It doesn't work because they don't use it. Canada still uses First Past The Post.

 

 

Sorry it's NEW ZEALAND. My memory must be going. :(

I know this is slighty off topic, but seeing as it is about the next general election I thought I would post it here:

 

:D

 

 

There's no hope left for Labour – apart, perhaps, from hopelessness itself

Brown might as well go for broke with his election pledges – free croissants it is

o Charlie Brooker

o The Guardian, Monday 11 January 2010

 

So then. Following a half-hearted coup attempt, which turned out to be the equivalent of Hoon and Hewitt trying to assassinate their target by firing a rubber band at his head as he walked past the tuckshop – bookmakers say there is currently 25% less chance of Labour winning the general election than there is of Kevin Keegan inexplicably giving birth to a horse on St Swithin's Day. The Conservatives don't have to do much except wait patiently, gliding toward 6 May like a baleen whale with its mouth flapping open, lazily preparing to inhale an acre of krill. Unless David Cameron holds a live televised press conference at which he pulls his fleshy mask off to reveal he's been Darren Day all along, they've got it in the bag.

 

Even a preposterous advertising campaign can't dent the Tories. All over London, billboards depict Cameron looking you in the eye with an expression of genteel concern, accompanied by the slogan "We can't go on like this". To the observer, the overall effect is that of a man trying to wriggle out of an unfulfilling sexual relationship without hurting your feelings. Or maybe a boss who's called you into his office for a passive-aggressive talking-to. Would you vote for that? Not normally, no. But when the opposition is a flock of startled, shrieking hens, your range of options shrinks drastically.

 

But perhaps there's still a glimmer of hope for Labour. I recently watched several episodes of a high-quality US comedy-drama serial called Breaking Bad. The storyline revolves around an underachieving, debt-ridden 50-year-old chemistry teacher who discovers he's got terminal cancer. But wait, it gets funnier. Realising he has absolutely nothing to lose, he decides to become a crystal meth dealer in an insane last-ditch attempt to provide financial support for his family when he's gone. Cue plenty of pitch-black hi-jinks.

 

It's a good show. It's also a road map for Labour. The party's condition is similarly terminal, so it might as well go for broke by announcing a series of demented and ill-advised election pledges in an openly desperate bid to retain power. Who knows? It might just work. And if it's having a hard time choosing some make-or-break policies, I'll be only too happy to provide a list. Starting now.

 

Pledge 1: promise to govern while wearing spandex leotards like they do on Hole in the Wall if elected.

On the face of it, this sounds terrible. No one wants to see David Miliband rising to his feet in a silver bodysuit so tight you can make out every facet of his groin in topographic detail. They don't even want to read that description of it. But while it might be hard on our eyes, it would be uncomfortable and humiliating for the MPs. And think about it: they have to wear it every day for at least four years. They're not allowed to take them off either, so by the end of the term the House of Commons would reek. I'd vote for that. Come on, it would be funny.

 

Suggested campaign poster: Ed Balls in horribly tight leotard. Slogan: "SEE BALLS PUSH FOR GLORY."

 

Pledge 2: Tudor-style execution of Simon Cowell.

This would be desperately unfair on Cowell, who would be arrested, held in the Tower of London, and beheaded on live television should Labour get back in. No matter how low your opinion of Britain's Got Talent, the man has clearly done nothing to deserve that kind of extreme treatment. But extreme treatment grabs headlines. And the recent Christmas chart triumph of Rage Against the Machine over Joe McElderry's X Factor single indicates a hitherto-untapped, steadily expanding groundswell of anti-Cowell discontent which a cynical and desperate party could exploit for its own nefarious ends. Barbaric and cynical, yes – but on balance marginally more humane than scapegoating an entire minority and establishing death camps or anything quite as horrible like that.

 

Poster: Photoshop of Cowell's head on pole. Slogan: "BRITAIN'S GOT PAYBACK."

 

Pledge 3: free warm croissants on buses.

Yes it's lame, but it'll get people talking far more than yet another dull promise about education spending or the like. Not only can the voter imagine it actually happening, they can virtually smell it in their mind's nose. And that feels good during a cold snap. Come on, Labour. Go for it!

 

Poster: mouth-watering close-up of warm croissant. Slogan: "MMMM!"

 

Pledge 4: let the country exit with a bang.

