If you thought Straner was bad....

This newsgroup is living proof that the over-70s should not have a say in the running of the country

(I'm 84)

heh heh, agreed ;-)

or alternatively ... living proof that people under 35 shouldnt be allowed to vote

and MacDonald was expelled from the party - so he might be PNG

In practice too - you seem to be whinging about the *consequences* of that illegality, a locally and cognitively different thing. Please concentrate.

Agreed. The advantages definitely outweigh the disadvantages.

but we already voted against it ?

That was the system whereby votes were juggled about so nobody knew what was going on, made deliberately complex by the Conservatives so people wouldn't vote for it.

Pure PR is simple, 40% of the vote gets you 40% of the seats, you vote for a party not a person (according to you people do anyway).

We could trial it in the lords, need to reduce the number of seats to around 200 as well.

I was going to disagree, but then I membered that Sunak, Starmer, and Blair as well as Theresa May were all infinitely worse than anyone thought possible...

And the Labour party is living proof that the under-70s should not have a say in the running of the country either.

Indeed.

The thought of some hodgepodge coalition of Reform, Restore, the Ulster unionists and whatever is left of the Tory party fills me with as much horror as an alliance of the Greens, Lib Dems, what's left of Labour and the Welsh Nationalists.

At leats what we have had as a result of FPP is the clearest indications that however morally appealing, the Labour party hasn't got enough talent to run a fish and chip shop.

No, Red Ed was driven by his own dogma, and Starmer was not strong enough to get a grip on him. My answer implies that he will hopefully be replaced by someone who takes a far more pragmatic approach to Net Zero, and who allows North Sea drilling and on-shore fracking to take place in order to improve our energy security.

Why do we need any seats, in the Commons at least? Nearly all MPs vote the way their whips tell them to, or at least they do if they want to be MPs for that party again. MPs are just counters.

As I've suggested before, why not do away with GEs and have bye-elections everywhere every four years, with dates and locations scattered randomly?

The very worst thing about the current system is that the winning party can tear up its manifesto the moment it gets in the door, and there are potentially five years of buyers' remorse before we get to kick them out. Continuous assessment might keep their minds on the voters for more than just one day.

I think a proportion of MPs should replaced by members of the public selected in a similar manner to those picked to do Jury service .

GH

Why not rejoin the EU and have no useful MPs at all? Just unelected bureaucrats in Brussels faffing around f****ng things up.

Europe is not a political paradise by any means

Not proper PR, it was teh party list system as introduced for EU elections as it was compulsort in the EU to havePR. The party list system suited teh party mandarins as teh poorest PR system that was acceptable to teh EU.

A better system is a list of names, You rank the candidates by number and in none get 50% of the votes the last one drops out and his No.2s (Yuk!)get allocated as appropriate (rinse and repeat) until one gets 50%

Why not all of em?

or .. since we have already used PR to vote aginst PR, then why not stick with the existing system.

The only people interested in PR are the Lib-Dems