spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,905 
|
Post by spqr on Mar 29, 2023 16:20:21 GMT
Let's not pretend that the LibDem support for PR is out of some altruistic beliin fairness. It stems from their desire to increase their own representation and entrench themselves as permanent parliamentary kingmakers A significant reason for supporting PR, for quite a number of its supporters, is precisely to ‘lock the tories out’ Mark Goodair's point above illustrates that mindset perfectly. It doesn't take much for the masks to slip. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 29, 2023 16:34:24 GMT
Non-sequitur by someone who doesn’t know what “need” means. Conservative argues against his own party having representation on Islington Borough Council . Another non-sequitur. Of course i want there to be Conservative councillors in Islington. That is not related to the meaning of the word “need”. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 29, 2023 16:36:16 GMT
In point of fact I've never heard an actual case being made for why seats for political parties should be proportional to the number of votes cast for them. I think you have, because i made an argument for that precise point, from first principles, on this forum not so long ago (not that i necessarily agreed with it). If i find the post later i might link to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 29, 2023 16:41:24 GMT
In point of fact I've never heard an actual case being made for why seats for political parties should be proportional to the number of votes cast for them. You almost certainly have heard them but never listened. Oh don't be an idiot all your life. There are many arguments about what might or would happen under a proportional electoral system, with which I am very familiar. The point is that they are all arguments about consequences. What is never argued is whether the underlying principle is a good one. As greatkingrat says, it is just assumed to be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 29, 2023 16:42:35 GMT
That is the major flaw of PR advocates, they assume their cause is so obviously right and just that they cannot comprehend that some people genuinely aren't bothered that seats aren't exactly proportional to votes. You mean Tories who know damn well that PR would see the end of their control of power. Another non-sequitur. That idea is held by the sort of people who think that under PR (and/ or need even under PR) the Lib Dems would always, in all circumstances, support a Labour government or a left-wing coalition, and that such a left-wing coalition would always hold power. We have seen from recent experience, even here in the UK, that it is not so. In 2010 there was a centre-right coalition of Conservatives and Lib Dems, which is what would have happened under PR. In 2015, under PR there would have been a Conservative/ UKIP coalition with a majority which would have frozen out the Lib Dems as well as Labour. Regular members of the forum will be aware that i was a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years and i supported STV for many years before that. My support for PR was quite often at a time when it would have been numerically disadvantageous to the party/parties that i supported. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 29, 2023 16:46:33 GMT
You almost certainly have heard them but never listened. Oh don't be an idiot all your life. There are many arguments about what might or would happen under a proportional electoral system, with which I am very familiar. The point is that they are all arguments about consequences. What is never argued is whether the underlying principle is a good one. As greatkingrat says, it is just assumed to be obvious. I have certainly posted an argument from principle on this site. People read what they want to read, and retain what they agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 29, 2023 16:46:36 GMT
You almost certainly have heard them but never listened. Oh don't be an idiot all your life. There are many arguments about what might or would happen under a proportional electoral system, with which I am very familiar. The point is that they are all arguments about consequences. What is never argued is whether the underlying principle is a good one. As greatkingrat says, it is just assumed to be obvious. Then apply the same "logic" to whether we should have gender and BAME balance etc. Electoral systems are basically ALL about consequences, so you have heard the arguments but just don't agree with them and whether they are good or not. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 29, 2023 16:51:36 GMT
In point of fact I've never heard an actual case being made for why seats for political parties should be proportional to the number of votes cast for them. From the Batley & Spen thread 2 years ago: No supporter of proportional representation has ever given a really satisfactory answer to this question: "Why should a political party be entitled to the same proportion of members of a legislative body as it has votes in the most recent election?" They basically tend to assume it does not need answering. I do not think so. It needs answering as an objective question of political philosophy. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave on 23rd August 2017: A similar question could be asked about any other electoral system: why should a political party be “entitled“ to the number of seats that it gets according to whatever algorithm is used in the system? In either case, it is a political, cultural, and for philosophical balance to decide which system, on balance, is preferred as the “best“ system for producing laws and governance. First Past The Post exists in the UK for elections to the House of Commons essentially because it happens to work reasonably well in the context of UK politics (as well as, of course, the fact that it has “always“ existed (approximately)), and not because it is somehow “entitled“ to exist. AMS was chosen to be used for elections to the Scottish Parliament (for example) for practical and political reasons, not because of the philosophical “entitlement”. The history of the Scottish Parliament since 1999 has shown that it has worked better than FPTP would have done. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 29, 2023 20:00:11 GMT
