The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Octafish

Fretwired said:

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

Not exactly job done. You're dodging one of the fundamental problems with our current system, that is that we get governments that the majority of the country don't want. To me that's unrepresentative and divisive and leads to the disconnect from politics that a lot of people feel.

Government should require 50% or more of the electorate behind it and if that means coaltition so be it. We seriously need an end to adversarial politics as it's uncontructive, unintelligent and allows parties to play politics with important issues such as healthcare and education, constantly fiddling with the sytem, building little empires and pushing ideologically based vanity projects.

(Edit  - or do you mean the party with the most seats gets to lead the building of a coalition? Obviously government would not function if it does not have the majority of seats)

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

Octafish

guitarfishbay said:

New Labour had a giant majority under FPTP, it was no longer in their interests at least early on

Yes very true, it's always party before country with adversarial politics. Plus dealing with electoral reform can be drawn out and hard work and doesn't have the same glitz or glamour to it as parading on the world stage with the US president.

Jalapeno

Fretwired said:

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

Trouble with that Party List approach is you end up with 100% Party Apparatchiks and all of them slimy toadies.

Fretwired

Octafish said:

Fretwired said:

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

Not exactly job done. You're dodging one of the fundamental problems with our current system, that is that we get governments that the majority of the country don't want. To me that's unrepresentative and divisive and leads to the disconnect from politics that a lot of people feel.

Government should require 50% or more of the electorate behind it and if that means coaltition so be it. We seriously need an end to adversarial politics as it's uncontructive, unintelligent and allows parties to play politics with important issues such as healthcare and education, constantly fiddling with the sytem, building little empires and pushing ideologically based vanity projects.

(Edit  - or do you mean the party with the most seats gets to lead the building of a coalition? Obviously government would not function if it does not have the majority of seats)

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

You've not thought it through.

If you get 40% of the votes you only get 40% of the seats so you wouldn't be the majority party. There would be a coalition. Since no party has recently got over 50% of the vote I think coalition is what you'd get most elections.

The party with the most seats would get first crack at forming a government. If they can't the other parties could see if they could form a government.

It would also mean more smaller parties, like the Greens,  getting more representation. In 2015 UKIP got 4 million votes, but no seats. That couldn't happen under my system.

Under my system coalition would be the norm. I also think there would be more parties.

I think it fair.

Fretwired

Octafish said:

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

I disagree. The last thing we need is an elected second chamber. I'd reform it as follows:

• Scrap political parties - once in the Lords you are expected to be independent
• It should be a body of experts scrutinising legislation
• People should be appointed by an independent committee based on their expertise and experience
• Specialised committees of experts can advise the government and give the public feedback on things they are concerned about
• Hereditary peers should be booted out unless they are experts - there are some farmers and landowners
• Only a few ex-politicians should be allowed to take seats
  

That would be a start.

thomasw88

interesting article today about the makeup of the corbyn vote.   

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-success-youth-young-vote-msm-commentariat-wrong-dangerous-a7787301.html

Fretwired

Jalapeno said:

Fretwired said:

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

Trouble with that Party List approach is you end up with 100% Party Apparatchiks and all of them slimy toadies.

That's basically what you get now. Corbyn has made sure his supporters are well represented and the Tories parachuted a black candidate into Harpenden and Hitchin rather than letting the local party choose.

However, there would be nothing to stop local party members still selecting their candidates. No system is perfect and only a tiny proportion of any party select candidates.

Octafish

Fretwired said:

Octafish said:

Fretwired said:

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

Not exactly job done. You're dodging one of the fundamental problems with our current system, that is that we get governments that the majority of the country don't want. To me that's unrepresentative and divisive and leads to the disconnect from politics that a lot of people feel.

Government should require 50% or more of the electorate behind it and if that means coaltition so be it. We seriously need an end to adversarial politics as it's uncontructive, unintelligent and allows parties to play politics with important issues such as healthcare and education, constantly fiddling with the sytem, building little empires and pushing ideologically based vanity projects.

(Edit  - or do you mean the party with the most seats gets to lead the building of a coalition? Obviously government would not function if it does not have the majority of seats)

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

You've not thought it through.

