RodCrosby will be most upset that you haven't mentioned PR^2.
Though you are following official Conservative thinking there.
As the Cameroons were planning from the start on a coalition with the LibDems and as the LibDems would have political and electoral reform as top of their agenda the lack of preparation on these issues by the Cameroons was inexplicable.
They planned nothing, proposed nothing and achieved nothing on political and electoral reform instead of planning, proposing and achieving reforms which would have benefited the Conservatives.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
Basic Error Alert.
The last time the Conservatives were returned with an overall majority was 1992 and before that 1987 and before that 1983.
Stuart this morning repeated the nonsense mantra that David Cameron couldn't beat the hapless Gordon Brown. Look at the facts. 1979 Margaret Thatcher won an overall majority when she replaced a minority Labour government 1997 Tony Blair won an overall majority when he replaced a minority Tory government 2010 David Cameron fell 18 seats short of an overall majority when he replaced a Gordon Brown government defending a majority of 48. Had Brown also been leading a minority government, Cameron would almost certainly have won an overall majority. To win a net 97 seats was a remarkable achievement.
No the vital facts were:
1979 Conservative vote +8.1% - Thatcher 'seals the deal' 1997 Labour vote +8.8% - Blair 'seals the deal' 2010 Conservative vote +3.7% - Cameron fails to 'seal the deal'
Until Conservative cheerleaders stop their cheerleading and look at the facts they wont win elections.
Indeed.
Mind you, personally I am quite happy if they just carry on repeating the same old mistakes.
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
Basic Error Alert.
The last time the Conservatives were returned with an overall majority was 1992 and before that 1987 and before that 1983.
Basic Error Alert.
I said "returned to power" Jack, ie. they took over governance from another political party.
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
I hate to say this, CR, but elections aren't just to provide you with excitement - or me, for that matter.
Sign of the times: there will be a public meeting at Ullapool Village Hall on 14 April, to support the campaign for Scottish independence.
Fair enough. Fairly unremarkable. But look closer. Look at the list of organisations providing speakers:
- Business for Scotland - Liberal Democrat Voters for Independence - Scottish Green Party - Women for Independence - Labour for Independence
This campaign is getting more interesting by the day.
Well it could hardly get duller could it ?
Alan , that is because you are so far south , it is much better up here, we have actually seen Darling twice.
I'm still closer to Scotland than the Rev S Campbell though.
On the other hand you are not working hard for a YES vote. The Rev is doing a grand job, much to the dismay of many unionists and newspapers etc.
malc I'm working for a NO and no-one on PB has worked harder at Nat lovebombing. Sporran tickling might be a dangerous job, but someone has to do it.
Alan, Not a pleasant thought with my breakfast, but keep up the good work, much wailing and gnashing of teeth in coming months as the trend continues. I may invest in shares in bleach companies given this new unionist vocation involving sporrans.
PS : a waste of your talents working for the wrong side
Unusual for me to utterly disagree with one of David's headers but in this case I do.
David's argument is couched almost entirely in terms of what is best for the parties, not what is best for the country and the electorate.
The problems we see in politics today derive from parties having too much power over their MPs and being able to force them to vote against the best interests of their own constituents. We now have the terrible situation where priorities for MPs rank as personal then party then country.
Most forms of PR - certainly anything that includes proportionality between the parties - would simply increase the power of the parties over their MPs.
We should in fact be moving the other way, reducing the power of the parties, banning or severely limiting the power of the whips and making most votes in Parliament free votes.
A move towards adopting PR would be yet another nail in the coffin of real democratic accountability for MPs.
Really proud that the UK took the lead in getting the UNHRC resolution passed against Sri Lanka paving the way for the independent international enquiry into the war crimes committed by both sides in the later stages of the civil war. David Cameron has stood by his word in "shining a light" into the situation in Sri Lanka - he was right going to CHOGM meeting in Colombo even though many including me thought it would be a propaganda coup for the vile SL Government. In fact, he played a blinder in Colombo turning the tables on the alleged war criminal Mahinda Rajapaksa.
I know that this UN process may take many years to deliver the justice that would ensure a true reconciliation but at least we have taken the first step - this country has played a pivotal role with many MPs of all hues keeping the pressure up. Thank you....
A very nice post - I remember you as being critical of Cameron for going to the CHOGM, but soon (and rightly IMHO) changed tack once you saw what he was trying to do.
IMHO it is important that any inquiry not only investigates the crimes committed by both sides, but also tries to look for ways forward and reconciliation.
Will India's part in proceedings also be investigated?
Dr Plank and Rochdale's Pinkie Floyd signing of the same hymn-sheet. Postings from Joke W make more sense....
Look folks!
The taffies are over-represented; the Scots are incompetent; and the Ulster-Scots are drunk confused. The only way to ensure fair governance is a per-resident constituency list (and Master Herdson has already lost this argument yonks-ago).
For every 125K of the population their should be a member: For modula we spannah one. Devolve responsibility to the nations regarding boundaries (and then the English can tell the Celtic C***s to freck-orf speak freely)!
Dr Plank and Rochdale's Pinkie Floyd signing of the same hymn-sheet. Postings from Joke W make more sense....
Look folks!
The taffies are over-represented; the Scots are incompetent; and the Ulster-Scots are drunk confused. The only way to ensure fair governance is a per-resident constituency list (and Master Herdson has already lost this argument yonks-ago).
For every 125K of the population their should be a member: For modula we spannah one. Devolve responsibility to the nations regarding boundaries (and then the English can tell the Celtic C***s to freck-orf speak freely)!
you writing that while wrapped up in your union jack onesie Fluffy, next you will be polishing your jack boots and practicing your One England speech
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
Basic Error Alert.
The last time the Conservatives were returned with an overall majority was 1992 and before that 1987 and before that 1983.
Basic Error Alert.
I said "returned to power" Jack, ie. they took over governance from another political party.
