What is interesting is that pre-election the talk was about punishing the MPs for their expenses abuse but that seems to have not been a major issues for most voters.
There was a lot of talk about votef apathy but the vote appears to have increased. I've not checked so tell me if I'm wrong.
There was a lot of talk about antipathy to politics and swings to minor parties and the Lib Dems but other than the green candidate who was always in with a chance that didn't happen either.
What has happened is that ALL the three main parties have been punished, unintentionally, by us voters as none has really won. The Tories fell short from a winning position Kevin Keegan style, Labour got a Charlton at Millwall like mauling losing dozens of seats and Lib-Dems didn't move on to the next level Curbs stylee ; - )
And far from people being less interested or just not caring the hung parliament seems to have energised and engaged people. Voters want to know what the options are, people on here are talking about PR and coalitions like we normally chat about 442 or 451. That has to be a good thing
The world doesn't seem to have come to an end with no government. Maybe we can do without for a bit longer.
nla, because England is too big compared to the other countries. If it's the same party in charge of both England and Westminster, England's going to dictate to the rest of the country. If it's a different government in either, England is going to moan that Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish have too much power to run the UK.
If England was divided into regions, then the Northeast and Northwest would be Labour, the Southeast and both Midlands would be Conservative, and the West would be either Lib Dem or Tory. None of them would really be all that powerful (no more or less powerful than Scotland) and none of them would have a problem with staying in the UK or having issues decided by outsiders.
It's because England is so big and the Conservatives so unpopular in Scotland that this has become an issue. I can't see how an English assembly would actually function within the Union, so if you want an English Parliament, for me that'd have to be as a separate country to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
But then what would happen on issues like the Euro
If the Northeast and Northwest (labour) wanted it and Southeast,London and midlands conservitive didnt and the west was lib and they did
how would we work it out.
On talk sport right now they have just said that if we had proportional representation we would have 40 BNP seats now i couldnt stand that it would make me want to quit this place more than the original post atht started this thread.
is proportional representaion the same as regional representaion
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]London ...would be Conservative
Hmm...2 out of the 3 elections for mayor were won by Ken and Labour beat the Tory's both proportionally and in terms of seats in London. Most of the Tory voting areas of London aren't "proper" London (Croydon etc) but that's a different story all together.
On your other point I think regional representation is definately a goer. It seems to have worked pretty well in Scotland and Wales, it's a better option for London and I'm sure it'd do the same for other regions of the country - especially big cities.
Labour had a majority in 2005 with one and a half million more votes than the Tory's. Today the Tory's have 2 million votes more than Labour but no majority...so someone please tell me why Cameron wouldnt want electoral reform?
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]If the Northeast and Northwest (labour) wanted it and Southeast,London and midlands conservitive didnt and the west was lib and they did
how would we work it out.
That matter would be a "reserved" matter for Westminster. You would vote in an election for your reginal assembly who would handle regional matters (Like Borris does to an extent in London) and then for issues which affect the whole UK you'd vote for MP's who would go to Westminster (they could be the same person as in Scotland).
England should get a Parliament not Assembly. It should have powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh and N.Irish Assemblies should rise to Parliament status. People say 'this would break the Union' I say the Union is already broken. What sort of Union gives Devolved Parliament/Assemblies to three parts and ignores the fourth part?
This formula could become a Federation with a UK Parliament at the top for 'Reserved' matters. There would be no need for a new building, Westminster will do fine for the English Parliament. The current 'second Chamber' could house the UK Federal Government as and when it was required. It would not cause a rise in MP numbers, quite the opposite. No Scots, Welsh or N.Irish at Westminster, and English constituency MP's reduced to (Say) 300. There would need to be a number of Federal MP's. I don't see it needing to be more than a hundred, quite possibly less.
Edited above to leave London out. I just had a quick look at the map earlier and it looked very blue. Silly mistake. It doesn't matter which party is in control of which area.
nla, that would be left to (a smaller) Westminster Parliament to decide. Elections for that pretty much the same thing as now.
Regional parliaments are parliaments for the different regions, so, say, the Northeast would have its own parliament.