If you get 40% of the votes you only get 40% of the seats so you wouldn't be the majority party. There would be a coalition. Since no party has recently got over 50% of the vote I think coalition is what you'd get most elections.

The party will the most seats would get first crack at forming a government. If they can't the other parties could see if they could form a government.

It would also mean more smaller parties, like the Greens,  getting more representation. In 2015 UKIP got 4 million votes, but no seats. That couldn't happen under my system.

Under my system coalition would be the norm. I also think there would be more parties.

I think it fair.

Yep, I edited my post to address that. Misunderstood what you meant by "form the government". Agree with that.

Octafish

Fretwired said:

Octafish said:

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

I disagree. The last thing we need is an elected second chamber. I'd reform it as follows:

• Scrap political parties - once in the Lords you are expected to be independent
• It should be a body of experts scrutinising legislation
• People should be appointed by an independent committee based on their expertise and experience
• Specialised committees of experts can advise the government and give the public feedback on things they are concerned about
• Hereditary peers should be booted out unless they are experts - there are some farmers and landowners
• Only a few ex-politicians should be allowed to take seats
  

That would be a start.

That sounds all a bit vague and woolly and open to abuse... how will ensure independence in anything other than name, who makes the appointments, how do you ensure their impartiality? I can't see a how supposed democracy in the 21st century can entertain an unelected upper house, it's the thing of the dictatorships and one party states.

Fretwired

Octafish said:

Fretwired said:

Octafish said:

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

I disagree. The last thing we need is an elected second chamber. I'd reform it as follows:

• Scrap political parties - once in the Lords you are expected to be independent
• It should be a body of experts scrutinising legislation
• People should be appointed by an independent committee based on their expertise and experience
• Specialised committees of experts can advise the government and give the public feedback on things they are concerned about
• Hereditary peers should be booted out unless they are experts - there are some farmers and landowners
• Only a few ex-politicians should be allowed to take seats
  

That would be a start.

That sounds all a bit vague and woolly and open to abuse... how will ensure independence in anything other than name, who makes the appointments, how do you ensure their impartiality? I can't see a how supposed democracy in the 21st century can entertain an unelected upper house, it's the thing of the dictatorships and one party states.

Not Vauge or woolly. The House of Lords is there to advise - that's what it does at the moment. The House of Commons can always overrule it so I really don't get your dictatorship stance. At the moment the place is stuffed with ex-politicians. In my version they'd get pushed out in favour of experts. For example, I like senior doctors and health professionals to independently comment of NHS reforms.

The last thing we need is a US style mess with two elected chambers.

Jalapeno

Think the agenda's pretty clogged up at the moment without constitutional reform (which would need ANOTHER fecking referendum)

Heartfeltdawn

An elected second chamber would be a mess. Look at what we've had introduced since 2010: the PPC elections are a bloody joke. Regional mayors likewise. They haven't made things better, it's simply been a way for politicians to meddle in more ways. 

The HoL has its problems but the standard of debate within its confines is of a far higher standard than in the other place. It gets little coverage outside of BBC Parliament sadly. 

Boromedic

ICBM said:

This illustrates another of the major problems with FPTP as an election system - and also why it's possible for a party to win more votes, but fewer seats… which has happened more than once.

Boromedic said:

All the more reason to change our ridiculously outdated political system to proportional representation. Even though that would have meant a majority for the party I didn't like.

A proper PR system would have still produced a Tory minority government or a coalition - 42.4% Tory (276 seats), 40% Labour (260 seats). In fact, it would still be impossible for any two-party coalition (other than Tory-Labour) to have a majority, since the Lib Dems only got 7.4% (48 seats), which would leave a Tory-LD government two seats short. Either Labour would need the Lib Dems, the SNP and a grand coalition of minor parties - or the Tories, Lib Dems and one of the small parties.

But this is the way most European governments work, so I don't see why it seems to be seen as such a problem in the UK.

Yeah I kinda worded it badly, I just meant they would've had the most seats in the house, lol. As you say it works in Europe so lets have it!

english_bob

Heartfeltdawn said:

An elected second chamber would be a mess. Look at what we've had introduced since 2010: the PPC elections are a bloody joke. Regional mayors likewise. They haven't made things better, it's simply been a way for politicians to meddle in more ways. 

