Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The polling on Roe v Wade looks bad for the Supreme Court – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758

    Approval Ratings:

    Starmer (LAB): 29% (-1)
    Sturgeon (SNP): 28% (-3)*
    Sunak (CON): 28% (=)
    Johnson (CON): 27% (-1)
    Khan (LAB): 24% (+1)*
    Javid (CON): 22% (-2)*
    Truss (CON): 20% (-1)*
    Patel (CON): 20% (+2)*
    Davey (LDM): 18% (-1)*

    via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun

    Pretty astonishing for Sturgeon if those are GB figures?
    I suspect people are rating perceived general ability to a great extent and she projects relative competence and can string two sentences together. Whether her government is competent and the question of independence are irrelevant. I heard some English people commenting favourably about her during Covid because she gave a more professional presentation than the scruffy, mumbling shambling tousle haired (but thinning) PM
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2022

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,293
    edited June 2022

    Approval Ratings:

    Starmer (LAB): 29% (-1)
    Sturgeon (SNP): 28% (-3)*
    Sunak (CON): 28% (=)
    Johnson (CON): 27% (-1)
    Khan (LAB): 24% (+1)*
    Javid (CON): 22% (-2)*
    Truss (CON): 20% (-1)*
    Patel (CON): 20% (+2)*
    Davey (LDM): 18% (-1)*

    via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun

    Pretty astonishing for Sturgeon if those are GB figures?
    Sturgeon is pretty popular with rUK remainers and lefties, in my experience, given she's pro-EU and anti-Tory. And while I'm personally not a fan of hers, you can obviously disagree with someone about Scottish independence without disliking them.
    But yeah, I would have thought her approval rating would have been lower than that GB wide.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    I guess I’m weird in that I like the compromise it brings to the table between a constituency MP and proportionality. How would you improve it? Explain like I’m five since a lot of voting system terminology is a bit over my head.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::

    'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'

    This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.

    The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.

    BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
    It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.

    Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.

    The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
    I live in a world in which most men love and respect women, and have mothers, sisters, partners, daughters, grand daughters and dedicate their lives to their welfare. They regard this as the greatest trust they ever will have, and all their relationships with women and girls as between sovereign equals. I am fortunate but I hope I am not alone in this.

    I believe that abortion should be safe and legal because I am a feminist and I want it to be rare because I want societies and people to act in ways which make that possible.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Alistair said:

    2003

    Trans atheltes have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2003.

    In that time, 19 years, how many olympic world records have been set by Trans athletes?

    How many gold medals won?

    How many silvers?

    Bronze?

    How many have qualified for the final round in any Olympic event?

    How many have.... qualified to compete at the Olympics?


    If you hold the position that having gone through male puberty is essentially disqualifying a person from being considered a woman but you also hold the position that people should not be allowed to transition until after they have gone through puberty then are you saying trans women shouldn't exist?

    What an embarrassing post
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,386
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    I guess I’m weird in that I like the compromise it brings to the table between a constituency MP and proportionality. How would you improve it? Explain like I’m five since a lot of voting system terminology is a bit over my head.
    Rather than a set number of list candidates, you could add as many list candidates as are needed to make the result actually proportional,which I believe is the system in New Zealand.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::

    'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'

    This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.

    The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.

    BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
    It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.

    Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.

    The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
    My suggestion is not, frankly, a serious one. I was making the point that if you want to stop women getting pregnant there are plenty of things men can do to themselves to achieve that end.

    Women who want the right to choose need to use their vote - as well as the law. They need to be as determined as those who want to deny them that right.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2022
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    I guess I’m weird in that I like the compromise it brings to the table between a constituency MP and proportionality. How would you improve it? Explain like I’m five since a lot of voting system terminology is a bit over my head.
    NZ.

    Two votes
    One for your constituency.
    One for the party list.

    Overal proportionality is delivered by the party list vote, except for parties below a 5% threshold.

    It’s very simple.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,716
    kle4 said:

    Boris Johnson: "Johnson’s rule number one – focus."

    Mail on Sunday.

    The guy has no personal insight whatsoever does he?

    "Rule number two? Definitely integrity."
    Sanctity of marriage.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    edited June 2022

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2022

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494
    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    On their present gerrymandering suggestions yes I agree
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    On their present gerrymandering suggestions yes I agree
    It’s the sort of thing we would be ranting about if the Republicans tried it…
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,386
    edited June 2022

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.

