Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

Potential October GE: Who will you vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 84 19.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 129 29.4%
  • SNP

    Votes: 29 6.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 130 29.6%
  • TIG

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • UUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green Party (or any local Green affiliate)

    Votes: 14 3.2%
  • Other independent or minor party (please state!)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Spoiled ballot

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 13 3.0%
  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 24 5.5%

  • Total voters
    439
Status
Not open for further replies.

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,375
Location
Scotland
That would be an improvement, but still not much good if your MP does not share your view.
It's unlikely that everyone's MP would share their view under any system, but at least you would be able to say that they represent the views of most of your fellow constituents.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,155
Location
Nottingham
To my mind, the problem isn't FPTP, it's standing political parties and the whip in parliament.

If candidates had to stand on the basis of what they believe (or, more likely, what they think their constituents want to hear) rather than a national platform, and MPs were free to vote their conscience (or, more likely, what would get them re-elected) then our democracy would be more responsive to what people actually want.
However FPTP means small parties are drastically under-represented so the big two parties have to stick together or lose out. So people with a wide range of personal views have to follow and vote for a common party line that they may disagree with personally, for the good of a party which they presumably agree with on most other things. Under a more proportionate system there could be individual parties representing more strands of opinion while still having a reasonable chance of being represented in proportion to the votes they get. This obviously doesn't extend to very minority views but it's possible to imagine parties representing the Corbynite view, the centrist Labour view, the LibDem view and several strands of Tory/Brexit view all getting enough votes for those opinions to be represented in Parliament. Several of these factions would then have to agree on enough to form a government, but at least the distribution of opinion of individual MPS reflects better what the electorate want rather than the views of an unrepresentative coterie of party members.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,375
Location
Scotland
However FPTP means small parties are drastically under-represented so the big two parties have to stick together or lose out.
Which is why I say the problem is parties and whipped votes. If an MP was free to vote for what (s)he promised his constituents rather that having to toe the party line it would go a long way to solving some of the issues with the current system.

The chief one being people voting party rather than person.

For example several people in this thread have said that they'll "never vote for..."
 
Last edited:

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
3,184
, it's heartbreak hotel for the railways in Northern Ireland.
There should be links all the way to Galway, Sligo, Donegal and most towns in between from Belfast.
It's just so sad.
Not really, just as reopening most of Beeching ‘s closures on the uk mainland is considered unaffordable the same probably applies to the majority of standard & narrow gauge systems that were closed on the island of Ireland, but it’s a shame no electrification has taken place in the north
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,155
Location
Nottingham
Which is why I say the problem is parties and whipped votes. If an MP was free to vote for what (s)he promised his constituents rather that having to toe the party line it would go a long way to solving some of the issues with the current system.

The chief one being people voting party rather than person.

For example several people in this thread have said that they'll "never vote for..."
The Fixed Term Parliament Act has changed things in several ways, as we are now starting to see, and I'm not sure all politicians and commentators have fully taken this on board. Before that a government would fall if defeated on an important piece of legislation, so it was necessary for the whips to keep all the MPs in line, or at least enough to prevent such a defeat. The stakes are now somewhat lower in that defeat doesn't automatically bring down the government - it now has quite a lot in common with the American system where election dates are absolutely unchangeable and representatives can vote against their own party. However the problem remains that FPTP effectively forces a two-party system barring a political earthquake, which is now conceivable in the UK. Most voters have no choice at all because they are in a safe seat, and even in a marginal one their choice is between candidates who nominally represent a party but whose actual views on some issues may be very different from the party policy - and may or may not align with what the constituents want.

I'm also concerned at the suggestion that MPs should be obliged to vote for what their constituents want. Short of having numerous single-constituency referendums, how are they to know, unless they just listen to whoever shouts loudest? And what if the constituents want something unachievable, like big spending on public services without extra taxes or borrowing to pay for it? The Brexit situation is partly caused by an expectation that MPs should follow the "will of the people" even when it isn't clearly expressed and there are good reasons to believe the will of the people is now different.

Really we are just voting for a party and its set of policies. Assuming the two major parties survive the current situation in something like their present form, the current choice is between relatively extreme programmes of the left and of the right which actually have quite a lot of similarity with each other, but don't appeal to most people in the centre. A proportional system would give us more parties to choose from and make it more likely an individual vote would actually count.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,375
Location
Scotland
I'm also concerned at the suggestion that MPs should be obliged to vote for what their constituents want. Short of having numerous single-constituency referendums, how are they to know, unless they just listen to whoever shouts loudest? And what if the constituents want something unachievable, like big spending on public services without extra taxes or borrowing to pay for it?
They wouldn't be obliged to vote in any particular way, but it would behove them to gauge the opinion of their constituents on important matters of they want to be re-elected.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,594
Location
North Wales
If you get away from the concept of constituencies then you could have a wide range of parties or individuals to choose from.
I can see how going away from single-member constituencies could give a wider selection on the ballot paper (depending on the electoral method used). But did you mean something more drastic, in getting rid of constituencies altogether?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
8,767
I can see how going away from single-member constituencies could give a wider selection on the ballot paper (depending on the electoral method used). But did you mean something more drastic, in getting rid of constituencies altogether?
Not necessarily. The Scottish/German system would be good enough.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,155
Location
Nottingham
If you want proportionality down to votes of around 10% in multi-member constituencies then you'd have to have 10 seats per constituency (eg merging 10 existing ones), which with maybe five candidates for every seat would result in a mightily long ballot paper! So I think to retain the link to constituencies you need some form of top-up system, probably on a regional basis. However I believe it should be based on electing the closest losers rather than on a party list - this means everyone elected has to have got a reasonable number of votes rather than just being the leader's favourite to put at the top of the list, and also gives independents a fair chance.
 