Basic Error Alert 2
Any objective assessment of "returned to power" is when a government offers themselves for election/re-election and are so elected. You meant returned a different government but failed to say so.
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
I hate to say this, CR, but elections aren't just to provide you with excitement - or me, for that matter.
Anyway, guys, I gotta go. Reality beckons...
Indeed, Innocent. And, funnily enough, I do recognise that. This post was supposed to be an honest exposition of some of my own hesitations in supporting PR, which I did in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner, as should have been clearly apparent from my post.
So your condescension was unnecessary. Enjoy your day.
On the plus side PR would once again give our major parties an interest in the whole country instead of "their" bit. So, on a PR system, the tories would move from their current 1 MP in Scotland to the 9-10 that their share of the vote would entitle them to.
In the same way Labour would have to remember that the south of England outside London actually exists and seek to address some of their issues. Politics would be more like it was pre 87 with each of the main parties comprised of members from around the country. This would undoubtedly be a good thing.
On the negative side there is a real risk that the broad churches of the main parties would break up and we would end up with coalitions of coalitions. The experience in some countries is that forming a government under such a system can take longer than the government itself lasts. It is certainly not a system for dynamic governance. Some PR countries seem to avoid this by tweaking the pureness of the PR but even Germany took months to agree a somewhat unsatisfactory grand alliance after their election.
Decisive government, even from minorities, is a good thing although do we really want a repeat of Blair in 2005 with a comfortable majority on 35%? That led to decisively the worst government in our recent history.
I voted for AV in the referendum and at the time thought the tories were cutting their own throats by opposing it. By that time the idea that hordes of left wing voters would vote Lib 1 Labour 2 or vice versa was already redundant and UKIP were starting to seriously eat into the tory vote.
My suspicion is that a largeminority of those who vote UKIP in the next election would have put Tory as a second preferenceif AV had gone through. This won't happen now
I've posted on this forum on and off for 10 years now. In recent posts I've noticed an element of resentful agression in pro tory posters, exemplified by the disproportionate fuss made over me refering to Osborne as Gideon. Seems they are worried or is it just that I supported the tories in my pre 2010 posts?
Really proud that the UK took the lead in getting the UNHRC resolution passed against Sri Lanka paving the way for the independent international enquiry into the war crimes committed by both sides in the later stages of the civil war. David Cameron has stood by his word in "shining a light" into the situation in Sri Lanka - he was right going to CHOGM meeting in Colombo even though many including me thought it would be a propaganda coup for the vile SL Government. In fact, he played a blinder in Colombo turning the tables on the alleged war criminal Mahinda Rajapaksa.
I know that this UN process may take many years to deliver the justice that would ensure a true reconciliation but at least we have taken the first step - this country has played a pivotal role with many MPs of all hues keeping the pressure up. Thank you....
Proud enough to vote for David Cameron to continue as PM after next May?
Problems can't be fixed if the media won't report them. The media - especially the dominant BBC - won't report a lot of the problems that exist if they conflict with PC ideology. That has led to the political class and a shrinking majority of the population living in the BBC version of reality and a growing minority of the population living in the actual reality hence politics becoming disconnected. The root of the problem isn't the political system it's the media not telling the whole truth.
I think the BBC wishes it had the power you think it has.
One of the reasons the LibLabCon are identical on all the things that matter most is the parties have become more centralized to avoid "gaffes". Who decides what is a gaffe and what isn't? About a hundred(?) people in the BBC newsroom.
Really proud that the UK took the lead in getting the UNHRC resolution passed against Sri Lanka paving the way for the independent international enquiry into the war crimes committed by both sides in the later stages of the civil war.
Well done murali: Beware the scope of the investigation.
As someone who has relations involved with this please do not paint it as Sihnalese vs Tamil battle; Ceylon is much more complex. Most 'corner-shops' are already on the radar...
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
We can all play this game. The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964. Labour (sans Blair) have also failed to top 40% of the vote since 1970. Labour only did it in 1997 and 2001 with Blair's landslides. Plenty of people then (and now) felt he wasn't really Labour.
Wilson was returned with a majority of 3 in October 74.
Really proud that the UK took the lead in getting the UNHRC resolution passed against Sri Lanka paving the way for the independent international enquiry into the war crimes committed by both sides in the later stages of the civil war. David Cameron has stood by his word in "shining a light" into the situation in Sri Lanka - he was right going to CHOGM meeting in Colombo even though many including me thought it would be a propaganda coup for the vile SL Government. In fact, he played a blinder in Colombo turning the tables on the alleged war criminal Mahinda Rajapaksa.
I know that this UN process may take many years to deliver the justice that would ensure a true reconciliation but at least we have taken the first step - this country has played a pivotal role with many MPs of all hues keeping the pressure up. Thank you....
A very nice post - I remember you as being critical of Cameron for going to the CHOGM, but soon (and rightly IMHO) changed tack once you saw what he was trying to do.
IMHO it is important that any inquiry not only investigates the crimes committed by both sides, but also tries to look for ways forward and reconciliation.
Will India's part in proceedings also be investigated?
Agreed - maybe the reason why India abstained in the vote. Very disappointed that they did but they were probably covering their backs as well trying to protect their own dodgy human rights issues in places like Kashmir. Anyway, poor effort from India...
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
This is why I'm one of the lone few to support AV. It maintains a very strong constituency link while also stopping the ridiculous "split the vote and let the other side in" if you vote honestly. Another alternative to stop that is to have genuine primaries where the candidates actually announce their views on difficult issues before the election. It's a joke that most PPCs don't seem to have any views on their websites other than opposing a particular project in the area and disliking littering.
Unusual for me to utterly disagree with one of David's headers but in this case I do.
David's argument is couched almost entirely in terms of what is best for the parties, not what is best for the country and the electorate.
The problems we see in politics today derive from parties having too much power over their MPs and being able to force them to vote against the best interests of their own constituents. We now have the terrible situation where priorities for MPs rank as personal then party then country.