    I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!

    BBC was talking mince. The Scottish paper money is not being treated in the same way as BoE - you can pay it into banks after the date. No nonsense about bank HQs. But good to get any holdings spent or paid in in good time.

    None of the Scottish, or English, paper money is legal tender anyway.

    https://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknotes.html
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402
    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
    There are plenty in Labour who do understand that very well.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    Both
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,386
    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    Because no matter how many or few votes Labour get, they will always end up with at least 26 seats. Any they lose on the constituencies they make back up on the lists, except in the Valleys where they hardly ever lose any constituencies anyway.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2022
    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494
    dixiedean said:

    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
    There are plenty in Labour who do understand that very well.
    until they get a majority.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    Already the case in Scotland anyway
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    Hence the 9th Amendment.

    Its presence in the Constitution is pretty clear evidence those who drafted it had a rather more expansive view of rights than the current ghouls on the bench.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663
    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    Implementing PR would be a very wise move for Labour, even if (unlikely) they win a majority at the next GE.

    Their chances of winning a second majority in 2029 will be small given the economic headwinds they will face if elected in 2024.

    But their chances of keeping the Tories out of power for many years to come via future PR elections would be quite high; it may be a long time before the Tories are coalitionable again.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,386
    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
    There are plenty in Labour who do understand that very well.
    until they get a majority.
    It's worth remembering Labour have never led a formal coalition. In 1924 they were supported on a vote-by-vote basis, in 1929 Lloyd George offered them confidence and supply. Otherwise, they have always governed alone with the exception of being junior partners in the wartime National government.

    The Tories, by contrast, have always been willing to work with other parties to win power - the Liberal Unionists, Liberal Nationals, National Liberals, National Labour and Liberal Democrats all spring to mind.

    They eventually absorbed all of them except these last, though...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    Approval Ratings:

    Starmer (LAB): 29% (-1)
    Sturgeon (SNP): 28% (-3)*
    Sunak (CON): 28% (=)
    Johnson (CON): 27% (-1)
    Khan (LAB): 24% (+1)*
    Javid (CON): 22% (-2)*
    Truss (CON): 20% (-1)*
    Patel (CON): 20% (+2)*
    Davey (LDM): 18% (-1)*

    via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun

    Pretty astonishing for Sturgeon if those are GB figures?
    I suspect people are rating perceived general ability to a great extent and she projects relative competence and can string two sentences together. Whether her government is competent and the question of independence are irrelevant. I heard some English people commenting favourably about her during Covid because she gave a more professional presentation than the scruffy, mumbling shambling tousle haired (but thinning) PM
    Also more consistent and less driven by who spoke to him/her last. Vide the Christmas and return-to-school debacles of Mr J.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402
    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
    There are plenty in Labour who do understand that very well.
    until they get a majority.
    Well yes.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    As I mentioned in a previous thread I found that out rather practically earlier in the week. 15mph limit when I got knocked off my bike on a zebra crossing (hard to assign blame to anyone aside from the idiot architect who put a six foot high hedge right the hell next to the crossing tbf). Walked away with just some cuts and bruises.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    spudgfsh said:

    dixiedean said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR


    Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.

    Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why! ;)
    However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?

    Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
    The SNP are pro PR.
    Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
    What Labour don't understand that they would be better off, ie be in government more, with PR than the current system. 43% by the Tories was their largest vote share in decades under PR they'd still struggle to form a government. in the longer term people would drift away from Con/Lab but the left/centre/right shares would stay roughly the same.

    in the event of scottish independence Labour would be forced to go for PR as England is 'small c' conservative by nature. and it'd be the best way to keep the tories in check
    There are plenty in Labour who do understand that very well.
    until they get a majority.
    It's worth remembering Labour have never led a formal coalition. In 1924 they were supported on a vote-by-vote basis, in 1929 Lloyd George offered them confidence and supply. Otherwise, they have always governed alone with the exception of being junior partners in the wartime National government.

    The Tories, by contrast, have always been willing to work with other parties to win power - the Liberal Unionists, Liberal Nationals, National Liberals, National Labour and Liberal Democrats all spring to mind.

