General Election...June 8

[Craiglxviii]

No Craig, I mean I've often wondered about the alternative of PR. I have no real leaning for or against, I just wonder. But I heard someone quoting numbers the other day and if the maths were right, under PR (i.e.: taking the number of votes cast) the Greens for example would have 25 MPs while they currently have 1 under the existing first past the post system.

When you talk about dictators I also recall a commentary about the massive lawlessness in Iraq when Saddam went underground (before he was found and dealt with). The commentator said that all the time he was in power, everyone knew some people were unsafe because they were on his blacklists etc but generally there was a high measure of normal safety and people abided by the law etc and that only went down the tubes when the regime completely crumbled (and of course the Western forces were not prepared to set up a new government etc).

I tried explaining this to the Banned Member with little success.

The current FPTP system we have is what is termed "progressive". That is, the MP elected for whichever constituency is the member for all the constituents regardless of their political leanings. The constituents vote for a specific member NOT a party so each candidate can focus their campaign to the hustings towards making things personal for them. Any constituent can approach their MP and request an issue be raised in the House. The MP is duty bound to raise it regardless of his or her party. That also means that a Member can be directly held to account by any candidate over his or her behaviour.

PR on the other hand is a "regressive" system. Constituents vote for a party and not a specific member. The party chooses the member to send to a constituency.

What it means is that under FPTP, members are accountable to their constituents first and their party second. Under PR, it's exactly reversed with the constituents having minimal ability to hold their member to account.

So, I don't know about you but I don't fancy any party being unaccountable directly to the immediate local electorate. Do you?

As regards dictatorships, just like TPLACs they can be absolutely fine places to live as long as one obeys the rules (which may be different to laws).

 

[LostKiwi]

Your selective-as-ever extract omits the fact that "Bumbling Boris" paid some £214,000 in tax in the same year.

I wish I could afford afford to pay £214,000 in tax.
I don't think many of the UK population could either.

 

[LostKiwi]

You have to vote Dum if you want to remain this is the second referendum some people wanted.

Really? You must inhabit a very boring world as everything seems very black and white to you.
I also suspect you haven't understood their manifesto.

In my less than scientific observations, those that think Boris is inept invariably do not come anywhere near to his level of education or achievements.

Most people haven't had the same opportunities.

 

[Xtractorfan]

First past the post suits the current parties, Labour and Tory, PR suits those samller parties that

You have to vote Dum if you want to remain this is the second referendum some people wanted.


In my less than scientific observations, those that think Boris is inept invariably do not come anywhere near to his level of education or achievements.

It is never about his intellect or his achievements, it is more about his ability and his seemingly inbuilt bumbling idiosyncrasy that comes to the fore.
Those that know him can cope with these little foibles, but others are more reticent.

 

[davemercedes]

Your selective-as-ever extract omits the fact that "Bumbling Boris" paid some £214,000 in tax in the same year.

I would happily pay £214K tax pa if I earned the dosh but if I was fortunate enough to rake it in I really would not be promoting cutbacks to OAPs and disabled people and my party would not be in control while the NHS shut shutting hospital wards etc to save money or (yes, in this day and age because they have insufficient staff !!!) - especially when their illustrious leader says there is no crisis in the NHS (Where I live we've had one kiddie's death already because the ambulance could not get him to the correct place in time).

- Is that selective enough for you?

- These people display complete and utter hypocrisy (and so do most of the others).

 

[davemercedes]

I tried explaining this to the Banned Member with little success.

The current FPTP system we have is what is termed "progressive". That is, the MP elected for whichever constituency is the member for all the constituents regardless of their political leanings. The constituents vote for a specific member NOT a party so each candidate can focus their campaign to the hustings towards making things personal for them. Any constituent can approach their MP and request an issue be raised in the House. The MP is duty bound to raise it regardless of his or her party. That also means that a Member can be directly held to account by any candidate over his or her behaviour.

PR on the other hand is a "regressive" system. Constituents vote for a party and not a specific member. The party chooses the member to send to a constituency.

What it means is that under FPTP, members are accountable to their constituents first and their party second. Under PR, it's exactly reversed with the constituents having minimal ability to hold their member to account.

So, I don't know about you but I don't fancy any party being unaccountable directly to the immediate local electorate. Do you?

As regards dictatorships, just like TPLACs they can be absolutely fine places to live as long as one obeys the rules (which may be different to laws).

Sorry Craig - Of course I know the difference and how it's supposed to work. But it's not at all uncommon for an elected MP to dismiss an elector's comment or plea with for help with a simple riposte e.g.: "The governments view of X is that we are Y" etc or other similar drivel which curtly is a trick they soon learn that dismisses the voter's gripe (and I have no doubt a member elected via PR would possibly do the same). The only difference in both cases is the question of how easy it might be to get rid at the next call to the ballot box - and I think perhaps the failed PR member would probably be less likely to survive than a PR one. But that's guesswork because like everyone else all my MPs and cabinet ministers etc (for well over 50 years) have been voted in via FPTP. We won't know unless we ever try it and the appetitite for change is at best luke warm!

 

[Craiglxviii]

Sure, of course a constituent's views can be dismissed. Dozens can. But those constituents can raise a petition against their MP, vote against them at the next by- election. Vote he or she out. In PR one cannot do that as one votes for one or another party.

The big question is, if FPTP (supposedly) favours the big parties, and PR disengages the MPs from the electorate, what fair and equitable system does a state use to elect its government?

It is perhaps instructive that the parties that tend to champion the various types of PR are those that fall into the Progressive Liberal camp, that is the side of politics that likes to do the thinking for people.

