EU referendum opinion poll.

[Alf Bentley]

Your first point, I see your concern, but you either believe in democracy, or you don't. The more politically diverse your country, the worse FPTP is.

If a party has the casting vote, then it's because the PEOPLE (remember them) want it that way = democracy.

 

UKIP 4 million votes - 1 MP.

SNP 1.5 million votes - 56 MP's.

 

There needs to be change.

 

 

Completely agree.

 

Here are the full 2015 GB figures from Wiki (% of national vote -> % of MPs):

- Con: 36.8% -> 50.8%

- Lab: 30.5% -> 35.7%

- UKIP: 12.7% -> 0.2%

- Lib Dem: 7.9% -> 1.2%

- SNP: 4.7% -> 8.6%

- Green: 3.8% -> 0.2%

- Plaid: 0.6% -> 0.5%

 

Personally, I'd favour a system similar to the European elections - some variant on single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

 

There's no perfect system, but that would be much fairer than FPTP, while limiting the potential for tiny groups to wield excessive power, as they can under a fully proportional national system (e.g. Israel, where tiny extremist religious groups sometimes hold the main parties to ransom despite winning very few votes). At the Euro elections, a party has to secure something like 8% across a whole region before it gets any MEPs. Another alternative would be something like the German system, where I think half the MPs are elected proportionally on a national basis - but only for parties that secure 5% of the national vote - but half the MPs are elected by constituency, allowing groups with highly localised support (e.g. SNP) to get MPs elected.

 

Will Self pointed out that both the Tories and Labour are really two parties in one and should each split....but the electoral system forces Eurosceptic Thatcherites to stay in the same party as "Capitalism with a safety net" Tory Wets, and forces pacifist, redistributionist lefties to stay in the same party as social democratic Labourites.

 

 

Sorry for taking the EU referendum thread off-topic. Mind you, how the hell anyone is going to sustain a 4-month debate about the referendum, I don't know.

[Guest MattP]

Completely agree.

 

Here are the full 2015 GB figures from Wiki (% of national vote -> % of MPs):

- Con: 36.8% -> 50.8%

- Lab: 30.5% -> 35.7%

- UKIP: 12.7% -> 0.2%

- Lib Dem: 7.9% -> 1.2%

- SNP: 4.7% -> 8.6%

- Green: 3.8% -> 0.2%

- Plaid: 0.6% -> 0.5%

 

Personally, I'd favour a system similar to the European elections - some variant on single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

 

There's no perfect system, but that would be much fairer than FPTP, while limiting the potential for tiny groups to wield excessive power, as they can under a fully proportional national system (e.g. Israel, where tiny extremist religious groups sometimes hold the main parties to ransom despite winning very few votes). At the Euro elections, a party has to secure something like 8% across a whole region before it gets any MEPs. Another alternative would be something like the German system, where I think half the MPs are elected proportionally on a national basis - but only for parties that secure 5% of the national vote - but half the MPs are elected by constituency, allowing groups with highly localised support (e.g. SNP) to get MPs elected.

 

Will Self pointed out that both the Tories and Labour are really two parties in one and should each split....but the electoral system forces Eurosceptic Thatcherites to stay in the same party as "Capitalism with a safety net" Tory Wets, and forces pacifist, redistributionist lefties to stay in the same party as social democratic Labourites.

 

 

Sorry for taking the EU referendum thread off-topic. Mind you, how the hell anyone is going to sustain a 4-month debate about the referendum, I don't know.

 

There is no argument for me now about our system being a fair one, it clearly isn't and anyone who argues it is is either in a state of total delusion or must stand to gain from it.

 

I'll have a read into that German model you have mentioned, that seems as close to an attractive alternative I have heard so far.

 

I'm still so torn though on it, a end to FPTP would make election night so much more boring, most of the great moments are watching big hitters lose there seats be it Michael Portillo, Vince Cable or Ed Balls, no by-elections either and the thought of politically parties just being to pick who they want themselves to represent them is quite a sobering thought (even though this still happens to an extent people still have to elect the individual at the minute which I think it's crucial in a democracy).

[leicsmac]

Sadly Carl's theory is flawed.

1) People aren't the same. It's no use pretending they're the same and I don't see much merit in trying to make them the same. Individuality is important to the world for ideas, innovation and progress in every direction. Teamwork is vital to bring ideas to fruition but the less control of people - on a constructive basis - the better.

