If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
there are always a few examples, such as orpington, but the demographics of places such as Orpington are the main reason why it has happened there. Orpington, being in the Surrey commuter belt, was always most receptive to the New Labour spin- many other former Tory strongholds went in 1997 too, because Blair moved New Labour onto the Tories' territory.
Like it or not, whilst we have a FPTP system there are only about 120 seats which decide an election. Everyone else might as well not bother. In Northern Ireland the situation is even worse.
ETA: ShyBoy, I see what you mean now. Yes, I quite agree on that, a "none of the above" box would be helpful, but it wouldn't make a huge difference. People won't trek to the ballot box just to say they hate all of the bastards. Abolishing FPTP would be even better still, but that won't happen whilst people still buy into the fallacy of PR producing "weak" government.
If all of the people who failed to vote in Sunderland, actually voted Tory would the seat change hands?
But it wouldn't happen like that, as FPTP doesn't just tyurn away the minority supporters from the ballot box, but it turns away many of the majority supporters too. If Labour would always get in, why bother going and voting Labour?
Personally I do believe that everyone should go and vote, regardless of where they live, but all I'm saying is that FPTP wastes most votes- in most constituencies, about 65-75% of the population voted against the MP voted in.
Your vote doesn't decide a government, it decides your MP, and that distance between vote and effect has a large disenfranchising effect.
As for FPTP/PR, I think you are kidding yourself.
It wouldn't improve people's interest in or engagement with politics because although they would be able to see an instant result of their vote, they would end up being assigned an MP from a party list, so they wouldn't actually have any choice of MP. Then voters have no loyalty to their MP, and MPs have no loyalty to their constituents. And you could end up with constiuencies like Orpington being assigned a Lib Dem MP despite having a Tory majority. It destroys constituencies. That may be good or bad, depending on your point of view, but is does place a barrier between voters and MPs.
you might find that parliament gets disolved for an election, so they do give up power
If you really think that, you're more naive than I thought.
The German lander system works perfectly well, and is far better than our system. Oh, and German political participation, if you wish to measure this at the ballot box, is higher than here too.
The Tories and the Lib Dems have always had similar demographics, Kentish, it is a well-known fact. Which is why some places, such as Winchester, have Lib Dem MPs now, because those people were disillusioned withMajor but not wanting to vote Labour. A Labour supporter there still has no say in the government.
If you think that MPs have a "connection" to the constituency they "serve", and are "loyal" to it, then you're very naive. As Shaun Woodward, that world-renowned Liverpudlian illustrates.
youre sort of right, safest seats get ministers who tend to follow party line thus listen less
my area iis the 11th safest labour seat in country with a minor minister who looks like frankensteins monster, he voted for id cards therefore will no get my vote anyway
i will vote still , probably go to lib dems for not doing as much slagging off of other parties
people now get elected not for vision or talent ...but cos they don't slap someone with a wet fish.
Why wouldn't it make a difference to this country if your vote actually contributed to the election of someone whose views you really supported, rather than a choice between bad and worse? What are the disadvantages of a parliament which more accuarately reflects the views of voters?
However good the few MPs are, there are still party whips - and they didn't manage to stop British forces going into Iraq in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Britons.
Your post comes across as smug, complacent and dismissive.
yes but a lot of people assume wrongly
if a person gets voted in, then thats the constituencies choice
MP's are voices for the people, not the voices of the people
But they're not the choices of those who don't vote, not are they the voices of the constituents who voted against them. If you're going to support electoral democracy, shouldn't you at least try to pretend that theres something in it for the people ?
Personally I think PR would be used as a tool to fuck us over as well.......
where does it say in your electoral handbook how the representation should manifest itself?
Which explains why parliament is riddled with complacent self important smug bastards who couldn't give a damn........
More parties, more diversity, more MPs willing to say no.
So, are you supporting this sad shower of shite or not?
We should be told.
:yippe:
i dont mind some of their policies either
:shocking: news eh
There is no party whose policies I can fully agree with. Shower of shite maybe, but at least MPs are locally accountable.
You miss one crucial point: few vote in terms of local MP. The only exceptions I can think of are in Kidderminster and Totton, and even then only in Kidderminster was the MP elected against the usual party lines.
You also forget how much influence the major parties have at the candidate selection process. I've recommended this 100 times, but read Through the Looking Glass by Liz Davies. The current selection process and a party-list system are almost identical as it is.
Also, the German parliament is a hybrid of constituency-based politics and PR. You vote for a constituency MP, but the dissenting votes are not wasted as they are used to "top-up" the bundestag to represent the popular vote.
I don't know how you can justify a voting system where, in most instances, over 50% of the vote is completely ignored.
And yes, ftp, I would imagine that PR would be used to fuck the electorate over too, but it would give the public more of a say.
And I can't see turnouts improving in the long term. If 50% of votes are wasted, don't forget the 50% of voters who don't even vote. It's not a truly democratic process when half the electorate is so apathetic that they don't bother to cast a vote. And of those that do, most won't have a clue what they're voting for. At least MPs bring some personality to the occasion.
People don't vote in safe seats because there's no point. Either there vote will make no difference, or their favourite party will get in anyway. The fact that turnout in marginals (where votes do count) is consistently 20% higher proves this.
In many seats, 65% of the votes cast are simply discarded. Even if an MP gets in by one vote, all the dissenters are simply wiped from the slate. It doesn't pay to finish second in a constituency, which is a lesson it has taken the LibDems 25 years to learn. Go and look at the make-up of the 1974 parliament and tell me that is fair and democratic.
Do you believe it is fair and democratic that one party has 65% of the seats with only 35% of the popular vote? Is that how you define democracy?
Give people a meaningful vote and people will vote. It's a proven concept.
yup :yes:
I don't disagree that the current system leaves a lot of people cold. But it's up to an individual to vote. I gave you an example of a very safe seat which has completely turned around in 10 years. I prefer having an MP who lives in the constituency and is tied to it.
who is that?
Green Party.
Go for it yourself
and only gets it back if she gets a certain percentage or above in the area