    They eventually absorbed all of them except these last, though...
    Labour have! In Scotland 1997-2010.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    edited June 2022
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    Already the case in Scotland anyway
    Eh? Still plenty of 30mph but with some 20s.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,817
    Alistair said:

    2003

    Trans atheltes have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2003.

    In that time, 19 years, how many olympic world records have been set by Trans athletes?

    How many gold medals won?

    How many silvers?

    Bronze?

    How many have qualified for the final round in any Olympic event?

    How many have.... qualified to compete at the Olympics?


    If you hold the position that having gone through male puberty is essentially disqualifying a person from being considered a woman but you also hold the position that people should not be allowed to transition until after they have gone through puberty then are you saying trans women shouldn't exist?


    Absolutely not. We are just saying that they cannot compete as a woman in certain sporting events where they have an unfair advantage from their biological history.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,377

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
    Well, that would save folk a lot of money given the cost of petrol.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    Already the case in Scotland anyway

    Have all 30mph in Scotland been reduced to 20mph ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
    Children and adults don't exist elsewhere? Just so you can drive a little faster and wait longer at the next traffic lights.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    Already the case in Scotland anyway

    Have all 30mph in Scotland been reduced to 20mph ?
    No.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
    Well, that would save folk a lot of money given the cost of petrol.
    That too. But people "choose" to be libertarians and free when they drive. As if there was zero wider cost.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    As I mentioned in a previous thread I found that out rather practically earlier in the week. 15mph limit when I got knocked off my bike on a zebra crossing (hard to assign blame to anyone aside from the idiot architect who put a six foot high hedge right the hell next to the crossing tbf). Walked away with just some cuts and bruises.
    I missed that. Thank goodness.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    🚨LATEST @OpiniumResearch/
    @ObserverUK poll🚨

    Labour's lead edges up to 3 points over the Tories:

    Con 34% (n/c)
    Lab 37% (+1)
    Lib Dem 11% (-2)
    Green 6% (n/c)

    Fieldwork was conducted June 22nd-24th https://t.co/75FriC9q7N

    The boredom is real

    SIX MONTHS and 19 days since the last Tory poll lead...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310
    Alistair said:

    2003

    Trans atheltes have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2003.

    In that time, 19 years, how many olympic world records have been set by Trans athletes?

    How many gold medals won?

    How many silvers?

    Bronze?

    How many have qualified for the final round in any Olympic event?

    How many have.... qualified to compete at the Olympics?


    If you hold the position that having gone through male puberty is essentially disqualifying a person from being considered a woman but you also hold the position that people should not be allowed to transition until after they have gone through puberty then are you saying trans women shouldn't exist?

    You are confusing physical reality and legal nomenclature

    A man may legally transition under the GRA and be considered for legal purposes a woman. But neither his sex nor his body have changed and it is the latter which should determine which category of sports he/she can compete in.

    A child under 18 cannot legally transition in the U.K. They may, however, still fall within the definition of gender reassignment under the Equality Act and so it is important not to discriminate against them on that basis, though the Equality Act contains exemptions which do permit discrimination on the grounds of sex for legitimate purposes and provided the means used are proportionate.

    The question of whether a pre-pubertal child can give informed consent to all that is entailed in physical transition is a very difficult one. It is currently being looked at by the Cass Review. But I have grave doubts about it both because of the effects of the drugs and the surgery, the fact that the drugs have not been properly tested for the purposes for which they are being used and whether fully informed consent can be given by such a young child. One of the consequences is infertility and an inability to orgasm or enjoy sexual function. It is difficult to see how say, a 12 year old can give informed consent to the loss of sexual function when they have never experienced sex. The other issue is that often dysphoria resolves itself, the dysphoria may be symptomatic of other issues which need addressing and in lots of cases may mean that the child is gay rather than trans.

    A man may well like to consider themselves a woman. I could not care less if they do. Of course I don't seek to stop them existing. But their feelings do not change reality or risk and policy - whether in sport or elsewhere - needs to deal with reality and with risk, not with what we would like to be the case.

    As for your sports point, it is a bad one. Fairness is in the procedures not the outcome. If physical males are competing in women's sports they are not competing fairly, regardless of whether they win or not. And for everyone who does it they are ousting a woman competitor.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.