The HoL has its problems but the standard of debate within its confines is of a far higher standard than in the other place. It gets little coverage outside of BBC Parliament sadly. 

The HoL has also been a significant barrier to many of the nastiest nasty party proposals from the Conservatives over the last few years. In the absence of a decent opposition in the commons (regardless of which side holds the majority), having a second chamber that can't be shifted so quickly by the whim of the electorate is a good thing.

chillidoggy

We can all breathe easy, Diane Abbott will be fine, she's announced that she has type 42 diabetes.

Bridgehouse

chillidoggy said:

We can all breathe easy, Diane Abbott will be fine, she's announced that she has type 42 diabetes.

Isn't that an old destroyer??

richardhomer

Bridgehouse said:

chillidoggy said:

We can all breathe easy, Diane Abbott will be fine, she's announced that she has type 42 diabetes.

Isn't that an old destroyer??

It can destroy the relatively young if it's bad enough....

Seymour1

Bridgehouse said:

chillidoggy said:

We can all breathe easy, Diane Abbott will be fine, she's announced that she has type 42 diabetes.

Isn't that an old destroyer??

You're just trying to sink Chilli's funny ship aren't you?

Chalky

Fretwired said: Jo

Octafish said:

Fretwired said:

Octafish said:

We also need to resolve the issue of the undemocratic and unelected House of Lords by getting rid of it. Unelected upper houses are things of places like Iran. Also disestablish the church, they have no right to be undemocratically involved in politics.

I disagree. The last thing we need is an elected second chamber. I'd reform it as follows:

• Scrap political parties - once in the Lords you are expected to be independent
• It should be a body of experts scrutinising legislation
• People should be appointed by an independent committee based on their expertise and experience
• Specialised committees of experts can advise the government and give the public feedback on things they are concerned about
• Hereditary peers should be booted out unless they are experts - there are some farmers and landowners
• Only a few ex-politicians should be allowed to take seats
  

That would be a start.

That sounds all a bit vague and woolly and open to abuse... how will ensure independence in anything other than name, who makes the appointments, how do you ensure their impartiality? I can't see a how supposed democracy in the 21st century can entertain an unelected upper house, it's the thing of the dictatorships and one party states.

Not Vauge or woolly. The House of Lords is there to advise - that's what it does at the moment. The House of Commons can always overrule it so I really don't get your dictatorship stance. At the moment the place is stuffed with ex-politicians. In my version they'd get pushed out in favour of experts. For example, I like senior doctors and health professionals to independently comment of NHS reforms.

The last thing we need is a US style mess with two elected chambers.

Almost impossible to find a democracy that doesn't have political parties. Even if you scrapped them they would be there. People naturally find like-minded people.

Your belief in apolitical "independent experts" is plain foolish. Such people simply do not exist. Sure there are experts. There are no independent experts. Politics is about choices, and experts absolutely do not know the best political choices that should be made. They are good at identifying options but that does not translate into choice.  Every political choice results in winners and losers in the population, and the experts can probably indicate who the winners and losers will be.  But it is the political view of your experts that will come into play about who they think SHOULD be winners and who SHOULD be losers.

Also in your 'elected dictator plus cronies' system, how can an unaffiliated individual become a democratically elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we move back to the old days where it was impossible for the majority of the population to become a democratically elected representative?

Fretwired

Chalky said:

Almost impossible to find a democracy that doesn't have political parties. Even if you scrapped them they would be there. People naturally find like-minded people.

Your belief in apolitical "independent experts" is plain foolish. Such people simply do not exist. Sure there are experts. There are no independent experts. Politics is about choices, and experts absolutely do not know the best political choices that should be made. They are good at identifying options but that does not translate into choice.  Every political choice results in winners and losers in the population, and the experts can probably indicate who the winners and losers will be.  But it is the political view of your experts that will come into play about who they think SHOULD be winners and who SHOULD be losers.

Also in your 'elected dictator plus cronies' system, how can an unaffiliated individual become a democratically elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we move back to the old days where it was impossible for the majority of the population to become a democratically elected representative?

I didn't say people would be apolitical. I said scrap political parties in the Lords and stop political appointments. I have seen Commons and Lords committees working and you might be surprised how well they work and how people from different parties can agree on many things.