The Budget.

Needs to be some context here.

1. It is almost always the case that the most unpopular person is the PM. And the 2nd most unpopular is the Home Sec. It is pretty much inevitable, whether doing a good or bad job
2. Conservative Home readers are not representative of voters. They are not even representative of Conservative voters. Generally, politically closer to the Reform Party than the moderate wing of the Conservative Party.

HAYSIE · December 2023

Essexphil said:
Needs to be some context here.

1. It is almost always the case that the most unpopular person is the PM. And the 2nd most unpopular is the Home Sec. It is pretty much inevitable, whether doing a good or bad job
2. Conservative Home readers are not representative of voters. They are not even representative of Conservative voters. Generally, politically closer to the Reform Party than the moderate wing of the Conservative Party.

Do you think there is any coming back for the Tories?

Essexphil · December 2023

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:
Needs to be some context here.

1. It is almost always the case that the most unpopular person is the PM. And the 2nd most unpopular is the Home Sec. It is pretty much inevitable, whether doing a good or bad job
2. Conservative Home readers are not representative of voters. They are not even representative of Conservative voters. Generally, politically closer to the Reform Party than the moderate wing of the Conservative Party.
Do you think there is any coming back for the Tories?

Depends what you mean by "coming back"?

They will lose the next election. They could well improve their ratings, and get 200 seats. Or both Labour and the Reform Party could continue to improve and the Tories end up with 50. And fighting for survival.

TheEdge949 · December 2023

How many fed up people wont bother voting though. I think that the Tory voters will always turn out whereas Labour voters seem to be hit and miss.

I wonder how many remain voters didn't bother to vote because they thought that a victory was a formality, then screamed blue murder when they didn't like the result.

I always vote in elections but not necessarily for the usual reasons. I vote primarily because I think that to have something that billions of people would love to be able to do and that millions have died fighting for over the Centuries is a privilege.

I actually believe that to have a vote and waste it is terrible.

Also I believe that if you don't vote then you have no right to complain about either local or central Government or the lack of local services / investment etc.

Finally I also believe that to have a true democracy P.R. is the only accurate way to properly and fully represent the electorate. The tactical voting scenario has caused more than one skewed result.

It's such a shame however, that "None of the above" is not an option in British elections.

HAYSIE · December 2023

TheEdge949 said:
How many fed up people wont bother voting though. I think that the Tory voters will always turn out whereas Labour voters seem to be hit and miss.

I wonder how many remain voters didn't bother to vote because they thought that a victory was a formality, then screamed blue murder when they didn't like the result.

I always vote in elections but not necessarily for the usual reasons. I vote primarily because I think that to have something that billions of people would love to be able to do and that millions have died fighting for over the Centuries is a privilege.

I actually believe that to have a vote and waste it is terrible.

Also I believe that if you don't vote then you have no right to complain about either local or central Government or the lack of local services / investment etc.

Finally I also believe that to have a true democracy P.R. is the only accurate way to properly and fully represent the electorate. The tactical voting scenario has caused more than one skewed result.

It's such a shame however, that "None of the above" is not an option in British elections.

I wouldnt disagree with your sentiment.
Maybe we should follow Australia.
However our system means that in some cases voting may seem pointless.
I have spent the vast majority of my life living in the Swansea West constituency.
Alan Williams was the MP, from 1964, until he retired in 2010.
So voting for anyone besides him, may have seemed pointless.
However, if we introduced a system of proportional representation, where every vote actually did count, then I think your argument would carry more weight.
Although I dont think this is likely to happen anytime soon.

Essexphil · December 2023

There is certainly a clear argument for some form of PR. Many seats have massive majorities for 1 party, meaning other Party supporters do not have a vote.

However, it is not necessarily that simple. Firstly, the last 10 years has seen a dramatic reduction of "safe" seats. Look at the collapse of the "Red Wall" seats at the last election. Or, for example, the fact that all 12 seats in Staffordshire went to the Tories last time. Similarly, there will be many "safe" Tory seats that go Red or Yellow next time. Also, look at Scotland, where lost of seats have changed hands.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of what exact type of PR to choose. Can't have a simple 1 vote for all system-unless you want Extremist MPs and give Scotland the easiest case for Independence ever.

People used to say that the EU election system was the fairest. Yet even that allowed UKIP to win and the BNP to have elected representatives in the past.

HAYSIE · December 2023

Essexphil said:
There is certainly a clear argument for some form of PR. Many seats have massive majorities for 1 party, meaning other Party supporters do not have a vote.

However, it is not necessarily that simple. Firstly, the last 10 years has seen a dramatic reduction of "safe" seats. Look at the collapse of the "Red Wall" seats at the last election. Or, for example, the fact that all 12 seats in Staffordshire went to the Tories last time. Similarly, there will be many "safe" Tory seats that go Red or Yellow next time. Also, look at Scotland, where lost of seats have changed hands.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of what exact type of PR to choose. Can't have a simple 1 vote for all system-unless you want Extremist MPs and give Scotland the easiest case for Independence ever.

People used to say that the EU election system was the fairest. Yet even that allowed UKIP to win and the BNP to have elected representatives in the past.

I dont think it would be easy, but more importantly, it will never happen.
I just think that it would give the electorate the feeling that their vote actually counted.
You could argue that the current system has the same effect on some of the smaller parties, and it is completely illogical.
For instance in the 2015 general election,
The SNP got just short of 1.5million votes, and 56 seats.
The Lib Dems almost 2.5million votes, and 8 seats.
UKIP almost 3.9million votes, and 1 seat.