 

[Headhurts]

Well the Tories are losing their lead now - one poll has shown Labour have halved the Conservatives' lead to 9 percentage points. Mrs Maybe called a snap election hoping for a landslide victory.... but it seems the voters aren't all that happy with her "Dementia Tax".

Maybe has faced criticism over her planned social care reforms, which boil down to dropping the triple-lock, means testing annual heating allowance and making elderly homeowners pay even more towards their old-age care if they have the cheek to have been frugal and bought their home/saved money for their old age and/or children. I knew all along that I should have "hissed" it up against a wall!

So now OAPs, having paid (yes, I know - like everybody else) to put the banks thieving right and getting (virtually) no interest on their savings for the last 7-8 years, are now in for bigger squeezes. So it's no surprise the Tories are losing points although she will probably still get a majority.

But either way Theresa will be okay with her earnings of £143,462 plus rent-free accommodation and allowances; (which means she can rent out their home) plus a pension accruing at the rate of 1/40th or 1/50th of final pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service along with the very generous Resettlement Grant.
- But that's okay because she's a "special" person.

Today, (millionaire) Bumbling Boris said the cutbacks: "are necessary ... we have to do something about the huge costs of social care" - So speaks another Minister with the safety of a minister's pay and allowances plus another nice fat MPs pension in his pocket!
- But he's a very special person too - here's an article about his massive income as far back as 2012:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-earnings-shock-how-782803

OMG I'm starting to agree with Dave!!

Does seem unfair that we can no longer leave our children well provided for in times when housing is out of reach for many.

I do think TM has made a mistake with this part of the manifesto.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[geraldrobins]

I dont think this is new. People already have to pay for their care if they have savings over approx £24000.

 

[LostKiwi]

I dont think this is new. People already have to pay for their care if they have savings over approx £24000.

No its not new and you're broadly correct. What gets up people's noses (and this happened to my wife) is that she had to pay for her mothers care whilst in the bed next to her someone who had saved nothing got the same care for free.
The other thing is the Conservatives committed to cap any payments at £72,000 whereas this new proposal allows for unlimited costs to be paid to care organisations apart from £100k.
That's great news if you run a care home but not if you have a relative who needs care.
People who have saved the money to have assets of £100k have almost certainly already paid a lot of money in taxes and NI yet someone who has never made a positive contribution gets the same care for nothing. I'd call that grossly unfair.

 

[geraldrobins]

No its not new and you're broadly correct. What gets up people's noses (and this happened to my wife) is that she had to pay for her mothers care whilst in the bed next to her someone who had saved nothing got the same care for free.
The other thing is the Conservatives committed to cap any payments at £72,000 whereas this new proposal allows for unlimited costs to be paid to care organisations apart from £100k.
That's great news if you run a care home but not if you have a relative who needs care.
People who have saved the money to have assets of £100k have almost certainly already paid a lot of money in taxes and NI yet someone who has never made a positive contribution gets the same care for nothing. I'd call that grossly unfair.

Its never fair.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Well U turn May is about to do another U turn on this just wait and see, it has narrowed the gap in the polls and the Tories are quivering a bit... Even with Sky news trying their best to sink Corbyn again.

 

[LostKiwi]

A good analysis here:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mi...hing-wrong-tory-manifesto-pledge-10450038.amp

 

[C350Carl]

Well U turn May is about to do another U turn on this just wait and see, it has narrowed the gap in the polls and the Tories are quivering a bit... Even with Sky news trying their best to sink Corbyn again.

Corbyn has done enough to sink himself. He doesn't need any outside/external influence!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tizen-inviting-tea-terrace-House-Commons.html

 

[Frontstep]

Really? You must inhabit a very boring world as everything seems very black and white to you.
I also suspect you haven't understood their manifesto.


Most people haven't had the same opportunities.

One of the benefits of an education,
I can work out who is offering you a chance for staying in the EU, or have you gone off the idea ?

Are we now to condemn Boris's parents for being successful and giving their children the best they could ?

 

[LostKiwi]

One of the benefits of an education,
I can work out who is offering you a chance for staying in the EU, or have you gone off the idea ?

Are we now to condemn Boris's parents for being successful and giving their children the best they could ?

I've never been part of the EU so Brexit won't affect me as much as some of you (my rights in Europe will be exactly as they were).
A benefit of being an immigrant.
I still can be a part of the EU if I want. There's always France for me

As for Boris - you say in one breath those who castigate him for his bumbling efforts at everything haven't achieved as much but then go off on a total tangent about blaming his parents for being successful and giving him a start when its pointed out that perhaps a lot of his 'success' is down to being given more opportunities than most people (and being born into the 'elite').

SO what is he then as I'm confused by what you're trying to say? Is he a more successful individual than most who criticise him because of his abilities or is he just a average member of the 'elite' who has had most of it gifted to him by luck of birth?

 

[JBell]

Labour are going after Umbrella Companies http://www.itcontractor.com/labour-umbrella-company-ban-promise-manifesto-contractor/

 

[Craiglxviii]

Labour are going after Umbrella Companies http://www.itcontractor.com/labour-umbrella-company-ban-promise-manifesto-contractor/

They would do!!!!!

 

[JBell]

They would do!!!!!

Easy target!!!!!!

 

[Naraic]

I dont think this is new. People already have to pay for their care if they have savings over approx £24000.

Currently care at home is not charged for...that's the difference.

It will be very interesting to see the cost of a 15 minutes call at home. It will also be interesting to see how they cope when people demand they stay for 15 minutes not just waltz in and out in 5 minutes (been there, seen it).