Let's face it, no matter what we do the environment's knackered, the deficit's insurmountable, and Britain's Got Talent will return in the summer. The future's bleak, so rather than face it, why not encourage the entire nation to go out in a frenzy of nihilistic excess? Step one: legalise everything. Step two: sell all remaining national assets to the Chinese. Step three: spend everything we have on chocolate pudding, narcotics and sex toys. Step four: announce the beginning of a year-long mass public orgy during which absolutely anything goes and participation is compulsory. Step five: on New Year's Eve, we congregate naked around a massive bomb and nuke ourselves out of history for ever.

 

Poster: an explicit orgy photo. Slogan: "HEY, WE MIGHT AS WELL."

 

Anyway, there you go. One or more are probably worth a try. In Breaking Bad, the protagonist uses his grim predicament as the catalyst for a string of crazy actions that leave him feeling more alive than ever. Perhaps embracing an equally hopeless situation with similarly mad gusto is the only actual hope Labour has left.

If they go for number two it could be another Labour landslide :lol:

You still can't deny that Tories vote is on upward trend and has been on upward trend for the last 2 years.

 

Regarding national debt, no matter who comes into government, your debt is only going to rise.

I can't deny that, but I'm not saying that it isn't! :lol: I'm saying that they will win a minority government :P

 

Some of us don't necessarily subscribe to the Victorian lie that debt is always a bad thing in an economy ;)

I can't deny that, but I'm not saying that it isn't! :lol: I'm saying that they will win a minority government :P

 

Some of us don't necessarily subscribe to the Victorian lie that debt is always a bad thing in an economy ;)

 

:rofl:

 

Considering within the last week the headlines on the back pages of newspapers where Liverpool & Manchester United football fans are being provided a free education in Economics and are coming around to the idea that debt is only a bad thing as it squeezes the life out of the club they love by having to sell its assets to pay the interest payments, because two previous profitable self-sufficient clubs were sold off and bought with substantial bank loans your comment is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

But of course currently we have a Government administration who is happy to write a cheque for a bunch of merchant bankers (rhyming slang has never been more apt) without inputting payback guarantee clauses from these Banks that other international countries have included so robbing the country of billions; provide benefits so generous so that a single mum who gets a job that pays £151 per week will be just 4p better off; and as evidenced in this thread is happy to pay out £300 a time on an initiative to the poor to provide them with free lap tops irrespective of their efforts to get work whilst slashing the money provided to university education for young people who actually aspire to improve themselves is it any wonder you have come to the conclusion you have.

 

Or most pertinently how the huge loans from the US administration to the UK Government throughout the Second World War (excluding land lease and other assets of the UK) totalling $4.34 billion (in 1945) at 2 percent (total £200.5 billion in 2006 RPI) financially ruined us as a super power as it took 61 years to pay off.

 

But then again you actually think the Conservatives will only win a minority government ignoring the historical fact that with opinion polls (from the last 16 UK Elections) you should always add an average 2.3% swing from Labour to Conservative from closing Election Day polls because of the stigma attached for voting for the Conservative Party.

 

Or don't you remember the 1992 General Election, when the media called a hung parliament with Labour to win the most seats; only for the Conservatives to win a working majority of 21 having taken 7.5% more of the electoratevote than the Labour party?

 

As Charlie Brooker so humourously put it yesterday in his Guardian column: "there is currently 25% less chance of Labour winning the general election than there is of Kevin Keegan inexplicably giving birth to a horse on St Swithin's Day."

:rofl:

 

Considering within the last week the headlines on the back pages of newspapers where Liverpool & Manchester United football fans are being provided a free education in Economics and are coming around to the idea that debt is only a bad thing as it squeezes the life out of the club they love by having to sell its assets to pay the interest payments, because two previous profitable self-sufficient clubs were sold off and bought with substantial bank loans your comment is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

But of course currently we have a Government administration who is happy to write a cheque for a bunch of merchant bankers (rhyming slang has never been more apt) without inputting payback guarantee clauses from these Banks that other international countries have included so robbing the country of billions; provide benefits so generous so that a single mum who gets a job that pays £151 per week will be just 4p better off; and as evidenced in this thread is happy to pay out £300 a time on an initiative to the poor to provide them with free lap tops irrespective of their efforts to get work whilst slashing the money provided to university education for young people who actually aspire to improve themselves is it any wonder you have come to the conclusion you have.