    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    When they only got 43% of the vote in 2019. 57% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
    Not the motorway stretch
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    Applicant said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
    But with more than twice the impact energy when they do hit something, if they are at 30mph rather than 20mph. So, not so suitable after all.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    edited June 2022

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Yes, you're right, it's longer, , but it goes past just as many houses and workplaces.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
    But with more than twice the impact energy when they do hit something, if they are at 30mph rather than 20mph. So, not so suitable after all.
    If they hit something.

    I've driven on plenty of 20mph limit roads in London where the reduced speed limit is palpably ridiculous.

    Your argument would be just as valid as reducing the speed limit on motorways to 20mph. After all, you might still hit something.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
    But with more than twice the impact energy when they do hit something, if they are at 30mph rather than 20mph. So, not so suitable after all.
    If they hit something.

    I've driven on plenty of 20mph limit roads in London where the reduced speed limit is palpably ridiculous.

    Your argument would be just as valid as reducing the speed limit on motorways to 20mph. After all, you might still hit something.
    Come off it - the roads are quite different.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    Applicant said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
    Average speed cameras operate throughout
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Yes, you're right, it's longer, , but it goes past just as many houses and workplaces.
    Not the motorway stretch
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,135
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::

    'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'

    This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.

    The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.

    BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
    It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.

    Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.

    The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
    I live in a world in which most men love and respect women, and have mothers, sisters, partners, daughters, grand daughters and dedicate their lives to their welfare. They regard this as the greatest trust they ever will have, and all their relationships with women and girls as between sovereign equals. I am fortunate but I hope I am not alone in this.

    I believe that abortion should be safe and legal because I am a feminist and I want it to be rare because I want societies and people to act in ways which make that possible.
    A feminist who nevertheless doesn't consider a woman's right to terminate an unwanted or untenable pregnancy in the 1st trimester to be something so fundamental to female empowerment that it ought to be enshrined at a level above the elected executive, eg in a constitution protected and dynamically interpreted for the contemporary world without fear or favour by an independent judiciary.

    That's fair, isn't it?
  • Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
    Well, that would save folk a lot of money given the cost of petrol.
    I don't think so. The most economical speed for a ICE car is typically around 45 mph.
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 500
    edited June 2022

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::

    'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'

    This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.

    The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.

    BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
    Child support laws already exist in all states and most are pretty stringent. This isn't the basis for any sort of détente on the issue.
    Here's a US court ordering a 15-year-old male victim of statutory rape to pay child support to his rapist. Here's them doing the same for a thirteen year old.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
    That’s not a new issue. Blair had similar or worse distortions of voting percentages vs seats.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
    Better than 2010-15, when the government had the proven electoral support of 0% of the vote.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,838

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Yes, you're right, it's longer, , but it goes past just as many houses and workplaces.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Have a look at Google Maps.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    I assume this is to rake in speed camera fines from people driving at a suitable speed for the road and the conditions.
    But with more than twice the impact energy when they do hit something, if they are at 30mph rather than 20mph. So, not so suitable after all.
    If they hit something.

    I've driven on plenty of 20mph limit roads in London where the reduced speed limit is palpably ridiculous.

    Your argument would be just as valid as reducing the speed limit on motorways to 20mph. After all, you might still hit something.
    Come off it - the roads are quite different.
    Oh, indeed so. There are plenty of traditionally 30mph roads that should be 20mph - but most of them have already been reduced.

    But there are also plenty of currently 30mph roads where 20mph would be ridiculous - as some London boroughs have already proven.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    What is it with their obsession with ridiculously restrictive speed limits? I drove over the Heads of the Valleys the other week and that 50 limit is the stupidest joke since the Tories gave Andrew RT Davies another shot at leadership?

