| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
| hannoir
Black Bloc
 | | Joined: 22 Jan 2006 | | Posts: 339 | | : | | Location: in a hole |
Items |
|
 Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: the great PR debate |
 |
|
so, i just thought id throw the issue of proportional representation out to you all, as i know that there are a fair few politically clued up people posting.
PR (or MMP) is used in a fair few countries, including new zealand and australia (though only for one house). it results in a parliament that represents all the votes made, and power is often shared between two or more parties, unless one party wins an overall majority.
personally i see it as a good thing (despite the obvious problems). people will feel as if their vote really matters, hopefully increasing turnout. a variety of interests are represented, which isnt the case at the moment.
british (or should i say english) politics is becoming too much of a two party system, and this could be alleviated by PR.
thoughts?
(ok shall get back to essay writing now, really...)
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannoir/ - check out my photos.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| higuy
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 301 | | : | |
Items |
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well i accept the British system could be seen as a two-party system but I do not think PR is the answer. It gives too much power to the small parties who control the balance of power, even though they only got a smaller share of the vote. Also introducing PR could potentially break the link between constituent and representative. In this country currently we all know who our MP is to lobby. However if PR was introduced we would have to resort to merely lobbying parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gorky
Black Bloc
 | | Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | | Posts: 164 | | : | |
Items |
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| higuy wrote: | | Well i accept the British system could be seen as a two-party system but I do not think PR is the answer. It gives too much power to the small parties who control the balance of power, even though they only got a smaller share of the vote. Also introducing PR could potentially break the link between constituent and representative. In this country currently we all know who our MP is to lobby. However if PR was introduced we would have to resort to merely lobbying parties. |
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) solves all of the problems you have suggested.
_________________
“But you are a thin-blooded lot! Ere you have grown up you are already overgrown and withered. You live like an old radish." - Maxim Gorky, The Man Who Was Afraid, Chapter 10. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| higuy
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 301 | | : | |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a 'great debate' this turned out to be!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterM
Street Demonstrator
| | Joined: 23 Feb 2006 | | Posts: 64 | | : | |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Guild has policy supporting the campaign for electoral reform and PR.
Myself, Joe Rooney, Gary Hughes and Richard Angell were all proud sponsors of the motion  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Oktober
Black Bloc
 | | Joined: 20 Feb 2006 | | Posts: 290 | | : | | Location: Maple Skank |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This country has 2 houses of parliament, curently one is full of regional representatives, and the other is full of random apointees and various people who have no right to be there.
Why can't a system be developed so that we have a PR elected house and a localy elected house?
The problem with not being able to lobby your MP is mabe an issue with PR, but my MP is a f**k wanker, and is not going to pay any attention to me anyway, he's going to follow the party line and suck up to his rightwing supporters no matter what I do, because it's one of the safest constituancys there is, so it's really not going to make me or anyone else stuck in a safe constituancy any worse off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gorky
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | | Posts: 164 | | : | |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PeterM wrote: | The Guild has policy supporting the campaign for electoral reform and PR.
Myself, Joe Rooney, Gary Hughes and Richard Angell were all proud sponsors of the motion |
But what type of PR? Please tell! List PR, for example, was adopted for Welsh Assembly elections to let party leaders select only the most loyal politicians to top the list (and therefore be elected). A great way to exclude radical trouble makers for the party bosses. It's not a good form of PR, there are alternatives, it's not a simple FPTP bad/PR good divide.
_________________
“But you are a thin-blooded lot! Ere you have grown up you are already overgrown and withered. You live like an old radish." - Maxim Gorky, The Man Who Was Afraid, Chapter 10. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JulienP
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 04 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 463 | | : | | Location: Selly Park, Birmingham |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like AMS, I will explain it when I have time.
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Teapotboy
Black Bloc
 | | Joined: 05 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 691 | | : | | Location: Hamburg, Germany |
Items |
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh please don't Jules, can't we have one night in this house without talking about politics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JulienP
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 04 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 463 | | : | | Location: Selly Park, Birmingham |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too late, we just did while watching a film, which wasn't really political, ah nevermind!!! Again the explanation will have to wait!!!
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dear Prudence
Black Bloc
 | | Joined: 04 Feb 2006 | | Posts: 299 | | : | | Location: Brum Uni/Sussex |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oktober wrote: | This country has 2 houses of parliament, curently one is full of regional representatives, and the other is full of random apointees and various people who have no right to be there.
|
Well they do have the right to be there because they've been given the right by the people who get to decide.
Strangely enough I can see a lot of pros with the House of Lords. After all do we really want two houses controlled by whips and the payroll vote? Also the Lords are often older and wiser and hold back hasty decisions. Obviously sometimes they're just fuddy duddy old conservatives, but at the end of the day they don't have the power to completely stop a bill. I think we'll be worse off when the House of Lords goes.
And yeah I'm for PR.
_________________
'Men make their own history, but not of their own free will; not under circumstances they themselves have chosen'
- Marx, 1852
http://robertating.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Oktober
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 20 Feb 2006 | | Posts: 290 | | : | | Location: Maple Skank |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The main group I was thinkng of that have no right to be there are Bishops and I don't think the rump of hereditary lords have any legitimate right to govern us, just cos the commons allows them to stay does not mean that its right they are there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Teapotboy
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 05 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 691 | | : | | Location: Hamburg, Germany |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They have the right, they are there legally. I do not have the right to cut your head off. They do have the right to be there. Whether you think this ir "right" is a different matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Oktober
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 20 Feb 2006 | | Posts: 290 | | : | | Location: Maple Skank |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just because the govenment decides something does not mean it is right. The chinesese govenment decides it can control people speach, does this mean that the people in china have no right to free speach? In 1939 Hitler was the legitimate leader of germany does that mean he had the right to execute millions of his own citizens? It was all legal, they produced legislation for it through the offical channels, does that make it ok? Was it thier right to do this? Rights are differnt to legality.
I think right now, the house of lords is important because they don't have to please anyone, and they don't have to follow a party line, if they were abolished with the current system of first past the post still in the commons, then it would be pretty terrible as the ruling party could shove all kinds of crap into law without anyone opposing it.
But with PR, then there would be no huge majority for the ruling party and so rushing things through parliment would not be possible as cross party support would be needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Teapotboy
Black Bloc
| | Joined: 05 Mar 2006 | | Posts: 691 | | : | | Location: Hamburg, Germany |
Items |
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oktober wrote: | | Just because the govenment decides something does not mean it is right. The chinesese govenment decides it can control people speach, does this mean that the people in china have no right to free speach? In 1939 Hitler was the legitimate leader of germany does that mean he had the right to execute millions of his own citizens? It was all legal, they produced legislation for it through the offical channels, does that make it ok? Was it thier right to do this? Rights are differnt to legality. |
Bloody hell that's exactly what me and Prude said, glad it finally sank in. You said they have "no right" to be there, not that it was (in your opinion) "not right" there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