Religion is an example. It's all about power and control from the centre but delegated to the outposts.

And look at what that's been responsible for - more killings, maimings and despair than anything apart from natural causes...much the same as so many examples relating to big empires and dictatorships. Organisations seem to corrupt themselves in the end so the smaller they are, the less the damage.

2) The ill-consequence for people having a world government, as opposed to more localised government, doesn't bear thinking about in the wrong hands. It was bad enough having Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia or Chairman Mao in China without us now going global.

3) Localised government is much more aware of localised needs and concerns. People on the coast whose community makes their living from the sea don't have the same concerns as wheat farmers in the middle of the US. Even having European rule, never mind world rule is ridiculously distant and the distance shows when considering how far Europe's attitudes have disillusioned so many European people and with good reason.

As for fuel there's no need to worry!

 

The problem with the whole thing is that many issues are much better handled locally, while some issues simply must be handled globally.

 

How do you come up with a governmental system that can deal with both of those in an efficient fashion?

[Carl the Llama]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, ofcom is acting on legislation that was voted in by parliament.

So you didn't vote for it, someone else did on your behalf?  And you're ok with that crass abuse of unaccountable power?

 

 

'where possible', how vague an answer and concept is that...THEN you contradict yourself. Do you realise that?

Constant evolution of laws, my word, it gets worse.

 

Are you more in favour of a few people as possible in charge, or as many as possible?

 

I'm sorry, did you want me to write out a full working legal framework for my superstate?  Lots of laws can very easily be the same from state to state - there's no need for a plethora of potential sentences depending on where crimes like murder, theft, rape etc. are committed.  Business and fiscal legislature is another area that would benefit from having one clearly defined set of rules instead of a hodge-podge which causes conflicting global interests.

What's so bad about allowing law to evolve?  Would you like us to still be in an age where women and people of colour can't vote and have no rights?  If the answer to that is no then you understand why any democratic state should allow for laws to be amended.

 

Take cannabis: Under the USA's current federal-state legal system they've been able to trial different approaches to the drug and are learning which legal parameters work and which need tightening/changing.

 

 

Sadly Carl's theory is flawed.

1) People aren't the same. It's no use pretending they're the same and I don't see much merit in trying to make them the same. Individuality is important to the world for ideas, innovation and progress in every direction. Teamwork is vital to bring ideas to fruition but the less control of people - on a constructive basis - the better.

Religion is an example. It's all about power and control from the centre but delegated to the outposts.

And look at what that's been responsible for - more killings, maimings and despair than anything apart from natural causes...much the same as so many examples relating to big empires and dictatorships. Organisations seem to corrupt themselves in the end so the smaller they are, the less the damage.

2) The ill-consequence for people having a world government, as opposed to more localised government, doesn't bear thinking about in the wrong hands. It was bad enough having Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia or Chairman Mao in China without us now going global.

3) Localised government is much more aware of localised needs and concerns. People on the coast whose community makes their living from the sea don't have the same concerns as wheat farmers in the middle of the US. Even having European rule, never mind world rule is ridiculously distant and the distance shows when considering how far Europe's attitudes have disillusioned so many European people and with good reason.

As for fuel there's no need to worry!

 

I'm honoured you would give it the credence of a fully fledged theory, I was only giving a sweeping generalisation of my ideals, not a master plan for a fully functional global state.

 

1.) I agree that teamwork is key to successful democracy. This is an ideal scenario we're discussing here where global teamwork is a legitimate possibility, it's one that won't be feasible for generations upon generations if even that soon, if even ever.  Power would be shared between the superstate's federal government and the individual states that comprise it where appropriate (you'll have to forgive me for not writing a full manifesto).  Again I use the USA's compartmentalisation as the best current example of the idea, though the institutions that make it up would have to be a damn sight more functional than the USA's constantly gridlocked political system.  

 

2.) Kinda answered that just now.  You'll note I'm talking about a world government here, not a world dictatorship.  I'm not talking about central planning which can never work.

 

3.) Exactly which is why my awesome state of greatness would allow for local control much like a US state, much like a UK council.  A lot would have to be worked out to make it work you are right.

 

I never claimed to be suggesting a realistic idea that can be implemented in the next few years so I'm baffled people are fixating on that one throwaway idealisation instead of using this thread to discuss a real-world issue with a couple of months shelf-life.  If anyone is genuinely interested in spitballing the functions of a global superstate make a separate thread for it please.