Most forms of PR - certainly anything that includes proportionality between the parties - would simply increase the power of the parties over their MPs.
We should in fact be moving the other way, reducing the power of the parties, banning or severely limiting the power of the whips and making most votes in Parliament free votes.
A move towards adopting PR would be yet another nail in the coffin of real democratic accountability for MPs.
I was going to head off for the morning but one quick response:
- Some forms of PR *reduce* the power of parties: open lists and STV do for example, where voters can pick between candidates of a party. Even if a party bans a popular MP or candidate from standing under their flag, PR gives them a much better chance of being elected as an Independent than FPTP.
- Whips serve an essential purpose. While I share a scepticism of over-mighty governments, those governments still have to be accountable. How is that possible if an MP can go off and do whatever he/she wants? Who do you hold accountable for what the government does? On the flip side, why should parties support individuals who they cannot then expect to vote for their key policies? To remove whips is to remove the party structure altogether, which might undermine the government's power but would undermine the opposition's even more.
- I couched the argument in terms of party interest because it's very rare that parties will do something against their own interests and even rarer that a party will make a significant change against its interests. If the Conservative party was to adopt such a policy, a reasonable portion of it, including its leadership, would first need to believe in it being beneficial to both party and country.
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
When I was about 16 my moral tutor introduced me to Karl Popper. His core philosophy was that, to avoid totalitarianism (as Nick Palmer seems to favour) you need the ability for the electorate to 'kick the buggers out'. This Day of Judgement is critical to preserving the Open Society. That is why PR should be avoided: it's all about the serving interests of the elite rather than the people
you writing that while wrapped up in your union jack onesie Fluffy, next you will be polishing your jack boots and practicing your One England speech
Unckie Malc:
You have got form: Please do not ask for Morus and DC to have to put you back in "you'se" potty. You do understand that Auntie Hortence has already occupied 'The Attic', no...?
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
We can all play this game. The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964. Labour (sans Blair) have also failed to top 40% of the vote since 1970. Labour only did it in 1997 and 2001 with Blair's landslides. Plenty of people then (and now) felt he wasn't really Labour.
Wilson was returned with a majority of 3 in October 74.
Although that's not really a workable majority and disappeared altogether way before the end of the parliament.
Though CR should have said 1966 as the last time Labour won a majority without having a Christian Democrat (domestic policy) / NeoCon (foreign policy) as leader. Indeed, 1966 was the second of only two times Labour's ever managed a workable majority with a leader from their own tradition.
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
When I was about 16 my moral tutor introduced me to Karl Popper. His core philosophy was that, to avoid totalitarianism (as Nick Palmer seems to favour) you need the ability for the electorate to 'kick the buggers out'. This Day of Judgement is critical to preserving the Open Society. That is why PR should be avoided: it's all about the serving interests of the elite rather than the people
David, the problem is that PR just entrenches the worst aspects of the current system: it gives way too much power to the parties rather than to the people.
It's a reasonable hypothesis - at the moment, which is all you can plan for - that a centre right party gets 35% and a centre left party gets 35%. The result is that an unprincipled party on 16% that is willing to get into bed with either one of them has disproportionate power.
If that central party were to only get 16% of their manifesto implemented then that would be fine, but the nature of auctions is that they will get increasingly more power despite having less than half the support of the major two parties*
A better reform would be to split the executive out of the legislature. The Commons should be about holding the executive to account. The fact that the payroll vote is well over 100 now, and the importance of the whips, means that it is ineffective at this job.
* It's quite possible that the large parties will fragment, but that isn't an improvement .
The problem with PR is that it's extremely boring. The elections and the counting-process is long-winding and boring. The coalitions that are formed are boring. It forms government's that (as Nick Palmer says) do gradual, progressive (boring) change.
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
When I was about 16 my moral tutor introduced me to Karl Popper. His core philosophy was that, to avoid totalitarianism (as Nick Palmer seems to favour) you need the ability for the electorate to 'kick the buggers out'. This Day of Judgement is critical to preserving the Open Society. That is why PR should be avoided: it's all about the serving interests of the elite rather than the people
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
In recent posts I've noticed an element of resentful agression in pro tory posters, exemplified by the disproportionate fuss made over me refering to Osborne as Gideon. Seems they are worried or is it just that I supported the tories in my pre 2010 posts?
When he was a teenager George Osborne changed his name by deed poll.
To refer to him by his birth name is impolite. Why do you do it? There must be a reason.
One reason that the days of "first past the post" may be numbered is the potential for a successful challenge to the parliamentary voting system in Strasbourg. The political class has been very slow to wake up to the implications of the jurisprudence on Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, mistakenly thinking that it concerns prisoner voting rights alone.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out?
Weimar, 1932 (or are dates difficult 'oop-north')...?
I don't know what the 'northern' jibe's about (maybe that's just my ignorance?), but my understanding of history is that the German 1932 government didn't last very long. Indeed, to last as long as it did - a bare matter of months - it was necessary to keep the constitution partially suspended, as it had been since the onset of the Depression.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
I'd agree it's much more of a risk with smaller parties but then smaller parties don't have that much influence to start with. For the big ones - those that supply prime ministers - it's unlikely that they'll be kept in power by the minor players when they're unpopular lest that unpopularity rubs off onto the coalition allies (which is probable). The exception is when the major alternative is seen as unacceptable by the majority of the political class, as with the Communists in Italy. However, even there, as soon as the communists collapsed, so did the Christian Democrats.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
We can all play this game. The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964. Labour (sans Blair) have also failed to top 40% of the vote since 1970. Labour only did it in 1997 and 2001 with Blair's landslides. Plenty of people then (and now) felt he wasn't really Labour.
Wilson was returned with a majority of 3 in October 74.
True, but strictly speaking Labour did return to power in February 74 without a majority.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
Have you noticed how low the LD vote is in North Warwickshire? Just 11.6%, less than half the national average. All the polls show most of the swing to Labour is happening because of defectors from the LDs, whereas hardly any voters are crossing directly from Con to Lab.