Proportional representation is a way of picking MPs or representatives. It's just one possibility, and there are many different ways of doing it that would focus on the parties or on local MPs. The statistic that the BNP would have 40 seats strikes me as completely wrong, and even if it's true would only happen under one possible system. What I've heard from other sources is that if the German system were used, the BNP would have 12 seats and UKIP would have around 20.
I don't like the German system, because it means you can't vote for a party without voting for their list of candidates and it gives too much power to party hacks. I prefer the STV system in Johnny's link. I'll put a link up in a minute
[quote][cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]but is regional and proportional representation the same thing[/quote]
No, different levels of government.
So now you have
local Govt (borough council)
London Assembly (regional)
UK Parliament (Westminster)
EU (transnational assembly)
In Scotland and Wales they have an parliament/assembly not a city assembly but with a lot more power especially in Scotland.
Would an English Parliament to yet another level and so too much govt. You could scrap the London Assembly or have, as IA suggests, 7 regional assemblies including London.
PR is about how the votes are counted rather than the level of govt. I think we already have a form of PR in the Euro elections.
One of the reasons I prefer multi-seat constituencies is that it doesn't leave the door completely open for the likes of the BNP but PR does make it easier for fringe parties to get elected.
I doubt on current votes that you'd get any BNP MPs in that system, because they didn't get enough votes in any constituency to really threaten and because of the transfers. BNP candidates are notoriously unpopular, so people are going to give their second, third, fourth etc preferences to everyone except them.
To give an example of that theory in action, have a look at Irish elections. Sinn Fein have very few seats relative to their vote, because they don't get any transfers from people who don't give them their first choice. It keeps unpopular candidates out, while maintaining local MPs and having a result that's close to proportional.
i am going to take time out now digest what you have all said over 10 bottles of carlsberg cos my fooking head hurts with all this info some of which i still dont get
There are three seats, and the Sinn Fein candidate finishes second on first preferences, but on transfers he's overtaken by Jim McDaid and Niall Blaney because people who vote for losing candidates would prefer them to the Sinn Fein man.
It's a complicated counting procedure, but the simplest possible voting procedure. You just say who you prefer to who, rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. no need for tactical voting.
I hope it's a Con-Lib coalition, Covered End, given the votes and that a Con-Lab deal wouldn't happen.
"STV in Britain The use of STV in Britain is not without precedent. In 1917, the House of Commons voted in favour of proposals to use STV for 211 of the 569 UK constituencies and the Alternative Vote for the rest. However, after five successive rejections by the House of Lords, the plans were ditched. STV was used for the university constituencies from 1918 until the abolition of university seats in 1950."
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Thanks IA, STV seems a good way
Never knew this
"STV in Britain
The use of STV in Britain is not without precedent. In 1917, the House of Commons voted in favour of proposals to use STV for 211 of the 569 UK constituencies and the Alternative Vote for the rest. However, after five successive rejections by the House of Lords, the plans were ditched.
STV was used for the university constituencies from 1918 until the abolition of university seats in 1950."
I saw that and wondered why they were changing around the electoral system during the Great War.
Thought about it again. Maybe it was because they put all political differences aside during the War and realised that coalition wasn't such a bad idea after all.
personally I don't see the point of the regional assemblies idea, my main problem with the Scottish parliament is that Scottish MPs can vote on matters such as education that won't affect Scots because the power for those issues in Scotland have been devolved. Surely things such as education policies and the budget can't be decided by these regional assemblies, as they would affect too small an area. In which case what would change from the present system?
IMO the union has already been damaged through the IMO ridiculous Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly. To me there are 3 options:
1) go the whole hog and get rid of the union (not my choice and very difficult)
2) decide what powers should be devolved into the separate parliaments/assemblies, and devolve those to the relevant place, with the same powers being devolved to each of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Obviously parliament as we know it will deal with the rest e.g. defence. (my preferred option)
3) scrap the scottish, welsh and irish devolutions and go back to having a single parliament for the UK. (never going to happen)
Also on PR, from what I understand referendums have to be a yes/no question (though please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm basing that on a history lesson from about 5 years ago). I for one can't think of a suitable question......
