I’d be interested in this too, as a former benefit processor for Jobcentre Plus. I know the rules that apply to immigrants when claiming benefits, and I certainly wouldn’t say it was “easy” for a Polish person to receive these benefits.
Though I think the claim was that they are claiming benefits in Poland while working in the UK, an allegation which sounds suspect.
We did try! There was the referendum on changing the voting system but it was sabotaged so comprehensively by the Tory arm of the government that it never had a hope in hell of getting off the ground. I was out campaigning for the change even though it was for a system I didn’t like, because that was what the government compromised on rather than a better, more proportional one.
Isn’t it funny how when the Tories do something in the coalition that is at odds with the Lib Dems they’re simply exercising their right to represent the views of their voters, yet if the Lib Dems do the same thing they’re creating instability and difficulty and a VERY DANGEROUS TIME!!!
Double standards as usual.
Well, you can blame it on the duplicitous Tories if you like, but the fact is that the No campaign had broad support from the Labour side too, and the Alternative Vote proposal was emphatically rejected by the electorate. Even the LibDems held their hands up and conceded that afterwards. Compaints that the No side used --gasp-- sneaky campaigning tactics just came across as naive, or sour grapes. AV was always just a very poor compromise between the current system and true PR. The voters quite rightly took one look at it and asked “how is this better than the current system?”
Voting change was always going to be difficult as - and this was pointed out a lot at the time - that the FPTP system is designed for a two party system and as such the two larger parties benefit the most from it. So why would supporters of those parties vote for something that would lessen their power?
My complaint is that it was a referendum on AV at all - it should have been on STV. The Lib Dems wanted to go for STV but the Tories wouldn’t hear of it and AV was the only option they’d consider. Didn’t you read my post?
The “Yes” campaign was atrocious. It was run by Guardian CiFers, largely white, middle class people who live in the South East, who were completely unable to relate to the average man in the street. Did you see that appalling TV advert they put out? Whoever scripted and filmed that should have been shot. They completely and fatally ignored Nigel Farrange, who was at least able to evoke some sort of emotive feeling in his audience, until it was way too late. I received regular e-mail updates from the “Yes2Av” campaign (or whatever it was called), and it had more the air of a campaign for an election at the local university’s People and Planet society than a serious, national campaign.
Yes2Av deserved to lose, and they lost big. They have nobody to blame other than themselves.
Well, yes. That’s what happens in coalition governments.
Once again, it’s ironic in that with calls for implementation of STV, which will dramatically increase the likelihood of coalition governments in Britain, people are complaining about the natural consequences of coalition governments.
Yes, I KNOW THAT. My original point was about the double standard to which the Tories feel able to exercise their right to push against the Lib Dem’s part of the coalition but if the Lib Dems do the same they’re told that they’re destablising the government. The voting reform referendum was a good example of this.
Personally I don’t have an issue with coalition governments, the rest of Europe seems to manage perfectly well with them, but they have to operate on the basis that they’re a coalition rather than one party running things and telling another party to vote for everything it does. That’s not a coalition is it?
Oh God, the last thing I want is proportional representation. I consider party politics as practised here to be a large part of the problem. So much is sacrificed at the altar of party unity. This is also what makes coalitions such hard work - the most rabid fundamentalists in any party absolutely detest the other lot.
Here, PR would strengthen the parties as only the most brown-nosed craven sycophants to the party line would get on the list. Also, it would guarantee that no independent would ever get in.
AV is a phenomenally flawed voting system. The Lib Dems were probably the only party it would have benefited. However, in spite of the abysmal yes campaign I actually voted yes out of sheer perversity - the weaseliest weasels in both Labour and the Tories were loudly against it and I feared a no vote would allow them to kick voting reform into the long grass for another generation; a system no-one liked would have forced some genuine debate for once.
[shrug] That still sounds better than what you’ve (or we’ve) got now.
To be fair, it’s usually a good idea to ignore Nigel Farrage. He seems like a nice chap but can frequently be Johnny One-Note. “We must escape the tyranny of Europe and regain our full British sovereignty!” “That’s nice, sir, but I asked whether you were ready to order your drinks.”
And the AV debacle reminds me of the health care debate in the US - the proposed solution was hated by both those who thought it was a step too far and those who thought it didn’t go far enough. STV would have been a better option.
A small quibble: the German unions did not agree to modest nominal wage increases (amounting to wage stagnation in real terms) out of commitment to the abstract goal of competitiveness, rather they got multi-year ‘no layoffs, limit on temp contracts’ contracts from some large employers out of it (and collective bargaining at other employers where such commitments did not obtain followed that lead, unfortunately). Also in the past recession modest wage demands were the unions’ contribution in a bargain where industry’s contribution was no layoffs if at all possible, and government’s contribution was to partially make up wages lost to reduced work hours. All parties were in agreement to avoid the mistake of the 1993 recession where companies missed opportunities from the upturn, having shed skilled staff.
But that was part of the coalition negotiations, before the coalition actually existed. Perfectly OK for both sides to play hardball at that time. They were quite openly against PR, so would only compromise on an AV refendum, calculating that it would fail. What’s wrong with that?
Complaints about the Tories not playing fair later as coalition partners, whether true or not, have no bearing on it.
Only if the list system was used.
Spoken like someone who has read all the anti PR propaganda and not actually considered why it’s wrong. In a properly PR system if 1% of the population votes for an independent party, they get 1% of the seats. In a non-PR system (and this includes AV and what we have now) if 1% of the population votes for an independent party they get 0% of the vote. How is PR stopping smaller parties any more than the status quo?
Point me in the direction of somewhere that uses PR without a party list system and I may change my view.
I should perhaps slightly rephrase - proportional representation in one of the forms that we would ever be given the choice of here is the last thing I want.
The 1% votes to 1% seats ratio is only possible if the number of seats is granular enough to match the plurality of parties. Rounding has to occur when that’s not the case.
Also, under PR, you’d need about 80000 votes to claim a seat (assuming 100% turnout to make the sums easier).
Under first past the post, you’d need about 40000 highly localised votes (assuming 1 other candidate in a single constituency and 100% turnout).
What put me off PR wasn’t any amount of propaganda, it was reading an article on Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. That somewhat tangentially made me think about what I considered important principles in an electoral system. Not increasing the power of central parties was one of them - hence the dislike of party-based PR and why I think a bit of randomness of outlook from unaffiliated representatives is a good thing.
I’d favour a certain amount of demarchy as a way of getting that. And yes, I know it’s never going to happen.
Ireland.
I believe that in New Zealand, party lists are used only to “top off” proportional representation after the winner-takes-all districts are decided.
How do you like the results?
BTW, what time do the pubs close in Britain?
Maybe if closing time was later, a lot of your problems would fix themselves. 
And, BTW, and relevant to the thread, who would you say is better/worse off these days, the UK or the ROI? And how and why, etc.? (Maybe whichever is worse off could learn some lessons from the other.)