Conservatives hit 45%

[-:Undertaker:-]

843812567587983360

Wow. There's rumours Number 10 might be tempted to call a General Election too after Article 50 is triggered.

I'm usually against governments having absurdly big majorities in the Commons as it means the executive becomes far too powerful. However, can you imagine the reaction of all the Corbyn students to an electoral wipeout we haven't seen before? It'd be hilarious. I have a few on Facebook always liking Independent articles about Labour/Corbyn and they don't realise how detatched they are from the rest of the country - just like with the referendum. The reaction would be popcorn time.

If a General Election were called tomorrow I would be voting Tory for the first time. Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

It's such a joke. Theresa May seems to get a pass on her empty phrases and poor performance simply because most people seem to think Labour is the only other party, which is in a far worse state. If these numbers stick then I might have to consider voting a party over an independent candidate, hell I might even have to help.


I'm usually against governments having absurdly big majorities in the Commons as it means the executive becomes far too powerful.

And yet you support FPTP
nice lmao

[-:Undertaker:-]

And yet you support FPTP

nice lmao

Better a strong executive now and again under FPTP than perpetual PR government-held-to-ransom by Nicola Sturgeon....

[dbgtz]

Better a strong executive now and again under FPTP than perpetual PR government-held-to-ransom by Nicola Sturgeon....

Nice bit of short term thinking there, and basically you being content with ignoring a large chunk of the populace. But even if we look at the previous election, assuming a 1:1 vote to seat ratio, they would have got 30 seats instead of 56 so I don't see the point you're really trying to make.

After a quick google, this is what it would roughly look like (though I'm not exactly sure what system and methodology they're using)
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/indy100/gJenQmaW2gW/2168-bjm6v0.PNG
https://www.indy100.com/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional-voting-system--gJenQmaW2gW

So by your logic, it would actually be a perpetual PR government held to ransom by Paul Nuttall. But that's OK because it suits your agenda?

In another reply to the original post, doesn't look like it's happening. The more I think about it too, the more I think how irresponsible it would be to hold one after triggering Article 50 too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nice bit of short term thinking there, and basically you being content with ignoring a large chunk of the populace. But even if we look at the previous election, assuming a 1:1 vote to seat ratio, they would have got 30 seats instead of 56 so I don't see the point you're really trying to make.

The point I am making is that you saying FPTP can give large majorities thus resulting in a strong executive is entirely true. However, it is preferable to a situation like in the Netherlands of months of coalition building and failed parties remaining in office. It's a nightmare. Large majorities can be avoided if both the main parties are capable, which the Labour Party currently is not.

I am a supporter of the Conservatives but I would much rather they had a say 25-seat majority than a Blairish majority of 100+ proportions which means the executive is handed far too much power.


After a quick google, this is what it would roughly look like (though I'm not exactly sure what system and methodology they're using)
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/indy100/gJenQmaW2gW/2168-bjm6v0.PNG
https://www.indy100.com/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional-voting-system--gJenQmaW2gW

So by your logic, it would actually be a perpetual PR government held to ransom by Paul Nuttall. But that's OK because it suits your agenda?

Not at all. I never complained about Ukip's lack of seats following the 2015 General Election because how could I? I support FPTP. The failure of Ukip to gain any seats was down to a vote squeeze and a lack of good campaigning in target seats. I am all for pressure being applied to the major parties - they need it - but it doesn't mean me wanting to hand over control of government to all sorts engaging in dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building. As Ukip proved, you don't even need seats to successfully campaign for a change.

[dbgtz]

The point I am making is that you saying FPTP can give large majorities thus resulting in a strong executive is entirely true. However, it is preferable to a situation like in the Netherlands of months of coalition building and failed parties remaining in office. It's a nightmare. Large majorities can be avoided if both the main parties are capable, which the Labour Party currently is not.

I am a supporter of the Conservatives but I would much rather they had a say 25-seat majority than a Blairish majority of 100+ proportions which means the executive is handed far too much power.


Define "failed parties".



