|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.06 15:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tallaran Kouros on 06/05/2010 15:27:35 Edited by: Tallaran Kouros on 06/05/2010 15:27:10
Originally by: Kirra Liu
I hear this all the time but I refuse to vote for a bunch of lying, scheming idiots just because I have to.
That pretty much sums up what's wrong with the UK at the moment - lots of ********s who complain but won't do anything about it.
In plenty of countries it's a criminal offense not to vote and it should be the same here.
If you don't like the system then engage with it and change it - nothing is going to happen if you just sit on your fat arse and complain about nothing happening.
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 10:27:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Arianhod In a system that demands a majority control for the legitamacy of the parlaimant, it is impossbile to gain the needed 326 seats for any party.
Sort of.
Constitutionally the Queen will now ask Gordon Brown - as the Prime Minister - if he is able to form a government on her behalf.
That is his constitutional right and he gets the first say. He can certainly try and form a minority government with the Liberals but if the Commons does not pass the Queen's Speech, then that's essentially a vote of no confidence in the government and we are in for a world of trouble.
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 13:46:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kellyl
Cos life is that simple isn't it.
I leave for work at 6am (on the train by 6:30am) and I don't get back home till 9:45pm. 5 days a week.
Lucky my boss let me leave early to vote, but others are not so lucky.
Not a troll at all.
You presumably knew your shift in advance or if not, were reasonably aware that you may be working a shift that day.
You had the option of submitting a postal vote, so why didn't you?
Quote: I'd love to live in your world where with a little effort anything is possible.
I wouldn't say that anything is possible, but with a little effort you could have had that postal vote...
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 19:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Issamailkin Edited by: Issamailkin on 07/05/2010 12:42:34 Labour has an in built advantage due to a more effective spread of support plus there comes the question of Scottish MP's in westminster who are overrepresented and almost all of them have an undying loyalty to the labour part.
What makes you think there is over-representation?
The boundaries have been redrawn lately to take this into account...
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 21:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
Originally by: Issamailkin Edited by: Issamailkin on 07/05/2010 12:42:34 Labour has an in built advantage due to a more effective spread of support plus there comes the question of Scottish MP's in westminster who are overrepresented and almost all of them have an undying loyalty to the labour part.
What makes you think there is over-representation?
The boundaries have been redrawn lately to take this into account...
Look at the election map on the BBC and you will have your answer.
I'm really not sure what you are getting at.
Voters in Scotland overwhelmingly chose not to return Conservative candidates to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
What has that got to do with over or under representation?
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:43:00 -
[6]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Well you can't really have one without the other. If we had proportional representation, constituency boundaries would be more-or-less moot, since decisions that affect local areas tend to be made by the local council anyway, not MPs.
In Scotland I have one directly elected MSP to represent my constutency and then several further that have been proportionally elected from their party's regional list.
I can raise an issue with any one of them I choose. They all represent my area but I have a cross-party list of representatives to choose from.
I like the system and whilst it's not perfect, it's better than FPTP.
Quote: I am hoping now that Cleggy Boy will grasp the nettle and form a coalition with the Tories in exchange for proportional representation. The Tories might not accept that bargain, but I think the offer should be made.
Cameron is only offering a cross party inquery into reform. I can't see that being enough for the Lib Dems, nor can I see backbench Conservative MPs supporting a full referrendum.
Clegg would be a fool to throw away the best chance for electoral reform in decades and no matter what you think of Gordon Brown, the best chance to reform our system is for Labour and the Lib Dems to enter a coalition. The minor parties would all gain under PR and I can see a coalition leader being able to command a majority in the Commons.
Quote: Of course there is a downside to proportional representation: the BNP would get 12 seats in parliament under that system.
That would depend on what PR system is chosen, but there would indeed be some BNP MPs.
This is unfortunate, but the price of democracy is that you have to give a voice to everyone - even those that you have no desire to hear.
On the other hand, the rest of Europe seems to cope well enough with giving the far right seats in their parliaments so I can't see this being a problem.
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 21:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: baltec1
Well sunderland gets 3 MPs...
My area has around the same population as those three areas but only gets one MP over a much wider area.
I still don't really see what you are trying to get at.
There are 5.06 Million people in Scotland and 59 MPs to represent them, so that works out at around 85,700 constituents per MP.
England has a population of just over 49 Million and 533 MPs, which works out at around 92,000 constituents per person.
I suppose if you really wanted to you could quibble over those extra 7,000 people, but in all honesty much of Scotland is rural and whilst individual MPs might have more or less constituents it can be difficult for a single MP to cover a large geographical area.
Whilst I've not done the calculations, I would suspect that the figures for Wales would be somewhat similar.
It's for this reason that public spending per head is higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales - it simply costs more to provide public services across such a wide geographic area.
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 09:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: baltec1
Its nothing to do with scotland its the little clumps of MPs in a small area. I just dont see why sunderland needs 3 MPs.
It's part down to geographic area, but also down to the number of constituents.
I don't mean to be funny, but did you read my previous response?
The 2001 census pegged the population of Sunderland at 177,739. Split into 3 MPs that's just under 60,000 constituents PER REPRESENTATIVE.
That seems reasonable to me, given the population density...
|
|
|
|