Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 9:29:40 GMT
I don't see why Labour can object to equalised electorates but let's not have this discussion again. Even if you had equalised electorates differential turnout would still mean that Labour would have a lower vote to seat ratio. Unless you look at a single constituency for the UK with MPs allocated on a proportional basis, but let's not have this discussion again.  |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 15, 2014 9:32:06 GMT
Indeed, I didn't indulge in it the first so don't want to do it now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 9:41:10 GMT
No - it was due to stupidly rigid rules, because of Tory delusion about why FPTP is presently "biased" against them. Thats not entirely fair (on the seats rather than the tories). They were better and more democratic than the current ones. The fact that the tories are stupid is by-the-by. All the analysis done on the proposed boundaries simply does not back it. Yes we lose proportionally more seats a lot in Scotland and Wales but actually it changed few results around in England and ended up with awful seats with for example Birmingham wards being placed in Walsall, Sandwell and Meriden seats. With the utter refusal to split wards this would have led to an awful mess. If you want fair voting results then you have to accept PR. Would it be fair in FPTP for UKIP to get 15% of the vote in England and no seats then ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 9:46:01 GMT
No - it was due to stupidly rigid rules, because of Tory delusion about why FPTP is presently "biased" against them. It is. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 15, 2014 15:27:19 GMT
(side bar - I apologise to grammarians if I have the less/fewer/more/greater thing wrong, but I've never understood it; it's like lie/lay/laid, thanks Comprehensive GCSEs), Fewer is for things that you count, like people or votes. Less is for things that you measure, like water or air. Greater is for numbers. More is for anything that isn't actually a number. Present and Future Tense: Lie is when the person is doing it themselves: "You look tired. Lie down and rest." Lay is when you do it to someone or something else: "Lay down the keyboard and step away from the computer!" Past Tense: Lay is (confusingly) the past tense of Lie Laid is the past tense of Lay. Though since I also received my GCSEs from a Comprehensive, I make no claim to infallibility on this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 15, 2014 22:59:49 GMT
sorry for off-topic-ness here, but Green Christian just beat me to it Dok - the best way to remember is fewr = numbers, amount = quantity. Think of sugar in your hot beverage of choice. If you have loose sugar and you want to cut down, you can just put a bit LESS sugar in your mug; however if you are of the sugarcube persuasion and you want to cut down from 3 cubes to 2, you would be using FEWER cubes. Often an analogy of that type helps |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 15, 2014 23:04:32 GMT
He is also right with the stuff about lay/lie etc (Y)
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598 
|
Post by cibwr on May 16, 2014 8:03:04 GMT
I would remind you Bish...and Ian, that it was the electorate which rejected the AV proposal, not just thopse who are wedded to FPTP. And of course I don't have to remind you that AV is not proportional. It can be argued that it was fairer and that the campaign against is was one of the worst exercises in concentrated lying and misrepresentation that I have ever seen. Labour tend to benefit from the current first past the post system and to try to remove that we either have to move people or create boundaries on the American system that does not represent communities but represents types of voters - not something most of us would like. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on May 16, 2014 11:25:11 GMT
Yes I am happy to ague on the facts, unlike the NO to AV campaign, and the facts are that what passes for regional policy in the UK comes almost entirely from the EU - at least as far as Wales is concerned. Wales would be massively disadvantaged if the UK left the EU. The Welsh national interest is very much to stay in.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on May 22, 2014 14:12:20 GMT
No not just in my opinion, its a fact Wales gets more out of the EU than it puts in and also there is no meaningful regional policy in the UK aimed at equalising wealth, the only regional policy I can see comes from the EU.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 22, 2014 14:19:34 GMT
Wales gets more out of the UK than it puts in too EDIT: you can come up with your own regional policy in Wales now. So do you want policy dictated by London or not? |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 22, 2014 14:59:27 GMT
A return to pre-1979 regional policies would actually be better than devolution.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on May 24, 2014 12:58:32 GMT
You wouldn't expect me to agree with that Sibboleth - as for regional policy within Wales, we could start by having better internal communications. To that end The UK could properly Barnettise (for want of a better word) expenditure such as HS2 - to enable the development of metro systems for the South East Wales, Swansea Bay and the Deeside/Wrexham conurbations. Reopen the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth rail line and the Aberystwyth to Llandudno Junction link.... plus electrificaiton of the mainline rail lines to Fishguard and Pembroke Dock and to Holyhead. How is that for a start?
|
|