It is hard to argue that the number of seats reflects the popularity amongst the electorate.
Although any system that restricts the number of UKIP seats cant be all bad.

Doubleme · December 2023

I was hoping you was going to say they called an election I am pessimistic about it but I do want these guys out the sooner the better, and there is a part of me that dares to hope.

I will vote for Keir Starmer even though i think he is bad, simply because its a two party system and its one or the other really. I think he is the least bad of the choice between him or tories.

Then people say if you dont vote you dont have the right to complain. So when I vote Labour and there stuff I am unhappy with, people will then say well you cant complain you voted for this.

Basically the message is just shut up and dont complain suck it up.

HAYSIE · December 2023

Essexphil said:
There is certainly a clear argument for some form of PR. Many seats have massive majorities for 1 party, meaning other Party supporters do not have a vote.

However, it is not necessarily that simple. Firstly, the last 10 years has seen a dramatic reduction of "safe" seats. Look at the collapse of the "Red Wall" seats at the last election. Or, for example, the fact that all 12 seats in Staffordshire went to the Tories last time. Similarly, there will be many "safe" Tory seats that go Red or Yellow next time. Also, look at Scotland, where lost of seats have changed hands.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of what exact type of PR to choose. Can't have a simple 1 vote for all system-unless you want Extremist MPs and give Scotland the easiest case for Independence ever.

People used to say that the EU election system was the fairest. Yet even that allowed UKIP to win and the BNP to have elected representatives in the past.

Do you think that a large number of the safe seats will probably have a one off protest vote before reverting to type?

TheEdge949 · December 2023

Essexphil said:
There is certainly a clear argument for some form of PR. Many seats have massive majorities for 1 party, meaning other Party supporters do not have a vote.

However, it is not necessarily that simple. Firstly, the last 10 years has seen a dramatic reduction of "safe" seats. Look at the collapse of the "Red Wall" seats at the last election. Or, for example, the fact that all 12 seats in Staffordshire went to the Tories last time. Similarly, there will be many "safe" Tory seats that go Red or Yellow next time. Also, look at Scotland, where lost of seats have changed hands.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of what exact type of PR to choose. Can't have a simple 1 vote for all system-unless you want Extremist MPs and give Scotland the easiest case for Independence ever.

People used to say that the EU election system was the fairest. Yet even that allowed UKIP to win and the BNP to have elected representatives in the past.

The whole point of a democracy is to allow a voice to parties or organisations that we may find abhorrent. So sorry but yes 1 vote for all.

As long as the first past the post 2 party system prevails we do not have democracy, actually it's more like a monopoly. The deposit increases make independants almost meaningless.

If for example the BNP polled 10% of the vote then they should be allowed 10% of the seats in the house whether we like it or not. Democracy 101.

Same with the Greens and the other minority parties.

It would however give teeth to the parties like the Lib Dems who may hold the balance in policy making.

Also I feel that it would encourage more people to vote, more people to stand and therefore take away the assuredness that some candidates seem to have that minorities don't matter.

Peoples votes would then matter, no vote would be wasted and everybody is represented

I don't know what % of the vote was split between the main parties at the last election but on a 70% turnout I would be surprised if it was much more than 65%. That means the true majority is not represented.

P.R will never happen because Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and both Labour and the Tories would see their authority and power shrink as almost every new law and policy would have to come via compromise and sense. Yes alliances and coalitions would be formed but every party would have a voice and that is true democracy.

HAYSIE · December 2023

TheEdge949 said:

Essexphil said:
There is certainly a clear argument for some form of PR. Many seats have massive majorities for 1 party, meaning other Party supporters do not have a vote.

However, it is not necessarily that simple. Firstly, the last 10 years has seen a dramatic reduction of "safe" seats. Look at the collapse of the "Red Wall" seats at the last election. Or, for example, the fact that all 12 seats in Staffordshire went to the Tories last time. Similarly, there will be many "safe" Tory seats that go Red or Yellow next time. Also, look at Scotland, where lost of seats have changed hands.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of what exact type of PR to choose. Can't have a simple 1 vote for all system-unless you want Extremist MPs and give Scotland the easiest case for Independence ever.

People used to say that the EU election system was the fairest. Yet even that allowed UKIP to win and the BNP to have elected representatives in the past.
The whole point of a democracy is to allow a voice to parties or organisations that we may find abhorrent. So sorry but yes 1 vote for all.

As long as the first past the post 2 party system prevails we do not have democracy, actually it's more like a monopoly. The deposit increases make independants almost meaningless.

If for example the BNP polled 10% of the vote then they should be allowed 10% of the seats in the house whether we like it or not. Democracy 101.

Same with the Greens and the other minority parties.

It would however give teeth to the parties like the Lib Dems who may hold the balance in policy making.

Also I feel that it would encourage more people to vote, more people to stand and therefore take away the assuredness that some candidates seem to have that minorities don't matter.

Peoples votes would then matter, no vote would be wasted and everybody is represented

I don't know what % of the vote was split between the main parties at the last election but on a 70% turnout I would be surprised if it was much more than 65%. That means the true majority is not represented.

P.R will never happen because Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and both Labour and the Tories would see their authority and power shrink as almost every new law and policy would have to come via compromise and sense. Yes alliances and coalitions would be formed but every party would have a voice and that is true democracy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50779901

TheEdge949 · December 2023

Thank you Tony

Bean81 · December 2023

That table is one of the most compelling reasons for some form of PR. If 1% of the vote gets you 6.5 seats, some parties are getting shafted and some have far too much representation into eh Commons.

The Budget.

Comments