Stockport MBC becomes a little more secure

[Duke Fame]

Was it really? How can it be worse than a system where most of the populations votes are absolutely worthless?

What frustrated me with the voting referendum was that the Tories deliberately forced a slightly obscure option for us to compare FPTP against and then encouraged the media run a 'oh it's far too complicated for the Joe Public to understand' campaign.

Establishment 1 v 0 General Public yet again.

We all then moan about our politicians when we are complicit in a) putting them there and b) keeping them there!

This is true, the conservatives offered the LibDems a referendum but they knew full well the electorate would not go for it. The Lib Dems should have pushed for a simple PR vote referendum but as Labour wouldn't even give them a referendum at all, they went of the only offer on the table. I think they'd have been better taking the moral high ground and insisting that a referendum should only happen on a PR option and they would be the only major party pushing for that (unless you count the greens, UKIP, BNP etc)

I support PR but I didn't think the alternative vote offer so voted against it. It wasn't a case of not understanding it, simply I didn't think it would deliver a government that I'd like.

[wheels]

Good Post

[Melancholyflower]

I fully agree, Belly.  And Duke - under AV there is no requirement to choose more than one candidate if you don't wish to.

FPTP has long enabled Britain to return mostly majority governments and provided stability in periods of more volatile movements such as the 1930s, because the only way minority parties could win seats was by concentrating campaigning in core areas and then hoping to build up their national support. Unlikely.

Pluses - It provides a quick result and is probably the easiest system to understand. It is also the ideal system for a two-party political system.

Unfortunately the UK hasn't been a two-party system for a long time, at least since the 1970s. The Libs in all their guises usually poll around 20% of the vote and get about 10% of the seats. In 1983 they got about 4% seats despite having 25% of the vote. You reckon that's fair?

It stretches credulity, for me, to say that AV is "complicated". I reckon that the majority of people over 18 are able to count to ten (unlikely there'd be more candidates in the average constituency), and have the gumption to rank candidates in order of preference.

Who cares if it takes a few more days if more people will feel their vote actually counts?

The AV campaign was extremely ill-informed and dominated by the No side, who used a mixture of fear and downright lies to make their point. As a result we're stuck with a ridiculously outdated format which only serves to feed on the mass apathy that already exists about British politics.

Anyone who voted to keep FPTP cannot complain about poor turnouts or the government they will be ending up with. We're stuck with a ridiculously outdated format which only serves to feed on the mass apathy that already exists about British politics.

[Belly]

 

[Belly]

Because when we were given an alternative, it was even worse than FPP. I struggle to find one to vote for, never mind a 2nd preference.

Was it really? How can it be worse than a system where most of the populations votes are absolutely worthless?

What frustrated me with the voting referendum was that the Tories deliberately forced a slightly obscure option for us to compare FPTP against and then encouraged the media run a 'oh it's far too complicated for the Joe Public to understand' campaign.

Establishment 1 v 0 General Public yet again.

We all then moan about our politicians when we are complicit in a) putting them there and b) keeping them there!

[Duke Fame]

Still beats me why this country chose to stay with the current deeply flawed electoral system. It just continues to breed absolute apathy / disgust. Compare the turn out rates in recent elections against that in the devolution ballot in Scotland. Suddenly when the vote actually counts, it encourages people to get out and use it!

Because when we were given an alternative, it was even worse than FPP. I struggle to find one to vote for, never mind a 2nd preference.

[Belly]

Would they though?

Under the current system a 'protest vote' (at a general election in particular) can be wielded without any great concern as to the repercussions. It might be a different story under PR, whereby your vote actually does count for something.

UKIP are on the crest of a wave at the moment, but it will be interesting to see how they fare next May, when the possibility of Nigel being part of a government might not be quite so amusing.

Still beats me why this country chose to stay with the current deeply flawed electoral system. It just continues to breed absolute apathy / disgust. Compare the turn out rates in recent elections against that in the devolution ballot in Scotland. Suddenly when the vote actually counts, it encourages people to get out and use it!

