helps out the liberals and others who get a fair amount of support yet few seats

The liberals went in with the Tories for a chance of a form of pr but the country wasn't even interested in getting off its arse to vote

I think even the labour party campaigned against pr ?

---

Labour was officially, if half-heartedly, in support of a change to the Alternative Vote system, but the party was completely split internally. The most high profile Labour people campaigned (with the Tories) to keep First Past The Post.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Labour was officially, if half-heartedly, in support of a change to the Alternative Vote system, but the party was completely split internally. The most high profile Labour people campaigned (with the Tories) to keep First Past The Post.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341

---

Margaret Beckett , dreadful woman

Rishi Sunak is an anagram of Hi Risk ànus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacAdder

Rishi Sunak is an anagram of Hi Risk ànus

---

Any for the other idiot ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’d prefer that to .the current system where we always end up with Governments that around 40 per cent of the voters want.

Anyway, you’ve described one example of proportional representation there, there are others.

---

I have analysed the 2019 Cardiff North results ... born and bred in Coryton!

Attachment 5064

Even though 77% was not a bad turnout, it cannot be said that the Labour vote represented 49.5% of the Cardiff North electorate.

About 70% of those eligible to vote did not express a preference for the winning candidate ... although some would have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

I have analysed the 2019 Cardiff North results ... born and bred in Coryton!

Attachment 5064

Even though 77% was not a bad turnout, it cannot be said that the Labour vote represented 49.5% of the Cardiff North electorate.

About 70% of those eligible to vote did not express a preference for the winning candidate.

---

There have always been loads of Taffy Tories in Cardiff North

May as well piss off over the bridge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

There have always been loads of Taffy Tories in Cardiff North

May as well piss off over the bridge

---

Don't get the logic of your argument there!

By the way, I have no political affiliation ... but I'll always support the blues.

I, and many others, pissed off over the bridge in 1982, if that helps.

She's on tv now about ......growing the economy ......and avoiding the recession by giving people ......she means the ones who will vote her in as prime minister ......money to spend

She's not living in reality , a shit storm is coming and she's just after power

Take her out and shoot her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

Don't get your argument there!

By the way, I have no political affiliation ... but I pissed off over the bridge in 1982, if that helps.

---

I think you do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

She's on tv now about ......growing the economy ......and avoiding the recession by giving people ......she means the ones who will vote her in as prime minister ......money to spend

She's not living in reality , a shit storm is coming and she's just after power

Take her out and shoot her

---

I actually agree with your sentiment.

She used her 'influence' as foreign secretary, in the Russia / Ukraine crisis that could have prompted M.A.D. had Putin taken her comments seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ervative-power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forest Green Bluebird

I actually agree with your sentiment.

She used her 'influence' as foreign secretary, in the Russia / Ukraine crisis that could have prompted M.A.D. had Putin taken her comments seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ervative-power

---

Awful woman