FPTP or AV?

[Mathew]

Stage 1: I'm suggesting we cut public spending (which the coalition are not doing) which is the general thing you need to do in order to get the debt down. So anyone would agree there who has a grasp on numbers, that in order to get down X you need to actually cut back enough so that you have a surplus in the budget which would then go to pay the debt - this is not due to happen.

In that case, where do you propose the cuts come from (ignoring places that the coalition, or Labour for that matter, have already tried)? It's all well and good saying "cutting the bin men didn't work," but why would it when you consider the tiny proportion? "Public spending" is too big of a hypernym to even do that statement credit.

Obviously it needs to happen, and yet again... you can't deny the fact that the coalition have tried when the evidence is clear in black and white.

Stage 2: The second part on what to do next is to decide what we need to cut to get back to this surplus so that we can pay our debts along with pay the debt interest at the same time. I propose we cut the following first (as would anyone else who has an ounce of common sense); our EU payments, foreign aid payments, state quangos, PFI schemes, the welfare state, layers of management within Whitehall.. and i'm sure we could find much more which would not affect needed frontline services.

I agree with cutting the majority of those listed. The EU has good intentions with it's trade links and mutual relationships, but the Union is also the main reason for our arguably "messed-up" immigration system (which in turn has links to a boat load of other problems in the UK). I would hope that the UK is a big enough country (or perhaps I'm still living in the past) to work out it's own trade routes rather than getting the easy deal (or maybe not) with the EU.

Welfare State, well I'm not too sure. Free NHS is something which is particularly British to me, and I think it's a true benefit to being a citizen of the UK; however the amount of benefits and compensations people can apply for is simply ridiculous, and I would agree that this junk needs some reformation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In that case, where do you propose the cuts come from (ignoring places that the coalition, or Labour for that matter, have already tried)? It's all well and good saying "cutting the bin men didn't work," but why would it when you consider the tiny proportion? "Public spending" is too big of a hypernym to even do that statement credit.

I have just listed what I would cut.

Obviously it needs to happen, and yet again... you can't deny the fact that the coalition have tried when the evidence is clear in black and white.

No and why? because public spending is increasing. They have 'tried' only with their rhetoric as have the Labour Party concerning these 'cuts' which are not cuts at all as, again, public spending is due to increase. Mr Osborne is the Chancellor who is in control of the finances of government and at the end of his term in office the government will be spending more per annum than the previous Labour government ever spent.

'Cuts'? no.

I agree with cutting the majority of those listed. The EU has good intentions with it's trade links and mutual relationships, but the Union is also the main reason for our arguably "messed-up" immigration system (which in turn has links to a boat load of other problems in the UK). I would hope that the UK is a big enough country (or perhaps I'm still living in the past) to work out it's own trade routes rather than getting the easy deal (or maybe not) with the EU.

We have a trade deficit with the EU and not with the rest of the world, leaving the EU also would not mean that we pull the drawbridge up and do not talk, trade or continue friendly relationships with them - quite the opposite, our relationship would likely improve as a result. The intentions behind the EU, I can only commend you to this programme which is a brief summary of a vast vast topic but rather does it justice; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQiPY3VVyA

Welfare State, well I'm not too sure. Free NHS is something which is particularly British to me, and I think it's a true benefit to being a citizen of the UK; however the amount of benefits and compensations people can apply for is simply ridiculous, and I would agree that this junk needs some reformation.

The parts you mentioned would be the bulk of it (concerning benefits, yes) - the NHS on the other hand, while I think it should be privatised (as its not free at all to those who pay taxes) it can still make a great saving by cutting. The NHS is the third largest employer in the world behind the PLA and the Indian Railway Service with vast swathes of layers of management which can be cut; http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy...1173e8e69c353d

Many sources on the rapid rise of management that occured under Labour, all those non-jobs should be cut - not just in the NHS, in Whitehall, in education.. the list goes on and on. I do apologise for this going into public spending/debt by the way, but I have tried to get debates going on this with others in the past (in threads posted for that very purpose) and yet nobody from the Conservative or Labour Party wants to discuss the issue in a sensible manner where we could discuss what is actually happening as opposed to cheap talk and rhetoric.

[alexxxxx]

AV is better than FPTP, but they are really quite similar. I don't buy the whole 'well i don't see why someone should be in when they don't win the first round' - well i don't see why someone should get in when they have less than 50% approval.

PR is obviously the best system, but I think it wouldn't work in this country as people like having local MPs that are accountable to them. MPs in this system are more likely to look after local issues.