    Is it because they're anti-car or just very, very stupid?
    The stretch of the A55 from Queensferry to the English border is a 50mph zone despite part of it being a 3/4 lane motorway
    YUou're complaining about one kilometre of urban road? In a populated area with lots of workplaces as well? That means a lot less pollution.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Yes, you're right, it's longer, , but it goes past just as many houses and workplaces.
    Not the motorway stretch
    Have a look at Google Maps.
    Really - I drive it everytime I go to England and it is very wide, and significantly becomes 70mph at the border all the way to Scotland

  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,127

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,087
    Applicant said:

    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
    Better than 2010-15, when the government had the proven electoral support of 0% of the vote.
    I voted with the intent it should help toward a Con-LD coalition, so technically above 0 from that.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
    That’s not a new issue. Blair had similar or worse distortions of voting percentages vs seats.
    The fundamental problem is that there's no way to guarantee a majority will ever exist. So you're faced with a choice between a system that can create a majority government with a sufficiently large majority, or pretending that support for party A plus support for party B is the same as support for the combination of parties A and B.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    🔺EXCLUSIVE Met Police now making inquiries into allegation of sexual assault by SNP MP Patrick Grady. Deepening crisis threatens to overshadow party’s latest drive for independence referendum #indyref2

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-to-investigate-sexual-harassment-claim-against-snp-mp-pw2rh0zss

    Between this and sentencing next week of Natalie McGarry, shaping up to be a challenging week for the FM who is said to have been told of concerns about Patrick Grady’s behaviour more than four years ago
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497
    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    One of the complications of change is that it changes things. FPTP undoubtedly allows one of two parties often to get a majority. When things change people adjust. This is why I personally supported AV. Under it people would adjust to a new reality in which you could vote for the new kid on the block or the LDs and have a real vote too. Over time this would allow for outstandingly good new entrants, or even the LDs to make progress. But if we wanted we could still quite easily make a decision to have a strongish government on 40% of the vote.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402
    edited June 2022

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,377

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    It is nonsense but then Drakeford would introduce the horse and cart if he could

    Apart from around schools
    Well, that would save folk a lot of money given the cost of petrol.
    I don't think so. The most economical speed for a ICE car is typically around 45 mph.
    Erm, I was referring to Big G's comment that Drakeford would bring back the horse and cart if he could.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Approval Ratings:

    Starmer (LAB): 29% (-1)
    Sturgeon (SNP): 28% (-3)*
    Sunak (CON): 28% (=)
    Johnson (CON): 27% (-1)
    Khan (LAB): 24% (+1)*
    Javid (CON): 22% (-2)*
    Truss (CON): 20% (-1)*
    Patel (CON): 20% (+2)*
    Davey (LDM): 18% (-1)*

    via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun

    Pretty astonishing for Sturgeon if those are GB figures?
    Not sure but i think so
    Ta
    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    As I mentioned in a previous thread I found that out rather practically earlier in the week. 15mph limit when I got knocked off my bike on a zebra crossing (hard to assign blame to anyone aside from the idiot architect who put a six foot high hedge right the hell next to the crossing tbf). Walked away with just some cuts and bruises.
    Hedges are one of my pet hates. I would love to see legislation limiting all hedges around residential properties to a maximum height of 80cm. Or 150 cm if planted at least 2m inside boundary line.

    Declaration of interest: in a former life, I worked as an arborist. That’s a lot of work removing monster hedges 😉
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497
    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    The issue is the Tories have 60% of the seats in Parliament on 42% of the vote.
    Better than 2010-15, when the government had the proven electoral support of 0% of the vote.
    I voted with the intent it should help toward a Con-LD coalition, so technically above 0 from that.
    It looks like next time I'll be voting Labour with the hope of a minority Lab government with LD support, and hoping that the SNP can be kept out of it. Chances are slim.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
    The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    DM_Andy said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's
    d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
    You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.

    Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,087
    Scott_xP said:

    🔺EXCLUSIVE Met Police now making inquiries into allegation of sexual assault by SNP MP Patrick Grady. Deepening crisis threatens to overshadow party’s latest drive for independence referendum #indyref2

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-to-investigate-sexual-harassment-claim-against-snp-mp-pw2rh0zss

    Between this and sentencing next week of Natalie McGarry, shaping up to be a challenging week for the FM who is said to have been told of concerns about Patrick Grady’s behaviour more than four years ago

    Time for a rally around?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    Not good.

    "Ukraine war: 80% of troops killed or injured in elite military unit, says commander - and its future is unclear
    Speaking to Sky News near the frontline, south of the city of Severodonetsk, the company commander says a core of experienced soldiers who had been fighting together since 2018 have been lost."

