Proportional Representation
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 We are goin up!  Coulsdon 12 May 15 8.58am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Percy of Peckham at 09 May 2015 11.45am
It just seems a shame that 'minority interests' remain so. They don't get a chance to develop any critical mass under fptp.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 12 May 15 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 8.53am
let us not forget how deplorable and manipulative the campaign to get a NO vote was. I disagree. I heard the arguments of the YES campaign that they were defeated by the Prime Minister's campaigning power, a largely hostile press and a tough opposing campaign.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 12 May 15 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.03am
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 8.53am
let us not forget how deplorable and manipulative the campaign to get a NO vote was. I disagree. I heard the arguments of the YES campaign that they were defeated by the Prime Minister's campaigning power, a largely hostile press and a tough opposing campaign.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 12 May 15 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 12 May 2015 8.57am
It is hogwash to say these people are "Unrepresented". Every elector in each constituency is represented by their MP.As an example, the Protestant fundamentalist Ian Paisley was assiduous in looking after the day-to-day concerns of his Catholic constituents and was hard working and vigorous in addressing their complaints.He certainly represented them !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 12 May 15 9.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.07am
I've already given an example of how manipulative the campaign was. There is no other way to explain away an ad like that. 'Vote Yes and put critically ill babies at risk'. Well of course this was not a slogan put out by the NO campaign. The point made was that a change to a new system would cost millions, money that could be spent on cardiac treatment for babies or body armour for troops.In fact if I recall correctly, Cameron said he wouldn't argue it in this manner but laid out the facts that a change WOULD cost money. Anyway this is all in the past and the NO vote was 68% to the YES 32%.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 12 May 15 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.16am
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.07am
I've already given an example of how manipulative the campaign was. There is no other way to explain away an ad like that. 'Vote Yes and put critically ill babies at risk'. Well of course this was not a slogan put out by the NO campiagn. The point made was that a change to a new system would cost millions, money that could be spent on cardiac treatment for babies or body armour for troops.In fact if I recall correctly, Cameron said he wouldn't argue it in this manner but laid out the facts that a change WOULD cost money. The ad was put out by the NO campaign and that was the message it intended to send. Here's another.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 12 May 15 9.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.18am
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.16am
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.07am
I've already given an example of how manipulative the campaign was. There is no other way to explain away an ad like that. 'Vote Yes and put critically ill babies at risk'. Well of course this was not a slogan put out by the NO campiagn. The point made was that a change to a new system would cost millions, money that could be spent on cardiac treatment for babies or body armour for troops.In fact if I recall correctly, Cameron said he wouldn't argue it in this manner but laid out the facts that a change WOULD cost money. The ad was put out by the NO campaign and that was the message it intended to send. Here's another. Well the message got through !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ambrose7 Croydon 12 May 15 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 May 2015 8.44pm
Quote ambrose7 at 11 May 2015 10.45am
Also, under PR this year the Conservatives + UKIP would have 50%. Labour would have less votes than the Conservatives but add up all the left wing parties and they also make pretty much bang on 50%. Prime Minister/Chancellor etc. would still be Labour or Conservative but how do you decide which? It's just another false majority when you eventually get down to it. It's also the end of independent candidates, some of whom have secured election on the basis that their community wants them to represent them. Neither system is perfect, but PR has a lot of problems that need to be properly considered. Too much I suppose to expect these over paid Oxford boys to actually co-operate, rather than just bicker at one another across party lines, and do what they paid to do. When one side wants to spend their way out of economic difficulty and one wants to attempt to spend within the country's means, that is one example of a situation in which I can imagine it is very difficult to compromise. If you thought the bickering was bad in the election after the coalition, imagine that situation with a Labour Prime Minister, Conservative Chancellor and a Labour DWP Minister. I'd say the bickering would likely increase as it would be difficult to really hold anyone to account for a decision.
26th January 2010 - Enter Administration |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 12 May 15 9.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.21am
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.18am
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.16am
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 9.07am
I've already given an example of how manipulative the campaign was. There is no other way to explain away an ad like that. 'Vote Yes and put critically ill babies at risk'. Well of course this was not a slogan put out by the NO campiagn. The point made was that a change to a new system would cost millions, money that could be spent on cardiac treatment for babies or body armour for troops.In fact if I recall correctly, Cameron said he wouldn't argue it in this manner but laid out the facts that a change WOULD cost money. The ad was put out by the NO campaign and that was the message it intended to send. Here's another. Well the message got through ! It distorts and takes advantage of peoples fears. I'm not for political gain at any cost. "If I vote AV my baby might die", "If I vote AV our brave soldiers will get killed". Those are the messages it leaves people and it's a total distortion of reality. All decisions in politics cost money, there is nothing special about these ones that endanger groups in society that elicit the most sympathy from us - vulnerable and brave in turn. These groups are exploited here for a purpose. It works as advertising, yes, but again it's clearly deplorable. That's the trouble with partisanship in politics. It's win at any costs, no matter who you have to use to get there, then think of reasons why it's 'okay'. It isn't.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 12 May 15 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.07am
Quote npn at 12 May 2015 8.57am
It is hogwash to say these people are "Unrepresented". Every elector in each constituency is represented by their MP.As an example, the Protestant fundamentalist Ian Paisley was assiduous in looking after the day-to-day concerns of his Catholic constituents and was hard working and vigorous in addressing their complaints.He certainly represented them !
He might raise a concern over the closure of a hospital, but all that's by-the-by in the running of tyhe country - I'd actually rather that was all done by local government rather than waste Westminster time anyway.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| lil j-eagle little bookham 12 May 15 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 08 May 2015 8.04pm
Quote The Sash at 08 May 2015 3.49pm
Quote DanH at 08 May 2015 3.47pm
We certainly need a more representative system. The Tories having complete control is just bonkers. Any one party having complete control is bonkers. A system stuck in the dark ages.. I voted Ukip but I can't bring myself to argue against FPTP. It's the only system that actually gets things done.....A system where you can truly judge a party because they have had their agenda unrestrained by their opponents. Proportional representation is fairer and more democratic......But it's also a lousy form of government.
Messi, you're good, but you can't hit a ball like ambrose |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 May 15 6.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 May 2015 9.07am
Quote npn at 12 May 2015 8.57am
It is hogwash to say these people are "Unrepresented". Every elector in each constituency is represented by their MP.As an example, the Protestant fundamentalist Ian Paisley was assiduous in looking after the day-to-day concerns of his Catholic constituents and was hard working and vigorous in addressing their complaints.He certainly represented them ! I'm sure the Conservative MP for my constituency will represent me in parliament.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.