AV is a step in the right direction. Obviously it still prefers the bigger parties, but It'd be definitely interesting to see the 'true' votes of UKIP, Greens, BNP etc.

I think this is the best explanation I've seen so far:

[RyRy]

Here's a fine example of why AV is good.

Recently I attended the NUS UK Conference, where the Alternative vote is how we elect *all* our candidates. I was part of a campaign team, and I can tell you I wasn't campaigning towards one set of voters, I was campaigning for all the voters since the second preference vote was essentially what would decide the presidential election for NUS UK. Funnily enough, do you know who were the ones who had the deciding vote? The left wing voters, those who would usually feel so excluded by the democratic procedure but instead felt united in a cause. A lot like that Big Society that Cameron was once referring to, heh.

Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted. Unity within the National Union of Students. Under First Past The Post, we would've ended up with a presidential candidate who wasn't voted in by a majority of the voters, nor would his policies affect those who didn't want to vote him as he was thoroughly against direct action like the outgoing president, Aaron Porter, once was. Just one of many reasons to vote yes to AV.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's a fine example of why AV is good.

Recently I attended the NUS UK Conference, where the Alternative vote is how we elect *all* our candidates. I was part of a campaign team, and I can tell you I wasn't campaigning towards one set of voters, I was campaigning for all the voters since the second preference vote was essentially what would decide the presidential election for NUS UK. Funnily enough, do you know who were the ones who had the deciding vote? The left wing voters, those who would usually feel so excluded by the democratic procedure but instead felt united in a cause. A lot like that Big Society that Cameron was once referring to, heh.

Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted. Unity within the National Union of Students. Under First Past The Post, we would've ended up with a presidential candidate who wasn't voted in by a majority of the voters, nor would his policies affect those who didn't want to vote him as he was thoroughly against direct action like the outgoing president, Aaron Porter, once was. Just one of many reasons to vote yes to AV.

It must be said though that all NUS Presidents end up as mere Labour stooges, which Douglas Murray pointed out I think it must have been something like all NUS Presidents have ended up being slipped into Labour safe seats in the future, a reward which likely awaits Aaron Porter.

Not that that is against AV, because a throughly left wing organisation will of course have a left wing President. But i'm just saying that theres no pretence here that the NUS is indicative of student opinion when it is a sideshow of the Labour Party.

It was Lord Browne *Labour* afterall who recommended the tuition fee rises before the election.

[GommeInc]

It must be said though that all NUS Presidents end up as mere Labour stooges, which Douglas Murray pointed out I think it must have been something like all NUS Presidents have ended up being slipped into Labour safe seats in the future, a reward which likely awaits Aaron Porter.

Not that that is against AV, because a throughly left wing organisation will of course have a left wing President. But i'm just saying that theres no pretence here that the NUS is indicative of student opinion when it is a sideshow of the Labour Party.

It was Lord Browne *Labour* afterall who recommended the tuition fee rises before the election.

There is some truth in your method, strangely Whenever I hear of the NUS, you get the people who are not always associated causing disruption. It does just seem like an organisation that doesn't necessarily have a voice.

[FlyingJesus]

AV is better than FPTP, but they are really quite similar. I don't buy the whole 'well i don't see why someone should be in when they don't win the first round' - well i don't see why someone should get in when they have less than 50% approval.

Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair

Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted.

You mean you ended up with a president that the majority didn't actually vote for originally

[alexxxxx]

[QUOTE=FlyingJesus;7075086]Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair
[QUOTE]
You are not forced to write numbers for everyone. I would never put a number next to UKIP or the BNP as I wouldn't approve of them at all. By writing in a number you do approve the candidate, whether or not it was your first choice is another matter. If you only want one of the candidates and no others - then you vote for them and them only.

[Hecktix]

[QUOTE=alexxxxx;7075273][QUOTE=FlyingJesus;7075086]Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair

You are not forced to write numbers for everyone. I would never put a number next to UKIP or the BNP as I wouldn't approve of them at all. By writing in a number you do approve the candidate, whether or not it was your first choice is another matter. If you only want one of the candidates and no others - then you vote for them and them only.

This is something that will confuse a lot of people though and they will probably put preference regardless

[FlyingJesus]

Unless you can vote one party as your 1st 2nd and 3rd choice then I'd personally feel extremely disenfranchised having only a third of the say of other people just because I had strong views. In reality I don't vote anyway and will live with whatever goes down but I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't want to end up not having had any part of the 2nd/3rd rounds of voting and having their entire vote totally nulled