R
RogueHanger
You might be right. I remember the suname, but I admit to guessing the forename.
And thank you.
Edit: yep, just checked and you are right.
OOOer, I'll be in for some stick now I've made a mistake.
European Elections
- Thread starter Doug99
- Start date
You might be right. I remember the suname, but I admit to guessing the forename.
And thank you.
Edit: yep, just checked and you are right.
OOOer, I'll be in for some stick now I've made a mistake.
Up your NOTW you got your voting papers. I didn't.
I missed my vote.
Don't know what to do now.
Was it just you? What about your neighbours?
If the former, it was probably another Royal Mail cock-up. If the latter, it becomes rather worrying: a LibLabCon dirty tricks department activity?
In either case, I think it's worth an inquiry.
R
RogueHanger
Very good.
I have a little trouble with my rr's from time to time. It's less responsive than the others.
I usually check to see I haven't done anything untoward, but I guess that one slipped through.
Haemohoids ?
R
RogueHanger
R, or should that be Aah?
Listening to the local election results this afternoon, I'm pleased to hear that UKIP are doing better than they expected. Yet, because of our 'first past the post' electoral system, they have not obtained as many seats as the number of their votes might suggest. (I know. Joe will be along to criticise us for not voting for PR when we had the chance, and I agree with him!)
However, I have had an idea. Not for local elections (or EU elections, if we continue to have them), but for the far more important general elections.
I think most people (except for the establishment and the peerage, of course) would agree that the House of Lords is no longer representative of the nation as a whole, yet having a 'second house' is a good and necessary thing.
My idea is to have two houses (I don't know what we would call them, but that's not important), the members of which are both elected by the people of this country. The difference would be that one house would continue to be elected by the 'first past the post' system, whilst the other - the replacement for the Lords - would be elected by 'proportional representation'.
That would mean that the enormous number of votes that are presently not taken account of would then be represented in Parliament.
For example:
Party A = 40% of the votes
Party B = 30%
Party C = 20%
Others = 10%
Result, the Party A representative takes the seat, yet has received only 40% of the votes. The other candidates are ignored, yet have the vote of 60% of the electorate, meaning that the majority have no say in the matter.
Sorry. I realise that everyone knows what PR is. I just wanted to illustrate the situation clearly.
However, I have had an idea. Not for local elections (or EU elections, if we continue to have them), but for the far more important general elections.
I think most people (except for the establishment and the peerage, of course) would agree that the House of Lords is no longer representative of the nation as a whole, yet having a 'second house' is a good and necessary thing.
My idea is to have two houses (I don't know what we would call them, but that's not important), the members of which are both elected by the people of this country. The difference would be that one house would continue to be elected by the 'first past the post' system, whilst the other - the replacement for the Lords - would be elected by 'proportional representation'.
That would mean that the enormous number of votes that are presently not taken account of would then be represented in Parliament.
For example:
Party A = 40% of the votes
Party B = 30%
Party C = 20%
Others = 10%
Result, the Party A representative takes the seat, yet has received only 40% of the votes. The other candidates are ignored, yet have the vote of 60% of the electorate, meaning that the majority have no say in the matter.
Sorry. I realise that everyone knows what PR is. I just wanted to illustrate the situation clearly.
Don't forget that P.R. allows representation of certain minorities that you may not wish to have a say nor a foothold.
Be careful what you wish for.
As for the House of Lords:
Don't forget it is they and their friends who make the rules.
It is not done for our benefit.
Any reformation so far implemented is merely a sop to fool the gullible amongst us into thinking that we have an influence.
Be careful what you wish for.
As for the House of Lords:
Don't forget it is they and their friends who make the rules.
It is not done for our benefit.
Any reformation so far implemented is merely a sop to fool the gullible amongst us into thinking that we have an influence.
Yes, but you've got to take the rough with the smooth. Parties like the BNP and the Greenies have little support, so one or two MPs are not likely to have much influence.
Of course. I suppose we ought to be grateful that this hang-over from the days of vassals and feudalism means that we are not quite as much under the thumb. I think that unelected rulers of our country is just a little bit mediaeval.
Hang on... the EU is a modern conception, isn't it?
JBR .
Intrigued by the 'upper house' being PR, is this done anywhere else ie split system?
Intrigued by the 'upper house' being PR, is this done anywhere else ie split system?
Such as?
I have no idea, and I have no idea whether it would work either.
But I do wish we could have PR in at least one house but preferably both, as this seems to me to be a much fairer representation of the beliefs and wishes of the electorate.
I also believe that the Lords is unfair and outdated. Hereditary peers and bishops? Who put them there? Certainly not the electorate. Life peers? Even worse. They seem to be in the Lords either because they are friends of people in power or because they have been generous enough to pay big money to the right people. What right do any of these have to decide on what happens to the country?
Yes, I know that whoever is in Westminster is somewhat academic if we remain in the EU, but I live in hope!
Seeing as you intend educating peeps,thought past tense,think present tense.
