Lib dem protesters outside nick cleggs meeting

[compo]

In Westminster
quite rowdy now on news24

Interesting though

The media weren't playing it up big time

they were just live reporting what was happeneing

the police said 1000 people were there

All elections are unfair and always have been - the fact is that this is an opportunity to change some of this unfairness.

No limited - they achieved the right number of seats though which DC has not been able to do. Have to say I am amazed about how close the result between Lab/Con is though as thought the Cons. would walk it..

fptp hs nothing to do with democracy. the uk is an oligarchy. pr would just be a small step towards democracy. using the bnp as an example just shows how many people actually hate the thought of democracy occurring at some point in the future.

If the BNP got any representation as a result of PR their voice would be tiny - they would achieve nothing apart from spouting their rhetoric to general derision.

There are PR systems which mean you need a minimum % of the vote to gain a seat in Parliament, but that would lock out 'good' minority parties like the Greens and some of the Nationalists.

And by good I don't mean they're good, I mean they're not the BNP.

not a bad protest for such short notice.

was very tempted to go up up this morning with a placard saying 'dont sell out on pr'. wish I had done now!!

We could do as Germany do and have a '5% clause' which stipulates that a party must recieve a minimum of 5% of the national vote. that would keep parties like the bnp out.

You are not right about Billy Bragg and proportional represenation. Billy has been campaignining for electoral reform since 1999.

anyone else notice that the lib dems are using language that is associated with the expenses scandal, Like 'disgraced' and 'clean up' when talking about electorial reform.

PR doesn't mean cleaner politics (the opposite IMO) it JUST means PR and I think they are playing on peoples anger about the expenses a bit to try to get PR which would not have prevented the scandal in the past

If you're for PR, fine, but it is what it is! everyones vote has the same amt of impact on parliament - BUT THAT'S ALL! it wont make the politicians behave better once they're in!

PR = more back handed deal making and you voting for one party and them selling out to a party with OPPOSITE philosophies to the one you voted for. Its very complicated and less transparent, I've voted in a country with PR, you have to consider alliances and negotiating style etc, its much more complicated than voting for the party who's policies you like.

But if people WANT PR, absolutely ask for it! but call it what it is, don't imply its more than that!

"There are PR systems which mean you need a minimum % of the vote to gain a seat in Parliament, but that would lock out 'good' minority parties like the Greens and some of the Nationalists. "

Not necessarily, because I bet a lot more people would vote for those goodies if they thought their votes were going to count, wouldn't they?

ah but ponders a vote for the 'goodies' is no longer just a vote for them under PR, it is also a vote for whoever they are most likely to form a coalition with

""There are PR systems which mean you need a minimum % of the vote to gain a seat in Parliament, but that would lock out 'good' minority parties like the Greens and some of the Nationalists. "

Not necessarily, because I bet a lot more people would vote for those goodies if they thought their votes were going to count, wouldn't they? "

Based on current results it wouldn't appear so. The BNP have a very large share of the vote. A PR/constituency system means that smaller parties get knocked out very quickly if their support is low but widespread but parties with a core area (like the BNP) get seats because they're low but concentrated and that concentration gives them enough % of the vote in some areas to gain a seat. It totally depends on the PR system.

And then there's what salbysea said to consider...

Nick Clegg came over as an arse.

I would change my vote with PR thoughand can't be the only one

Nymphadora, why?
do you like the idea of parties that were voted 4th or 5th most popular getting into the leading coalition over parties that were voted 2nd or 3rd most popular by the people?
How is that preferable?

I would vote green. They are actually closer than labour to what I want but green at 500 votes has no influence whereas with PR all those would add up.and the amount of people celebrating about Caroline Lucas shows the support they have.

I just don't have a solution to wanting the opposite affect on the BNP

I'd like to vote green but wouldn't under PR. Under FPTP a green vote is a green vote (go brighton!!)
However greens are propping up Fianna Fail in Ireland under PR

see what I mean?

well I MIGHT, but it would depend on how sure I was about where their alliances laid (not that you can ever be sure, can be shocking who'll get into bed with who). But then I'd really be voting for green's allies too, its very tricky. Much more uncertainty about what you vote actually MEANS.

your vote does actually mean more under FPTP because you are voting for something more solid

and you cant assume that the party you vote for will cosy up with the parties who are the most similar to them

you cant be sure can you?, that's the problem

with an established PR system you can make a few assumptions based on past performance I guess (you wont ALWAYS be right though), but with a new one it really is a stab in the dark. you just do not know what you're voting for.

PR is not necessarily bad. It moves towards consensus politics but that relies on the Govt being able to reach a consensus. When they can't nothing gets done.

Yes, at the moment a Green vote is a Green vote but in many places a Green vote is a wasted vote. PR could change that.

People are sometimes forced to vote tactically to keep the bad option out, which leaves them with the better of a bad lot but at least they know what they're getting and they know that it (probably) won't be sold on to form a coalition with a party they didn't vote for.

PR works when you have a number of parties who are roughly the same in terms of political power and then a few smaller ones who can be represented. If the Greens became a real political power we could do it but at the moment PR means we're likely to end up with exactly the same result as a coalition formed from FPTP. 1 lone MP isn't going to be able to push a Green agenda effectively. PR requires a certain critical mass to allow voting blocks to form.

One way of doing PR is to create super-constituencies by merging existing ones and creating, say, 5 seats per super-constituency. Then each party would put up, say, 5 candidates each and operating a single transferrable vote knocking candidates out until it's the last 5 standing. Then it would depend how high people rank the Green agenda whether the Green party got any power. Unfortunately this does let in the BNP. Greens clearly wouldn't end up with a majority in Parliament but they would have more of a block and be a force to be reckoned with. In theory. They would have more input, there would be more debate, the Green agenda would need to be taken into account and it would raise their profile. The flipside is that we couldn't put a whip on to pass legislation, things would be much slower, coalition building would take longer and then there's the architectural factor in the house of Commons!

the party you vote for might even end up helping UKIP or BNP if that's the only way they can get a majority - you really dont know, you can't vote AGAINST ukip/bnp with as much certainty as you can now.

Can you be 100% they would NEVER do that and would walk away from leading for the greater good, rather than doing a deal with the parties you like least?