Also, there is a demographic shift in that area towards the Conservatives, counterbalancing the move to Labour in seats like Edgbaston. I would say that means North Warwickshire is a lot less likely to be Labour's easiest gain than the raw figures imply.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
We can all play this game. The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964. Labour (sans Blair) have also failed to top 40% of the vote since 1970. Labour only did it in 1997 and 2001 with Blair's landslides. Plenty of people then (and now) felt he wasn't really Labour.
Wilson was returned with a majority of 3 in October 74.
Although that's not really a workable majority and disappeared altogether way before the end of the parliament.
Though CR should have said 1966 as the last time Labour won a majority without having a Christian Democrat (domestic policy) / NeoCon (foreign policy) as leader. Indeed, 1966 was the second of only two times Labour's ever managed a workable majority with a leader from their own tradition.
Thanks David. I didn't say 1966 as the exam question was when Labour returned to power with a majority. My understanding is that they did return to power with a (tiny) majority in 1964, and then built on that to win solidly in 1966.
But the "consensus" you talk about not being aligned with the interests of voters, if that statement is valid, why then does Germany have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) economies in Europe AND one of the most cohesive societies in Europe?
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
I'd agree it's much more of a risk with smaller parties but then smaller parties don't have that much influence to start with. For the big ones - those that supply prime ministers - it's unlikely that they'll be kept in power by the minor players when they're unpopular lest that unpopularity rubs off onto the coalition allies (which is probable). The exception is when the major alternative is seen as unacceptable by the majority of the political class, as with the Communists in Italy. However, even there, as soon as the communists collapsed, so did the Christian Democrats.
Let's say that this split is maintained over time.
I'd suspect that the UKIP/BOO Tory would never be invited to participate in government, despite there being a clear majority of right-leaning voters (55% vs 40%, excluding the nationalists). So the result would probably be a permanent Social Democrat/Assorted lefties/green government.
Your view that it is "big parties that supply PMs" only works when the big parties are in the centre.
you writing that while wrapped up in your union jack onesie Fluffy, next you will be polishing your jack boots and practicing your One England speech
Unckie Malc:
You have got form: Please do not ask for Morus and DC to have to put you back in "you'se" potty. You do understand that Auntie Hortence has already occupied 'The Attic', no...?
Can you repeat in English please and who is Auntie Hortence
Without wishing to be rudely pedantic it's simply factually incorrect and there was no mention of a viable working majority. Accordingly my point noting Oct 74 was accurate.
But the "consensus" you talk about not being aligned with the interests of voters, if that statement is valid, why then does Germany have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) economies in Europe AND one of the most cohesive societies in Europe?
The strength of Germany's economy derives from the way it was rebuilt after WW2 and the industrial systems that were put in place then combined with the huge amount of support the country was given throughout the Cold War era. From that position they were always going to dominate the EU economically and have been able to mould EU policy to maintain that position.
That is not a criticism. They are simply looking after their own national interests but it is certainly not as a result of their electoral system.
Bit frustrated by the qualifying result, Vettel had a real shot at pole and human error (his or the team's) cost him. On the other hand, the bet was technically green (less than £1, though, for a £10 stake).
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
North Warwickshire is the most marginal seat in England. Con maj of just 54. The current best prices in this seat, and many other Con-held marginals, indicate that either:
a) Dave Cameron is about to get thumped at the ballot boxes b) Bookies are philanthropists
I know which answer is the more likely to be true.
Lab 1/3 (Ladbrokes) Con 7/2 (Paddy Power)
The last time the Tories were returned to power with an overall majority was in 1979. That is 35 years ago. At the rate they are going, with the right-wing vote splitting, it is hard to see the Tories ever being returned to power with an overall majority again. They could not even defeat the hopeless Gordon Brown.
Their coversion to PR cannot therefore be far away.
We can all play this game. The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964. Labour (sans Blair) have also failed to top 40% of the vote since 1970. Labour only did it in 1997 and 2001 with Blair's landslides. Plenty of people then (and now) felt he wasn't really Labour.
Wilson was returned with a majority of 3 in October 74.
Although that's not really a workable majority and disappeared altogether way before the end of the parliament.
Though CR should have said 1966 as the last time Labour won a majority without having a Christian Democrat (domestic policy) / NeoCon (foreign policy) as leader. Indeed, 1966 was the second of only two times Labour's ever managed a workable majority with a leader from their own tradition.
Thanks David. I didn't say 1966 as the exam question was when Labour returned to power with a majority. My understanding is that they did return to power with a (tiny) majority in 1964, and then built on that to win solidly in 1966.
I agree with the rest of your post entirely.
In 1964, needing 316 seats for a majority, Labour won 317. Harold Wilson then contrived to reduce this to 316 within a matter of weeks by causing an unnecessary by-election in Leyton in order to parachute Patrick Gordon Walker into a seat after he was defeated at Smethwick. He lost by 205 votes in what was previously a safe Labour constituency.
Then why not support STV then? It gives the voters the choice candidates within parties as well between parties, but there would be the added benefits of a simpler ballot paper and the retention of the constituency link.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
But the "consensus" you talk about not being aligned with the interests of voters, if that statement is valid, why then does Germany have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) economies in Europe AND one of the most cohesive societies in Europe?
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
When I was growing up the FDP provided the foreign minister for Germany after every election that I can remember. They only got around 10-12% of the vote for most of that time.
Then why not support STV then? It gives the voters the choice candidates within parties as well between parties, but there would be the added benefits of a simpler ballot paper and the retention of the constituency link.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
It's a simpler system, takes less time to count and gives voters the option to support a party without nominating a candidate.
Interesting piece as always by David. Although I've been a member of the LDs and predecessor parties for over 30 years and strongly believe, as a system, STV is infinitely preferable to either AV or FPTP, I've also come to realise that the electoral system isn't really the point.
