Unemployed and Voting

[retired_member32]

I have come to the conclusion that the only way of removing the Labour Party from getting in again is....stop the unemployed from voting !!!!


Ladywood Birmingham 11.4% unemployed > Labour
Sparkbrook Birmingham 9.8% unemployed > Labour
Erdington Birmingham 9.5% unemployed > Labour
Hull West 9.4% unemployed > Labour
Wolverhampton SE 9.3% > Labour
Middlesborough 9% > Labour

The "working party"

ermm!!!

 

[crabfoot]

We don't want to go back to the days when you needed two carucates of land and a yoke of oxen to vote, do we?

Anyway, considering the policies manifested, the Lib Dems promised more than Labour for the unemployed.

It is a bit sad that the Labour education system has produced yet another generation of people with a full comprehension of sexual reproduction, but an inability to read small print ...

 

[Edwin]

I think if you look at a map of the UK and see where all the "red" constituencies are, the trend is VERY clear!

The Daily Mail spells it out pretty comprehensively...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...CTION-RESULTS-2010-Britain-nation-tribes.html

 

[disruptive]

Turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

 

[WaftyCrank]

I think if you look at a map of the UK and see where all the "red" constituencies are, the trend is VERY clear!

The Daily Mail spells it out pretty comprehensively...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...CTION-RESULTS-2010-Britain-nation-tribes.html

And what trend is that?

 

[tifosi]

One of the problems we have with the electoral system - if not the biggest - is the decision 150+ years ago to have 'equal sized' constitiencies. Equal size as in the number of voters and not the land size.

Since the industrial revolution effectively aggregated labour in the industrial towns & conurbations - manchester/liverpool/leeds/london/birmingham/NE etc through labour migration this has 'set' the voting patterns certainly for the last 90 years since the liberals became the 3rd party in the early 20th century.

What we've also seen is that the liberal democrat (as a centre-left - big C small l) party votes are tied to labour votes more than conservative. With the current system I don't think LD has any chance of ever getting more than 75 seats. The SW has always been an anomaly for them. But then again they're almost a different species down there!

While I prefer the 1st past the post there needs to be a total overhaul of the electoral commision and a radical change in constituency boundaries. For e.g. why the Bolton metropolital are needs 3 constuencies while 25miles north the ribble/wyre area has 1 is beyond reproach.

Personally I hope there's no con-LD deal. Or Lab-LD deal. It would be the end of the LDems as an independent 3rd party to do either - effectively perpetual 'kingmakers'.

I hate the media for what they do to the election - evert time. Puppets of their owners.

S

 

[Edwin]

Proportional representation would be good. Coupled with some kind of "minimum threshold" (e.g. 2%, 3% or whatever) that a party has to get nationally to be able to go into the melting pot of parties eligible to share out the seats. That would stop somebody fielding "wacko" candidates in every constituency but still getting an MP by e.g. accumulating 0.3% of the vote nationwide a few hundred votes at a time... It would also force government-by-consensus, which should blunt some of the worst policy excesses (of all main parties) since no one party would be able to secure a majority alone in future.

 

[binny]

Proportional representation would be good. Coupled with some kind of "minimum threshold" (e.g. 2%, 3% or whatever) that a party has to get nationally to be able to go into the melting pot of parties eligible to share out the seats. That would stop somebody fielding "wacko" candidates in every constituency but still getting an MP by e.g. accumulating 0.3% of the vote nationwide a few hundred votes at a time... It would also force government-by-consensus, which should blunt some of the worst policy excesses (of all main parties) since no one party would be able to secure a majority alone in future.

Interesting how you post an article about 'two tribes' then suggest a system of representation which would bar the SNP, PC, DUP and Greens from holding seats and surely be more divisive than ever.

SNP, PC, DUP and Sinn Fein are parties getting 20-35% support in the areas where they stand but they don't deserve representation because that only works out at 0.6 to 1.7% nationally? A more elitist system than we currently have.

 

[disruptive]

its quite simply local vs. national. The current system aims to return an MP for that region that aims to represent the views of the local electorate. A proportional based system would be geared to a national interest and any new system must ensure that local views are considered.

 

[Edwin]

How about PR-by-region? So for example if a party got 2% of Scottish votes they get 2% of seats in Scotland, but they don't (automatically) get any seats in England (and vice-versa). There would be no "floor" percentage, it would go down until you're into fractions-of-an-MP at which point it wouldn't be possible to earn any more MPs under PR in that region. Could either just be done for Scotland/England/Wales/NI or for all 12 of the "regions" in the UK as it's divided for the European Parliament elections...
http://www.europarl.org.uk/sites/al...emanager/files/meps/Electoral Regions (4).pdf

The above would ensure regional representation, if not local representation, i.e. you'd be electing the MPs that represented your region (just like now you elect your local MP). More local than full PR... and at the same time it would come much closer to reflecting "real" voting splits than the current system. Note that if you multiply the number of MEPs per region from the above map by 7, you end up with a total of 609 which seems like a decent enough number of MPs (most of the parties want to cut back a bit from the current number of MPs in parliament). So for example, Scotland would have 49 MPs, NI 21 and so on... It would also ensure that on regionally important issues, you had the same strength of people for/against the issues as you had % of votes regionally for the underlying parties.

Or a mix of regular FPTP and PR voting, for instance choose 325 MPs via FPTP in larger constituencies, and 325 MPs via PR (or whatever split makes sense). That way, it's a steeper hill to climb but somebody with very strong local backing could still win on a "one issue" campaign, but on the other hand a party with ideas that resonate with a small fraction of the electorate in every seat would earn an MP or two via PR.

