Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[Awol]

Patrick,

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the various forms of PR, but if it were to be a truly representative system then I don't really understand how it could exclude the radical fringe elements that many of the mainstream voters disaprove of?

I don't often agree with Michelsen but recognise that he knows his eggs when it comes to political systems. He seems to think there would be no way to exclude them (BNP types) and even if in theory you could do so, surely that defeats the object of trying to make the system more representative?

I don't think FPTP post is fair and would like to see something different, I just feel that radical change is a path we should tread with extreme caution.

[snowychap]

But AV wouldn't really change anything. PR would completely change the political culture of this country, which is obviously why a lot of people are afraid of it, but given that the the political culture in this country is utterly reprehensible at the moment then I'm all for it.

You say that PR would result in BNP MPs and the like, but if we were to adopt the STV form of PR then they would struggle to pick up most peoples preference votes, since most people would rank the BNP as their last choice of party. Most systems of AMS have quotas ie. you need a certain proportion of the national vote in order to get seats.

I don't buy the argument I'm afraid. The glaring inconsistency is that a party that polls 24% of the national vote can end up with 8% of the seats.

I agree, Patrick, though I'd be very cautious about contriving a situation to exclude one party however awful it may be. I'm not suggesting that you were but there is a bit of a danger that people look at what might be a worrying outcome of a change in a system and fiddle it so that one outcome doesn't occur.

I'd also add a rider that this still wouldn't solve all of the problems with our political system.

[Jon]

Patrick,

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the various forms of PR, but if it were to be a truly representative system then I don't really understand how it could exclude the radical fringe elements that many of the mainstream voters disaprove of?

It couldn't, and shouldn't.

[Awol]

Patrick,

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the various forms of PR, but if it were to be a truly representative system then I don't really understand how it could exclude the radical fringe elements that many of the mainstream voters disaprove of?

It couldn't, and shouldn't.

Okay, so that being the case is British political discourse ready to include explictly racist politics? Take QT for example, when a BNP MP is on the panel do we have an hour of panto style booing from the audience, if so how long before that wears off and we have the acceptance of the BNP into the political mainstream?

Another worry (for me at least) would be the Anjem Choudary's of this world forming a radical Muslim party, gaining enough support to place people who hate our entire way of life within the system and gaining access to things they really shouldn't see. Imagine Abu Hamza (types) sitting on the Commons Defence and Security committee?!

I'm not against reform at all Jon, I just think that for once this needs to be thought through in great detail and that isn't something Parliament has been particularly good at for quite some time.

[PauloBarnesi]

For those who wanted a fairer society here is your new PM and wife:

(Cut and paste from wiki)

"The son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur Mount (daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet),[4] David Cameron was born in London, and raised at Peasemore in Berkshire

The school was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[8] who had made a fortune in the grain business in Chicago and had returned to Scotland in the 1880s

Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great x 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II)"

Mr Cameron's wife:

"Born in London, she is the eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet, a landowner and three times a descendant from King Charles II of England"

Perhaps Downing street can be sold off and old Dave can lodge with Queeny.

I shrug my shoulder and suggest that all parties have people like this and has always been the case. Look at Harriet Harman; she’s got enough aristo relatives. And she went to a more selective private school than Cameron or perhaps even Clegg. And she’s sending her son to a selective grammar school (wasn’t that something the Labour party promised to get rid of?)... One could go on and on and on, finding that a huge number of politicians of all colours come from privileged backgrounds with or without titles. Maybe we should stop with all this and just judge them on whether they are any good or not?

I guess that would be nice, but they don't judge themselves on how good they are, otherwise you wouldn't have harriet's husband parachuted into a nice safe seat (against the local party's wishes) or Dave's mate Jo Cash parachuted into a nice safe seat (against the local party's wishes). They operate a cozy clubs based on patronage and are dismissive of the wishes and concerns of the little people and so deserve all the barbs they receive.

Thats slightly different; thats the accusation of nepotism, not the background of them. We all know that nepotism exists everywhere.

[bickster]

and factually inaccurate imo

There is a huge degree of fail right there! Sorry but stuff like that annoys me

[Guest Ricardomeister]

Ricardomeister,

Question, how much money do you think the 50% tax bracket raises for the Exchequer? Once you've found that out I'd hope that such a learned fellow as yourself will conclude that it is actually a punitive measure leading to little or no material benefit.

Of course you could just continue insulting everyone who has a different opinion to yours, but that isn't very constructive.

Pot, kettle and black come to mind!!!!

It is not my job to find that out for you (I have done my own research) so it is a rather pointless and desperate question to ask imo.

My point is all about fairness in society. I would have no problem in paying an extra £5k (if I were on £200k pa) to help the vulnerable and less fortunate and I just cannot understand why anyone else would.

If you were interested in how much money can be raised for the Exchequer then you would have agreed with me that the £15+ billion pa denied to the Exchequer from tax evasion/avoidance/fraud should be addressed as a priority but surprise, surprise the Tories and their cohorts would rather prioritise benefit fraud which is worth a tiny fraction to the Exchequer. Very conveniently not one of you have come back about that point!