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]Surely things such as education policies and the budget can't be decided by these regional assemblies, as they would affect too small an area.
London, East of England, Northwest, and Southeast are all bigger than Scotland.
West Midlands and Yorkshire are around the same size as Scotland.
The West is bigger than Wales and Northern Ireland put together, and East Midlands is bigger than Wales.
The only "small" one is the Northeast, which is still bigger than Northern Ireland.
Comments
You're gonna be an expert by the time of the next election mate ... we'll all be coming to you for explanations ;-)
For sure, better get on with learning the in's and outs so we can come to you for advice when we all head back to the polls in a couple of months !!
There was a lot of talk about votef apathy but the vote appears to have increased. I've not checked so tell me if I'm wrong.
There was a lot of talk about antipathy to politics and swings to minor parties and the Lib Dems but other than the green candidate who was always in with a chance that didn't happen either.
What has happened is that ALL the three main parties have been punished, unintentionally, by us voters as none has really won. The Tories fell short from a winning position Kevin Keegan style, Labour got a Charlton at Millwall like mauling losing dozens of seats and Lib-Dems didn't move on to the next level Curbs stylee ; - )
And far from people being less interested or just not caring the hung parliament seems to have energised and engaged people. Voters want to know what the options are, people on here are talking about PR and coalitions like we normally chat about 442 or 451. That has to be a good thing
The world doesn't seem to have come to an end with no government. Maybe we can do without for a bit longer.
but i must admit i know more now than when i started so i thank all of you for that next question is then
IA why yes to Regional assembly and no to English
And if we have an English assembly is that the start of dismatleing the union?
I reckon it would stregnthen the Union because it would stop people in England pointing at the map and going "why have they got one and we don't".
well that would be a good thing then
i am all up for this English assembly i might give me old mates Dave,Browny,Nicky a call and tell them to do the right thing
Put up a few walls Hadrian style and let the Tories rule The English :-)
"Cameron"
"Talk to me sell me ya partie"
used to be labour in his yoof though
i would vote for that ;-P
If England was divided into regions, then the Northeast and Northwest would be Labour, the Southeast and both Midlands would be Conservative, and the West would be either Lib Dem or Tory. None of them would really be all that powerful (no more or less powerful than Scotland) and none of them would have a problem with staying in the UK or having issues decided by outsiders.
It's because England is so big and the Conservatives so unpopular in Scotland that this has become an issue. I can't see how an English assembly would actually function within the Union, so if you want an English Parliament, for me that'd have to be as a separate country to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the Northeast and Northwest (labour) wanted it and Southeast,London and midlands conservitive didnt and the west was lib and they did
how would we work it out.
On talk sport right now they have just said that if we had proportional representation we would have 40 BNP seats now i couldnt stand that it would make me want to quit this place more than the original post atht started this thread.
is proportional representaion the same as regional representaion
Hmm...2 out of the 3 elections for mayor were won by Ken and Labour beat the Tory's both proportionally and in terms of seats in London. Most of the Tory voting areas of London aren't "proper" London (Croydon etc) but that's a different story all together.
On your other point I think regional representation is definately a goer. It seems to have worked pretty well in Scotland and Wales, it's a better option for London and I'm sure it'd do the same for other regions of the country - especially big cities.
Labour won 38, the Tories won 28 and the Liberal Democrats seven.
That matter would be a "reserved" matter for Westminster. You would vote in an election for your reginal assembly who would handle regional matters (Like Borris does to an extent in London) and then for issues which affect the whole UK you'd vote for MP's who would go to Westminster (they could be the same person as in Scotland).
England should get a Parliament not Assembly. It should have powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh and N.Irish Assemblies should rise to Parliament status.
People say 'this would break the Union' I say the Union is already broken. What sort of Union gives Devolved Parliament/Assemblies to three parts and ignores the fourth part?
This formula could become a Federation with a UK Parliament at the top for 'Reserved' matters.
There would be no need for a new building, Westminster will do fine for the English Parliament. The current 'second Chamber' could house the UK Federal Government as and when it was required.