Not at all. I never complained about Ukip's lack of seats following the 2015 General Election because how could I? I support FPTP. The failure of Ukip to gain any seats was down to a vote squeeze and a lack of good campaigning in target seats. I am all for pressure being applied to the major parties - they need it - but it doesn't mean me wanting to hand over control of government to all sorts engaging in dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building. As Ukip proved, you don't even need seats to successfully campaign for a change.

Then why use Sturgeon over Nuttall in your example, despite the fact UKIP would have many more seats? Because you disagree with her, right?
You can claim that's the reason UKIP didn't gain many seats, but equally I can just state it's down to a system which punishes smaller parties with a greater spread of support. FPTP is not fit for purpose when there's more than 2 significant parties. You don't want "dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building" (which is basically a negative way of saying "cooperating"), but you're basically happy for a government which does not have support of the majority to just force through any policy they want? At least with the Brexit vote you can claim the 52% is entirely legitimate, but I don't see how you can accept a government with a sub-50% vote share and claim that's democratic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Define "failed parties".

A party which has plummeted to such low levels of support after a period in office. For example, the Liberal Democrats in this country or the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) which has gone from a governing party to commanding a pitiful 6% of the national vote. Under FPTP, these parties are rightfully kept out of power after being so categorically rejected by the electorate - but under PR they could be essential to forming a government, meaning the hated party that was just outright rejected by the electorate... ends up in government again. That's not good for democracy.

FPTP only becomes a problem when the two main parties are in complete agreement with one another, as was until recently the case. Now the country has a clear choice in a to-be sovereign country again between a right-wing Conservative government and a left-wing Labour Party rather than what we've had for a while of two centre-left Blairite parties with many laws coming from Brussels anyway. The rise of Ukip and the subsequent referendum has corrected this, as was the case in 1990s Australia with the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party resulting in the movement of the Liberal-National Party back to the right and the election of John Howard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Government) as PM.


Then why use Sturgeon over Nuttall in your example, despite the fact UKIP would have many more seats? Because you disagree with her, right?

You can use any example, the same applies. I use the SNP example because there's the added factor of them being a separatist party meaning any coalition building would result in them pulling at the British constitution - Sturgeon's party isn't simply wanting a different direction for the country, she actively wants to break it up. Handing separatist and sectarian parties power would quickly result in the unravelling of the British state as ground would need to be constantly given to them just to form a stable government. The Belgian Kingdom is a key example of this where the realm itself nearly collapsed a few years ago when a government could not be formed due to separatist demands.


You can claim that's the reason UKIP didn't gain many seats, but equally I can just state it's down to a system which punishes smaller parties with a greater spread of support. FPTP is not fit for purpose when there's more than 2 significant parties. You don't want "dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building" (which is basically a negative way of saying "cooperating"), but you're basically happy for a government which does not have support of the majority to just force through any policy they want? At least with the Brexit vote you can claim the 52% is entirely legitimate, but I don't see how you can accept a government with a sub-50% vote share and claim that's democratic.

If you believe the parties will "co-operate" for the good of the country rather than "backroom deal" for power then.... well. I don't claim FPTP is perfect of course, but after being in favour of PR I have come to realise it is much better.

[hungryfront]

I mean if you're up for a government that lies about saving the NHS (and most of the EU referendum), sure. Otherwise if you want people to be entitled to education and healthcare, vote Green or at least Labour.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

I mean if you're up for a government that lies about saving the NHS (and most of the EU referendum), sure. Otherwise if you want people to be entitled to education and healthcare, vote Green or at least Labour.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Vote Labour for unlimited third world mass immigration leaving the British people unable to access education and healthcare.

[dbgtz]

A party which has plummeted to such low levels of support after a period in office. For example, the Liberal Democrats in this country or the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) which has gone from a governing party to commanding a pitiful 6% of the national vote. Under FPTP, these parties are rightfully kept out of power after being so categorically rejected by the electorate - but under PR they could be essential to forming a government, meaning the hated party that was just outright rejected by the electorate... ends up in government again. That's not good for democracy.


