As for the markets and PR in other countries, the crucial point here is that our economy is massively different to other European countries. Germany and France for example has very little in the way of liquid markets (how many people do you think can even name the stock markets of France and Germany, but I bet they've heard of the NASDAQ, DOW etc). Also Germany has a culture of forming alliances in other areas such as their economy. Our system is different and the money markets, as Tron highlights, really do like strong stable government.

Time to change our economy then.

>Sorry, but we're back to basic errors of arithmetic. The average number of seats for Labour / Lib Dem per million votes is ~ 20.45.

I don't give a toss – I'm just repeating the earlier posters figures back at him to demonstrate it's a nonsensical argument.

Edit – from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
as a proportiuon of the votes cast (thereby ignoring those that couldn't be arsed)
C: 36.1 %
L: 29.0%
LD: 23%

So that's a more stark comparison – 52% of the votes cast were *not* for the tories, whereas 36.1% were.

I was referring to the political implications such as deregulation, etc. The money markets would have felt better if the Government in power would not implement any of the tighter regulations which appear to be on their way(after some watering down of course. :wink:)

Regulation is the big issue for the finance industry, but currency stability is an issue for the stock markets (if you're quoted in GBP and the pound drops, you're suddenly vulnerable to foreign takeover), for which we still need to keep the money markets happy.

Tron will you be my new best mate? Seriously, I thought I was the only person who was worried about PR for the same reasons you cite.

In all seriousness, I am surprised by how much people seem to misunderstand the basics of the situation we are in. There has been an absolute media blitz on these issues for a couple of years, and yet people seem to take a stock opinion lifted from either the Daily Mail or the Socialist Worker, with both sets centring on the idea of fat cats getting rich off our backs, rather than the real issues at hand.

I don't give a toss – I'm just repeating the earlier posters figures back at him to demonstrate it's a nonsensical argument.

My point was that, on average, it takes the least votes to elect a Labour MP, a few more to elect a Tory MP, and a LOT more to elect a Lib Dem MP. Go and do the sums, and you'll find that I'm right. I'm not refuting the fact that Lib Dem & Labour together have had more votes than the Conservatives.

>My point was that, on average, it takes the least votes to elect a Labour MP, a few more to elect a Tory MP, and a LOT more to elect a Lib Dem MP. Go and do the sums, and you'll find that I'm right.

I don't need to, I'm quite aware of the fact.

The point is *still* that the current system no longer reflects the votes cast.

I watched an interview with two Lib Dem voters in Wells. They made an excellent point that they had voted for the Lib Dems, not for the Tories and that they wanted their vote to be heard as a clear and resounding vote AGAINST the Tories.
Then in the next breath they were berrating the Tories because they didn't believe that they would ever offer PR and how this was central to their voting for the Lib Dems.
I couldn't believe that they could not see the irony of their argument.

Time to change our economy then.

It's a fair question. But unfortunately you can't just change your economy. There are many types of capitalism. The one we have is very different to the one that Germany has. The problem is that the type you get is a classic 'emergent property', it's the result of many different back ground factors and agencies (the banking system, the unions, educational system, legal frameworks, culture, political system etc). In order to change the economy from say the adversarial/anglo saxon model we currently have to the alliance model they have in Japan and Germany or the 'dirigeste' in France, you would have to completely re-engineer every facet of the UK.

C: 36.1 %
L: 29.0%
LD: 23%

So that's a more stark comparison – 52% of the votes cast were *not* for the tories, whereas 36.1% were.

59.1% not for labour.
65.1% not for lib dems.
Same logic.

Just looking at some interesting stats regards the election. I have to say that something really does have to change although the stats do ask some very interesting questions of PR.

Sinn Fein, 5 seats from c.171,000 votes
BNP, 0 seats from c.500,000 votes
SNP, 6 seats from c.500,000 votes
UKIP, 0 seats from almost 1 million votes

It doesn't make much sense really, but then neither would a Parliament in which the BNP would have as much say as the Scottish National Party (although there isn't much to choose between them ideologically, they're both strongly nationalist parties 😉 ok ok, I'm just kidding. )

Here's a list of who got what votes.
This is for the whole of the UK, not just the population governed only by Westminster.

The Libs should take AV. It's not PR but it's a fairer voting system where most votes count. It will change the patterns of voting considerably because the tactics are multi-party. It's also the basis for AV+ in the future which is PR. It's a step the Cons will just about accept.

They should just go for it.

Just out of interest, under a possibly AV system, would my ballot be spoilt if I didn't rank the candidates in order or preference?

Hmmm – averages out at roughly one set per 50,000 votes. That would give us 11 BNP MPs

"Just out of interest, under a possibly AV system, would my ballot be spoilt if I didn't rank the candidates "

it's all on Wikipedia: Instant Runoff Voting

If 500,000 people vote for the BNP then their vote should be accounted for. Otherwise we're just saying we'll let you vote BNP for the moment because we know it won't transmit into seats in govt. What kind of fecked up democracy is that ? The same kind that gives us FPTP I guess.

*sets stopwatch to see how long it takes to be called a nazi*

11 BNP MPs. We hate 'em but that reflects their true popularity and that that is what we should be worried about.

Well said buzz

If enough people vote for the BNP, they should get MPs. At the moment, they can be pretty much ignored in most constituencies. If they were getting elected, we'd have to argue with them and show them for what they really are.

JonD: following the nonsensical argument line, 2005 election.
link

Labour – 35.3%
Conservative – 32.3%
Lib dem – 22%

therefore 54% voted to not have a Labour government, compared to 35.3% did.
and as a reminder of seats
Labour – 356
Tory – 198
Lib Dem – 62

That would give us 11 BNP MPs

On the assumption that all their voters would still vote for them under PR.

A fair few people who vote BNP do so in the full knowledge that they don't stand a chance. Many people see voting BNP as merely a way of expressing dissatisfaction with genuine grievances. I reckon there's quite a bit of difference between the BNP and some of their voters, and it remains to be seen whether they could rely on every single vote they now get.

Of course the reverse might also be true, and more people might vote BNP if they thought they stood a better chance – although I doubt it. But I reckon you should be careful with not necessarily correct extrapolations.