St Rollox

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2013
Messages
650
Not really, just as reopening most of Beeching ‘s closures on the uk mainland is considered unaffordable the same probably applies to the majority of standard & narrow gauge systems that were closed on the island of Ireland, but it’s a shame no electrification has taken place in the north
Certainly something will need to give in the next decade regarding modernisation or thr Green gig will make the entire NIR system redundant.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,148
If you want proportionality down to votes of around 10% in multi-member constituencies then you'd have to have 10 seats per constituency (eg merging 10 existing ones), which with maybe five candidates for every seat would result in a mightily long ballot paper! So I think to retain the link to constituencies you need some form of top-up system, probably on a regional basis. However I believe it should be based on electing the closest losers rather than on a party list - this means everyone elected has to have got a reasonable number of votes rather than just being the leader's favourite to put at the top of the list, and also gives independents a fair chance.
The problem with a 2, 5, 10 or whatever number of seats per constituency is that chances are you'll end up with a large town with several smaller settlements.

Now where are the candidates going to focus their efforts? Where are they going to aim their policies? It'll be in the large town rather than countryside around it.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
After today's news Lib Dems have lost my vote forever.

Cheers Joanne, as one of your constituents you have just proven you're as unelectable as the rest.
 
Last edited:

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
400
After today's news Lib Dems have lost my vote forever.

Cheers Joanne, as one of your constituents you have just proven your as unelectable as the rest.
I'm guessing you mean the commitment to abandon Brexit unilaterally without any further referendum, should they be elected to form a government? It worried me, too. But then, if they are elected to form a government, the election will have been in effect a proxy second referendum, arguably rendering a further referendum redundant. It is a pretty unlikely scenario, despite their apparently strong performance among the railforum community.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I'm guessing you mean the commitment to abandon Brexit unilaterally without any further referendum, should they be elected to form a government? It worried me, too. But then, if they are elected to form a government, the election will have been in effect a proxy second referendum, arguably rendering a further referendum redundant. It is a pretty unlikely scenario, despite their apparently strong performance among the railforum community.
There is an exceptionally worrying trend in this country of various political parties not respecting the outcomes of referendums, im looking a you SNP!
 

Wombat

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2013
Messages
289
Personally, I don't respect the referendum in the slightest. It was a stupid idea executed with abject incompetence.

Here's a quote from, of all unlikely heroes, David Davis:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

My emphasis. Does any of that sound familiar? I'm no fan of David Davis, and to the best of my knowledge I've never agreed with anything else he's ever said, but he's bang on with his comments above (though clearly his brief period of clarity and wisdom has since deserted him). The Brexit that was voted for bears no resemblance whatsoever to the current reality, and as far as I'm concerned the ballot paper wasn't and isn't fit to wipe my backside.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
400
Personally, I don't respect the referendum in the slightest. It was a stupid idea executed with abject incompetence.

Here's a quote from, of all unlikely heroes, David Davis:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

My emphasis. Does any of that sound familiar? I'm no fan of David Davis, and to the best of my knowledge I've never agreed with anything else he's ever said, but he's bang on with his comments above (though clearly his brief period of clarity and wisdom has since deserted him). The Brexit that was voted for bears no resemblance whatsoever to the current reality, and as far as I'm concerned the ballot paper wasn't and isn't fit to wipe my backside.
Powerfully put. Always good to see a rabid Brexiteer's own words replayed to him!
 

Cowley

Established Member
Associate Staff
General Discussion
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
8,013
Location
Devon
Personally, I don't respect the referendum in the slightest. It was a stupid idea executed with abject incompetence.

Here's a quote from, of all unlikely heroes, David Davis:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

My emphasis. Does any of that sound familiar? I'm no fan of David Davis, and to the best of my knowledge I've never agreed with anything else he's ever said, but he's bang on with his comments above (though clearly his brief period of clarity and wisdom has since deserted him). The Brexit that was voted for bears no resemblance whatsoever to the current reality, and as far as I'm concerned the ballot paper wasn't and isn't fit to wipe my backside.
Amen to that.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,155
Location
Nottingham
The problem with a 2, 5, 10 or whatever number of seats per constituency is that chances are you'll end up with a large town with several smaller settlements.