But what is "low levels"? Do they have to have had good support to begin with? Is the SNP, who got fewer votes than the Lib Dems but more seats a failed party? What you're saying is a farce. What you're saying is we should all align ourselves to suit the structure of our system rather than shaping the system that allows more than 2 choices, and let's not forget how often Labour and Conservatives seem similar, as I believe even you've said before. So you're literally advocating we should just accept these 2 similar parties who offer no real choice should be allowed complete and utter control.

You mention outright rejected, but if they have seats then they haven't been outright rejected. In fact, they have more of a mandate to be in power in that PR system than our current government who doesn't even form a majority of the votes does! I don't get how blind you have to be to not see that.



FPTP only becomes a problem when the two main parties are in complete agreement with one another, as was until recently the case. Now the country has a clear choice in a to-be sovereign country again between a right-wing Conservative government and a left-wing Labour Party rather than what we've had for a while of two centre-left Blairite parties with many laws coming from Brussels anyway. The rise of Ukip and the subsequent referendum has corrected this, as was the case in 1990s Australia with the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party resulting in the movement of the Liberal-National Party back to the right and the election of John Howard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Government) as PM.


FPTP becomes a problem when any issue isn't a binary choice, which is almost every major issue. As a slightly made up example, we will take healthcare which could be: a completely private-sector based system; a system similar to country X; the weird mix we have at the moment where most if it is run by the state but aspects privatised or 100% state owned. Right wing and left wing doesn't cut it for the people in the centre either, nor can you even really look at ideology on a 1d plane as you should know.



You can use any example, the same applies. I use the SNP example because there's the added factor of them being a separatist party meaning any coalition building would result in them pulling at the British constitution - Sturgeon's party isn't simply wanting a different direction for the country, she actively wants to break it up. Handing separatist and sectarian parties power would quickly result in the unravelling of the British state as ground would need to be constantly given to them just to form a stable government. The Belgian Kingdom is a key example of this where the realm itself nearly collapsed a few years ago when a government could not be formed due to separatist demands.


I would like to say you've literally supported a party and movement which has not only re-triggered this Scottish independence movement, but has put Northern Ireland into question too. There's also the possibility of, should the SNP form a small part of government, then their whole rhetoric about Westminster would lose credibility. Having said that, lots of people believed the rhetoric about the EU so maybe not.



If you believe the parties will "co-operate" for the good of the country rather than "backroom deal" for power then.... well. I don't claim FPTP is perfect of course, but after being in favour of PR I have come to realise it is much better.

Did I ever mention anything about cooperating for the good of the country? I simply said cooperate. Most politicians are sleazy, but PR would quite frankly limit their power.

I still want to see how you claim FPTP is democratic though, for someone who so heavily believes in the will of the people :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

But what is "low levels"? Do they have to have had good support to begin with? Is the SNP, who got fewer votes than the Lib Dems but more seats a failed party? What you're saying is a farce. What you're saying is we should all align ourselves to suit the structure of our system rather than shaping the system that allows more than 2 choices, and let's not forget how often Labour and Conservatives seem similar, as I believe even you've said before. So you're literally advocating we should just accept these 2 similar parties who offer no real choice should be allowed complete and utter control.

But I have argued the total opposite. I have always argued that we should shape the parties, or the parties must be eliminated and replaced. I have voted Ukip since I could legally start voting - I did not allow the structure of the two main parties to shape my voting, rather I used my vote in the knowledge that I was both voting for policies I agreed with but also that any success that party enjoyed would turn the screws on the major parties. It was only a matter of time before the Conservative Party either buckled (as it did) and granted a referendum on Europe, or split over the issue.

Now however, the two major parties have fundamental policy disagreements with one another. And that's good. Granted, this won't be for the taste of everyone but they too have the option of voting for smaller parties to exert pressure on the main parties just as I did with Ukip. The May Conservative Party and Corbyn Labour Party offer two completely different choices, do you not agree?


You mention outright rejected, but if they have seats then they haven't been outright rejected. In fact, they have more of a mandate to be in power in that PR system than our current government who doesn't even form a majority of the votes does! I don't get how blind you have to be to not see that.

