|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 27, 2017 19:48:13 GMT
I'd happily just import Germany's system, with 5% thresholds in a set of areas defined by the Boundary Commission. I.e. if you got 4% of the vote in Cheshire, you'd not be entitled to representation from there but if you got 5.1% in London you would from there. Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) You're accusing Germany of having unstable government?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 19:52:20 GMT
Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) You're accusing Germany of having unstable government? He may be mistakenly thinking back to the time of the Weimar Republic.  |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 27, 2017 19:52:44 GMT
Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) Once again, have you even heard of Open Lists? But parties would just limit their lists to the number of candidates they expected to get elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 19:58:00 GMT
Once again, have you even heard of Open Lists? But parties would just limit their lists to the number of candidates they expected to get elected. True, parties always have the option of nominating shorter lists, but I'd assert that such a practise would be unadvisable in the long term as it risks underhangs occuring, and the possiblity of no-one being left available to fill mid-term vacancies. The point is that the final say in who gets elected doesn't (and shouldn't) belong to the party bosses. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Feb 27, 2017 19:58:33 GMT
Once again, have you even heard of Open Lists? But parties would just limit their lists to the number of candidates they expected to get elected. Oh gawd.... imagine putting Caron in charge of the lists....  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 20:01:08 GMT
He may be mistakenly thinking back to the time of the Weimar Republic. Yes! Just because its stable at the minute docent mean it always will be. Unstable parliaments can also occur under FPTP. Sure they're rarer, but like you say: "Just because it's stable at the minute docent(sic) mean it always will be." Once again, it's one of these things that's also partially down to the politcal culture of an area. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 27, 2017 20:01:27 GMT
I'd happily just import Germany's system, with 5% thresholds in a set of areas defined by the Boundary Commission. I.e. if you got 4% of the vote in Cheshire, you'd not be entitled to representation from there but if you got 5.1% in London you would from there. Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) I'm a Germanophile, but in fact less excitingly I'm from... Manchester. I'd prefer a more open list than the Germans have, admittedly. A note on stability- the modern Germany (Bonn Republic) is politically vastly more stable than the Weimar Republic was. This is because of two major innovations- the 5% threshold, and the "positive vote of confidence", whereby you can't kick a government out unless you can form an alternative administration. To illustrate the first point. This election will probably see six caucuses (CDU/CSU sit together) in the Bundestag, which equals the record set in 1953. Since then, there have been as many as five and as few as three parties in the Bundestag. On the second point, this has only been used four times. The first time was in 1972, to replace the SPD's Brandt with the CDU's Barzel, in dodgy circumstances, and was a failure; the second was Brandt as a result of the first, to intentionally force an early election; the third in 1982 and replaced the SPD's Schmidt with the CDU's Kohl; and the fourth was Gerhard Schroeder in 2005 to force an election as well. As a result, the Bonn Republic has had 8 chancellors in 68 years. The Weimar Republic had 12-14 administrations (depending on how you class the first two) in 14 years. We've had 15 administrations from Attlee onwards. France has had 22, although the President chooses them. Canada has had 14 since 1945. Australia has had 17 since the demise of John Curtin in 1945. So governments in Germany are pretty stable under the current setup. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 27, 2017 20:05:33 GMT
He may be mistakenly thinking back to the time of the Weimar Republic. Yes! Just because its stable at the minute docent mean it always will be. The exact same thing could be said about FPTP systems like ours. Or America's. You were suggesting that PR makes Germany less stable than the UK. What evidence do you base that opinion on? But parties would just limit their lists to the number of candidates they expected to get elected. True, parties always have the option of nominating shorter lists, but I'd assert that such a practise would be unadvisable in the long term as it risks underhangs occuring, and the possiblity of no-one being left available to fill mid-term vacancies. The point is that the final say in who gets elected doesn't (and shouldn't) belong to the party bosses. Even with closed lists, it's entirely possible for the final say to go to the party members, rather than the party bosses. Green Party list candidates, for example, are selected (and ordered) by STV of the entire party membership in the region the list covers. And, realistically, there is no viable system where there aren't safe seats for the largest parties. Therefore, unless party bosses play no part in selection and vetting of candidates, they will always be able to ensure that some of their favoured candidates are elected. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 27, 2017 20:13:06 GMT
I think it's very likely that an Asian candidate will be selected. That was certainly what Sir Gerald said would be his preference. I'm not sure why there is the sense that an Asian candidate is effectively entitled to it. A large part of the seat is Irish Catholic country and I'd imagine they have a big say in the local Labour Party. Whilst Rusholme, Whalley Range and Longsight are very Asian, the councillors are a mix and the seat is not as heavily Asian as it often made out. Apropos of nothing, this is the seat in which I went to school. I'm not from Manchester and you obviously are, but I get the impression Irish Catholics in Manchester do not stick together, do not flood en masse to CLPs and do not necessarily back "the Irish candidate" in selections just on ethnicity/religion alone (perhaps because of numbers?). Whereas, in the Asian community:  "Go to the selection meeting and vote BLOGGS, Mr Recently-Joined Dressing-Gown Man. BLOGGS. Do not look around the poster, look into the poster, do not question the poster. Vote BLOGGS." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 20:24:02 GMT
No. I'm making the point that he seems to have been a rather waspish character, not universally liked. The moment he dies he becomes a saint. "Never speak ill of the dead" and all that, but this taste (in most cases) to instantly canonise at death seems a tad hypocritical. none of the obituaries I've seen have treated him like a saint. some of the tweets from MPs (esp the Tories) have been a bit gushing but i suppose they don't want to risk being seen as ungracious. understandably really. The Daily Telegraph obituary (behind the paywall) is cooler than some, but gives a pretty fair impression of a man who was talented but unloveable, who could not resist spitting venom at opponents or people he took against personally, but was notoriously thin-skinned and unforgiving when the same was done to him. It says - He won a scholarship to Leeds Grammar School, which he hated; Gerald blamed anti-Semitism, but one classmate identified a more basic reason, terming him “thoroughly obnoxious”.
