Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess his thinking is that at times when there was a Tory government (which will be the case at times) there would be no constraints as to how much they could reduce standards for the environment and workers etc without the EU to protect those things. That wouldn't necessarily be what the people want though as you can get a majority government with under 40% of the vote with our ludicrous electoral system.
I guess his thinking is that at times when there was a Tory government (which will be the case at times) there would be no constraints as to how much they could reduce standards for the environment and workers etc without the EU to protect those things. That wouldn't necessarily be what the people want though as you can get a majority government with under 40% of the vote with our ludicrous electoral system.
If the people don't want it, then next election, the other party gets in and re-implements them. Just like every other country does.
I know life's hard when no one is checking your work.
But that's the whole point, with this country's electoral system a party or coalition doesn't need to have the backing of a majority of voters to achieve a majority government in parliament, usually 40% is enough, sometimes less. So the people might not want it, yet a government gets in who then goes on to implement it.
But that's the whole point, with this country's electoral system a party or coalition doesn't need to have the backing of a majority of voters to achieve a majority government in parliament, usually 40% is enough, sometimes less.
That IS unusual among democratic countries.
No it's not. It depends on how representatives are selected. It's pretty common in Anglo-Parliamentarian systems.
Further it cuts both ways, sure Tories can achieve majority with under a simple majority of the total vote, so can Labour, or Lib-Dem. There's no more benefit to one party than any other, and therefore no more benefit for pet policies of those parties.
No it's not. It depends on how representatives are selected. It's pretty common in Anglo-Parliamentarian systems.
Further it cuts both ways, sure Tories can achieve majority with under a simple majority of the total vote, so can Labour, or Lib-Dem. There's no more benefit to one party than any other, and therefore no more benefit for pet policies of those parties.
FTPT leads to a largely 2 party system as the distribution of voters heavily impacts numbers of MPs. Spread out across the country like UKIP or the lib dems - hardly represented. Concentrated like the Tory's and labour - all the seats. Also means if your a safe seat there's no point voting.
No it's not. It depends on how representatives are selected. It's pretty common in Anglo-Parliamentarian systems.
Further it cuts both ways, sure Tories can achieve majority with under a simple majority of the total vote, so can Labour, or Lib-Dem. There's no more benefit to one party than any other, and therefore no more benefit for pet policies of those parties.
There is a reason that no countries now choose first past the post systems when selecting methods to choose their governments, and most of those countries which inherited it from Britain like Australia, New Zealand etc have over time moved away from that towards fairer and more proportional systems. It is very unusual internationally for a party to have an overall majority without having to compromise with coalition partners when they have got 40% or less of the vote, there's only a handful of countries where that can happen, the UK being one of them.
So what if it cuts both ways? That doesn't make it any better, it just means you can lurch from one end of the spectrum to the other every few years when actually what the people overall might well want is something in the middle and a bit of consistency.
FTPT leads to a largely 2 party system as the distribution of voters heavily impacts numbers of MPs. Spread out across the country like UKIP or the lib dems - hardly represented. Concentrated like the Tory's and labour - all the seats. Also means if your a safe seat there's no point voting.
Exactly, it makes votes for most parties in most areas wasted votes as they have no chance of getting a majority in that area so it pushes people towards voting for the big two established parties.
And in turn those big two established parties concentrate all their efforts on getting a small proportion of swing voters in a small number of swing seats to get an overall majority. Then tend to ignore their 'safe' areas, and also ignore those areas where they don't stand a chance of winning
There is a reason that no countries now choose first past the post systems when selecting methods to choose their governments, and most of those countries which inherited it from Britain like Australia, New Zealand etc have over time moved away from that towards fairer and more proportional systems. It is very unusual internationally for a party to have an overall majority without having to compromise with coalition partners when they have got 40% or less of the vote, there's only a handful of countries where that can happen, the UK being one of them.
So what if it cuts both ways? That doesn't make it any better, it just means you can lurch from one end of the spectrum to the other every few years when actually what the people overall might well want is something in the middle and a bit of consistency.
Fairer and more proportional are relative terms, what one considers fair another unfair. Examples being flat rate taxes, fair or unfair? Its largely a matter of perception, ultimately everyone receives the same services, so why should income dictate the price you pay for a service? If you go to a restaurant they don't ask to see your tax return before presenting you the bill.
Actually lurching from one side to another is no bad thing, it tends to result in the government achieving nothing over the long term but issues they parties in power agree upon. That's pretty democratic is it not?
Ask people working in the NHS etc how well it works when they get a big reorganisation every time a new government gets in when the last reorganisation hasn't even had time to get settled yet. I'm sure they will tell you that the service would be better with some long term thinking rather than lurching from one party's preference to the others every five years or so.
Like I said, there's a reason that countries no longer choose the FPTP system and those that have it as a historical legacy are mostly moving away from it over time.
What this is really about, is Corbyn's fear of this appearing to be a triumph for Boris Johnson. He knows the result of that, would be a huge victory for Boris's Tory party in a General Election.
So, he has to try and find reasons why Labour can't vote to accept the deal. It's all about trying to save his own political skin. He's finished if this deal gets through Parliament tomorrow.
Agreed - we shall however have to wat and see how this shower vote, but if they don't vote for Johnson's very reasonable plan then a no-deal is the only real alternative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