I'm just throwing ideas out here.

 

[retired_member32]

Interesting how you post an article about 'two tribes' then suggest a system of representation which would bar the SNP, PC, DUP and Greens from holding seats and surely be more divisive than ever.

SNP, PC, DUP and Sinn Fein are parties getting 20-35% support in the areas where they stand but they don't deserve representation because that only works out at 0.6 to 1.7% nationally? A more elitist system than we currently have.

problem we would have is the BNP which had more votes than the SNP would make huge strides...funny thing is nobody mentioned PR before the election and Labour and Lib Dem both got a bloody nose from the electrorate they are now trying there upmost to put a spanner in the works....

I think if the Conservative Party won outright Mr Brown and Mr Clegg would have been finished...considering they lost votes

Anyway i am sitting here happy, i am now surrounded by decent Conservative MP's who have already done so much for the community and that shown in the voting...Loughborough had a swing of 12% to the Conservatives and took a seat from a Labour MP who decided it would be a good idea to go on Holiday when the biggest employer decided to leave Loughborough...

 

[Edwin]

problem we would have is the BNP which had more votes than the SNP would make huge strides...

Yes, that's the argument I've seen made many times against PR that goes "all the way to the bottom" i.e. even into the fractions of a % of the overall vote.

If you do it by region then that issue doesn't have as much impact, since parties have to get a higher regional % in order to "make the cut" and take one of the limited number of MP places available to that region. Not a problem for regional parties (SDP, DUP, etc.) but it blocks the BNP.

 

[binny]

I'm no BNP supporter but having one BNP MP through PR would do nowhere near as much damage to the country as is going to happen if Nick Clegg doesn't pull his head out of his......................

 

[GreyWing]

You will probably find people stop using their vote as a protest vote for the BNP if they started getting in.

Plus it's our arrogance that says the BNP getting seats is wrong, that's the point of democracy "My beliefs might be wrong"

In my view the liberals had no intentions of ever getting into bed with the conservatives, it was just a show for the cameras. If I was the conservatives, I'd say get on with it and join Labour, within 6 months it will fall and be one hell of a mess with the tories wiping them all out at the forth coming election.

who wants to buy miliband.co.uk? There is 2, double your chances

 

[crabfoot]

Just a clarification - proportional representation was a key point in the constitution of the SDP, which was transferred to the Liberal Democrat constitution when the SDP and Liberals merged. Most members have been waiting 30 years for the current situation to occur.

Nick Clegg has to push for proportional representation or he will be in contravention of the party constitution. Anything less, and he has to go back to the committee for consultation. He does not have his head up his arse - it is not his decision.

You might think it is a drag. If you go back to the 80s, you will find that the SDP got a vote total about 96% of the size of the Labour vote total, but a helluva lot less seats in the commons.

And remember, if pr is implemented, there has to be an allocation system - don't be surprised if that sole BNP member gets allocated to Ross & Cromarty ...

 

[binny]

Nick Clegg has to push for proportional representation or he will be in contravention of the party constitution. Anything less, and he has to go back to the committee for consultation. He does not have his head up his arse - it is not his decision

Neither Labour or the Tories had PR in their manifesto and Labour had a proposition for a referendum on AV which should be worse for the Libs than the current system. Does the future Lab leader or Cameron have the mandate to go back on their manifesto any more than Clegg?

As the country is teetering on the edge of breakdown with the odds shortening by the day I consider Clegg's head to be up his arse if this isn't all resolved pdq. As party leader he shoulders the blame, just ask GB.

He doesn't have the authority to accept a trade-off on PR but he does have the authority to bring the country to it's knees?

 

[crabfoot]

The country is not on its knees, but the Tories and Labour are trying to avoid being on theirs ...

The red and blue had no proposals for pr because it is against their interests.

LOL would you propose something that is not to your advantage?

Looky, I ain't done the sums, but I would bet good money that the voters of the nation have given the LibDems about a third of the total vote. Have they got the seats to match that?
No, but for the first time they are in a position to argue.

I used to live in Keighley, which was a 50/50 constituency until the Tories shifted the boundaries to make it a bit safer. Then they installed Gary Waller as MP, a "drug store indian painted blue". WTH the only notable facts about him are that he toes the party line and he has been convicted of telling lies to a policeman (he's a politician, and his mouth moved).

I'd like to see more MPs that actually work for their money ... and I think that, whatever happens, we are going to see some of those in the next government.

 

[expertc]

...I'd like to see more MPs that actually work for their money ...

Maybe our constituency is lucky, I don’t really know, but our local MP was elected back in 90s, and re-elected again (3rd time). OK, he is Labour (nobody’s perfect!), but whoever Tories or Lib Dems put against him - can’t do a thing. This year he secured even more votes, over 50%. And you know, the electorate simply respects him. Maybe this is the way choices in politics should be… Just thoughts…

 

[crabfoot]

One place I lived, the printer that serviced our companies needs also printed the campaign leaflets for all the election candidates.

The printer voted Tory, but he had a very high opinion of the elected Labour MP's work - quote "he does work hard for his constituents, it's a shame about his ideas".

 

[monaghan]

its quite simply local vs. national. The current system aims to return an MP for that region that aims to represent the views of the local electorate. A proportional based system would be geared to a national interest and any new system must ensure that local views are considered.

I thought once the MP had got in via the nice local voters he was duty bound to talk to for a few weeks, they then reverted to following the voting line that was best for their party career and stuff the locals for another 5 years until they were needed again to retain the MP salary.