You mean Tories who know damn well that PR would see the end of their control of power. Another non-sequitur. That idea is held by the sort of people who think that under PR (and/ or need even under PR) the Lib Dems would always, in all circumstances, support a Labour government or a left-wing coalition, and that such a left-wing coalition would always hold power. We have seen from recent experience, even here in the UK, that it is not so. In 2010 there was a centre-right coalition of Conservatives and Lib Dems, which is what would have happened under PR. In 2015, under PR there would have been a Conservative/ UKIP coalition with a majority which would have frozen out the Lib Dems as well as Labour. Regular members of the forum will be aware that i was a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years and i supported STV for many years before that. My support for PR was quite often at a time when it would have been numerically disadvantageous to the party/parties that i supported. I don't support PR. I support STV for local government. I am undecided on national government. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Mar 29, 2023 20:35:35 GMT
Let's not pretend that the LibDem support for PR is out of some altruistic belief in fairness. It stems from their desire to increase their own representation and entrench themselves as permanent parliamentary kingmakers For the most part that isn’t really true - an awful lot of Lib Dem members are drawn to the party out of a belief in PR, and to a lesser extent other political reforms. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 30, 2023 16:25:30 GMT
Well I can live with that, especially if it means not lumbering ourselves with the mess of PR. So your happy to see literally thousands and thousands of Conservative votes go to waste to make some strange point that mayor English cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Gateshead and Newcastle shouldn't have a single Conservative Councillor? Bizarre . "Your happy" is pure chav. It should be 'You are happy'. And it does matter. It matters a lot. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 30, 2023 16:53:26 GMT
It's worth having an anti PR slapdown on every thread on this forum  |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 30, 2023 16:54:35 GMT
So your happy to see literally thousands and thousands of Conservative votes go to waste to make some strange point that mayor English cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Gateshead and Newcastle shouldn't have a single Conservative Councillor? Bizarre . "Your happy" is pure chav. It should be 'You are happy'. And it does matter. It matters a lot.Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 30, 2023 17:00:13 GMT
It's worth having an anti PR slapdown on every thread on this forum Isn't that what happens anyway?  |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 30, 2023 17:01:09 GMT
It's worth having an anti PR slapdown on every thread on this forum Isn't that what happens anyway? it's mandatory |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 30, 2023 18:43:06 GMT
"Your happy" is pure chav. It should be 'You are happy'. And it does matter. It matters a lot.Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life. Ah! Is that a hill of beans I see before me? |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Mar 30, 2023 19:11:07 GMT
So your happy to see literally thousands and thousands of Conservative votes go to waste to make some strange point that mayor English cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Gateshead and Newcastle shouldn't have a single Conservative Councillor? Bizarre . "Your happy" is pure chav. It should be 'You are happy'. And it does matter. It matters a lot. Considering that I don't live in public housing nor violent you are so very wide of the mark. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 30, 2023 19:12:48 GMT
It's worth having an anti PR slapdown on every thread on this forum The best part is that most of the time an anti PR slap down can double up as an anti Lib Dem slap down. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Mar 31, 2023 0:21:33 GMT
Let's not pretend that the LibDem support for PR is out of some altruistic belief in fairness. It stems from their desire to increase their own representation and entrench themselves as permanent parliamentary kingmakers For the most part that isn’t really true - an awful lot of Lib Dem members are drawn to the party out of a belief in PR, and to a lesser extent other political reforms. Don't think that is true anymore - most appear to have joined in two waves - after the 2015 rout out of sympathy and post 2016/17 in a last attempt to stay in the EU. Membership has dropped by a huge amount in the last few years as these groups cancel their direct debits. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 18, 2023 14:38:37 GMT
I don't have access to Off Topic (by my own request) but I can't let this Venn diagram of football and cartography go unshared. Who knows what map they've been using....
|
|
