BREXIT positives and negatives

1,476 posts in this topic

37 minutes ago, yesterday said:

I would like to see PR aswell, it really is crap that all Governments in the last 40 years have had less than 50 % of the popular vote, yet hold almost absolute power 

 

I'm not so convinced about PR with FPTP at least the party that wins the most seats (and usually the most votes, if not the majority of votes) does get the opportunity to implement their manifesto which is not at all certain with the leading party in a coalition. Having said that it seems to me that in the UK the abolition of the House of Lords is well overdue and it would be very logical to replace it with a PR elected second house with real power, though I fear such constitutional changes are unlikely with a Tory government.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

 

I'm not so convinced about PR with FPTP at least the party that wins the most seats (and usually the most votes) does get the opportunity to implement their manifesto which is not at all certain with the leading party in a coalition. 

 

But thats the point, why should a party with less than 50% of the votes/seats be able to implement all their polices, student they have to form a coalition and accept they do not get everything, because they did not get a majority.

 

For me there is too much total swing abouts in the UK, its one resason why the UK has done worse over the last couple of decades than other countries

 

 

Unless the electorate give them total power thay should not have it, then you do not get polices swings and more people will agree with what the government wants

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yesterday said:

But thats the point, why should a party with less than 50% of the votes/seats be able to implement all their polices, student they have to form a coalition and accept they do not get everything, because they did not get a majority.

All party winners of UK post war general elections have polled less than 50% of the vote, do you think the NHS and the welfare state  set up by the 1945 Labour government would have happened under  a coalition regime? I don't!

 

33 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Unless the electorate give them total power thay should not have it

And >50% of the votes were for brexit...:o

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

 

I'm not so convinced about PR with FPTP at least the party that wins the most seats (and usually the most votes, if not the majority of votes) does get the opportunity to implement their manifesto which is not at all certain with the leading party in a coalition. Having said that it seems to me that in the UK the abolition of the House of Lords is well overdue and it would be very logical to replace it with a PR elected second house with real power, though I fear such constitutional changes are unlikely with a Tory government.

With FPTP you can and often do have a party in government with an overall majority despite having achieved just a third of the popular votes! That's not democracy. That's an elected dictatorship. A party that only manages a third of the popular vote should NOT be able to implement its entire manifesto as two thirds of the electorate are against it!

 

PR means the (usually) most unpalatable elements (to the majority of voters) of such a party's manifesto would be the first thing struck out during the negotiations with potential coalition partners.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

All party winners of UK post war general elections have polled less than 50% of the vote, do you think the NHS and the welfare state  set up by the 1945 Labour government would have happened under  a coalition regime? I don't!

 

Why not? Most of the EU has similar or significantly better systems to the NHS, achieved under coalition governments.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keith2011 said:

All party winners of UK post war general elections have polled less than 50% of the vote, do you think the NHS and the welfare state  set up by the 1945 Labour government would have happened under  a coalition regime? I don't!

 

And >50% of the votes were for brexit...:o

 

 

Sorry do not agree with Government by referendum, we vote for a Government they make choice after that, if we do not like we kick them out, simple, thats how it works in most places. Most democracies are Representative democracies, to stop/limit completely stupid things being done

 

What happened in about 2010, about 4 % of the UK population said the EU was a problem in the UK, according to some polls. Then the EU announced new TAX laws for all of the EU, the ERG, did not want that as it would hit them hard, so they whipped up the public against the EU, now the UK leaves the EU, who are now worse off, while the ERG members do not have to pay the new EU TAX, is this the democracy you are looking for ?

 

if the UK had PR, then it would be less likely the UK would have left the UK!, the Government is there to listen to reasoned argument, not just follow Boris because some think he is cool. If 50 % of the UK population voted to kill you, I guess you would say far enough, that's what they voted for, while it is very unlikely that Parliament would come to such a conclusion. Thats because the decision is mainly made up of MP's rather than the general public who take cool Boris ( the proven lair ) stories into consideration rather good reasoned arguments.

 

As winston Churchill once said, democary is not perfect, but its the best things we hav eat the moment. A simple >50 % is not always the best thing, sorry to say B)

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, murphaph said:

Brexit supporters eat Johnson's shit for breakfast and proclaim it "delicious". But even the right-wing papers, especially the Mail, are sensing which way the wind is blowing (pardon the pun). There is a clear shift in narrative taking place. Even in the Fakespress they had a poll that revealed far more of their own readers would vote remain if a poll was held tomorrow! This is not the same as voting rejoin, but it's half way there at least. Brexit needed to at least not be a constant stream of bad news stories. Labour is moving towards backing PR for the first time in its history. It is conceivable that Brexit will not only destroy the UK but the Conservatives as the "natural party of government" if Labour and the Lib Dems can win an election on a platform of introducing PR.

 

Its not realistic now to be thinking about re-joining the EU, but re-negotiating membership of the Single Market and/or Customs Union, should be on the agenda of Labour and the Lib Dems. That would solve so many of the problems having dealings with Europe, for UK businesses and individuals alike. So much  of the hassle and extra costs involved in exporting and importing across the UK/EU border would be removed at a stroke. All the barriers to trade which took painstakingly more than 40 years to remove, are now being re-imposed. Whilst British and European tourists and travellers have to undergo all the c**p  that goes with it.

