Jump to content
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

Yes, I know they are counted and are included in turnout percentages. Doesn’t matter if they haven’t done enough as there’ll be a conservative / labour government whatever happens, regardless of whether you have spoiled your ballot paper.

I guess it depends on the number of spoilt ballots, maybe we should all do it to show our displeasure with what is on offer and the FPTP system that is maintaining it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, davieG said:

I guess it depends on the number of spoilt ballots, maybe we should all do it to show our displeasure with what is on offer and the FPTP system that is maintaining it.

Not the biggest fan of FPTP but I’m thankful for it in elections like tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Thick question; what would the alternatives be?

Not an official site but seems to have a comprehensive list 

 

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/10/20/britains-voting-system-is-broken-here-are-7-alternatives/

 

I believe this one is the most popular 

 

 

4. STV

The Single Transferable Vote is used in Northern Ireland, Ireland, and for Scottish council elections. Under an STV system, constituencies have multiple members and voters rank candidates from one to however many they wish. STV improves proportionality, retains constituency links – and even strengthens them by offering voters a wider choice of representatives, and does not create two classes of representative, as is the case for the previous three systems.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

Polls are suggesting a late Labour surge. Uxbridge looks like a Labour win is possible which would push Johnson out of his seat

I really wouldn’t be surprised to see this. I would like to say I have had a strong sense this is going to happen, but a bit reluctant to say it as no doubt he will increase his majority and I will look daft! Just seemed a risky seat to place him in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Boris loses his seat this would be absolutely hilarious.  I'm hoping for some shockers.  Portillo many years back didn't look too happy.  Would love to see that happen to Rees-Mogg.  :fc:

 

Still the fact remains that in Leics South a vote for Costa is a vote for Boris.  I'm struggling to marry the two together and the alternative is to go against the grain with a wasted vote.  What a **** system this is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I am 100% certain that I am correct to say that you obsess about the perception of economics as a hard science more than any economist has in the last 30 years. I happily slate it for its ridiculous shoehorning mathematical representations that have made so much of it a nonsense but I also have no skin in the game, beyond a decent casual interest its served its purpose in my life. But it works well as an empirical discipline, particularly when it interacts with other social sciences hence the two subsets that are in vogue are Behavioural Econ and Development Econ. I mean pretty much every UK university bar one is moving away, at least partially, from a quant focus as are many in the US. But tbf, if I wanted to ignore findings I would play the man rather than the ball.

 

Human behaviour is of course malleable, subject to evolution, and a function of framing and environment. That doesn't mean it can be anything. I mean let's take your point about Venezuela

And what is the purpose? Sorry to be nihilist but exactly what is the purpose of preserving a species?

 

No not as a strict guide. Just that the future is a function of the past and that humans are not some super species that break through the barriers mother nature puts on it over a short enough period of time. 

 

To me you have this idea that humans are a computer that can be programmed to what you deem to be optimal,I have the idea that isn't possible in a world of multiple billions of people. That you and I don't share the same vision is exactly the issue with your ideal.

I guess I've rubbed shoulders with too many of the wrong kind of economist - the ones that use it as a kind of road-map determinism of human behaviour - then. You clearly have a more nuanced viewpoint and if you say that those folks are in the minority of the economist corps I'll believe you.

 

Evidently it is felt that I'm over-optimistic about what humans can do, but I'm certainly not interested in control in, say, the programming-style fashion you state here; having that power over someone corrupts almost always, and that's why accountability is so important. To clarify, I'm saying that humans have the potential through the minds that they have to do a lot of great things, that they can, through application of science and technology, break through a lot of the barriers nature has placed (look at what has been done already) and I'm going to say what I think those things are and how they might be achieved....but at the end of the day it's all about free will and so whether or not people make the choice is entirely up to themselves. So, as a result, in a world of billions of people, I think such collective action is possible, if perhaps unlikely. That's what it comes down to, really - exactly because of that free will, there are no certainties...just probabilities, one way or the other. That humans can choose to do the "right" thing is, I think, always possible. Whether they will...that's down to choice. (It's possibly more likely if some starkly obvious and present threat were to present itself that would need all humanity to solve, to give one example.)

 

That's why I don't really buy into determinism, btw.

 

Also, I could well be wrong about the choices that have to be made in terms of preserving life and civilisation, I can't be certain.

 

Regarding the bolded part...to me, life and the experiences it engenders is its own purpose. The lives that people lead, all the little ways (and big ones) that they contribute to human society and history, the joys they find in each other, the achievements they make, sometimes against all odds (Leicester beating 5000-1 odds for instance)...why would folks want to see an end to that? It's like the parable of the bird that flies in darkness and silence for endless time and then, just for a second, flies through a crowded room full of music, light and life....before leaving it and flying through the darkness again. How can we not want to extend that second out for as long as we possibly can?

 

Of course, there may be disagreement there, and fair enough. But, as cynical as I am...I'm a fan of mankind - and a rather big one.

 

 

9 hours ago, MattP said:

I think is some is inevitable, although it doesn't make it right.

 

 

We both agree resorting to civil disobedience because you can't get what you want is wrong don't we?:ph34r:

To be totally honest I think the bolded is where I arrive, too.

 

Think the only thing we disagree on is what issues result in political violence being "inevitable". :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Apollo said:

We had a referendum in 2011 on whether we should change the voting system - 67% said no. Here to stay for a little while yet 

Perhaps.  Nearly a decade and three elections and a referendum can be a long time in politics,  though.

 

Personally I'd very much like to see voting reform but the appetite for it would have to come from the bottom up because there's no way most of the Tory and Labour establishment would go for it - FPTP suits them just fine.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, davieG said:

Why? When for such an important election so many people feel their vote is a wasted vote.

Whether the system is FPTP does not matter in that sense. Even if you have proportional representation or AV, you’re still 1 out of millions. The constituency sizes are the problem, they have to be bigger to allow for a greater diversity of views. That isn’t the fault of FPTP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...