The much greater question is about the nature of politics itself - the modus operandi of parties and the disconnection felt by so many toward the political process. The reality is that in most instances you need a party machine (even if you call yourself Independent or Ratepayer) to get elected as it's physically impossible to get your message over to x thousand people.
Even a process of Open Primary is a choice between competing party members and if winning the Primary becomes more important than winning the election wither or whither the democratic process ?
Whether it's through a single party (as in Britain and the US), two parties (Germany and arguably Denmark) or a bloc of parties, there is almost always an adversarial "right" or "left" formation - politics wouldn't be the same if we all agreed on everything ?
The problem then is elected representatives of the people have to function both as that and as members of the party that got them elected. That creates a tension when a Party policy is unpopular with the majority of the electors. Yet democracy is not about populism - we see it on here when supporters luxuriate in high opinion poll ratings almost as a virility symbol. Being popular isn't the same as being right and while the dictator can do unpopular things because he has the force of the State to support him, the democrat has to try to persuade the electorate that the policy is right.
I don't have any answers as you can tell but we need to re-define what political parties are or should be about, what kind of elected representatives we want to have and how we want them to engage with us whether it be by Swiss-style referenda or more informal US "town hall" meetings.
But the "consensus" you talk about not being aligned with the interests of voters, if that statement is valid, why then does Germany have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) economies in Europe AND one of the most cohesive societies in Europe?
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
Partly because Germany is split into the various Lande so they can have a slightly different consensus from place to place.
F1: pre-race piece will probably not be up for a little while (maybe this afternoon/evening) as the markets on Ladbrokes haven't got going yet. Also, a few drivers may suffer penalties due to impeding others, as well as the Kvyat/Alonso collision being investigated by stewards.
Then why not support STV then? It gives the voters the choice candidates within parties as well between parties, but there would be the added benefits of a simpler ballot paper and the retention of the constituency link.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
It's a simpler system, takes less time to count and gives voters the option to support a party without nominating a candidate.
STV is the spawn of the devil and those supporting it should be hung drawn and quartered or at the very least boiled in oil as an indulgence from a tolerant society.
Then why not support STV then? It gives the voters the choice candidates within parties as well between parties, but there would be the added benefits of a simpler ballot paper and the retention of the constituency link.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
It's a simpler system, takes less time to count and gives voters the option to support a party without nominating a candidate.
STV is the spawn of the devil and those supporting it should be hung drawn and quartered or at the very least boiled in oil as an indulgence from a tolerant society.
You're bringing your innate canibalism to the fore again, JackW.
STV is the spawn of the devil and those supporting it should be hung drawn and quartered or at the very least boiled in oil as an indulgence from a tolerant society.
Yes, I suppose it was so much easier when the electorate consisted of anyone owning more than 50,000 acres.
Then why not support STV then? It gives the voters the choice candidates within parties as well between parties, but there would be the added benefits of a simpler ballot paper and the retention of the constituency link.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
It's a simpler system, takes less time to count and gives voters the option to support a party without nominating a candidate.
STV is the spawn of the devil and those supporting it should be hung drawn and quartered or at the very least boiled in oil as an indulgence from a tolerant society.
You're bringing your innate canibalism to the fore again, JackW.
Sadly fava beans are not indigenous to Scotland .... I prefer home grown food.
There are rumours I'm presently in Aberdeen .... quite by coincidence the Scottish LibDems are in conference there and some believe such a rich source of produce would be far too tempting.
The AV referendum result has probably put off all the parties in seeking change to the GE voting system but local government could be ready for change.STV in Scotish local government has led to a reduction in uncontested seats and the recent report on the implications of STV in local government in England from the Electoral Reform Society showed how Tories would gain representation in Labour areas and vice-versa.It would prevent the creation of the one-party state in local government which,as the report points out,often ends one way or another in tears and loss of control,often for a long-time.I have personally witnessed both a controlling Tory and Labour council's vast majority eventually slipping away.I think STV cold provide a much-needed boost to local democracy. It could also be part of a reforming government which commands support from Lab and L/Ds and could be a foundation stone of a Lab-L/D coalition.
Agree with the article, under PR the Tories would be largest party under 2015 if they led Labour by 0.1%, under FPTP they would need to lead Labour by at least 2-3% to be largest party. On present polling, the Tories mid 30s, UKIP 10-15%, a Tory UKIP Coalition could actually reach 51% and a majority under PR, while the Tories would need to be at least 8% ahead under FPTP for a majority
Nah they need to devolve to local councils and national assemblies, turning the current Commons into a National Assembly for England and the Lords into a regional, UK parliament
Indeed, PR is actually the most common electoral system around the world. Most of the EU (Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Scandinavia), New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, all use PR for general elections. Only the US, UK, Canada and India of major democracies use FPTP
STV is the spawn of the devil and those supporting it should be hung drawn and quartered or at the very least boiled in oil as an indulgence from a tolerant society.
Yes, I suppose it was so much easier when the electorate consisted of anyone owning more than 50,000 acres.
Those were the days. Tis a struggle now with just the odd ten thousands acres or so. I think the nation would be better off under the gentle guidance and tutelage of Scottish nobles.
However, PR would also change the party structure in the UK. Many Tory rightwingers would certainly join UKIP as UKIP's chances of winning seats vastly improved, and at the same time some Labour leftwingers would join the Greens, which would also win significant numbers of seats, or TUSC. Indeed, the LDs could split too between a Vince Cable led social democratic wing and a Cleggite Liberal wing (maybe joined by a few Blairites and pro-EU Tories)
Let's not forget that FPTP also benefits the Tories. For example in 2010 they got 90% of the Eastern seats on 47% of the vote; 89% of the SE seats on 50% of the vote; 67% of the East Midlands seats on 41% of the vote (the converse is in the NE where Labour got 86% of the seats on 44% vote).
Opponents of PR fall back onto the argument of the "constituency" link as an argument against change but perhaps that's part of the problem as well. The concept of a "local" representative is perhaps one we ought to be challenging as well.