 

Or most pertinently how the huge loans from the US administration to the UK Government throughout the Second World War (excluding land lease and other assets of the UK) totalling $4.34 billion (in 1945) at 2 percent (total £200.5 billion in 2006 RPI) financially ruined us as a super power as it took 61 years to pay off.

 

I don't have anythin to add. Thank you. ^_^

:rofl:

 

Considering within the last week the headlines on the back pages of newspapers where Liverpool & Manchester United football fans are being provided a free education in Economics and are coming around to the idea that debt is only a bad thing as it squeezes the life out of the club they love by having to sell its assets to pay the interest payments, because two previous profitable self-sufficient clubs were sold off and bought with substantial bank loans your comment is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

But of course currently we have a Government administration who is happy to write a cheque for a bunch of merchant bankers (rhyming slang has never been more apt) without inputting payback guarantee clauses from these Banks that other international countries have included so robbing the country of billions; provide benefits so generous so that a single mum who gets a job that pays £151 per week will be just 4p better off; and as evidenced in this thread is happy to pay out £300 a time o

If they go for number two it could be another Labour landslide :lol:

But if they went for Option 1, they'd be lucky to even get 1% of the vote. I can't think of a single member of the govt who's remotely attractive. Jacqui Smith was worthy of a few MILF points I guess.

:rofl:

 

Considering within the last week the headlines on the back pages of newspapers where Liverpool & Manchester United football fans are being provided a free education in Economics and are coming around to the idea that debt is only a bad thing as it squeezes the life out of the club they love by having to sell its assets to pay the interest payments, because two previous profitable self-sufficient clubs were sold off and bought with substantial bank loans your comment is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

But of course currently we have a Government administration who is happy to write a cheque for a bunch of merchant bankers (rhyming slang has never been more apt) without inputting payback guarantee clauses from these Banks that other international countries have included so robbing the country of billions; provide benefits so generous so that a single mum who gets a job that pays £151 per week will be just 4p better off; and as evidenced in this thread is happy to pay out £300 a time on an initiative to the poor to provide them with free lap tops irrespective of their efforts to get work whilst slashing the money provided to university education for young people who actually aspire to improve themselves is it any wonder you have come to the conclusion you have.

 

Or most pertinently how the huge loans from the US administration to the UK Government throughout the Second World War (excluding land lease and other assets of the UK) totalling $4.34 billion (in 1945) at 2 percent (total £200.5 billion in 2006 RPI) financially ruined us as a super power as it took 61 years to pay off.

 

But then again you actually think the Conservatives will only win a minority government ignoring the historical fact that with opinion polls (from the last 16 UK Elections) you should always add an average 2.3% swing from Labour to Conservative from closing Election Day polls because of the stigma attached for voting for the Conservative Party.

 

Or don't you remember the 1992 General Election, when the media called a hung parliament with Labour to win the most seats; only for the Conservatives to win a working majority of 21 having taken 7.5% more of the electoratevote than the Labour party?

 

As Charlie Brooker so humourously put it yesterday in his Guardian column: "there is currently 25% less chance of Labour winning the general election than there is of Kevin Keegan inexplicably giving birth to a horse on St Swithin's Day."

A football club is a completely different proposition to a country's economy! :rolleyes: By the standards of the Conservatives, who believe debt is ALWAYS A BAD THING, Japan, Germany and the USA have all been broken nations for the past few decades due to having a public debt of close to or far past 100% of national GDP. What that debt is spent on is key: like I said, debt isn't always a bad thing in an economy. It is no argument to say that debt is always a bad thing then to point out one nation where it is seemingly a bad thing!

 

Again, those weren't loans to save an economy! Those loans went straight into a war effort, which didn't recoup any money...

 

I do think that the Conservatives will only win a minority government. Margaret Thatcher had higher levels of support and greater enthusiasm and still only managed a 5.9% swing, so what makes you think that Cameron will manage a result which, if you look at the polls now and add in this supposed 2.3% swing, would have him win with a devastating record swing of about 15%? 1992 is a different proposition as the onus was on Labour to go for the victory - much as it is on the Conservatives now!

 

And your last quote is completely irrelevant as at no point have I said that Labour will win the next election. There's a difference between Labour winning and a Conservative minority government...