[Claridge]

Completely agree.

 

Here are the full 2015 GB figures from Wiki (% of national vote -> % of MPs):

- Con: 36.8% -> 50.8%

- Lab: 30.5% -> 35.7%

- UKIP: 12.7% -> 0.2%

- Lib Dem: 7.9% -> 1.2%

- SNP: 4.7% -> 8.6%

- Green: 3.8% -> 0.2%

- Plaid: 0.6% -> 0.5%

 

Personally, I'd favour a system similar to the European elections - some variant on single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

 

There's no perfect system, but that would be much fairer than FPTP, while limiting the potential for tiny groups to wield excessive power, as they can under a fully proportional national system (e.g. Israel, where tiny extremist religious groups sometimes hold the main parties to ransom despite winning very few votes). At the Euro elections, a party has to secure something like 8% across a whole region before it gets any MEPs. Another alternative would be something like the German system, where I think half the MPs are elected proportionally on a national basis - but only for parties that secure 5% of the national vote - but half the MPs are elected by constituency, allowing groups with highly localised support (e.g. SNP) to get MPs elected.

 

Will Self pointed out that both the Tories and Labour are really two parties in one and should each split....but the electoral system forces Eurosceptic Thatcherites to stay in the same party as "Capitalism with a safety net" Tory Wets, and forces pacifist, redistributionist lefties to stay in the same party as social democratic Labourites.

 

 

Sorry for taking the EU referendum thread off-topic. Mind you, how the hell anyone is going to sustain a 4-month debate about the referendum, I don't know.

from Wiki (% of national voHere are the full 2015 GB figures te -> % of MPs):

- Con: 36.8% -> 50.8%

- Lab: 30.5% -> 35.7%

- UKIP: 12.7% -> 0.2%

- Lib Dem: 7.9% -> 1.2%

- SNP: 4.7% -> 8.6%

- Green: 3.8% -> 0.2%

- Plaid: 0.6% -> 0.5%

 

So if the cons and UKIP join up in a PR coalition they would need the 0.6% from Plaid to be over the 50% needed to do anything.

Plaid could demand anything in return and would probably have more power that all the other parties. e.g labour.

PR is a terrible way to elect a government as your own figures show

[Guest MattP]

PR is never going to happen anyway, it would need another ref and no way currently would 50% plus go for PR when it helps the most popular three parties.

[Strokes]

So you didn't vote for it, someone else did on your behalf?  And you're ok with that crass abuse of unaccountable power?

 

If they were acting on behalf EU legislation, I'd be upset because we can't change that but as its British I'm cool with it, as their is some (not enough) accountability. I'll check back with you on what reforms in British politics I would like to see, if and when we pull out of the EU but until then, I think there is plenty to go on and I don't want to see the thread go off topic.

[digitalalba]

So you didn't vote for it, someone else did on your behalf?  And you're ok with that crass abuse of unaccountable power?

 

I'm sorry, did you want me to write out a full working legal framework for my superstate?  Lots of laws can very easily be the same from state to state - there's no need for a plethora of potential sentences depending on where crimes like murder, theft, rape etc. are committed.  Business and fiscal legislature is another area that would benefit from having one clearly defined set of rules instead of a hodge-podge which causes conflicting global interests.

What's so bad about allowing law to evolve?  Would you like us to still be in an age where women and people of colour can't vote and have no rights?  If the answer to that is no then you understand why any democratic state should allow for laws to be amended.

 

Take cannabis: Under the USA's current federal-state legal system they've been able to trial different approaches to the drug and are learning which legal parameters work and which need tightening/changing.

So should we have global laws for gun control, If so, which way? Should Saudi Arabia outlaw Sharia law and adopt Western laws? What will happen if the people of Japan decide they don't want a law because it affects their way of life, does everyone have to change?

In this one world government of yours, is there room for localism?

[digitalalba]

from Wiki (% of national voHere are the full 2015 GB figures te -> % of MPs):

- Con: 36.8% -> 50.8%

- Lab: 30.5% -> 35.7%

- UKIP: 12.7% -> 0.2%

- Lib Dem: 7.9% -> 1.2%

- SNP: 4.7% -> 8.6%

- Green: 3.8% -> 0.2%

- Plaid: 0.6% -> 0.5%

 

So if the cons and UKIP join up in a PR coalition they would need the 0.6% from Plaid to be over the 50% needed to do anything.

