Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

As I've posted more than once, I only wanted Corbyn in for one term, also remarking that was all he would get anyway. I wanted that to get the minimal re-nationalisation of some essentials like rail and water where privatisation had done great and lasting harm.

Only a committed socialist like Corbyn would do that, another wishy washy wimp like Blair would never have the courage or inclination.

And as I've also posted many times, the Tory policies do need to be balanced by an intermittent dose of socialist correction. In the decades when that was happening I voted Tory more often than Labour since I have no political affiliation and recognise the value of both in our first past the post system.

All along I've wanted to have proportional representation to avoid that need for that alternation and consequent destabilisation, but the self seeking Tories will never allow that, recognising it would destroy their majority hold on power.
.

Under PR this time we, d have roughly 300 Tories and 200 Labour. (Roughly 10 million labour voters and 15 million Tories) So only change would be nobody would actually have a majority.(Tories got 45% of vote, Labour 30%)
So we, d be back making no decisions like last 2 years. Most poweful party of day could always be defeated if rest of disparate parties got together. I think it would be recipe for disaster...
Can you imagine us making any decisions with no majority party??
So then we engineer system to give a type of PR that gives a majority... But whose engineering? Tory or Labour... Back to square one.
Answer is to always have a credible electable 2nd party. We havent had one for past 5 years when we get one our system is fine.

 

[Danidl]

Under PR this time we, d have roughly 300 Tories and 200 Labour. (Roughly 10 million labour voters and 15 million Tories) So only change would be nobody would actually have a majority.(Tories got 45% of vote, Labour 30%)
So we, d be back making no decisions like last 2 years. Most poweful party of day could always be defeated if rest of disparate parties got together. I think it would be recipe for disaster...
Can you imagine us making any decisions with no majority party??
So then we engineer system to give a type of PR that gives a majority... But whose engineering? Tory or Labour... Back to square one.
Answer is to always have a credible electable 2nd party. We havent had one for past 5 years when we get one our system is fine.

Actually I can imagine such a scenario..and it is common place throughout the rest of Europe..... It means that people ( and I know this is a novel concept) work together. Coalitions are the norm elsewhere. And it leads to representative democracy

 

[Zlatan]

Actually I can imagine such a scenario..and it is common place throughout the rest of Europe..... It means that people ( and I know this is a novel concept) work together. Coalitions are the norm elsewhere. And it leads to representative democracy

All the systems in Europe are designed to not give unstable (no majority) governments in one waybor another. As long as the basic problem of PR is taken into account I, d agree. Going to absolute PR, as far as, I, m aware, is not case in any of EU cases. Some are split with half using FPTWP and half PR... I agree we are about last to not use some form of PR. (apart from France? think they are FPTWP)
Cant be complete PR, which adds complications.. But it needs to change. Agreed.
All those second places for Labour this time were wasted votes really...

 

[flecc]

Under PR this time we, d have roughly 300 Tories and 200 Labour. (Roughly 10 million labour voters and 15 million Tories) So only change would be nobody would actually have a majority.(Tories got 45% of vote, Labour 30%)

No, because there wouldn't have been a "this time" if we'd always had PR. Nor would there have been Brexit. All circumstances would have been changed.

As Danidl has posted, with PR we would for a long time been working with other parties in co-operation, combining strengths to do the best for the country and all its people.
.

 

[50Hertz]

My, haven't you regressed to the vote leaver you started off as?
How long will this new found loyalty of yours last this time?

There is no Leave or Remain, we must now come together in a spirit of unity, have open minds and a willingness to progress.

 

[Zlatan]

No, because there wouldn't have been a "this time" if we'd always had PR. Nor would there have been Brexit. All circumstances would have been changed.

As Danidl has posted, with PR we would for a long time been working with other parties in co-operation, combining strengths to do the best for the country and all its people.
.

At best thats a well informed opinion.
Every other system in Europe would have given Tories a win this time and with a working majority. Nobody uses complete PR. (well I cant find one but that doesnt mean much)
Tories majority would be reduced under both Dutch and German system but still a strong majority. The whole point of "bending" PR as they all do is to foster a one major party majority, avoiding an unstable government and negating the very thing you push as being an advantage. Please tell me one system in use that would rely totally on PR... and I, ll give you name of a country with an unstable government, incapable of making decisions. You are letting idealism get in way of reality agsin.
In the real world parties argue, bicker and vote against each other. In your world they cooperate.
We have seen were we get with minority governments. Nowhere.

Only time we had a succesful coalition was in 1940,where democracy was actually suspended. Churchill was nearer a dictator than PM.