 

Before the Brexiteers tell us that's not what the UK voted for, its important to realise that there was no mandate to leave the Single Market or Customs Union. There was no reference to either on the Referendum ballot paper, so that's an added extra, courtsey of Boris and his pals. 

 

Of course it would mean freeing up the restrictions on free movement, but even then, it was only some people who voted Brexit, to stop the forinnners. Now we're seeing what that means to the UK labour market, and not just for truck drivers. The Government's pathetic attempts to lure European drivers in with a short term visa for just 3 months, predictably fell flat on its face. What sane person is going to want the hassle of applying for a visa, then going through the hold ups at the Channel ports, just for a 3 month contract? 

 

The only long-term answer is re-negotiate a proper agreement which gives access to the Single Market as Norway or Switzerland (though not necessarily the same).. I suppose that would go against the religon of those in Downing Street,  so its now up to Labour and Lib Dems  to not be shy about it, and tackle the problem head on , and get it onto their agenda. 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesterday said:

As winston Churchill once said, democary is not perfect, but its the best things we hav eat the moment. A simple >50 % is not always the best thing, sorry to say 

 

I certainly don't disagree with you on that but you can't have it both ways, if a simple more than 50% is not ok for the brexit decision why

should it be required for a government to be elected???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keith2011 said:

 

I certainly don't disagree with you on that but you can't have it both ways, if a simple more than 50% is not ok for the brexit decision why

should it be required for a government to be elected???

One is a referendum, one is an election, that isn't even the main point, in PR parties can end up in government with less than 50%, the just have to do it with other parties. Which in my opinion is the actual problem, UK parties do not want to actually have to work with any other party while in government. maybe it's just too hard work, maybe it would dilute the sway the media has, what use is all that time, energy and cash if the if you can't have all the say for 4 years? Would it be worth it to have to power share each term?

 

Even that is only one part of it, the make up of the rest of parliament would change, opposition benches would have different people in there. 

 

One negative reason put out about PR is that you don't get to vote directly for your candidate. I can only guess they were (it was said before the last vote on it) talking about a pure list system, no local candidates. The funny thing is, in the UK we have a kind of list system, the list is just decided by the party. You get a list of one in your constituency, you get a candidate chosen for you. It is why the top members of any party always run in safe seats.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, murphaph said:

Why not? Most of the EU has similar or significantly better systems to the NHS, achieved under coalition governments.

But the one thing the NHS has above every other health system is that anyone and everyone can get treatment no matter finance,status etc.

At the last count (2020) there were approx 140000 people in Germany without health insurance despite it being a legal requirement.

2 hours ago, keith2011 said:

I certainly don't disagree with you on that but you can't have it both ways, if a simple more than 50% is not ok for the brexit decision why

should it be required for a government to be elected???

This IMHO is why voting should be mandatory in referendums and all elections and has to be in conjunction with PR.

How many people as a % of the population voted in the Brexit referendum?

It certainly wasn´t 52% of the voting population that voted for it.

I don´t care if people just spoil their ballot papers or voted for loony politicians but making everyone vote would give a clear picture of what people want and may actually make politicians think what people want.

You would probably still end up with a govt that not even 50% of the country voted for but you would know that that is what people wanted.Whereas all we know at the moment is more people who bothered to vote wanted the Tories.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal with many of those 140,000 on a daily basis, Keleth😂

Not all of them, of course. Have to take time for doggie walks!

One important reason many are not insured- they can't get insured in the German system! Unbelievable rules. Both the gesetzliche and private systems are a minefield of absurdity.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keith2011 said:

 

I certainly don't disagree with you on that but you can't have it both ways, if a simple more than 50% is not ok for the brexit decision why

should it be required for a government to be elected???

 

The difference, is that for an

 

-election its fort under rules which  govern the process and is enforced by law

-The refereredum the UK was issued on advice, there was no legal obligation to enforce the result.  If the process had been made a legal forcing act, the referendum would have been declared invalid, as it broke many rules of the election process, legal funding of  one of the leave parties etc. It was deliberately left as advisor so, the Bereiter's could lie through there teeth. If you look at the statments that were made before the referendum and was the UK got, its completely different

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hospitals have lawyers...and even without them you get an Erinnerung, then a second Erinnerung or a Mahnung. And that person may  be someone unable to get German insurance even if they want to. I deal with plenty of Americans ( for example ) every week , Fraufruit!

 

If I remember rightly, you were able to get into German public insurance at some stage and somehow ( 👍) but that is not everybody's experience...

 

Staying on topic: a Brexit negative. In many cases, a hassle for British citizens to get health insurance in Germany meanwhile if not employees. Not impossible always but even more hassle...and that's on top of the non-Brits who can't get German health insurance..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 

Can't get blood out of a turnip.

Checking my Roman Empire cook book!😂

I have that book! Thankfully not in Latin!!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, john g. said:

If I remember rightly, you were able to get into German public insurance at some stage and somehow ( 👍) but that is not everybody's experience...

 

All they have to do is marry a German. :rolleyes:

 

I had private insurance before that. Things were much easier then.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the German, Fraufruit!😂

If Himself had been privately insured, you would have been in trouble!😩😄

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now