A football club is a completely different proposition to a country's economy! :rolleyes: By the standards of the Conservatives, who believe debt is ALWAYS A BAD THING, Japan, Germany and the USA have all been broken nations for the past few decades due to having a public debt of close to or far past 100% of national GDP. What that debt is spent on is key: like I said, debt isn't always a bad thing in an economy. It is no argument to say that debt is always a bad thing then to point out one nation where it is seemingly a bad thing!

 

Again, those weren't loans to save an economy! Those loans went straight into a war effort, which didn't recoup any money...

But that's where the Tories - particularly under Thatcher were so inconsistent. They kept banging on about how debt was a terrible thing but, at the same time, encouraged people to take on massive debt in the form of a mortgage. Of course it should also be remembered that in John Major's time as PM the national debt more than doubled. Labour reduced that substantially in their early years before seeing it rise again to its present levels - a level which is high in recent terms but not if you measure it against the standards of earlier centuries.

For the first time in a long time, I have to say I agree with Chris, BA Baracus and TiP. It's near-impossible for the Conservatives not to win this election outright I think. The Labour party are totally fatalist now, and that's just a recipe for disaster heading into an election. And most importantly, Brown simply doesn't command any respect now, and in recent history, if people can't respect a party leader (even if they dislike them), they're not going to win. Major in 1992 was still relatively respected, and Blair still had an aura in 2005 even if many people disliked him.

 

I don't think the Tories' win will be as overwhelming as some polls say, but I do think they'll have a pretty comfortable overall majority (40-50 seats).

Again, you really think that Cameron will be capable of the 8.5% swing for a 50 seat majority when Thatcher was fighting from a better position and still only managed a 5.9% one?

Right to satisfy an above poster and those who say I just do one-line silly posts and can't put forward an argument I'll explain why I'm against PR. It's far far more likely to produce a minority Government and require co-operation between parties as the Lib-Dems would definitely have more seats and the other fringe parties more too. The BNP and Greens would have some seats too. So it's very unlikely any party would ever have an overall majority again. I'm not sure it's even possible under PR. So you'd have different policies coming from all corners of the Commons and deals being done everywhere with the largest party. So unstable uncertain Government just like a hung parliament.

 

So those of you FOR P.R. would you be happy for the B.N.P. to have some seats then? That's one of Cameron's main arguments against it and he named the BNP in a speech. You couldn't pick and choose and say "well the BNP got enough votes to qualify for 50 seats but we won't let them have those seats as we don't like them" :rolleyes:

 

For instance, in New Zealand, following the first election under PR, no party was able to form a government for about 2 months. Finally, in the end, a party with 13% of the vote became the party controlling the government agenda. It became a case of the "tail wagging the dog". Now most people want a return to FPTP but the system will stay as no party wants to risk losing their voice.

 

Our current system may seem unfair to Lib-Dem supporters but that's only because the party can't muster up enough votes to win more seats under the present sytem. "We want the rules changed cos we're not winning the game" Would turkeys like Christmas cancelling? Of course they would!!

There are very, very different kinds of PR. Your post makes an assumption that I propose pure PR, which I don't - I propose PR along the lines of either the Single Transferable Vote or the AVT one proposed by the Jenkins Commission 12 years ago...look at places such as Germany, for example. PR can work, but places such as Israel and New Zealand have shown that if you enforce it incorrectly you can get incredibly weak governments. That isn't an argument against PR, that's an argument against those TYPES of PR.

 

In any case, I would be happy for the BNP to have seats regardless of the type of governmental system - what kind of party does well isn't an argument for or against PR, only incidences where distortions in the system deign to cause a democratic disadvantage are. I despise what they stand for, but a democracy cannot claim legitimacy if it's manipulating the votes so that the vast majority of them are meaningless.

 

Again, the point is not that the Lib Dems can't muster up enough votes! :rolleyes: If they had their near-on 6 million votes at the last election spread out in a particular way they could've theoretically won the election. It's not how many votes you get that matters under FPTP, it's how they're spread - hence why you get situations such as those we've seen a few times in the past 60 years whereby twice we've had a government which has been elected despite winning fewer votes than the opposition, but getting in because they've won more seats.

Again, you really think that Cameron will be capable of the 8.5% swing for a 50 seat majority when Thatcher was fighting from a better position and still only managed a 5.9% one?