I know the vast majority of MPs are hard-working people who will do whatever they can for their constituents but to what extent are they much more than a "super-councillor" who can take on the local authority or other agencies with more clout than the individual ?
Of course, it shouldn't matter if your politics and those of your MP diverge but that isn't in and of itself an argument for the negation of large numbers of votes and the lack of representation of the same.
Having a member of Parliament to whom I can go if I have a problem shouldn't come at the cost of having my vote count for nothing but that's how it is under the current system. Given the overwhelming desire for a reduction in the number of MPs, it's going to be even harder for an MP to "cover" a constituency of 120,000 electors or more in the future.
Some Tories (of which DH is one) really seem to be having an existential crisis at the moment. It is really unclear what the Conservative party is for any more.
I think Osborne's budget made that clear - freedom under the Tories or "government knows best" under Labour
Mr. Stodge, the argument against PR (one of them) I would make is that it leads to splintered politics, smaller parties, weaker government and manifesto promises becoming practically optional.
If we always have coalitions that means always having negotiations and manifesto promises being tossed overboard. If I vote for party X because of a certain promise and they ditch it because party Y dislike it there's a clear problem. And if the coalition has a certain non-manifesto policy which is rubbish, which party is held responsible?
PR means local conditions don't matter, so, as suggested below, we would have more smaller parties, each arguing for their pound of flesh in negotiations to form a government. It would not be people electing governments, but elected politicians deciding who should form governments.
Having a member of Parliament to whom I can go if I have a problem shouldn't come at the cost of having my vote count for nothing but that's how it is under the current system. Given the overwhelming desire for a reduction in the number of MPs, it's going to be even harder for an MP to "cover" a constituency of 120,000 electors or more in the future.
With approx. 46M registered electors and a reduction to 600 MP's, even allowing a few geographical oddities such as Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, broadly equalized constituencies would be around 77K.
Charles No, because even on those figures the social democrats and the greens only reach 40%. They would have to come to an agreement with the Liberals, (who would be much more like the German FDP under PR)
But the "consensus" you talk about not being aligned with the interests of voters, if that statement is valid, why then does Germany have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) economies in Europe AND one of the most cohesive societies in Europe?
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Austria is a good example. Look at the results of the 2006 election, for instance, when the OVP was trounced but then entered into a Red-Black Coalition. The FDP was another example of a party that retained over-mighty power for too long.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
Social cohesion is under huge pressure in Germany.
The old East Germany continues to have a radically different profile, with an aging and shrinking and less productive workforce, but now the old West is losing patience with the huge cross-subsidies provided to the East after reunification. At the same time, Germany struggles with the same immigration-based challenges as the rest of Western Europe. Germany is no pillar of social cohesion.
A Tory- Liberal agreement would be just as common, and indeed would also reach 40% (a centrist/Cameroon Tory party would reach at least 25% which is still much less than the Tories are polling now with UKIP under FPTP) , but UKIP/BOO with 25% would hold the balance of power on tight votes
But at the the moment the average size of a constituency is about 70,000 voters. If the HoC was elected under a PR system (preferably STV) you would still have situation where 1 MP would represent 70,000 voters, its just that we would have multi member constituencies.
3 member constituency = 210,000 voters 4 member constituency = 280,000 voters 5 member constituency = 350,000 voters 6 member constituency = 420,000 voters
Opponents of PR fall back onto the argument of the "constituency" link as an argument against change but perhaps that's part of the problem as well. The concept of a "local" representative is perhaps one we ought to be challenging as well.
I know the vast majority of MPs are hard-working people who will do whatever they can for their constituents but to what extent are they much more than a "super-councillor" who can take on the local authority or other agencies with more clout than the individual ?
Of course, it shouldn't matter if your politics and those of your MP diverge but that isn't in and of itself an argument for the negation of large numbers of votes and the lack of representation of the same.
Having a member of Parliament to whom I can go if I have a problem shouldn't come at the cost of having my vote count for nothing but that's how it is under the current system. Given the overwhelming desire for a reduction in the number of MPs, it's going to be even harder for an MP to "cover" a constituency of 120,000 electors or more in the future.
There would be a probably terminal political price for a unionist party that backpedalled on the issue.
You have to be cautious with comments - the "UK politics" stories tend to have a lot of people not familiar with the indy debate because they come from places like, well,. Horsham. So, in principle, they could be educated to a more rational view of the matter. However, if unionists and/or unionist newspapers are not willing to do this ...
The BBC Scottish politics postings cannot be compared, because the public are banned from comment on (most) BBC Scotland politics stories! However, there was a very marked difference in 'clientele' BTL in the days before BBC Scotland panicked and cut the comments.
3 HOURS AGO A viable independent country wouldn't need to use someone else's currency.
I really cannot see why "independent" Scotland wants the rUK to run its economic policy. Independence means independence, any rUK backtracking on this would lose all credibility, which is why this unamed "minister" is not willing to go public.
200/1 for UKIP in Cannock Chase isn't right IMO. Ought to be something like 50/1. They got 25% of the vote in last year's local elections, the same as the Tories, with Labour on 40%.
Mr. Carnyx, the views of non-Scottish Britons are largely irrelevant when it comes to independence, but vital when it comes to negotiations in the event of a Yes.
I'd also argue (as it's my view) that it's an entirely rational view to be opposed to a currency union, north or south of the border.
JackW Yes, correct. Although Labour were largest party in Feb 1974 in seats, but Heath won the popular vote (and initially held talks with Thorpe, which would have made this the second Tory-Liberal Coalition had they succeeded)
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
I agree with Richard. The key thing is that even politicians/parties in very safe seats can be thrown out if they upset the electorate enough (Tatton, Blaenau Gwent). This is why a lot of the expenses troughers were pushed out before the election.
Under a PR system the most important thing is being number 1 on the party list which means the party view of you is more important than the public's. I know people talk about open list PR but I'll believe that when I see it.