Now where are the candidates going to focus their efforts? Where are they going to aim their policies? It'll be in the large town rather than countryside around it.
That's another problem, hence my favouring some kind of top-up system - perhaps I didn't make that clear. You might combine every two constituencies into a larger one and make up the numbers with top-up seats, or perhaps have fewer of those to make Parliament a bit smaller.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,568
Amen to that.
Exactly. The wording and circumstances of the referendum were frankly inane. With the meaning of Brexit and our relationship with the EU largely undefined in 2016, the referendum was a bit like having a vote on whether we should move house - with the options of 'stay where we are' and 'move' - with no indication of where you would move to if you did move. If you are going to have a referendum on this issue, you really need to have the Government figure out what it thinks the best place to move to is, and then have a follow-up referendum with the specific options of 'stay where we are' or 'move to X'.

And that's even before you consider all the lies and electoral rule breaking (mainly by the Leave campaign), and questions about whether referenda really are the best way to resolve issues in a representative democracy.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
There is an exceptionally worrying trend in this country of various political parties not respecting the outcomes of referendums, im looking a you SNP!
I suppose at least the Lib Dems have a consistent and clear policy and have done for quite some time. Vote for them you know what you are getting.

Not like Labour who change direction more than the wind, they were elected on a manifesto to leave mostly by the north (who wanted to leave), they have instead done everything they can not to leave, and now claim they will negotiate a 'better deal' basically Mays but a 'Labour deal' but then campaign against it. Utterly unfathomable how anyone could vote for these absolute cretins. They should get annihilated in the North/Midlands, however there is some bizarre tribal loyalty to them no matter how rubbish they are, its shifted a little in recent times so will be interested to see what the ultimate betrayal does.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I suppose at least the Lib Dems have a consistent and clear policy and have done for quite some time. Vote for them you know what you are getting.

Not like Labour who change direction more than the wind, they were elected on a manifesto to leave mostly by the north (who wanted to leave), they have instead done everything they can not to leave, and now claim they will negotiate a 'better deal' basically Mays but a 'Labour deal' but then campaign against it. Utterly unfathomable how anyone could vote for these absolute cretins. They should get annihilated in the North/Midlands, however there is some bizarre tribal loyalty to them no matter how rubbish they are, its shifted a little in recent times so will be interested to see what the ultimate betrayal does.
Like the policy on tuition fees?

Agreed
 

dcsprior

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2012
Messages
745
Location
Edinburgh (Fri-Mon) & London (Tue-Thu)
I'm a member of a trade union, but I absolutely detest Labour so I try not to think about my sub's ending up in their coffers.
It's almost 17 years since I was a member of a trade union, but when I was I had the choice between my subscription including a contribution to a party political fund or general political fund (these may have actually not have been the specific terms, but I think they were), with the former going to Labour, and the second being spent on political (with a small p) campaigning but not going to any one party. The subs due remained the same whichever you chose.
 

dcsprior

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2012
Messages
745
Location
Edinburgh (Fri-Mon) & London (Tue-Thu)
There is an exceptionally worrying trend in this country of various political parties not respecting the outcomes of referendums, im looking a you SNP!
This is an accusation I hear a lot. But the SNP have respected the result of the 2014 referendum. For them not to do so would've meant making a unilateral declaration of independence despite having lost.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
This is an accusation I hear a lot. But the SNP have respected the result of the 2014 referendum. For them not to do so would've meant making a unilateral declaration of independence despite having lost.
That must be why they've been banging on and on about another referendum since.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
2,055
Location
Elginshire
That must be why they've been banging on and on about another referendum since.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Source: 2016 SNP manifesto, page 23 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...56/SNP_Manifesto2016-accesible.pdf?1461753756

One of the threats used by the Original "Project Fear" to frighten people into voting "no" in the 2014 indy referendum was that the only way that Scotland could remain in the EU was to remain part of the UK. Here we are five years later with a "leave" vote in the 2016 EU referendum, and we're being "taken out of the EU against our will", despite a considerable majority (in Scotland) having voted to remain. And you wonder why they're calling for another independence referendum? If nothing else they're following up on their manifesto promises!
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Source: 2016 SNP manifesto, page 23 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...56/SNP_Manifesto2016-accesible.pdf?1461753756

One of the threats used by the Original "Project Fear" to frighten people into voting "no" in the 2014 indy referendum was that the only way that Scotland could remain in the EU was to remain part of the UK. Here we are five years later with a "leave" vote in the 2016 EU referendum, and we're being "taken out of the EU against our will", despite a considerable majority (in Scotland) having voted to remain. And you wonder why they're calling for another independence referendum? If nothing else they're following up on their manifesto promises!
Sure GusB, any excuse to overturn the result. We both know they've been foaming at the mouth since the decision in 2014 and will stop at nothing to pursue their endless, tiresome rhetoric, that includes their supporters.

It's laughable really.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,738
Location
Isle of Man
There is an exceptionally worrying trend in this country of various political parties not respecting the outcomes of referendums
Referendums- including Brexit- are not binding, they are advisory. All this talk of "respecting the outcome" is just horse poo, to be quite frank. If you disagree you disagree and if you change your mind you change your mind. It's up there with "you lost get over it".

I don't respect the outcome- there wasn't a majority Leave vote, the winners cheated, and the people funding the winners are Russians, crooks and charlatans.

If you're "respecting" the outcome you want Brexit. And if you want Brexit, you're not going to vote LibDem anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top