Bercow defects to Labour - Did not see that coming

FabioPorkpie said:
Jesus. I’m only 2 pages into reading this thread and already it is completely transparent what you are all about, the games you want to play and the agenda you want to push. So so so many usernames down the years have come and gone with the exact same style.
Anyway, will read on and hopefully I’ll get to the end and will be proved wrong but it’s all so very familiar so far.
Click to expand...
I’m all caught up now and sadly, I was proved correct.
Different name, same old troll.
 
Adi_Dem said:
The rules are very clear and they are undemocratic for the reasons already set out. I’m not sure I follow the rest of your post to be honest, it doesn’t make sense. You seem to be arguing that coalition governments are a reason that PR is worse than FPTP. Why? It isn’t borne out by any evidence or studies. Coalitions are usually stable, and there is no evidence of persistent instability in countries that use PR. Instead, voters are more accurately represented.
Click to expand...
Nobody votes for a coalition government and you cant predict the make up of a coalition, nor its stability. I don't see why they are the panacea you imply.

You choose the argument of what people vote for inconsistently. and as usual to suit your own fixed views.
You always resort to the same language of things being "lazy" and "inaccurate" or bringing "straw men" in, or people lacking "intellectual capacity" and things "not making sense" and get progressively more insulting.
Its water off a duck's back with me after all these years, which is why I mostly just read the political threads.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Very much in the real world. It‘s just English. Fairly simple stuff. I understand why you keep playing the man rather than the ball though.
Click to expand...
It's pointless debating with him Adi, it's constant deflection, whataboutery, ignoring facts against his world view, lack of addressing questions and general dishonest debate. Save your time don't feed the troll.
 
indeedido said:
Nobody votes for a coalition government and you cant predict the make up of a coalition, nor its stability. I don't see why they are the panacea you imply.
Click to expand...
why are you claiming that we view PR as a panacea to all problems, as perfect? We don't simply more representational of the electorate and therefore fairer. The other argument you have put forward is that all forms of governance are imperfect. agreed, but that doesn't mean they are all equally imperfect, they are not.

In a strict 2 party system then FPTP is an ok system, still can and has been manipulated through gerrymandering, but it generally works.

We don't have a 2 party system. The right has had some splinters of UKIP, and has fought that by a drive to push further right, the 'one nation' Tory currently has no real voice. We have greens, lib-dems providing middle ground and labour marginal left. Then SDP, PC and the Norn Iron parties, In this scenario the largest minority gets all the power. 43% of votes has given them 56% of seats. That's not democracy.

The Tories are over-represented, when you look at the last election a Tory Vote:Representation ratio is 1.3 (i.e. every Toy vote has a 30% higher representation by MP seats) and a labour vote 0.9 (every labour vote is worth less than a vote in MP representation). That's a significant swing in vote value, Tory votes have a greater bias in value). Democracy is about having an equal vote and equal representation, it's factually correct and unquestionable that we do not have that or even close to it.
 
indeedido said:
Nobody votes for a coalition government and you cant predict the make up of a coalition, nor its stability. I don't see why they are the panacea you imply.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention them being a panacea? Such exaggeration does you no favours. I said they are more representative of the actual vote, which they undoubtedly are. I also said that there was no evidence of systematic instability in any democracy adopting PR which there isn't. I did not say that PR was perfect because it isn't, only that it is better than the a system that can produce absolute power from 43% of the vote. That's because it is better. And you continue to fail to address the points being made.

indeedido said:
You choose the argument of what people vote for inconsistently. and as usual to suit your own fixed views.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no inconsistency in anything I have written.

indeedido said:
You always resort to the same language of things being "lazy" and "inaccurate" or bringing "straw men" in, or people lacking "intellectual capacity" and things "not making sense" and get progressively more insulting.
Click to expand...

And now you play the man rather than the ball. I don't 'always' do anything. I only use that language when it applies, as it has done on several occasions on this thread. Most of it has been in response to an obvious troll. The only comments made towards you were made because one of your posts genuinely didn't make sense to me and in others you used very lazy generalisations. That's it. Disappointing that you choose to respond in this way but there you go.
 
Thomas Erskine May's guide to parliamentary practice is properly entitled 'A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament' First published in 1844. Now in its 25th edition (£325)
We don’t have an encoded constitution, so as far as Parliament is concerned we rely on the “Good Chaps” version of procedure and tradition, together with accepted rules. But no written constitution.
It’s always been accepted by both major parties because whoever is in power at any given time…it’s bendable to a degree. But the Good Chaps, doing the right thing, honestly and fairly still holds. What it fails to do is to incorporate a mechanism for holding the executive from more or less doing what they want.
This has become obvious, especially in the last 5-10 years. If you haven’t noticed, you have not been paying attention

FPTP to a large extent is a disenfranchisement of whole sections of the electorate who don’t believe their views can be represented, so almost by default vote one of three parties. I have no time at all for UKIP or extreme parties of any colour. But in a democracy those views should be represented, other countries have voting systems in place for that to happen.

We need:
An encoded Constitution
A written bill of rights
The monarchy removed from any participation in Parliament.
An elected second chamber
STV voting system.
 
Ziggy said:
Thomas Erskine May's guide to parliamentary practice is properly entitled 'A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament' First published in 1844. Now in its 25th edition (£325)
We don’t have an encoded constitution, so as far as Parliament is concerned we rely on the “Good Chaps” version of procedure and tradition, together with accepted rules. But no written constitution.
It’s always been accepted by both major parties because whoever is in power at any given time…it’s bendable to a degree. But the Good Chaps, doing the right thing, honestly and fairly still holds. What it fails to do is to incorporate a mechanism for holding the executive from more or less doing what they want.
This has become obvious, especially in the last 5-10 years. If you haven’t noticed, you have not been paying attention

FPTP to a large extent is a disenfranchisement of whole sections of the electorate who don’t believe their views can be represented, so almost by default vote one of three parties. I have no time at all for UKIP or extreme parties of any colour. But in a democracy those views should be represented, other countries have voting systems in place for that to happen.

We need:
An encoded Constitution
A written bill of rights
The monarchy removed from any participation in Parliament.
An elected second chamber
STV voting system.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. We have an archaic system that has been built on members being honourable and decent. Because of that it has for a long time hung by a thread. This extreme cabal of a government has severed that thread and we simply do not have a democratic system that can do anything about it.

As you rightly say, anyone that can't see what is happening (whether they be Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem or anything else) has not been paying attention or is deliberately blinkered.
 
indeedido said:
Nobody votes for a coalition government and you cant predict the make up of a coalition, nor its stability. I don't see why they are the panacea you imply.

You choose the argument of what people vote for inconsistently. and as usual to suit your own fixed views.
You always resort to the same language of things being "lazy" and "inaccurate" or bringing "straw men" in, or people lacking "intellectual capacity" and things "not making sense" and get progressively more insulting.
Its water off a duck's back with me after all these years, which is why I mostly just read the political threads.
Click to expand...
Nobody voted for the 2010 coalition government so was the election null and void?

A PR vote is a positive vote that means something as it is a vote for your representation in the HoP.

It took 886,000 votes for one Green seat but only 38,300 votes for one Tory seat at the last election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top