Plaid could demand anything in return and would probably have more power that all the other parties. e.g labour.

PR is a terrible way to elect a government as your own figures show

You don't understand negotiation. Just because Plaid would top the 50% mark, doesn't mean they would get in. They, like the other parties, would negotiate their policies for future voting. I'm sure Plaid would be delighted to get into government with 0.6%, they'd probably be happy with free school milk to get there.

Equally, I think I'm right in saying that you could still have a minority government.

 

People need to remember this core point, only 36.8% of the population voted for the government, that's not a stable government either, most of us disagree with them!

[Langley]

PR is never going to happen anyway, it would need another ref and no way currently would 50% plus go for PR when it helps the most popular three parties.

 

 

PR is a horrible way of deciding an election. I did Politics at Uni and the best system in my view is Single Transferable Vote. More complicated but far more representative.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The thing that baffles me about the "returning sovereignty" claim from the exit camp is what exactly have the EU blocked the UK government from doing, apart from some fringe situations such as prisoner voting?

Additionally, might there be similar examples where EU rules have actually benefited this country (for example, ruled over other competing countries to the benefit of producers in this country).

And given there are elected EU MEP's and that the UK government should be seen as a big player as part of Europe... why should we be so useless at moulding Europe into something that we can find more palatable? Doesn't these issues point to a failure of our existing politicians more than the failure of the EU?

[Webbo]

The thing that baffles me about the "returning sovereignty" claim from the exit camp is what exactly have the EU blocked the UK government from doing, apart from some fringe situations such as prisoner voting?

 

Cameron's just spent months begging the rest of the  EU for some very minor changes only to told he can have about 10% of what he wants (and that will probably be reversed by some unelected judges before it's enforced). Sovereign countries don't have to ask permission to change their laws.

[Guest MattP]

Does anyone really believe despite what he is saying that Corbyn really wants to remain part of the European Union given his actions and voting record over the last 25 years?

 

It's a big day of action for Labour on Saturday and he's not even turning up instead deciding to speak at an anti-Trident event.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Cameron's just spent months begging the rest of the  EU for some very minor changes only to told he can have about 10% of what he wants (and that will probably be reversed by some unelected judges before it's enforced). Sovereign countries don't have to ask permission to change their laws.

And so I ponder, who's at fault for that - Cameron for being a poor negotiator / picking poor changes to put forward.

Mean the things being discussed are not things that would make or break a country, they are fringe matters - the UK Parliment still has a whole host of powers available to it and the current governing party have been using them, so to make out that the EU is a huge restricting force is quite frankly untrue.

[Webbo]

And so I ponder, who's at fault for that - Cameron for being a poor negotiator / picking poor changes to put forward.

Mean the things being discussed are not things that would make or break a country, they are fringe matters - the UK Parliment still has a whole host of powers available to it and the current governing party have been using them, so to make out that the EU is a huge restricting force is quite frankly untrue.

EU law trumps British law, that's a fact, unless you can tell me a major policy area where the EU has no say?

 

What's a good change to make? Something we don't want but the EU might agree to? What would be the point of that?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

EU law trumps British law, that's a fact, unless you can tell me a major policy area where the EU has no say?

But what's the problem with that if

A) those laws are generally sound and reasonable

B) they apply not only to this country, but to your nearest neighbouring competing countries

Does it matter who ultimately sets the law if they are just? Haven't EU laws actually prevented our own government from doing some things that were quite despicable of late?

I would also ask - even if we end up outside of the EU, surely our own laws would generally end up running along the same lines anyway... so the talk of sovereignty making it sound like it would be a big change and we'd suddenly have almighty power is bogus and would only bring about marginal change at a great cost in reality and it's unknown if that change would actually be positive?

[Webbo]

But what's the problem with that if

A) those laws are generally sound and reasonable

B) they apply not only to this country, but to your nearest neighbouring competing countries

Does it matter who ultimately sets the law if they are just? Haven't EU laws actually prevented our own government from doing some things that were quite despicable of late?

I would also ask - even if we end up outside of the EU, surely our own laws would generally end up running along the same lines anyway... so the talk of sovereignty making it sound like it would be a big change and we'd suddenly have almighty power is bogus and would only bring about marginal change at a great cost in reality and it's unknown if that change would actually be positive?

