I want proportional representation, now.

[Justin Smith]

I am just wondering why people, not just you, seem to be engaged about PR now rather than at other times.....is it because it has been brought to the fore this time by the media, whereas previously it was just a briefly discussed item that certainly the public didn't really engage in.

 

I think it`s more to do with the fact that PR is now on the political agenda and a distinct possibility.

 

Incidentally the Lib Dems would be mad not to take this (possibly) once in a lifetime opportunity to force through PR. It should be PR or no deal, with anyone. If they accept the Tories "we`ll think about it", it`ll never happen.

[Kingmaker2]

I think it`s more to do with the fact that PR is now on the political agenda and a distinct possibility.

 

Incidentally the Lib Dems would be mad not to take this (possibly) once in a lifetime opportunity to force through PR. It should be PR or no deal, with anyone. If they accept the Tories "we`ll think about it", it`ll never happen.

 

The problem is that if Clegg takes up Brown's offer he would be propping up a Labour government that lost the election, something Clegg said he wouldn't do when he appeared to be in a position of strength (riding high in the polls).......now he isn't in a position of real strength in sense of having a mandate by the people.

 

It also would mean that the 2 losing parties would effectively block out the "winner" of the election, I'm not too sure that will go down well with the public.

 

It will be interesting to see how things pan out

[onetwo07]

The problem is that if Clegg takes up Brown's offer he would be propping up a Labour government.

 

It also would mean that the 2 losing parties would effectively block out the "winner" of the election, I'm not too sure that will go down well with the public.

 

Sorry, that is rubbish. There isn't a winner - that's the whole point. If the Conservatives can get a workable majority, their rule would be legitimate. If Lab/Lib could do the same, their rule would be legitimate - that is parliamentary democracy.

 

A Lib Lab pact would represent a 52% vote share, a Conservative minority 37%. If Labour and the Lib Dems can agree that a pact could serve the interests of their voters, they would be more than entitled to rule (again, the same could be said of any other combination of party).

[Grandad.Malky]

It also would mean that the 2 losing parties would effectively block out the "winner" of the election, I'm not too sure that will go down well with the public.

 

Lab 29.1

Con 36.1

Lib 23.0

 

 

If Con go it alone 36.1% get their way ,Lab / Lib means 52.1% get their way, what’s wrong with that, the first passed the post didn’t work so now the fun begins.

[Justin Smith]

Sorry, that is rubbish. There isn't a winner - that's the whole point. If the Conservatives can get a workable majority, their rule would be legitimate. If Lab/Lib could do the same, their rule would be legitimate - that is parliamentary democracy.

 

A Lib Lab pact would represent a 52% vote share, a Conservative minority 37%. If Labour and the Lib Dems can agree that a pact could serve the interests of their voters, they would be more than entitled to rule (again, the same could be said of any other combination of party).

 

Absolutely.

[Kingmaker2]

Sorry, that is rubbish. There isn't a winner - that's the whole point. If the Conservatives can get a workable majority, their rule would be legitimate. If Lab/Lib could do the same, their rule would be legitimate - that is parliamentary democracy.

.

 

I think you know what I meant that's why I put winner in quotation marks!

[Kingmaker2]

Lab 29.1

Con 36.1

Lib 23.0

 

 

If Con go it alone 36.1% get their way ,Lab / Lib means 52.1% get their way, what’s wrong with that, the first passed the post didn’t work so now the fun begins.

 

Plenty wrong with that, the party with the largest number of seats should not be blocked out of government in my view, which is obviously Labour's intention.

[esme]

here are some interesting numbers to consider for opponents of PR

 

in the 2005 general election the lib dems performed as follows

 

5,982,164 votes making 22% of the total vote giving them 62 seats

 

in the election we just had the following happened, figures need verifying but they should be close enough

 

6,827,938 votes making 23% of the total vote giving them 57 seats

 

so more votes turns into fewer seats, anyone care to explain how this is fair ?

[Grandad.Malky]

Plenty wrong with that, the party with the largest number of seats should not be blocked out of government in my view, which is obviously Labour's intention.

 

Possession is 9 10ths of the law, Labour are in power and the Con didn’t get enough votes to oust them, simples.

 

Going back to the stats 64% of people dont whant Cons, what have you to fear from PR?

[Justin Smith]

Plenty wrong with that, the party with the largest number of seats should not be blocked out of government in my view, which is obviously Labour's intention.

 

The Tories, no actually all politicians, should be consistent.

Are the Tories, and the labour party in their time, saying that proportion of the vote doesn`t matter ?

If so they`re saying the votes of most people are irrelevant, it`s just the votes of those in marginal swing constituencies that are worth anything at all.....