Perhaps it's not so much a question of FPTP v other systems but a question of the character and quality of the politicians asking for our votes? E.g. actually local candidates (under the umbrella of a political party) v parachuted-in party soldiers firm in ideology but ignorant of local problems?
In any case: no need to apologise for lack of articles: you're not a robot and it's better not to write when yon juices aren't flowing than desperately trying to fill space regardless of quality. Keep well!
Very true. The funny thing about being 'parachuted in' - airborne troops are the elite, light-role infantry. Yet, invariably, those being 'chuted into political positions are the most useless people conceivable: the military equivalent of a spud gun.
And thank you. This is true, and I had the same thought process.
Excellent post. A young fella on YouTube has an excellent alternative electoral alphabet soup system, namely Proportional Past The Post, PPP for short. It basically needs some refining such as a similar threshold to the votes required for a candidate to save their deposit, 5%, and also base it on the number of seats a party is contesting. The gist of it is a cap on the number of seats a party can win based on the share of the vote they get, so if Labour's share is 33.7% then they are capped at that number of seats which would mean about 219 Labour seats given to the 219 of their candidates with the highest ratio of votes. A much closer reflection of Labour's real support. Parties with less MPs than their share of the vote would have their MPs topped up to reflect their overall support, eg Reform would receive about 87 seats, properly reflecting their higher level of electoral support than the Lib Dems. The 87 would be their 87 best performing candidates unless they were contesting one of the 219 seats already given to Labour or given to any other party with a higher vote share, in this case, 154 seats given to the Conservatives as their share. A bit technical on the surface, but easily understood. It also retains the laudable link each MP has to their constituency rather than unassigned members chosen from regional lists, the weakness of most other PR systems. Anyway the whole debate is purely academic as the British Establishment and traditional parties are more than happy with the current system and would rather conspire with their supposed political opponents than allow any newcomers to gatecrash the system as indeed we've witnessed in the recent shenanigans in France and Germany to stop the actual winners of the election taking office and allowing defeated parties to combine to stay in office
I was quite shocked to see the second image of a clearly youthful but well fed Rht Hon Sir-Sir K Rodney Stomper-Starmer KC. £22 billion hole, £600 million top up bung to Zelenskyyvvv & Co, pay-off the BMA membership and giving the 12:30 from Paddington drivers a few extra spends (other train stations are available).
That's before the 'Ed M' swings into view with the biggest ever bung for non-productive windmills.
Proof the agreeable polite society of North London politicians are truly, massively insulated from the world. Elections of any form are merely an opportunity to gloat at the public by this self-serving amoral mass.
We know how hard it is to unseat them. But, try we must.
1. At least AV means the winner has 50%+ of all votes in the last round. I wonder how Reform would have fared on that basis, two months ago?
2. As well as a GE, I argue for a confirmatory referendum in circumstances like these, when a Government so poorly validated wishes to pursue a very radical agenda.
We get to cast a vote once every 5 years. Less than an hour out of 1825 days and yet only 67% of the eligible population bothered. I think everyone over 18 should join a party and show some interest in the policies of each party. I would also like to see PR on the basis that where a party wins 10% of the vote, they can nominate 60 MPs of their choice. Who cares about the faces as long as the electorate get their proportion of votes for their policies. FPTP is from the days of soap box canvassing and winner takes all mentality. All academic as we are entering an age of communism and most probably a nuclear war given the US and UK determination to secure a victory in Ukraine and entry to NATO.
Perhaps it's not so much a question of FPTP v other systems but a question of the character and quality of the politicians asking for our votes? E.g. actually local candidates (under the umbrella of a political party) v parachuted-in party soldiers firm in ideology but ignorant of local problems?
In any case: no need to apologise for lack of articles: you're not a robot and it's better not to write when yon juices aren't flowing than desperately trying to fill space regardless of quality. Keep well!
Very true. The funny thing about being 'parachuted in' - airborne troops are the elite, light-role infantry. Yet, invariably, those being 'chuted into political positions are the most useless people conceivable: the military equivalent of a spud gun.
And thank you. This is true, and I had the same thought process.
Excellent post. A young fella on YouTube has an excellent alternative electoral alphabet soup system, namely Proportional Past The Post, PPP for short. It basically needs some refining such as a similar threshold to the votes required for a candidate to save their deposit, 5%, and also base it on the number of seats a party is contesting. The gist of it is a cap on the number of seats a party can win based on the share of the vote they get, so if Labour's share is 33.7% then they are capped at that number of seats which would mean about 219 Labour seats given to the 219 of their candidates with the highest ratio of votes. A much closer reflection of Labour's real support. Parties with less MPs than their share of the vote would have their MPs topped up to reflect their overall support, eg Reform would receive about 87 seats, properly reflecting their higher level of electoral support than the Lib Dems. The 87 would be their 87 best performing candidates unless they were contesting one of the 219 seats already given to Labour or given to any other party with a higher vote share, in this case, 154 seats given to the Conservatives as their share. A bit technical on the surface, but easily understood. It also retains the laudable link each MP has to their constituency rather than unassigned members chosen from regional lists, the weakness of most other PR systems. Anyway the whole debate is purely academic as the British Establishment and traditional parties are more than happy with the current system and would rather conspire with their supposed political opponents than allow any newcomers to gatecrash the system as indeed we've witnessed in the recent shenanigans in France and Germany to stop the actual winners of the election taking office and allowing defeated parties to combine to stay in office
I was quite shocked to see the second image of a clearly youthful but well fed Rht Hon Sir-Sir K Rodney Stomper-Starmer KC. £22 billion hole, £600 million top up bung to Zelenskyyvvv & Co, pay-off the BMA membership and giving the 12:30 from Paddington drivers a few extra spends (other train stations are available).
That's before the 'Ed M' swings into view with the biggest ever bung for non-productive windmills.
Proof the agreeable polite society of North London politicians are truly, massively insulated from the world. Elections of any form are merely an opportunity to gloat at the public by this self-serving amoral mass.
We know how hard it is to unseat them. But, try we must.
1. At least AV means the winner has 50%+ of all votes in the last round. I wonder how Reform would have fared on that basis, two months ago?
2. As well as a GE, I argue for a confirmatory referendum in circumstances like these, when a Government so poorly validated wishes to pursue a very radical agenda.
We get to cast a vote once every 5 years. Less than an hour out of 1825 days and yet only 67% of the eligible population bothered. I think everyone over 18 should join a party and show some interest in the policies of each party. I would also like to see PR on the basis that where a party wins 10% of the vote, they can nominate 60 MPs of their choice. Who cares about the faces as long as the electorate get their proportion of votes for their policies. FPTP is from the days of soap box canvassing and winner takes all mentality. All academic as we are entering an age of communism and most probably a nuclear war given the US and UK determination to secure a victory in Ukraine and entry to NATO.