It would not cause a rise in MP numbers, quite the opposite. No Scots, Welsh or N.Irish at Westminster, and English constituency MP's reduced to (Say) 300.
There would need to be a number of Federal MP's. I don't see it needing to be more than a hundred, quite possibly less.
nla, that would be left to (a smaller) Westminster Parliament to decide. Elections for that pretty much the same thing as now.
Regional parliaments are parliaments for the different regions, so, say, the Northeast would have its own parliament.
Proportional representation is a way of picking MPs or representatives. It's just one possibility, and there are many different ways of doing it that would focus on the parties or on local MPs. The statistic that the BNP would have 40 seats strikes me as completely wrong, and even if it's true would only happen under one possible system. What I've heard from other sources is that if the German system were used, the BNP would have 12 seats and UKIP would have around 20.
I don't like the German system, because it means you can't vote for a party without voting for their list of candidates and it gives too much power to party hacks. I prefer the STV system in Johnny's link. I'll put a link up in a minute
No, different levels of government.
So now you have
local Govt (borough council)
London Assembly (regional)
UK Parliament (Westminster)
EU (transnational assembly)
In Scotland and Wales they have an parliament/assembly not a city assembly but with a lot more power especially in Scotland.
Would an English Parliament to yet another level and so too much govt. You could scrap the London Assembly or have, as IA suggests, 7 regional assemblies including London.
PR is about how the votes are counted rather than the level of govt. I think we already have a form of PR in the Euro elections.
One of the reasons I prefer multi-seat constituencies is that it doesn't leave the door completely open for the likes of the BNP but PR does make it easier for fringe parties to get elected.
I doubt on current votes that you'd get any BNP MPs in that system, because they didn't get enough votes in any constituency to really threaten and because of the transfers. BNP candidates are notoriously unpopular, so people are going to give their second, third, fourth etc preferences to everyone except them.
To give an example of that theory in action, have a look at Irish elections. Sinn Fein have very few seats relative to their vote, because they don't get any transfers from people who don't give them their first choice. It keeps unpopular candidates out, while maintaining local MPs and having a result that's close to proportional.
by the morning i will stand for pm
There are three seats, and the Sinn Fein candidate finishes second on first preferences, but on transfers he's overtaken by Jim McDaid and Niall Blaney because people who vote for losing candidates would prefer them to the Sinn Fein man.
It's a complicated counting procedure, but the simplest possible voting procedure. You just say who you prefer to who, rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. no need for tactical voting.
I hope it's a Con-Lib coalition, Covered End, given the votes and that a Con-Lab deal wouldn't happen.
My wife has just asked me if Cameron & Clegg will be moving in to No 10 together. I kid you not !
Never knew this
"STV in Britain
The use of STV in Britain is not without precedent. In 1917, the House of Commons voted in favour of proposals to use STV for 211 of the 569 UK constituencies and the Alternative Vote for the rest. However, after five successive rejections by the House of Lords, the plans were ditched.
STV was used for the university constituencies from 1918 until the abolition of university seats in 1950."
I saw that and wondered why they were changing around the electoral system during the Great War.
IMO the union has already been damaged through the IMO ridiculous Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly. To me there are 3 options:
1) go the whole hog and get rid of the union (not my choice and very difficult)
2) decide what powers should be devolved into the separate parliaments/assemblies, and devolve those to the relevant place, with the same powers being devolved to each of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Obviously parliament as we know it will deal with the rest e.g. defence. (my preferred option)
3) scrap the scottish, welsh and irish devolutions and go back to having a single parliament for the UK. (never going to happen)
Also on PR, from what I understand referendums have to be a yes/no question (though please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm basing that on a history lesson from about 5 years ago). I for one can't think of a suitable question......
London, East of England, Northwest, and Southeast are all bigger than Scotland.
West Midlands and Yorkshire are around the same size as Scotland.
The West is bigger than Wales and Northern Ireland put together, and East Midlands is bigger than Wales.
The only "small" one is the Northeast, which is still bigger than Northern Ireland.