The bulk of the electorate rejected these parties. It can hardly be good for democracy that no matter how badly a party performs in the polls after being in office, it remains in office? Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

Under FPTP the disliked Prime Minister is ejected the following day with the removal vans turning up. It's a good system.


FPTP becomes a problem when any issue isn't a binary choice, which is almost every major issue. As a slightly made up example, we will take healthcare which could be: a completely private-sector based system; a system similar to country X; the weird mix we have at the moment where most if it is run by the state but aspects privatised or 100% state owned. Right wing and left wing doesn't cut it for the people in the centre either, nor can you even really look at ideology on a 1d plane as you should know.

You'll never get a manifesto that you are in complete agreement with. But with two different parties, at least there is a choice whereas prior to this we were faced with two identical 'centre' (which just means centre-left in reality) parties in complete agreement with one another, with many of our laws coming from Brussels anyway. A non-choice.

The next election will be a choice like we have not had for many years. Under full sovereignty with a real left+right.


I would like to say you've literally supported a party and movement which has not only re-triggered this Scottish independence movement, but has put Northern Ireland into question too. There's also the possibility of, should the SNP form a small part of government, then their whole rhetoric about Westminster would lose credibility. Having said that, lots of people believed the rhetoric about the EU so maybe not.

I won't be blackmailed by the SNP or Sinn Fein into making certain decisions for this country.

Both detest the notion of a strong independent Britain as it in the end cripples their dream of an 'independent' Scotland within Europe or a 32-county Irish republic within Europe. EU membership fuelled these movements and the sooner that cord is severed the better. Ask yourself why these two movements so avidly support EU membership: because it helped in their ultimate goal of dissolving Britain as a nation state.


Did I ever mention anything about cooperating for the good of the country? I simply said cooperate. Most politicians are sleazy, but PR would quite frankly limit their power.

PR would limit their power in that we'd face months of wrangling and governments collapsing every couple of years.


I still want to see how you claim FPTP is democratic though, for someone who so heavily believes in the will of the people :)

One way it is more democratic is that you have your own constituency member of Parliament for your own area, accountable to you the electorate. When you vote in FPTP, you vote for the candidate and the local party association nominates that candidate. Under PR you're given a list compiled by the party HQ where the top flunkies are placed at the top and are subsequently elected and who are accountable to large geographical areas, much like MEPs.

How many people can name their MEPs? How high is turnout for EU elections? It turns people off voting.

[hungryfront]

Vote Labour for unlimited third world mass immigration leaving the British people unable to access education and healthcare.
Statistics please?

Mine are based off the fact that the right wing campaign for Brexit was based off fearmongering and lies, which you seem to have succumbed to.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Statistics please?

Mine are based off the fact that the right wing campaign for Brexit was based off fearmongering and lies, which you seem to have succumbed to.

Consult the immigration statistics from the 1990s onwards. Under the Labour government immigration reached levels unheard of.

Or alternatively just think of what you see on British streets these days...


http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/burka-449176.jpg

From Merry Old England to downtown Kabul.

[hungryfront]

Consult the immigration statistics from the 1990s onwards. Under the Labour government immigration reached levels unheard of.

Or alternatively just think of what you see on British streets these days...


http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/burka-449176.jpg

From Merry Old England to downtown Kabul.
Ooh, people existing, what a crime!

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ooh, people existing, what a crime!

Those invaders above, what do you think they think of your pet causes like gay marriage, transexuals and women's rights?

[hungryfront]

Those invaders above, what do you think they think of your pet causes like gay marriage, transexuals and women's rights?
Well we're much more likely to have invaded their country for one. They're not "pet causes", they're real issues. And they can believe whatever they bloody want as long as they don't act on it. That's how the law works.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well we're much more likely to have invaded their country for one.

And? But just like they invaded our countries. You're not familiar with the Ottoman and Moorish raids on European nations? Oh!


They're not "pet causes", they're real issues. And they can believe whatever they bloody want as long as they don't act on it. That's how the law works.

