Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
[url=
Devalued Primeminister[/url]
[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/03/25/hurrah_for_hannan_brown_hasnt_been_spoken_to_like_that_for_decades ]Telegraph's comment[/url]
We need someone with this level of eloquence and intelligence in such a position. I don't know why they don't create a competence test for politicians. Then perhaps we wouldn't make such a mess of things!
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-know-it-will-bring-out-the-left-wing-flamers-but-i-cant-help-myself ]ahem[/url]
They did it was called an ELECTION you get the one who convinced most people they could do the job, dont blame them blame yourself and everyone else who voted for the ****s and dont get me started if you didn't vote.......
be much easier with a dictator you know
Oops! I missed your thread yesterday Stoner.
I see the hit count has risen from 79,000 to 690,000.
It'll be a million by lunchtime.
ERM, Was Gordon Brown elected??? Maybe I missed that bit!
of course he was elected. He is the Honourable [sic] member of parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath with a majority of 18,216.
ERM, Was Gordon Brown elected??? Maybe I missed that bit!
Yes. He is the elected MP for the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency.
Just because his position in the Labour Party was not a matter of public election does not mean he has any less mandate as PM than any other person.
FFS.
Elected as Primeminister?
Elected as Primeminister?
Tw*t.
Those that voted for Labour knew that he was likely to take over from Tone so what's the problem?
They did it was called an ELECTION you get the one who convinced most people they could do the job, dont blame them blame yourself and everyone else who voted for the ****s and dont get me started if you didn't vote.......
So basically you're saying they can do whatever they want once elected and you have no right to question or complain?
Spongebob, if you want to have a system whereby we elect a president like in the US, then say it, otherwise, the way it's been working for many many years in this country is that the party leader as voted in by the governing party gets the gig.
Either Gordon Brown was elected as Prime Minister, or nobody ever has been. Complaining that he's the unelected PM just shows that you don't know how the system works.
We need more opportunities to vote. A general election once every 4-5 years is not frequent enough. Bi-elections are crass because the majority vote based on the actions of central government, not for the individual who is working in their area.
Why didn't we get a referendum on the Lisbon treaty like Ireland did?
No I would not like a US media circus sytle election, but our system isn't much cop. It is barely democratic or proportionate.
With the wonders of modern technology, you would have thought that a better system of voting could have been updated.
I think if a PM decides to stand down, then the nominated replacement should be subject to a national ballot as this is a big deal for the country!
What, you want an election every 2 or 3 years then? Have a look at the system in Italy and see how it's worked for them. They get so cheesed off with voting, that eventually they put Berlusconi back in "because he's powerful and gets things done"....sound like anybody from their past? He's racist, owns most of the Italian media, virtually unquestionable, and allows religious dogma to dictate the political zeitgeist. It'd be akin to us having Murdoch as pm (though, lol, many say he might as well be).
The one change I'd like to see is PR coming in, but the average UK voter's a bit stupid where politics comes in so explaining the subtleties of PR might be a bit of a nightmare.
Electoral reform is needed badly, imo.
Yes, but to get electoral reform you will either have to:
a) get it through parliment or
b) have a revolution.
Seeing as we are, as a nation, too polite to have a revolution, that option is unlikely and, given that MPs would not want their gravy train derailed, that option is also out.
Basically, we are up shit creek a bit.
I would love to see PR. First past the post system here means we often end up with unrepresentative governments.
(pearoast)
[url= http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Percentage_graph_UK_POLITICS_2005.pn g" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Percentage_graph_UK_POLITICS_2005.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
How would that graph have looked, say in 1982?
Electoral reform is needed badly, imo.
+1
First past the post only works in a country like America where you only have two parties. In the UK, where we have two main parties, then a third smaller one, then a myriad of very small ones, FPTP leads to disenfranshisement of the respective portions of the electorate that wants to see environmentalists (e.g more LibDem representation or The Green Party), racists (UKIP or the BNP), independents or just plain old nutters having more say in the commons. I really thought after Labour's second victory that the Tories might have been on a downward slope from which they might never rise again but FPTP means it's unlikely that we'll ever get major political groundshifts like that in our lifetimes (mores the pity, hee!).
So, you've changed your position, spongebob, and seem to be advocating some sort of direct democracy.
That's a great idea, but you assume that the political mandate granted on a regular vote would be equal to or greater than is currently the case.
The difficulty with the current PM system and your proposal, is that you assume that the concept of primus inter pares does not exist, and that we have a democracy based on the election of one person. It's an interesting idea to try to hybridise the system between ours - elect an MP - and the US/European model - elect a president/chancellor in a ballot (often) separate to the election of other representatives. I'd like to hear the constitutional arguments either way.
It is, with some thanks, that these days both of the major parties have a system for electing their party leaders (albeit quite different). It weasn't that long ago (mid 20th Century) that the Tories still worked on the emergence of a new leader without actually conducting any sort of vote.
A general election once every 4-5 years is not frequent enough
You mean like in France or in the USA or in Spain?
Swap the Labour & Tory tags. I think Stoner was just using that as an example rather than suggesting that it was a one off.
I agree that electoral reform is needed (although FPTP does have certain qualities to recommend it) I just don't ever want to see a debacle like the one from the last Scottish Elections where two different methods of PR were used at the same time. Whoever thought that that was a good idea needs shooting.
the corresponding graph for 1983 isnt shown.