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-80-of-troops-killed-or-injured-in-elite-military-unit-says-commander-and-its-future-is-unclear-12639752
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,135
    Glasto. Noel Gallagher's VERY derivative - you can always hear other songs in there. Doesn't mean his Oasis stuff wasn't great but it's becoming a bit bare now to my ears. Still, he's doing much better up there than I would. I'd be boo'd off inside a minute.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,639
    boulay said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"

    I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
    Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
    Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.

    Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.

    The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.

    Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
    Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.

    When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.

    And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
    Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.

    Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.

    Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.

    Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.

    Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.

    It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497
    edited June 2022
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::

    'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'

    This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.

    The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.

    BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
    It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.

    Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.

    The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
    I live in a world in which most men love and respect women, and have mothers, sisters, partners, daughters, grand daughters and dedicate their lives to their welfare. They regard this as the greatest trust they ever will have, and all their relationships with women and girls as between sovereign equals. I am fortunate but I hope I am not alone in this.

    I believe that abortion should be safe and legal because I am a feminist and I want it to be rare because I want societies and people to act in ways which make that possible.
    A feminist who nevertheless doesn't consider a woman's right to terminate an unwanted or untenable pregnancy in the 1st trimester to be something so fundamental to female empowerment that it ought to be enshrined at a level above the elected executive, eg in a constitution protected and dynamically interpreted for the contemporary world without fear or favour by an independent judiciary.

    That's fair, isn't it?
    Being in the UK I have managed so far in just such a country. In the UK all abortion is banned and criminalised except those cases which fall within a statutory exception. We get by. There are no constitutional rights to abortion whatsoever.

    Being a feminist and a democrat are not incompatible occupations. If the people of the USA have to learn that democratic rights are democratically achieved that's the way it is.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402
    edited June 2022

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
    The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
    Well yes. And whose fault is that?
    There is nowt to stop them returning.
    Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole.
    It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced.
    Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Charles accepted €1m cash in suitcase from sheikh

    Sunday Times
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497
    OnboardG1 said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    I fancy having a go at this one. Democracy derives its legitimacy from the people of the nation rather than from God or from the ghost of Karl Marx or whatever else. Therefore the governance of the nation must reflect the views of the population on the matters of the day. Given that people are nuanced and often hold differing views on differing topics we need a way of polling the nation on their views in order to gain and retain that legitimacy. That means either direct democracy (a series of plebiscites), elections or both. Given that plebiscites often create incoherent policy that contradicts itself, we usually select representatives to speak on behalf of an area or group in an assembly.

    So that we don't just end up with incoherence on a smaller scale with lots of independent members having an argument, political parties exist as a compromise that allows the reconciliation of conflicting viewpoints by allowing voters to select a policy platform that aligns most closely with their own views, even if it isn't a perfect match.

    In order to reconcile the conflicting demands of a coherent government with the desire that the government truly reflects the view of the majority of the populace (and therefore retains its legitimacy), you need to design a voting system that enables that.

    FPTP creates coherent government but, in my view, fails the second and more fundamental test of legitimising the result. If you have only a binary choice, it is fine, but in a world where more than two policy platforms are available it does not scale well. You end up with situations like 2005 when Labour took 35% of the popular vote but secured 55% of the seats. It is difficult to see how this passes the test of whether the government reflects the popular will of the body politic, and therefore calls the legitimacy of the system into doubt.

    Proportional systems create less coherent government at times, with coalitons liable to fall and governments taking a long time to form. However, when well designed they reflect absolutely the choices of the population at the moment of the poll. In that respect I believe they are better for the legitimacy of the system. That you often end up moderating the extremes of parties if you are to become coalitionable is merely a happy by-product. I believe democracies only last if they genuinely reflect the preferences of their people, otherwise resentment towards institutions and the government itself can only grow when aberrant results occur. I don't believe we should compromise the legitimacy of the institution for the coherence of government. It should be the other way around, because after all we can always have another election if necessary.
    Thanks. Good stuff and a very enjoyable read. I shall go away and think.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,135

    boulay said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"

    I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
    Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
    Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.

    Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.

    The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.

    Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
    Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.

    When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.

    And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
    Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.

    Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.

    Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.

    Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.

    Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.

    It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
    Wish I'd gone. Too old now unless I did the "VIP" glamping package thing - which doesn't feel quite right. Ah well. It's good on TV.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,036
    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
    Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.

