Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: I suspect...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
dixie |
JK2006 wrote:
And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?
In Brown's speech on Friday, he said he was happy to speak to the other leaders, and if takls between Clegg and Cameron broke down he would want to speak to Mr Clegg. In fact, he would have been better placed if he had said he would be happy to speak to either - or both.
He can suggest a vote on PR, but Labour MPs are more anti-PR than Conservative. If it went to a members vote, PR would be rejected. So, why not promise an MP's vote? |
|
david |
Pru, my reading of Ashdown's comments was that it was a reaction to the scaremongering in the press about how awful hung parliaments/coalitions/PR are. He was just saying, 'well First Past The Post isn't perfect either in that respect.'
at least that was my reading of what was said. |
|
Prunella Minge |
david wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
Paddy Ashdown said on the Marr show that this election shows that the first past the post system 'doesn't even guarantee a strong majority Government'. Well, that's just as misleading - knowingly misleading - as Thatcher in her pomp (or Blair in his) claiming that it DOES do that. And it's just as misleading as those who try to dismiss any of the other voring systems by singling out those specific elections when there was chaos. We will get NOWHERE if this kind of silly misrepresentation - by either side - goes unchallenged. No system 'guarantees' satisfactory results. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. People like Ashdown do their cause no good at all.
Pru, I think you're being a bit unfair to Ashdown. He says that First Past The Post doesn't guarantee a strong majority government- that's all he's saying and it's true. He's not saying it never gives a strong majority government, as it quite often does.
No, David. That wasn't my point. My point was that's the same kind of lazy argument that ANTI-PR, or alternatives, make. (e.g. 'PR elections sometimes lead to 'fair' but unworkable coalitions': I mean: hello?! So what?) Ashdown clearly WAS trying to use that fact as an attack on the system, whereas in fact it was a banal observation about a particular result. |
|
david |
Prunella Minge wrote:
Paddy Ashdown said on the Marr show that this election shows that the first past the post system 'doesn't even guarantee a strong majority Government'. Well, that's just as misleading - knowingly misleading - as Thatcher in her pomp (or Blair in his) claiming that it DOES do that. And it's just as misleading as those who try to dismiss any of the other voring systems by singling out those specific elections when there was chaos. We will get NOWHERE if this kind of silly misrepresentation - by either side - goes unchallenged. No system 'guarantees' satisfactory results. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. People like Ashdown do their cause no good at all.
Pru, I think you're being a bit unfair to Ashdown. He says that First Past The Post doesn't guarantee a strong majority government- that's all he's saying and it's true. He's not saying it never gives a strong majority government, as it quite often does. |
|
Emma Bee |
JK2006 wrote:
And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?
That has been suggested a few times, JK. Though probably not on this board. Such a government would be so divided that it would likely crumble within a month. |
|
|
|