If we introduced a system of PR that did give strong possibility of a one party majority I, d support it. If we introduced a system whereby one party cant outvote all other combined parties I would not and it would be disastrous.

 

[flecc]

There is no Leave or Remain, we must now come together in a spirit of unity, have open minds and a willingness to progress.

You're quoting Boris Johnson, but he's not saying what will really happen, which is this:

Leave and Remain are from 31/1/2019 replaced with Remain and Rejoin.

The Leavers of old will now be the Remainers, for staying UK alone.

The Remainers of old will now be the Rejoiners, for returning to the EU.

This will be a very slow movement at first, but it will grow over time and eventually become every bit as disruptive and divisive as Brexit has been.

The mistake of having the 2016 referendum will be haunting us for decades.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

There is no Leave or Remain, we must now come together in a spirit of unity, have open minds and a willingness to progress.

Must you? include me out, I am no accessory to the Robbery of the Future of this nation, and never will be.
Roll on the day we rejoin the EU, even though i shall not live to see it.

 

[flecc]

Every other system in Europe would have given Tories a win this time and with a working majority.

Come on Zlatan, you aren't so thick that you can't read.

How many times must I post there wouldn't have been a "this time" if we'd long been in PR?

With all past circumstances changed there probably wouldn't have been a referendum on EU membership, nor even a Johnson or Corbyn leading parties perhaps. It was the first past the post system that bred those confrontational politicians.
.

 

[Zlatan]

What would the British parliament look like under proportional representation?

A chorus of politicians are once again calling for electoral reform after the UK’s 2019 election.

theconversation.com

A very good article explaining workings of Dutch and German PR systems. Both of which still gave Tories a good majority this time.
Under full PR we would effectively had a hung parliament??? That cant be right.

 

[Zlatan]

Come on Zlatan, you aren't so thick that you can't read.

How many times must I post there wouldn't have been a "this time" if we'd long been in PR?

With all past circumstances changed there probably wouldn't have been a referendum on EU membership, nor even a Johnson or Corbyn leading parties perhaps. It was the first past the post system that bred those politicians, confrontational rather than co-operative.
.

Not sure what you are basing that on flecc? Cameron would still have been in power. He, d have still given us his referendum? PR wouldnt change a binary choice???
Have a good read of PR systems in use. They do not give the results you seem to think. They cant. Any country needs a dominant party in power. They do not give hung parliaments in way you say.
I think you are arguing for a sysyem that does not give a dominant party. Dont think there is one? Italy perhaps? (I, m not sure) But that is hardly a recommendation.
Are you arguing for a system that always gives hung parliaments???
That isnt sensible Flecc.
And, yes, if we, d had one for 30 years we, d still be arguing over wether to leave ERM. So you are right, things would be different. We, d never ever make any decisions.

 

[flecc]

Not sure what you are basing that on flecc? Cameron would still have been in power. He, d have still given us his referendum? PR wouldnt change a binary choice???

You don't know that. If we'd always had PR and many past coalitions there wouldn't have only been binary choices. And we would have had different kinds of leaders, more skilled at working together in coalitions than the likes of Cameron, Johnson and Corbyn.

They do work well together in Europe's PR systems, despite you very wrongly believing otherwise. If they didn't the EU could never have been created, nor would the European Law Courts or the EU Parliament exist.

Just look how united that parliament's diverse poiticians were against Farage's posturing. Just look at how Ireland with it's history of many coalitions since 1948 produced a Taoiseach like Leo Varadker who tirelessly worked for agreement and compromise over Brexit.

All very different from what we experience and suffer here.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

How fake news is generated

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1207701658664353792

To be a millonaire
Or not to be?
In order to create a story for right wing purposes.

 

[oldgroaner]

Not sure what you are basing that on flecc? Cameron would still have been in power. He, d have still given us his referendum? PR wouldnt change a binary choice???
Have a good read of PR systems in use. They do not give the results you seem to think. They cant. Any country needs a dominant party in power. They do not give hung parliaments in way you say.
I think you are arguing for a sysyem that does not give a dominant party. Dont think there is one? Italy perhaps? (I, m not sure) But that is hardly a recommendation.
Are you arguing for a system that always gives hung parliaments???
That isnt sensible Flecc.
And, yes, if we, d had one for 30 years we, d still be arguing over wether to leave ERM. So you are right, things would be different. We, d never ever make any decisions.

You're on a wrong 'un there Zlatan, hung parliaments are the only time the HOC is even remotely democratic and has to work to find a solution.
Otherwise the best thing the opposition can do is just go home and have nothing to do with proceedings.
All elected MP's should be part of the Government otherwise their voter support like the Remain camp are excluded from the democratic process.