 

I do. The political landscape has changed so much in the 5 years since the last election... all the major parties have new leaders (the Lib Dems have been through two), the economic situation is far different, trust in the establishment generally has deteriated, culture generally has evolved a lot... the last election was even before 7/7. The changes that have happened in the last 5 years have been more dramatic than the 3 years leading up to Thatcher's election, so comparing swings is pretty much arbitrary I think. Jmo

Edited January 12, 201015 yr by Danny

I do. The political landscape has changed so much in the 5 years since the last election... all the major parties have new leaders (the Lib Dems have been through two), the economic situation is far different, trust in the establishment generally has deteriated, culture generally has evolved a lot... the last election was even before 7/7. The changes that have happened in the last 5 years have been more dramatic than the 3 years leading up to Thatcher's election, so comparing swings is pretty much arbitrary I think. Jmo

 

Agreed. As someone who has voted for Labour at every election since I was eligible to vote (as politically) I am and always will be a "Social Democrat".

 

I supports the idea of a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism via reforming capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies that I see as inherent in capitalism (such as what caused the last recession via the removal of banking regulation from the 1930s). A product of this effort within the UK has been the modern democratic welfare state.

 

I don't and will never support traditional socialism such as orthodox Marxism, which aims to replace the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system characterized by either state or direct worker ownership of the means of production, as I believe that is utterly impractical taking account of human nature to aspire to improve one's self, as it creates a whole society that is demotivated and over reliant on state handouts and does not reward achievement.

 

What has become apparent especially since the Blair administration was replaced with Gordon Brown is that the Labour Government has become increasingly clueless by not instigating measures to ensure the Bank pays back the taxpayer; whilst politically it has taken measures that suggest the party is moving away from centreist policies towards its traditional left-wing heartland, especially with education and law and order.

 

Whilst Economically this Labour administration seems set fair to have a number of policies to deal with debt by effectively bankrupting the country by not addressing a significant and growing debt via devaluation that will start to occur when multi-national countries remove their securities and the UK lose their AAA bond rating as a result; so causing investments within the UK to be worth less due to falling stock market and bond prices.

 

I'm unconvinced with the Old Etonian "Witch Blair Phoney" who leads the Conservative Party as I hate Margaret Thatcher with a near irrational hatred. However I'm well aware he is a "Peelite" not a "Thatcherite" but I find the Tories "Daily Mail" borderline racist values as unpalatable as much as I despise the "Marxist/Trotskist" Militant tendency and nanny state who want to drag the UK kicking and screaming back into the 1970s.

 

For the first time in my life I remain unconvinced that there is a party that I can vote for that represent my beliefs. It is people like me who are the reason why Labour will lose the next election because they have stopped representing people like me.

If anything Labour's going more right wing on immigration and law and order these days to try and grasp the few remaining Mail Labour voters they can! :lol:

:lol: As if Labour has the balls to tighten up Immigration.

 

On immigration imo we should be learning from the Aussie's, most definitely from their Customs department. [Fish in our waters lose your boat a lot of money and go to jail. Not all at the same time]

If more people actually voted for the right person and not just the party, we might get better politics. Too many voters blindly vote for the same party , vote after vote because their father voted for them, and their grandfather before that. In the last 2 or 3 elections I actually compared the candidates, and I have voted for 3 different parties in the last 4 elections, wonder how may others can say that. I am the genuine floating voter. I have voted for 3 of the parties up here, one of them I haven't (clue: they don't go down well in these parts :lol: ,to quote Basil Faulty " I mentioned them but I think I got away with it").

 

If people woke up smelled the coffee and chuck out all their local MP's who were involved in the expenses saga we will have a brighter future. Vote for the same old faces again, and you can have no complaints when we end up in another mess a few years down the road. If that means voting for another party for the first time then do it. Unless its the BNP of course.

That'd be the Torries then :lol:

 

 

Voting Conservative in parts of Scotland is considered worse than voting BNP :lol:

If people woke up smelled the coffee and chuck out all their local MP's who were involved in the expenses saga we will have a brighter future. Vote for the same old faces again, and you can have no complaints when we end up in another mess a few years down the road. If that means voting for another party for the first time then do it. Unless its the BNP of course.

But that just highlights another problem with the current system. The worst offenders in the expenses fiasco have safe seats. Even the one Lib Dem MP to have made some questionable claims - Lembit Opik - knows that he represents a constituency that has returned a Liberal or Lib Dem MP in every election but one for the last 100 years.

 

The current system does not allow people to vote against an individual MP. They have to vote against the party.