    This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.

    The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
    I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,087
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
    The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
    Well yes. And whose fault is that?
    There is nowt to stop them returning.
    Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole.
    It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced.
    Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
    I didn't think he was blaming the system for LD unpopularity, just noting that has happened.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,998
    On injury rates in women's sports: Some years ago, I read that the highest rate of injury in any high school sport in the US is women's cross country. You can find some supporting evidence for that here: https://polygonnews.org/2085/news/girls-cross-country-the-most-dangerous-sport-in-high-school/

    (The most dangerous sport in American high schools is American football. Cheerleading can be surprisingly dangerous, too.)

    And years ago, when I played pick-up basketball in a gym where the women's basketball team for a large university practiced, I was struck by how common the injuries to them were, so common that sometimes they were unable to have five-on-five scrimmages.

    The problem in both cross country and basketball is a simple physical one: women have bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments with smaller cross sections than men do, on the average. If women had to compete against men in basketball, I think there would be even more injuries among women, because of the inevitable collisions.

    That said, I would love to see women and girls in the US getting more exercise than they do now.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
    The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
    Well yes. And whose fault is that?
    There is nowt to stop them returning.
    Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole.
    It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced.
    Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
    I guess it's not literally a gerrymander because it doesn't involve redrawing boundaries. But it's certainly cut from the same cloth.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2022
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    It's a different voting system that's all.
    AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently?
    For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by.
    For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable.
    A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less.
    Something like FPTP.
    The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in
    Wales but they have virtually become extinct
    Well yes. And whose fault is that?
    There is nowt to stop them returning?

    Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous
    hyperbole.
    It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced.
    Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
    I am surprised you feel this way.

    How can it be appropriate to choose a voting system because it is advantageous to the governing parties?

    That’s the very definition of gerrymandering.

    As for Scotland, the fall of Labour/rise of SNP did not happen under the system currently proposed by Labour/PC.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,402
    edited June 2022

    DM_Andy said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all
    30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
    My point is that you will never be able to vote
    them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
    Whyever not?
    It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.

    Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
    They could always vote Tory or something
    else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland
    at one time either.
    Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.

    It’s a gerrymander.


    Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
    It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.

    I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
    Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's
    d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
    You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.

    Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.

    But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous.
    They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again.
    As have various Labour rebels.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    It is not a good idea anyway to simply change voting systems, absent proper debate and a referendum.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    stodge said:

    Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR

    So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point

    And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition

    No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
    Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).

    I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.

    Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.

    I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
    In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
    It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.

    There are several alternatives for
    Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was
    improved.
    Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
    Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-change-speed-limit-20mph-23346260
    That actually is very good for road safety. The impact energy is more than halved.
    Already the case in Scotland anyway

    Have all 30mph in Scotland been reduced to 20mph ?
    No.
    Yes in my experience (every town I drive through in Inverness shire and in the Borders)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Charles accepted €1m cash in suitcase from sheikh

    Sunday Times

    For his Foundation.
    It may be dodgy, but at least don’t mislead via omission.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited June 2022

    On injury rates in women's sports: Some years ago, I read that the highest rate of injury in any high school sport in the US is women's cross country. You can find some supporting evidence for that here: https://polygonnews.org/2085/news/girls-cross-country-the-most-dangerous-sport-in-high-school/

    (The most dangerous sport in American high schools is American football. Cheerleading can be surprisingly dangerous, too.)

    And years ago, when I played pick-up basketball in a gym where the women's basketball team for a large university practiced, I was struck by how common the injuries to them were, so common that sometimes they were unable to have five-on-five scrimmages.

    The problem in both cross country and basketball is a simple physical one: women have bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments with smaller cross sections than men do, on the average. If women had to compete against men in basketball, I think there would be even more injuries among women, because of the inevitable collisions.

    That said, I would love to see women and girls in the US getting more exercise than they do now.

    The best way to reduce risk of injury is training 2 or 3 different sports, certainly up until you’re about 16. Early specialism is a big error.

    So, if your favourite sport is football, also train a bit of skateboard or swimming on the side. If you love equestrian events, do some hockey or golf too.

    This is especially important for pre-pubescents: they must be given time to test out all the different movements in a non-stressful environment.
This discussion has been closed.