[Bowden Guy]

How ironic that the "first past the post" system, that the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have spent generations campaigning against, will be the one factor that prevents their obliteration at the next election. Theywill, no doubt, keep their seats in areas like Hazel Grove where they have large numbers of Councillors and activists. However, if the next election was being fought on the basis of PR, the LibDems would be replaced by UKIP as the third largest party in the Commons.

[Duke Fame]

I think I gave a very straight answer as i always do. I just don't think any of us can comment as we don't know the situation on the ground in each constituency and that in terms of the LD vote is much more importantant than the national polls. I could see an increase in the number of seats or a decrease perhaps.

I think you'd get good odds on the former and i'd liek to see more LD Mps.

[wheels]

I think I gave a very straight answer as i always do. I just don't think any of us can comment as we don't know the situation on the ground in each constituency and that in terms of the LD vote is much more importantant than the national polls. I could see an increase in the number of seats or a decrease perhaps.

[Dave]

In other words, we probably agree, more or less.   

Not sure what wheels 'took exception' to.  If it was my prediction, I have to say, for what it's worth, that 39 is a lot more than some pundits in the press are forecasting. 

If it's my suggestion that he never gives a straight answer to straight question, I think he's just proved my point. 

[wheels]

Seeing as Wheels, as usual, will not give a straight answer to a straight question, I'll have a go.

At the moment there are 56 Lib Dem MPs. It is widely predicted that they will lose some of these, and not gain many new seats, if any.  But the Lib Dems have in the past proved to be very good at hanging on to what they already hold, even in adverse circumstances (e.g. at the Eastleigh by election last year).  And in those seats (there are many) where the Tories come second, the Tories are likely to lose a few votes to UKIP.  So incumbent Lib Dem MPs, even if they lose some votes, could still scrape home, thanks to Mr Farage!

My prediction is 39.

Well Dave I have just got back from a Union Conference and only just seen your and these posts so I do take some exception to your comments. If you want an firm number I can't give you one so I will answer as best I can. I think the number of seats the Liberal Democrats will win is just about the hardest of all the parties to forcast as it will bear little relationship to their share of the national vote. All the evidence and polling says that in those seats where they are deeply entrenched they will do very well. So both Hazel Grove and Cheadle might well be held whatever the national vote especially as they are within a LD controlled Local Authority and one that wins continually awards for its excellence service as well. As always you would expect some LD gains and a some marginal losses. Indeed it might well be possible depending on how a very small number of votes falls that they would in fact gain seats. It depends how well dug in any MP is and how well organised the local party and none of us on here is in a position to know that. So posting numbers seems silly to me.

[Duke Fame]

Don't supose there were any plans for Chadwick street .......

No, I'd post a link but it's impossible to find. I ave it at work so will post again but it really is a way of wasting money and channeling public cash into the hands of a few.

[amazon]

Wow, I agree with Dave, I was going to say between 38 & 42.

As for the original post, make it easy to do what?

I'm not a fan of local councils but went to see the plans for Stockport bridge-fields and read the £7m plan for Stockport Old Town. These guys are utterly clueless, money does not grow on trees but they are determined to waste it.

Don't supose there were any plans for Chadwick street .......

[Duke Fame]

Seeing as Wheels, as usual, will not give a straight answer to a straight question, I'll have a go.

At the moment there are 56 Lib Dem MPs. It is widely predicted that they will lose some of these, and not gain many new seats, if any.  But the Lib Dems have in the past proved to be very good at hanging on to what they already hold, even in adverse circumstances (e.g. at the Eastleigh by election last year).  And in those seats (there are many) where the Tories come second, the Tories are likely to lose a few votes to UKIP.  So incumbent Lib Dem MPs, even if they lose some votes, could still scrape home, thanks to Mr Farage!

My prediction is 39.

Wow, I agree with Dave, I was going to say between 38 & 42.

As for the original post, make it easy to do what?

I'm not a fan of local councils but went to see the plans for Stockport bridge-fields and read the £7m plan for Stockport Old Town. These guys are utterly clueless, money does not grow on trees but they are determined to waste it.