Isn't it interesting. In numerous discussions here, you've labelled others as racist for simply wanting controlled borders, homophobic for opposing gay marriage and transphobic and bigoted for opposing trans bathrooms. But here when it comes to a demographic who are racist towards other ethnic groups like Indians, who would have homosexuality *illegal* and there simply wouldn't even be a debate over transexuals - you jump to their defence. Incredible!

Go on a lone gay pride march through a muslim area and let me know how you get on with convincing them not to act on it.

[hungryfront]

Prejudice: thinking someone, legal.

Discrimination: acting on something, illegal.

When a state like Texas tries to act on their homophobic prejudice, it's discrimination and frankly illegal. If they're not affecting you, leave them be.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

So Texas is the problem for you because of it wanting to overturn gay marriage, not third worlders coming here who wouldn't entertain the notion of gay marriage but whom a big proportion would actively like to see homosexuality made outright illegal.

Once upon a time, in 1970s Iran, there were left-wingers just like you. Sided with the Islamists against the nasty capitalist right-wingers. Ended up getting their way and overthrew the right, but shortly after were lined up and shot or forced into headscarves.

[hungryfront]

So Texas is the problem for you because of it wanting to overturn gay marriage, not third worlders coming here who wouldn't entertain the notion of gay marriage but whom a big proportion would actively like to see homosexuality made outright illegal.

Once upon a time, in 1970s Iran, there were left-wingers just like you. Sided with the Islamists against the nasty capitalist right-wingers. Ended up getting their way and overthrew the right, but shortly after were lined up and shot or forced into headscarves.
Are you resorting to scaring me into your views?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[Landon]

Are you resorting to scaring me into your views?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

That's your version of saying you've given up, isn't it? And funny you say that because you all are the ones that try to scare us by saying we're racist, homophobic, sexist bigots. It's a matter of calling us everything you can to intimidate (which are all not true).

[dbgtz]

But I have argued the total opposite. I have always argued that we should shape the parties, or the parties must be eliminated and replaced. I have voted Ukip since I could legally start voting - I did not allow the structure of the two main parties to shape my voting, rather I used my vote in the knowledge that I was both voting for policies I agreed with but also that any success that party enjoyed would turn the screws on the major parties. It was only a matter of time before the Conservative Party either buckled (as it did) and granted a referendum on Europe, or split over the issue.

Now however, the two major parties have fundamental policy disagreements with one another. And that's good. Granted, this won't be for the taste of everyone but they too have the option of voting for smaller parties to exert pressure on the main parties just as I did with Ukip. The May Conservative Party and Corbyn Labour Party offer two completely different choices, do you not agree?


You're saying all of this as if UKIP was a significant reason for the change. There is no hard evidence to suggest UKIP had any real influence on there being a referendum.



The bulk of the electorate rejected these parties. It can hardly be good for democracy that no matter how badly a party performs in the polls after being in office, it remains in office? Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

Under FPTP the disliked Prime Minister is ejected the following day with the removal vans turning up. It's a good system.


The bulk of the electorate rejected the Conservatives. I really don't see how you can argue against this.



You'll never get a manifesto that you are in complete agreement with. But with two different parties, at least there is a choice whereas prior to this we were faced with two identical 'centre' (which just means centre-left in reality) parties in complete agreement with one another, with many of our laws coming from Brussels anyway. A non-choice.

The next election will be a choice like we have not had for many years. Under full sovereignty with a real left+right.


You're right, there is never going to be a manifesto I completely agree with, but that's not really a good reason to artificially limit my choice down to a 2 party system.



I won't be blackmailed by the SNP or Sinn Fein into making certain decisions for this country.

Both detest the notion of a strong independent Britain as it in the end cripples their dream of an 'independent' Scotland within Europe or a 32-county Irish republic within Europe. EU membership fuelled these movements and the sooner that cord is severed the better. Ask yourself why these two movements so avidly support EU membership: because it helped in their ultimate goal of dissolving Britain as a nation state.


I don't really see how the EU is the cause of this? It seems like you're just using it as another baseless claim to support your anti EU agenda, unless you have evidence to prove me wrong. I mean, the issue surrounding NI predates the EU and the SNP want EU membership because they think it's in Scotland's best interest. There's no conspiracy here. If there was, why are we not seeing other European countries having similar problems?