I can believe that. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 27, 2017 20:38:30 GMT
oh dear
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Feb 27, 2017 20:42:44 GMT
So the Gorton by-election then
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 27, 2017 20:55:59 GMT
Multi-member ceremonial county constituencies (CCC) with free list/panachage PR and biproportional apportionment. No cumulative voting though please. Delivers perfect PR with strong constituency links.
London to be split into London (Kent), London (Essex), London (Surrey) and London (Middlesex).
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 27, 2017 21:10:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 27, 2017 21:25:42 GMT
Don't do it in Gerald Kaufman's constituency. Not for nothing did Spitting Image portray him as a psychotic from Silence of the Lambs. And here's an example from their 1992 election special: |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Feb 27, 2017 21:27:24 GMT
A lot of Labour seats have been held 'since 1935', do we know if that was a good year for us? It was a very bad year for Labour actually. But 1931 had been a real meltdown. Google it for yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 21:28:54 GMT
A lot of Labour seats have been held 'since 1935', do we know if that was a good year for us? It was good in the sense that Labour bounced back after the catastrophe of 1931, making more than a hundred net gains. They also finally eclipsed the Liberals, who collapsed in many areas at that election. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 27, 2017 21:29:32 GMT
Multi-member ceremonial county constituencies (CCC) with free list/panachage PR and biproportional apportionment. No cumulative voting though please. Delivers perfect PR with strong constituency links. London to be split into London (Kent), London (Essex), London (Surrey) and London (Middlesex). 'strong constituency links'!? Wow such big constituency areas would cause massive distance between mps and constituents. I was proposing stv constituencies with around 200,000 voters. There are over 1 million voters in some of those areas! People identify with their counties though. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 27, 2017 21:33:24 GMT
Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) I'm a Germanophile, but in fact less excitingly I'm from... Manchester. I'd prefer a more open list than the Germans have, admittedly. A note on stability- the modern Germany (Bonn Republic) is politically vastly more stable than the Weimar Republic was. This is because of two major innovations- the 5% threshold, and the "positive vote of confidence", whereby you can't kick a government out unless you can form an alternative administration. To illustrate the first point. This election will probably see six caucuses (CDU/CSU sit together) in the Bundestag, which equals the record set in 1953. Since then, there have been as many as five and as few as three parties in the Bundestag. On the second point, this has only been used four times. The first time was in 1972, to replace the SPD's Brandt with the CDU's Barzel, in dodgy circumstances, and was a failure; the second was Brandt as a result of the first, to intentionally force an early election; the third in 1982 and replaced the SPD's Schmidt with the CDU's Kohl; and the fourth was Gerhard Schroeder in 2005 to force an election as well. As a result, the Bonn Republic has had 8 chancellors in 68 years. The Weimar Republic had 12-14 administrations (depending on how you class the first two) in 14 years. We've had 15 administrations from Attlee onwards. France has had 22, although the President chooses them. Canada has had 14 since 1945. Australia has had 17 since the demise of John Curtin in 1945. So governments in Germany are pretty stable under the current setup. West German system: no election post-1955 directly brought a government down, only the FDP changing their coalition partner changes the government. Mende doesn't fancy Erhard any more? The SPD must come in to shore the government up, and Kiesinger must replace Erhard. The FDP take a chance on Brandt? New coalition! The FDP switch from Schmidt to Kohl? New coalition, no new election until they're due. You cannot say the British people will take this. A coalition that took five days to form in 2010 enraged the press, and Brown not immediately conceding when his was not the largest party was even viewed as some sort of outrage. The idea that some centre party (ie Lib Dems) are permanently in power and government changes only if the centre party swaps sides, and the PM has to resign if the junior partner say so, is anathema. This is "stable" but it does not meet British notions of "fair play", "democracy" or "having a chance to kick the b**tards out". |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Feb 27, 2017 21:35:13 GMT
The Manchester Gorton constituency, in its various forms, has had four by-elections before - in 1889, 1937, 1942 and 1967. Tony Benn's father, William Wedgewood Benn, won in 1937. Labour almost lost in 1967 to Winston Churchill (the grandson).
|
|