The Tories and their cohorts, a large amount of whom have been brainwashed by the Tory rags, have very little interest in fairness. To state that the 50% tax band is discriminatory while a 25% basic rate of tax is fair is totally immoral and totally unjustifiable imo.

The difference between people like me and people like you is that I feel eternal gratitude for the opportunities that I have had in life and I would like such opportunities extended to as many people as possible. That is certainly not something that can be said about the Tory party and many of their supporters who are more bothered about keeping as much as they can for themselves. That is greed and that is selfishness and that is immoral in my book.

[Davkaus]

Okay, so that being the case is British political discourse ready to include explictly racist politics? Take QT for example, when a BNP MP is on the panel do we have an hour of panto style booing from the audience, if so how long before that wears off and we have the acceptance of the BNP into the political mainstream?

They'd inevitably get seats. About a dozen, based on this year's votes. Compared to Labour and the Tories having 200+ each.

We'd have extremist views in Parliament, because we have extremist views in the public.

It's dangerous ground to decide that there are some groups we want to deny democracy to.

With FPTP, these groups could get seats disproportionately anyway, if they targetted a specific area. Look at the Greens. They just focussed on a single area, and get a seat, yet a party like UKIP which has over 3 times more votes has no say at all. Most parties would have a say, not a hgue one, just the right to have their voices heard.

It doesn't mean we're going to start kicking out all of the foriegners because we get a handful of BNP candidates, any more than the EU's parliament suffers from the same problem.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

and factually inaccurate imo

There is a huge degree of fail right there! Sorry but stuff like that annoys me

Wow, the fact that something as trivial as 3 words taken out of context annoys you is rather sad imo.

[El Zen]

I don't often agree with Michelsen but recognise that he knows his eggs when it comes to political systems. He seems to think there would be no way to exclude them (BNP types) and even if in theory you could do so, surely that defeats the object of trying to make the system more representative?

That's it. You could impose a very high national threshold to exclude fringe parties, which is done in several countries btw, but it kind of makes PR pointless. Might as well have AV then, if you only want parties that are acceptable to the mainstream (I reject FPTP outright, it's so unfair and anachronistic).

A detailed discussion of electoral systems could get technical beyond the boring, so I'll try and stay away from that. My opinion is that PR is the only fair system in the election of a parliament. I think it is the natural system for a liberal democracy. Some kind of threshold is necessary for practical reasons, but it should not be set so high that it takes away the purpose of PR all together. The consequence of PR could be radical, fringe party representation, but that's democracy for you. If the BNP is the choice of a significant (meaning more than a fraction of a per cent) proportion of the electorate, however **** up voting for them is, they should be represented in parliament. Their policies are vile and disgusting, but they are (rightly) a legal party.

[Condimentalist]

Patrick,

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the various forms of PR, but if it were to be a truly representative system then I don't really understand how it could exclude the radical fringe elements that many of the mainstream voters disaprove of?

I don't often agree with Michelsen but recognise that he knows his eggs when it comes to political systems. He seems to think there would be no way to exclude them (BNP types) and even if in theory you could do so, surely that defeats the object of trying to make the system more representative?

You wouldn't exclude them, but I wouldn't think that they would have 12 MPs or anything like that. An explanation of STV (and other systems) can be found here. Basically, as well as promoting the most popular parties, STV also goes some way to excluding the most unpopular. AMS uses top-up seats in addition to constituency elected members so as to balance out the parliament proportionally, but some systems require a minimum percentage of the national vote to qualify for the top-up seats, so the most extreme parties are excluded.

I agree, Patrick, though I'd be very cautious about contriving a situation to exclude one party however awful it may be. I'm not suggesting that you were but there is a bit of a danger that people look at what might be a worrying outcome of a change in a system and fiddle it so that one outcome doesn't occur.

I'd also add a rider that this still wouldn't solve all of the problems with our political system.

Of course it wouldn't, but I do think it would be a start. It would be a kick up the arse if nothing else, and given how stale the whole political system is at the moment I don't see that it would be a bad thing. And I'm not suggesting fiddling of any sort, I am only saying that many PR systems have structural means of reducing the influence of the extreme parties without being undemocratic.

[markavfc40]

Having had time to sleep on what has happened I actually think its a good thing that the Tories haven't got an overall majoity and will inevitably form a coalition with the Lib Dems. It'll last no longer than 12-18 months before the wheels come spectacularly off, the country will once again see the conservatives for the incompetent look after the few and **** the many party they are, an election will have to be called and the Tories will be out of power for many, many years to come.

[bickster]

and factually inaccurate imo

There is a huge degree of fail right there! Sorry but stuff like that annoys me

Wow, the fact that something as trivial as 3 words taken out of context annoys you is rather sad imo.

Context clearly isn't relevant its the fact that something can't be fact AND opinion, it is either one or the other. Something is either factually inaccurate (which you should demonstrate with said facts) or it is wrong in your opinion (to which you should counter with your opinion).

