results

[kinboshi]

LOL - I like the way they've glossed over the fundamental differences, and focused on the points where there is a scrap of common ground.

[Bongo]

I think where the fundamental differences aren't the economy/urgent they'll just want to get on with it and sort it out later for the good of the country.

[Bongo]

As Hannan says:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100038675/an-entente-with-the-lib-dems-is-not-impossible/

(I quite like Dan Hannan)

[neeko]

Given that all parties are going to throw out every thing in their manifestos the moment they see the financial figures, I find it funny that all politicians that appear on tv only talk about there policies as if they intent to stick to them.

I think that a combination of con lab would be good, let's face it there is more in common between cameron and clegg than between bill cash and ken Clarke.

[Rod Paradise]

...
I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour.
...

This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit.

When? Apart froma  couple of protest votes, the over use of the party whip has made MP's personality/approach to local issues even less of a relevance. Unless you've a George Galloway type who you know will fight for his constituents whatever happens, then you're stuck with party drones scared to rock the boat.

[Rod Paradise]

I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR.

Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR.

Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off.

I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour.
If my party puts up a 19 year old on a gap year I'm probably going to vote for someone else.

There are problems with FPTP, but surprsing number of safe seats changed hands, or almost changed hands this year. A sign that politics becoming less tribal all the time, a trend that people are making up their own minds more and more rather than voting just for who their parents did.
Long way to go still obv.



I like how election night is uncertain. With national polling being more and more accurate, under PR we might be able to know who won and by how much before we actually vote.




My biggest worry is that a party can get in who just cites populist policies that sound good in the pub or in the columns of redtop newspapers but don't take into account the complexity of the situation, or potential negative ramifications.
If 70% of people everywhere know you're shite, it'll be tough to get enough votes in a single seat as you can only work with the 30% who are idiots. Under PR obv they've got a chance to get a decent number of seats.
I don't know if we need to pay public money to stick a load of MPs from wacky parties in the commons to talk bollox and slow things up.
Not just right wing wacky, you'll get a lot of seats taken up by single issue lefty parties. Facebook group to promote the Pro Squirrel party, who to be fair don't just look after squirrels, but other woodland creatures who happen to be cute.



The idea that PR is completely and unquestionalbly fair is also a bit of a fallacy.
If you had a deal between 1st place and 3rd place party, more people voted for 2nd place party but they have less power than 3rd place party. It's not an out of the world example that 3 times as many people could vote for 2nd place than 3rd place, but 3rd place party ends up with 3 times the amount of actual power.




Under PR you've still got the safe seats for top brass, in fact, unless you spend money on having primary elections of something like that, the safe seats are about 5,000 times safer.



I'm not against the idea of reform altogether, but I don't want to go full on into PR with both feet.

So the people that voted for the publicity hound & the loonball (all IMO & IYO) get no representation at all?

Sorry Tank we need a far better argument than FPTP fuels my gambling & competitive fire.

[Jon MW]

...
I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour.
...

This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit.

When? Apart froma  couple of protest votes, the over use of the party whip has made MP's personality/approach to local issues even less of a relevance. Unless you've a George Galloway type who you know will fight for his constituents whatever happens, then you're stuck with party drones scared to rock the boat.

There were several results that came in on election night where the trend for or against one party or another was attributed to 'local issues', so in several places the individuals approach and attitude was directly relevant to the result.

And it has to be remembered that most of the legislation that the Commons works on isn't very interesting or very important and doesn't involve a lot of the MP's.

If you have a vote on some minor regulation which affects land based fishing fleets for example then not many of the 650 MP's are going to pay it any attention, but if you live in a town with a land based fishing fleet you're going to be appreciative of an electoral system where your MP can be brought to account on which way they voted (or whether they voted).

That's a specific example, but most constituencies will be greatly affected by minor pieces of regulation which don't matter at the national level

[Jon MW]

..So the people that voted for the publicity hound & the loonball (all IMO & IYO) get no representation at all?

...

No, they get represented by the MP who was elected.

They represent the whole of their constituency, not just their voters.

They may not represent those who didn't vote for them as closely, but those voters still have a voice in Parliament.

[TightEnd]

If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday

Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties

[MANTIS01]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues.

Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority.  That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised.

To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit.  Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo).

One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will.

[kinboshi]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues.

Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority.  That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised.

To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit.  Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo).

One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will.

You're not listening to what I've said.  I haven't said a LabDem coalition is what they want either. 

The actual result of the election is that most people didn't vote Tory - yet you're saying they should hold majority power.

[kinboshi]

I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR.

Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR.

Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off.

...and instead we get Nadine Dorries.

[TightEnd]

I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR.

Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR.

Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off.

...and instead we get Nadine Dorries.

Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month.

[doubleup]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues.

Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority.  That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised.

To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit.  Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo).

One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will.

If a lab/lib coalition had a majority Clegg wouldn't be having anymore than cursory discussions with the Tories no matter how many votes they got.  

[Claw75]

If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday

Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties

but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo.  Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen