General election

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 164349, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. School doesnt teach the mainstream about thinking, sadly.

    But there may be a reason.

    You have to learn to think, I think.

    SWBUILDERS Active Member

    longboat likes this.
  3. WillyEckerslike

    WillyEckerslike Screwfix Select

    I've been doing my utmost best to keep up with all sides (or is that both?) of this argument and must be honest and admit that I haven't fully understood all that has been proffered to date. I suspect that may be because it may not tie in with my own ideologies so I may not have given it full thrift but I was trying. Now I have been completely thrown and think I should give up. Who the f#ck is Brenda?
  4. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    It's an interesting question, do you have to learn to think? We could discuss that one for a fair while :D
  5. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member


    Brenda went viral the day the new election was announced. She is a lady from Bristol (iirc) that was asked what she thought and she basically replied, omg not another election.
  6. WillyEckerslike

    WillyEckerslike Screwfix Select

    Thank you. As this forum is the only thing I might class as a foray into social media of any sort, I had missed that particular virus.
    P J Thompson likes this.
  7. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    You must do very well at avoiding the media as well :D She was plastered all over the goggle box
  8. WillyEckerslike

    WillyEckerslike Screwfix Select

    Our TV is almost as bad as our newspapers in my opinion. Unless you have time and determination to get deep into any subject we are subjected to sh1te sound bites and titillation so I hardly bother. If it isn't on the screwfix forum.......
  9. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    I think the telly is worse than the newspapers. The newspapers nail their colours to the mast politically, whereas the telly pretends to be impartial whilst subtly (and often not so subtly) steering perceptions.
    WillyEckerslike likes this.
  10. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Screwfix Select

    I agree that first past the post is not ideal, but PR has its limitations too, take for example a scenario of 50 million people eligible to vote and 20 million vote for party A, but 25 million vote for party B and there are 500 MP vacancies, I take it that Party A will have 200 MPs and party B 250 MPs. That sounds fine, but what happens when there are 300 candidates for the 200 vacancies? Who decides which ones are to represent each constituency? Another series of local elections? the top scoring 200? Then who decides which constituency the lucky 200 represent? I don't see how extra complexity can make things fairer because at the end of the exercise some constituencies that prefer party A will have an MP for party B. The whole thing would be a big mucking fuddle.
    If 49% of eligible voters can't be bothered to vote it serves them right if they are not represented.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  11. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    It's a tricky one alright. Both systems have their pros and cons.
    My main objection regarding the PR system is that you would very rarely end up with a situation where a particular party has an overall majority in the house.
    All concerned have to rely on alliances with other party's, compromises and lack of accountability ensue.
    No single party is in charge and therefore getting anything done takes a hell of a lot longer than it should.

    There is also a down-side to the fptp system, as you've already explained.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  12. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    There are already various methods of addressing the issues you describe about constituencys, Harry. Though obviously none of them are perfect. I'm not aware of ANY perfect political system. The fact does remain though that PR offers something far more like democracy than fptp.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  13. That's the issue - is having to compromise and argue and then agree on virtually every single issue a good or bad thing?

    The UK ain't used to working like this, but it might actually be a 'good' thing.

    Deleted member 164349 likes this.
  14. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    PR would indeed likely throw up more co-alitions. Would indeed not lead to the kind of "strong government" that Maggie May wants to get from this election. You could take the view that this would be a good thing ;) It would go a long way toward putting a brake on some of the more extreme actions of "strong governments". But I do get your point and it's definitely an area that would need open and frank discussion.

  15. Maybe start a thread if you want.

    Personally I think it is demonstrated regularly in all areas of life.

    And yes, that does include here.
  16. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    Yes, on paper it does sound like a good idea really, or it should do, but in reality it boils down to 'too many cooks, spoil the broth'.
    Someone needs to be in charge in order to get things done.
  17. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    All parties want to get a strong government in all elections, this one is now't special, although I do hope that May gains a landslide.
    I see it as the most likely way that we could ever realise a proper brexit.

    Strong governments get things done, you only have to look at the vast number of achievements that the, Blair-years brought about. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what was done, it happened predominantly because they (labour) had a massive majority, especially during the first term. A 180 or so majority I think.
    May would be over the moon with half that amount and yet, you can almost guarantee that the media will be peddling the line that the country is now ruled by a dictatorship if she does.
    Funny that.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  18. Yes, that's the main argument for 'first past the post' - it provides governments that can be more radical in their policies. But usually they don't last as long so the huge reversal is made to these policies with the next government. I am coming round to the idea of proportional rep - at least that way the changes should be more 'measured' and are more likely to be be seen through longer-term.

    On your last point, the newspaper media, certainly, won't peddle that 'dictatorship' line because that media is almost exclusively far-right, run by Dacre and Murdoch. They will both creamtheirpants at a May landslide.
    Deleted member 164349 likes this.

  19. That is really the problem.

    Finding independant information to allow yourself to find your own position.
  20. WillyEckerslike

    WillyEckerslike Screwfix Select

    The very nature of this type of discussion on a forum like this is that similar to radio phone ins, it generally attracts polar opposites. You can probably count on one hand the number of regular contributors from either camp, some of us can even name them - and have! These somewhat entrenched but well informed opinions don't do much to widen the debate I suspect and most of these threads ultimately descend in to some form of name calling shortly before they are banned by the mods.
    For that reason I'm out!
    chippie244 likes this.

Share This Page