 

[flecc]

And, yes, if we, d had one for 30 years we, d still be arguing over wether to leave ERM. So you are right, things would be different. We, d never ever make any decisions.

You are clearly totally wrong. It was Europe's coalition style politicians who created the European Coal and Steel Community. Then developed it into the European Economic Community, them developed that into the EU.

All huge, far reaching, complex decisions reached by co-operation. That could have been our future, but instead our politicians were only ever confrontational with the EU, as demonstrated by the last three years.
.

 

[Zlatan]

You don't know that. If we'd always had PR and many past coalitions there wouldn't have only been binary choices. And we would have had different kinds of leaders, more skilled at working together in coalitions than the likes of Cameron, Johnson and Corbyn.

They do work well together in Europe's PR systems, despite you very wrongly believing otherwise. If they didn't the EU could never have been created, nor would the European Law Courts or the EU Parliament exist.

Just look how united that parliament's diverse poiticians were against Farage's posturing. Just look at how Ireland with it's history of many coalitions since 1948 produced a Taoiseach like Leo Varadker who tirelessly worked for agreement and compromise over Brexit.

All very different from what we experience and suffer here.
.

You miss the point OG. PR as used throughout EU (except France who dont use PR) would give same party dominance with very similar majorities. Yes, lower parties would be more represented(ie under PR libdems would have 70 seats) but the one party dominance we see in UK is more to do with voting patterns than PR versus FPTWP. Nobody uses full PR anyway.
Its entirely hypotjetical anyway but the fact remains even had we hsd PR we, d have had Cameron, the EU ref and now Tories with BJ. PR (as used in nearly all EU countries) does not alter dominant party or their power. Just read about it. Assuming PR would magicallt give us more cooperation is purely wishfull thinking.

 

[Zlatan]

You are clearly totally wrong. It was Europe's coalition style politicians who created the European Coal and Steel Community. Then developed it into the European Economic Community, them developed that into the EU.

All huge, far reaching, complex decisions reached by co-operation. That could have been our future, but instead our politicians were only ever confrontational with the EU, as demonstrated by the last three years.
.

They didnt do any of that because of PR. Besides, think we are mixing electoral reform at EU level up with National level. Yes, EU demonstrates greater levels of cooperation.
What makes you think we, d be sny more coperative in HoC if we had PR? Its a silly conclusion. We would have the same Tory, same Labour but just more minor party MPs and still with a dominant party majority.
Changing system would not change people in it.
Tell me which government would have been different, lets say had we had German system??
Its like arguing had William Conqueror lost to Harold we wouldnt haveTories now.. Well perhaps not. But
A) We dont have PR
B) We are unlikely to have PR in next 10 years becsuse it tends to be a labour issue.(and they have just made themselves an irrelevence)
C) Even had we had PR (as used in countries throughout EU) we would still have had same governments with same dominant power.

 

[OxygenJames]

As I've posted more than once, I only wanted Corbyn in for one term, also remarking that was all he would get anyway. I wanted that to get the minimal re-nationalisation of some essentials like rail and water where privatisation had done great and lasting harm.

Only a committed socialist like Corbyn would do that, another wishy washy wimp like Blair would never have the courage or inclination.

And as I've also posted many times, the Tory policies do need to be balanced by an intermittent dose of socialist correction. In the decades when that was happening I voted Tory more often than Labour since I have no political affiliation and recognise the value of both in our first past the post system.

All along I've wanted to have proportional representation to avoid that need for that alternation and consequent destabilisation, but the self seeking Tories will never allow that, recognising it would destroy their majority hold on power.
.

Rail an essential? Ha. Not for most working class people in the north and rural areas everywhere. Where they use the car. Rail is now by far a middle-class mode of transport.

So you'd be taking money from the poor and giving to the rich - classic Labour party.

 

[flecc]

Rail an essential? Ha. Not for most working class people in the north and rural areas everywhere. Where they use the car. Rail is now by far a middle-class mode of transport.

So you'd be taking money from the poor and giving to the rich - classic Labour party.

That's a short term view, looking only at the present.

The worlds best rail systems are state owned, and most countries regard their railways as an essential which will always tend to lose money.

It was our failures to realise these that lead to the disgraceful rail system that we have now, and which you rightly say fails to serve the people.

Need I mention today, the M23 closed in both directions, the M6 becoming paralysed with traffic, just two of many symptoms that indicate the roads will not be a viable option for ever. They often aren't now.
.

 

[Woosh]

we have zillions of cars on our roads.
If roads have the same number of cars like rails with trains then we wouldn't have so much congestion on our roads.
in another generation, driverless car will be a reality, we should be able to double the density of traffic on our roads, then in the generation after next, we'll have pilotless small aerial transports.