PR would limit their power in that we'd face months of wrangling and governments collapsing every couple of years.


Yes, look at all these governments collapsing everywhere. It's utter chaos! Governments don't collapse every couple of years under a coalition, stop exaggerating. There's no precedent for this and none for months of wrangling. It took 5 days in 2010 to form government and lasted the full 5 years with no real issues.



One way it is more democratic is that you have your own constituency member of Parliament for your own area, accountable to you the electorate. When you vote in FPTP, you vote for the candidate and the local party association nominates that candidate. Under PR you're given a list compiled by the party HQ where the top flunkies are placed at the top and are subsequently elected and who are accountable to large geographical areas, much like MEPs.

How many people can name their MEPs? How high is turnout for EU elections? It turns people off voting.

That's false. Under certain PR voting systems, that is the method. There are many methods of PR, or close to PR, that you vote directly e.g. STV.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're saying all of this as if UKIP was a significant reason for the change. There is no hard evidence to suggest UKIP had any real influence on there being a referendum.

I think it is beyond doubt that it was the rise of Ukip that led to a referendum. Farage was the one who linked immigration levels to EU membership and made the issue potent as it was, kept demanding a referendum on the issue from the Lisbon Treaty onwards and coupled with the electoral threat they posed not only in winning the European Elections 2014 but also defections. As ITV's Robert Peston said, there's little doubt without Nigel Farage there would be no referendum.


The bulk of the electorate rejected the Conservatives. I really don't see how you can argue against this.

I didn't argue against this? The Conservatives only scored a plurality of votes.


You're right, there is never going to be a manifesto I completely agree with, but that's not really a good reason to artificially limit my choice down to a 2 party system.

Even under PR you often get two parties given the tactical element. Only recently in PR systems has this completely broken down like in the Netherlands where forming a government now provides an outcome which nobody voted for.


I don't really see how the EU is the cause of this? It seems like you're just using it as another baseless claim to support your anti EU agenda, unless you have evidence to prove me wrong. I mean, the issue surrounding NI predates the EU and the SNP want EU membership because they think it's in Scotland's best interest. There's no conspiracy here. If there was, why are we not seeing other European countries having similar problems?

Happy to prove you wrong. For a long time, as power has gone to Brussels from Westminster parties such as Sinn Fein and the SNP have argued for an 'independent' Scotland within the European Union. They acknowledge that an independent Kingdom of Scotland or 32-county Ireland would be in need of some sort of union given they're unable to practically project power as a medium size nation state or defend themselves, so the EU has served as that replacement for the British state.

You only need to look at the debate in Spain regarding Catalonia - or walk around Barcelona and you'll see numerous Catalan flags alongside the odd EU flag rather than the Spanish flag. The idea of 'independence within Europe' has been used by these separtists to weaken the Spanish state arguing that there's no need for power to reside in Madrid when it can be directly exercised via Brussels. A similar thing can be seen in the Ukraine which in reality will always be a vassal of either Russia or Germany, hence the struggle and appearance of EU flags in western Ukraine which has subsequently torn Ukraine itself apart.

As the European Union became more and more centralised, the need for the British Union or Spanish state has been eclipsed. Ultimately there's only room for one union, and thank god we chose to preserve our own last June.


Yes, look at all these governments collapsing everywhere. It's utter chaos! Governments don't collapse every couple of years under a coalition, stop exaggerating. There's no precedent for this and none for months of wrangling. It took 5 days in 2010 to form government and lasted the full 5 years with no real issues.

The Netherlands has had a few General Elections in the past decade or so.


That's false. Under certain PR voting systems, that is the method. There are many methods of PR, or close to PR, that you vote directly e.g. STV.

Indeed there are various methods, but most use the list systen. In addition, some PR systems even make use of a 'top up' which I believe they use in Greece - it gives the winning party an extra bonus of seats for coming first because of the fact that PR voting often result in an unworkable splintered vote. Why not just stick to a tried and tested system which has given us stable and solid government for centuries?