[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

He's pissed away his tory incompetence lead, so we both know PR is never going to raise it's head. I don't know why you keep putting yourself through this, Joey. I understand the need to vote for him to get tories out, but i don't understand the need to keep pretending he's something he isn't.

Because I believe perseverance can win through in the end.
I don't give up on things easily either

I've never really liked any recent Labour leader anyhow.
Or Con one.

I think you're wrong as to PR with respect.
It has now been passed twice at conference.
Very heavily last year too.
My thinking is, Labour will now adopt PR.
Not at the next election as policy.
However I do think it's coming and it can ONLY come via Labour because the Cons will never support it.
That's one of my main aims to fight for in the Party.

[Oliver_W]

I'm still not convinced that PR would "work", I'm still yet to hear a coherent way as to how it's compatible with our parliamentary system; as it stands, we vote for who we want to represent the constituency in which we live, in the Commons. Under PR the amount of seats for each party would be allocated based on the total votes across the UK.
How would the seats be allocated? Maybe something like ... each area should be represented by whichever party has the most votes in that area?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Because I believe perseverance can win through in the end.
I don't give up on things easily either

I've never really liked any recent Labour leader anyhow.
Or Con one.

I think you're wrong as to PR with respect.
It has now been passed twice at conference.
Very heavily last year too.
My thinking is, Labour will now adopt PR.
Not at the next election as policy.
However I do think it's coming and it can ONLY come via Labour because the Cons will never support it.
That's one of my main aims to fight for in the Party.

Wish I could trade some of my cynicism for your idealism, and as always, hope you're right.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I've seen and heard loads of utter more tripe and nonsense from people much older too.
I think the young often have a better idea of how things should be.

They couldn't make a worse mess than the current older generation have.
Look at the state of the Country.
Look at the chaotic mess there is

My point is that teenagers seem to be getting more and more immature as time goes on .. I’ve noticed the decline over the last 30 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Crimson Dynamo]

until you own property, pay a pension, council tax, put your own bins out own a car and have kids im sorry you have no earthly clue as to what is going on in life

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Zizu

My point is that teenagers seem to be getting more and more immature as time goes on .. I’ve noticed the decline over the last 30 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?

Sadly no .. the behaviour in yr 11 nowadays is probably similar to yr 7 behaviour when I started


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?

I do feel like there’s an element in truth in what Zuzu’s saying. Millennial teenagers (and when I say millennial I really mean anyone born between 1980 and 1998, 1999 at a push but definitely not much later than that) were generally more mature and treated as young adults at 16/17 than the children they’re moulded to be now. Maybe it’s something in the Gen. Z water but they’re definitely less mature than teenagers of other generations. But like I said elsewhere they have some valid opinions. I don’t think giving them the chance to vote would be the worst thing ever. It might give some of them a certain sense of responsibility.

[bots]

kids generally have less to worry about now than they did in previous generations, hence why they have time to involve themselves in things like climate change. A tough life is what forces kids to grow up quickly

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Many 16 year olds are content to be messing around in class and throwing paper aeroplanes around when they should be revising for GCSE exams in a few weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Tbf thats nothing new

[James]

PR is Emperor's New Clothes, in my opinion.

It won't make people any more satisfied with the outcome of elections.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Tbf thats nothing new

Fair point


I kinda feel sorry for this generation with so many distractions just as their GCSE exams approach .. who’s gonna want to revise for hours when they’re constantly bombarded by tweets , texts or links for Instagram , SnapChat and TikTok from their friends every minute of the day

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Livia]

They could always turn off Twitter. Radical, I know...

[Oliver_W]

Social media is pretty toxic, especially for the young. Nothing of value would be lost if they all closed down.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by James

PR is Emperor's New Clothes, in my opinion.

It won't make people any more satisfied with the outcome of elections.

But it is unquestionably more democratic.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Social media is pretty toxic, especially for the young. Nothing of value would be lost if they all closed down.

It Connects Families
so it will stay.


But you are right to point out
the negative part of social media
is wrecking young lives

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

But it is unquestionably more democratic.

Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

No it's to stop any arrogant leader and Party governing in a hard-line fashion being heartless too after only getting 43.6% of the votes meaning around 56% of people who even bothered to vote, voting against them.
For said arrogant power mad leader having absolute power with ridiculously over inflated overall majorities.

The ONE and ONLY Party against PR is the Con Party and it's more heartless, hard-line supporters because they know they could never likely get power to be as heartless and hard-line again under PR.

It's coming from Labour, maybe not as policy in the coming election but it's coming.
I'm sure of that in a future one.
Whether under Starmer or if necessary a NEW leader.

[James]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

But it is unquestionably more democratic.

The advantage of it is that people would likely get to vote for an (electable) party that more closely matches their views.

But the problem is that no party is likely to gain a majority on their own, so they have to do deals after the election and compromise on what they promised.

So while people would get to vote for parties whose policies they like better, they'll just never get to see them implemented.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by James

The advantage of it is that people would likely get to vote for an (electable) party that more closely matches their views.

But the problem is that no party is likely to gain a majority on their own, so they have to do deals after the election and compromise on what they promised.

So while people would get to vote for parties whose policies they like better, they'll just never get to see them implemented.

Voters don't get that now James.

56% voted AGAINST near ALL the Cons stood for in 2019 yet got it inflicted on them with his obscene 80 overall majority.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

Even if Southend didn't vote for a Britain First MP? Because under PR there's no guarantee that a seat would be represented by the party the seat's majority voted for. Unless the seats are allocated by votes-per-area, aka what we have now, basically.

[bots]

i always cite italy as a wonderful example of what PR can achieve, a system to be envied across the world.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

Of voters polled Slim.
Of all the Parties who get elected and don't get elected to Westminster.
Even the N.Irish DUP.

The vast majority now prefer PR to this dinosaur system we have now.

I repeat, it's ONLY the Con Party and it's hard-line supporters who don't want PR because they know, they've then had their day of hard-line, divisive, discriminating,heartless near dictatorial governing.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i always cite italy as a wonderful example of what PR can achieve, a system to be envied across the world.

We are a different Country bots.

Many Nations elect government's by PR and it works well enough.
This system we have in my view only really fails, you can't have and shouldn't have, absolute power with a minority of total votes cast.

No matter what governnent it is.