What's the problem with that? You said;

 the UK Parliment still has a whole host of powers available to it and the current governing party have been using them, so to make out that the EU is a huge restricting force is quite frankly untrue.

 

So are you saying now that it isn't untrue?

 

A) those laws are generally sound and reasonable

B) they apply not only to this country, but to your nearest neighbouring competing countries

Does it matter who ultimately sets the law if they are just? Haven't EU laws actually prevented our own government from doing some things that were quite despicable of late?

 

That's okay as long you think they're sound and reasonable, but what if you think they aren't? How are you going to change them?

 

I would also ask - even if we end up outside of the EU, surely our own laws would generally end up running along the same lines anyway... so the talk of sovereignty making it sound like it would be a big change and we'd suddenly have almighty power is bogus and would only bring about marginal change at a great cost in reality and it's unknown if that change would actually be positive?

 

Some of the laws would be the same, some would be different, we'd pick the laws that suit us and not the vested interests of other countries.And if I had my way the other countries would have that right too.

[digitalalba]

PR is a horrible way of deciding an election. I did Politics at Uni and the best system in my view is Single Transferable Vote. More complicated but far more representative.

In what way is it far more representative?

[digitalalba]

Does anyone really believe despite what he is saying that Corbyn really wants to remain part of the European Union given his actions and voting record over the last 25 years?

 

It's a big day of action for Labour on Saturday and he's not even turning up instead deciding to speak at an anti-Trident event.

I'm guessing he ain't turning up because his appeal to the wider public at the moment is negative. If conservatives leave Cameroon like they are, he'll go hiding too.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

So Webbo... give me an example of an EU law that troubles you - something that prevents the UK government from implementing one of its policies?

The way I see it, because EU Law and its wider policies have to cover a wide range of countries interests, they tend to be very broad and act as a framework to promote good policy decisions within a country... they are there to prevent an extreme government abusing power or to protect common group interests, like environmental considerations.

If EU law was that restrictive, you wouldn't have 28 countries in the thing, so it must be seen as workable by other governments so why has part of our government got so het up on this?

The argument doesn't seem to be on the merit of EU law and whether it's good or not - it's simply not deemed acceptable because it's not be put together in a UK Parliment - but as we've seen from many, many, past governments, laws passed by a democratic UK government can be flawed and contain a flood of self interest... so having greater "sovereignty" may be of no benefit at all.

[Webbo]

So Webbo... give me an example of an EU law that troubles you - something that prevents the UK government from implementing one of its policies?

The way I see it, because EU Law and its wider policies have to cover a wide range of countries interests, they tend to be very broad and act as a framework to promote good policy decisions within a country... they are there to prevent an extreme government abusing power or to protect common group interests, like environmental considerations.

If EU law was that restrictive, you wouldn't have 28 countries in the thing, so it must be seen as workable by other governments so why has part of our government got so het up on this?

The argument doesn't seem to be on the merit of EU law and whether it's good or not - it's simply not deemed acceptable because it's not be put together in a UK Parliment - but as we've seen from many, many, past governments, laws passed by a democratic UK government can be flawed and contain a flood of self interest... so having greater "sovereignty" may be of no benefit at all.

If a UK parliament makes a bad law it is answerable to the electorate. 

 

Do you vote in elections? If so why? You obviously feel British people can't be trusted to pass our own laws.

[theessexfox]

If a UK parliament makes a bad law it is answerable to the electorate. 

 

Do you vote in elections? If so why? You obviously feel British people can't be trusted to pass our own laws.

I am more able to influence the make-up of the European Parliament than the UK Parliament, given I live in a safe seat and my vote will be wasted, so surely to me the EU Parliament is more accountable? 

[Carl the Llama]

If a UK parliament makes a bad law it is answerable to the electorate. 

 

Do you vote in elections? If so why? You obviously feel British people can't be trusted to pass our own laws.

That's not what he's said at all and you've completely avoided his question.

[Webbo]

That's not what he's said at all and you've completely avoided his question.

Well he's avoided mine.

 

He obviously wants me to say I'm against immigration so he can change the subject and accuse me of racism. I wasn't born yesterday.

[Webbo]

I am more able to influence the make-up of the European Parliament than the UK Parliament, given I live in a safe seat and my vote will be wasted, so surely to me the EU Parliament is more accountable? 

What about the European Commission?