Confusing the two is a failure to grasp the concept of the two in the first place.

[Awol]

Okay, so that being the case is British political discourse ready to include explictly racist politics? Take QT for example, when a BNP MP is on the panel do we have an hour of panto style booing from the audience, if so how long before that wears off and we have the acceptance of the BNP into the political mainstream?

They'd inevitably get seats. About a dozen, based on this year's votes. Compared to Labour and the Tories having 200+ each.

We'd have extremist views in Parliament, because we have extremist views in the public.

It's dangerous ground to decide that there are some groups we want to deny democracy to.

I'm raising the question, not making a judgement either way.

However it is still the case that the current FPTP system prevents true extremists from representation on the national stage. It is also true that sustained exposure to the public will create an air of legitimacy around their beliefs. That could, in time lead to an increase in support for political extremists. As Michelsen alluded to earlier, just look at Le Pen in France. He wasn't far away from a win not all that long ago.

Again, I'm not trying to pass judgement either way but it's worth considering these things before we all jump on the PR band wagon (imo).

[Guest Ricardomeister]

and factually inaccurate imo

There is a huge degree of fail right there! Sorry but stuff like that annoys me

Wow, the fact that something as trivial as 3 words taken out of context annoys you is rather sad imo.

Context clearly isn't relevant its the fact that something can't be fact AND opinion, it is either one or the other. Something is either factually inaccurate (which you should demonstrate with said facts) or it is wrong in your opinion (to which you should counter with your opinion).

Confusing the two is a failure to grasp the concept of the two in the first place.

Who said that pedantry was not dead?! Maybe I just left the "imo" in by mistake. I was referring to the factually incorrect personal statements that were made about me.

I apologise profusely for annoying you so much with my typing error and I really hope that I have not ruined your weekend!

I do think that there are rather more important things to get annoyed about but hey ho each to their own!

[El Zen]

AMS uses top-up seats in addition to constituency elected members so as to balance out the parliament proportionally, but some systems require a minimum percentage of the national vote to qualify for the top-up seats, so the most extreme parties are excluded.

This is what I'm in favour of, personally. That's pretty much as proportionate you can get without creating a big parliamentary mess (the first parliamentary election in post-communist Poland was 100 per cent proportional, it was chaos).

But I still think it would be very difficult to keep fringe parties out in this system. They might fall under the threshold for top-up seats (depends how high you raise the bar, in Norway it is 4 per cent of the national popular vote) I think the BNP's share of the vote in certain regions is too high for them not to get one or two MPs, and it is likely that more people would vote for smaller parties if their chances of gaining representation was increased (as they undoubtedly would in a PR system).

Does anyone know the approximate share of the vote the BNP had in, say, Lancs and East London?

[El Zen]

As Michelsen alluded to earlier, just look at Le Pen in France. He wasn't far away from a win not all that long ago.

His party, Front National, at their peak had something like 12 per cent of the votes (and a similar share of the seats) when France had PR in the 80s. They've dropped put of the French parliament recently, gradually sliding out the doors after they reintroduced AV.

Though I guess you're thinking of when he came second in the presidential election of 2001, I believe it was, which is not a PR election (obviously). It was still a massive upset when Le Pen beat the Parti Socialiste candidate (and then PM) Lionel Jospin to face Chirac in the second round run off (which he lost in a landslide).

[JulieB]

Beeb are reporting some sort of formal deal is being thrashed out with Lib Dems rather than any loose form of co-operation..

From the Telegraph

The BBC also suggested that the Lib Dems have been offered three cabinet positions by the Tories - namely Home Secretary, Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Transport Secretary.

My initial thoughts were Clegg would be offered Home Secretary..

Cable a role in the Treasury - if they won't go as far as appointing him Chancellor -

Not sure who'd get Transport Secretary - maybe Simon Hughes?... Greening up the Tory Cabinet perhaps..

[snowychap]

Of course it wouldn't, but I do think it would be a start. It would be a kick up the arse if nothing else, and given how stale the whole political system is at the moment I don't see that it would be a bad thing. And I'm not suggesting fiddling of any sort, I am only saying that many PR systems have structural means of reducing the influence of the extreme parties without being undemocratic.

Ah, I wasn't suggesting that you thought it would, just that people need to be cautioned against suddenly thinking PR (or a form of it) would be a panacea.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time when solutions get put forward, they aren't looked at thoroughly enough so that people are fully aware of what the benefits and problems are likely to be (or could be). Again, you're not doing that but I feel that's what might occur in the wider public.

I very much agree with the 'kick up the arse' comment (and I suggest that was why a hung parliament with a strong hand for the Lib Dems received Gringo's nod, for example).

I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting fiddling. :winkold:

Though I can't see that having structural means to reduce the influence of extreme or fringe parties would be anything other than undemocratic. Structural means of trying to increase the functional potential of a system would be slightly (and importantly) different.

[snowychap]

Not sure who'd get Transport Secretary

Huhne, perhaps.