Mr. Stodge, the argument against PR (one of them) I would make is that it leads to splintered politics, smaller parties, weaker government and manifesto promises becoming practically optional.
If we always have coalitions that means always having negotiations and manifesto promises being tossed overboard. If I vote for party X because of a certain promise and they ditch it because party Y dislike it there's a clear problem. And if the coalition has a certain non-manifesto policy which is rubbish, which party is held responsible?
PR means local conditions don't matter, so, as suggested below, we would have more smaller parties, each arguing for their pound of flesh in negotiations to form a government. It would not be people electing governments, but elected politicians deciding who should form governments.
I disagree because that's not what happens in many other countries with more proportional systems. What you would see is a rapid evolution back to a duopoly (which sounds like a contradiction in terms). Two distinct blocs of parties would likely emerge and the Government would be formed of a Coalition of the parties in one bloc.
You would be able to vote for a party within the bloc to ensure that party has the maximum strength within the new Coalition - the current UK Coalition is dominated by the 305 Conservatives as against the 57 LD MPs - had the numbers been 205 and 157, the Coalition would look very different.
Maximising the vote for your party maximises its bargaining power - I would also contend that most individuals have difficulty with one or more policy of the party they support at one time. That's life - there's no such thing as the perfect party with which you are always in agreement - it depends whether the policy with which you disagree is a deal-breaker in terms of your support.
PR does not equal lists, there are preference based PR systems like STV in which unpopular politicians can be kicked out. In Scotland where STV is used in local elections even high profile unpopular councillors have lost their seats.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
I agree with Richard. The key thing is that even politicians/parties in very safe seats can be thrown out if they upset the electorate enough (Tatton, Blaenau Gwent). This is why a lot of the expenses troughers were pushed out before the election.
Under a PR system the most important thing is being number 1 on the party list which means the party view of you is more important than the public's. I know people talk about open list PR but I'll believe that when I see it.
The AV referendum result has probably put off all the parties in seeking change to the GE voting system but local government could be ready for change.STV in Scotish local government has led to a reduction in uncontested seats and the recent report on the implications of STV in local government in England from the Electoral Reform Society showed how Tories would gain representation in Labour areas and vice-versa.It would prevent the creation of the one-party state in local government which,as the report points out,often ends one way or another in tears and loss of control,often for a long-time.I have personally witnessed both a controlling Tory and Labour council's vast majority eventually slipping away.I think STV cold provide a much-needed boost to local democracy. It could also be part of a reforming government which commands support from Lab and L/Ds and could be a foundation stone of a Lab-L/D coalition.
STV at a local level makes a lot of sense - most of the issues that councilors have to deal with are rarely issues of great philosophical principle. Where there are controversial local issues (transport, etc) these can be accommodated by multiple candidates within the parties - so that they can run a pro and anti project X candidate if they want.
The other thing that should be done is that central government should fund any mandated obligations through central funding. Local taxes should be solely for local items where policies are set locally rather than, say, social care where policy is set nationally and funded locally. As a result local voters should be able to draw a clear line between what they are charged in council tax and the composition of their local council and determine what they want to do accordingly.
Charles No, because even on those figures the social democrats and the greens only reach 40%. They would have to come to an agreement with the Liberals, (who would be much more like the German FDP under PR)
My point was that if UKIP is regarded as anathema by the Liberals (say because of Europe, which isn't really a left-right issue) then, regardless of being one of the largest parties, they (and by extension the moderate Tories) would never form a party of government. So you would have left-wing hegemony as a result.
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
I agree with Richard. The key thing is that even politicians/parties in very safe seats can be thrown out if they upset the electorate enough (Tatton, Blaenau Gwent). This is why a lot of the expenses troughers were pushed out before the election.
Under a PR system the most important thing is being number 1 on the party list which means the party view of you is more important than the public's. I know people talk about open list PR but I'll believe that when I see it.
In essence, though, FPTP and the PR system you describe are the same - it's as much about the candidate winning the party election as it is the candidate winning the general election. It's extraordinarily rare that a long-standing MP is thrown out of a safe seat by the electors - what happens is, as we've seen in North Yorkshire, the MP is thrown out by the party so this piffle about the sanctity of an MP and the democratic legitimacy of a link to the people is just that.
That then makes the local party the arbiter of local democracy and drives a coach and horses through such language as "in theory should be answerable to the constituents"
Can you give an example of where a government has continually hung on under PR, when the country has been in a mood to kick the buggers out? The fate of PASOK in Greece should give some idea of what happens when a party moves so strongly against its voters' interests to prop up an unpopular government. (And the Greek case is in exceptional circumstances when a government of national unity would likely come about under any electoral system).
Its not just a case of government or parties but of individual politicians. In 1998 Helmut Kohl lost his seat in the Federal elections but still managed to stay in the Bundestag because of the parallel list system. That is a classic case of 'not being able to kick the buggers out' and is common in a number of countries.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Hence my preference for open lists. If you have, say, 8-member constituencies then MPs can be allotted according to their party's share but in the order of each individual's total.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800 Con 41000 UKIP 35150 LD 26250 Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
Multi-member constituencies are a perfect excuse for our representatives to say it is nothing to do with them. With such a system you would effectively reduce MP recognition and accountability to that of MEPs.
I would have no problem with a system that had single member constituencies with AV or STV but again anything that actually gave proportionality to parties is, for me, utterly anti-democratic.
- Whips serve an essential purpose. While I share a scepticism of over-mighty governments, those governments still have to be accountable. How is that possible if an MP can go off and do whatever he/she wants? Who do you hold accountable for what the government does? On the flip side, why should parties support individuals who they cannot then expect to vote for their key policies? To remove whips is to remove the party structure altogether, which might undermine the government's power but would undermine the opposition's even more.