But on the basis that in 1983 the conservatives had 61% parliamentary seats to 42% of the national vote (a 45% "premium" in representation) and Labour 32% to 28% (a 14% "premium") compared to 2001 when it was 63%/41% (54% premium to Labour) 25%/31% = -19% to Conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2001
How would that graph have looked, say in 1982?
Even though I'd rather see Labour in power over the tories any day, the graph shows how screwed up our system is. However, speaking as someone who grew up in a country with PR, it can stifle government somewhat and it can lead to more elections when coalitions break down, but it's much much fairer. And sometimes, the way smaller parties can get leverage is interesting. Our system now just works if you're dyed in the wool Labour or Tory. If you're a LibDem, what say have you got really. Our PM won't even refer to them as LibDem in parliament, the Tory-boys just start organising what fetish club they're attending that evening when Cable or Clegg get up to talk - and all because they believe they have some kind of mandate from the electorate to behave that way.
I'd just like to reinforce Spongebob's original comments as to the elloquence and intelligence of Hannan's speech. Whether you agree or not etc (I do as it happens) with his argument, you cannot deny it is very well put, insightful and extremely clear.
Whether you agree or not etc (I do as it happens) with his argument, you cannot deny it is very well put, insightful and extremely clear.
As were lots of Hitler's speeches at the Nuremberg rallies...he was a member of the Oxford union thingy so has had plenty of training. And it looks like he was reading from notes so, hey, not that good is he?
godwin took his time today.
PR would also change who people vote for. I'd expect the Lib Dems to get more of the popular vote under PR than they do at present, as currently people assume they can't win and so don't vote for them (like your vote is a guess at who's going to win rather than a reflection on who you think would best represent your interests).
what is PR is it something like "proportionnelle"?
PR does mean that we'd never have one party in overall control in the UK. Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing probably depends on who you're inclined to vote for.
Im surprised that no "outgoing" governement has previously rushed through PR with the tail end of their majority in order to preserve some modicum of influence by creating a hung parliament* at the next general election. Obviously no governement is going to bring in PR as soon they get voted in with a FPTP majority.
* assuming the Lib Dems dont accept a coalition gig.
Because the Lords would have to pass the bill as well.
ok I am for the PR. IT will sadly allow some members of the BNP to have a seat at the house of common, but to some members of the CP to.
Whatever you argue I still think most of the population are not intelligent enough to vote for a good government.
If voting was earned by say having a qualification in History, Sociology, Economics, Common Sence, then perhaps we would get better governments. Not everyone is capable of judging who could run the country.
At the moment people vote for very daft reasons or because of sound bites they can understand or rally behind.
Because the Lords would have to pass the bill as well.
Isn't that what the Parliament Act is for... 😉
Whatever you argue I still think most of the population are not intelligent enough to vote for a good government.
From Hitler to eugenics in 9 posts, the going is good today.
only eugenics to the extent the driving licence is.
I still think most of the population are not intelligent enough to vote for a good government.
Whilst that's probably true there's no way of deciding who is intelligent enough or a way of getting away with making the decision!
As for those that complain about those who don't vote - why does it matter? If you don't care (or even if you don't think you really understand!) then don't vote.
Mudshark - we constantly have to decide on very important things based upon an asumption on intelligence. For example you see a doctor who has had to train and pass exams and they then decide what medicine is best for you.
Why not for the economy ? Given the wide range of ability and intelligence even a slightly crude measure like passing an exam is better than the low average we would otherwise get.
"Whatever you argue I still think most of the population are not intelligent enough to vote for a good government."From Hitler to eugenics in 9 posts, the going is good today.
You've either misunderstood the word "eugenics", or not read what you're quoting!
You've either misunderstood the word "eugenics", or not read what you're quoting!
I was exaggerating for comic effect.
Is there a plague of seriousness on here today or something?
this is no time of internetual irony!
If voting was earned by say having a qualification in History, Sociology, Economics, Common Sence, then perhaps we would get better governments. Not everyone is capable of judging who could run the country.
I take it you wouldn't need to pass any spelling tests to be allowed to vote in this new voting system then? 😉
At the same time, should we ban women from the vote as well?
[b]for[/b] internetual irony surely?
I'd contend one should never cease but to work to avoid to monotony of these threads ...
should we ban women from the vote as well?
Good idea, I think we should restrict the vote to the Landed Gentry, holders of high religious office and selected persons of successful business concerns, all of whom have proved their intelligency, application and judgement, or at least have an old boy who has in the wings to tell them what to do.
Oh and ban single speeders as well, they are not rational 🙂
Is there a plague of seriousness on here today or something?
Sorry 😳 - trouble is I can believe somebody making that comment seriously!
As eloquent as he may be, what is that Tory Boy doing to help sort out the country's financial crisis?
Ironic, seeing as how it was all Fatcha's fault in the first place...
[After lighting the blue touch-paper, stand WELL BACK.]
'Tory blue' touch paper !
Sorry - trouble is I can believe somebody making that comment seriously!
Don't worry 8) I seem to be putting peoples backs up rather than making them chuckle today regardless 🙄
Rudeboy - well done back on topic by blaming Thatcher. Brown only had eleven years to make the changes, well at least he'll have the IMF back here like the 70's. I blame Dennis eyebrows & that "crisis what crisis" Callaghan chappy. No I've changed me mind it was that Wilson (he knew when to get out), no it was Heath. No it weren't me that spent all the dosh. Now come on we all really know it was Pitt the Younger.
Face it it was a great speech and I bet brown squirmed like a bloke outside the public bogs needing a sh.t with only a bent penny (borrowed). I wish I'd been given the chance but can see he did not waste like I'd have done.