- I couched the argument in terms of party interest because it's very rare that parties will do something against their own interests and even rarer that a party will make a significant change against its interests. If the Conservative party was to adopt such a policy, a reasonable portion of it, including its leadership, would first need to believe in it being beneficial to both party and country.
We do not elect governments David as you well know. We elect MPs who then decide who should be the Prime Minister and it is the PM who then picks his government. Now that system has been hugely corrupted by the parties in the 20th Century but what we should be doing is returning to the basic principles of that system not throwing it out.
All votes should be free votes and a government should win them through force of argument not bribery and blackmail as they do currently. The current whips system is utterly corupt and needs to be swept away.
Oh and your last sentence was incorrect.
" If the Conservative party was to adopt such a policy, a reasonable portion of it, including its leadership, would first need to believe in it being beneficial to both party and country."
should have ended "beneficial to the party." If it turns out to beneficial to the country as well that is usually purely coincidental.
And that is not picking on the Tories. The same applies to all the other parties as well.
Charles Complete rubbish. The moderate Tories would be in a different party from UKIP, the moderate Tories would more often than not form a coalition with the Liberals as now (in fact some pro EU Tories may join the Liberals). However, if UKIP got say 25-30% of the vote they could well join a coalition with the Tories, if say the Tories got 25% of the vote, it depends on the arithmetic, under PR UKIP would get essentially their European Elections score (now polling about 26%) so almost a third of the vote, their votes could be key in tight votes. Under PR Labour would be on about 30%, the Greens on about 10% ie 40% and nowhere near a 50% plus majority on their own
Mr. Carnyx, the views of non-Scottish Britons are largely irrelevant when it comes to independence, but vital when it comes to negotiations in the event of a Yes.
I'd also argue (as it's my view) that it's an entirely rational view to be opposed to a currency union, north or south of the border.
We are entirely agreed on the first and second points, and, insofar as it is a perfectly tenable option, on the third point (that it is probably not the right one is another matter). It's just that views south of the border have swung so violently in opinion polls depending on whether they were before and after the media hysteria that it's hard to see them as settled. At least one poster on PB (can't recall if it was you, sorry if so) was genuinely astounded when I pointed out the supportive non-Scotland polling in favour of currency union before Mr O's visit to Edinburgh.
I'll be interested to see what a more mature consideration, in the event of a Yes vote, would bring (as with much else to do with the negotiation issue).
Comments
RodCrosby will be most upset that you haven't mentioned PR^2.
Though you are following official Conservative thinking there.
As the Cameroons were planning from the start on a coalition with the LibDems and as the LibDems would have political and electoral reform as top of their agenda the lack of preparation on these issues by the Cameroons was inexplicable.
They planned nothing, proposed nothing and achieved nothing on political and electoral reform instead of planning, proposing and achieving reforms which would have benefited the Conservatives.
Mind you, personally I am quite happy if they just carry on repeating the same old mistakes.
Ra ra ra! Go Dave! Go Dave! Ra ra ra!
For me, losing the thrill and drama of the gains/holds of election night, the cut & thrust of raw "for" or "against" political debate in the Commons and promises of big reforms/changes that are no longer possible to implement are serious obstacles to me embracing PR.
We would get a better approximation of votes to seats, and possibly better reflection of the electorate's views in the Commons. Just don't expect any dramatic change in the quality of our politics and engagement with our political system. Because that just wouldn't happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/inside-westminster-ukips-fortunes-could-brighten-in-the-european-elections-but-dont-expect-that-to-carry-on-in-2015-when-it-will-really-count-9221879.html
Ladbrokes are 1/2 LD 6/4 UKIP in the 2015 Most Vote Match Bet.. Ill lay 8/11 LDs for a bit of sport if anyones game
I said "returned to power" Jack, ie. they took over governance from another political party.
Anyway, guys, I gotta go. Reality beckons...
PS : a waste of your talents working for the wrong side
1/2 Farage
7/4 Clegg
Betting also available on Colour of tie (Nick Yellow 2/1f, Nige Purple/Pink EVSf) and 1st cliché (Brussels 8/1f)
David's argument is couched almost entirely in terms of what is best for the parties, not what is best for the country and the electorate.
The problems we see in politics today derive from parties having too much power over their MPs and being able to force them to vote against the best interests of their own constituents. We now have the terrible situation where priorities for MPs rank as personal then party then country.
Most forms of PR - certainly anything that includes proportionality between the parties - would simply increase the power of the parties over their MPs.
We should in fact be moving the other way, reducing the power of the parties, banning or severely limiting the power of the whips and making most votes in Parliament free votes.
A move towards adopting PR would be yet another nail in the coffin of real democratic accountability for MPs.
Rubs chin.
IMHO it is important that any inquiry not only investigates the crimes committed by both sides, but also tries to look for ways forward and reconciliation.
Will India's part in proceedings also be investigated?
Look folks!
The taffies are over-represented; the Scots are incompetent; and the Ulster-Scots are drunk confused. The only way to ensure fair governance is a per-resident constituency list (and Master Herdson has already lost this argument yonks-ago).
For every 125K of the population their should be a member: For modula we spannah one. Devolve responsibility to the nations regarding boundaries (and then the English can tell the Celtic C***s to freck-orf speak freely)!
Any objective assessment of "returned to power" is when a government offers themselves for election/re-election and are so elected. You meant returned a different government but failed to say so.
So your condescension was unnecessary. Enjoy your day.
On the plus side PR would once again give our major parties an interest in the whole country instead of "their" bit. So, on a PR system, the tories would move from their current 1 MP in Scotland to the 9-10 that their share of the vote would entitle them to.
In the same way Labour would have to remember that the south of England outside London actually exists and seek to address some of their issues. Politics would be more like it was pre 87 with each of the main parties comprised of members from around the country. This would undoubtedly be a good thing.
On the negative side there is a real risk that the broad churches of the main parties would break up and we would end up with coalitions of coalitions. The experience in some countries is that forming a government under such a system can take longer than the government itself lasts. It is certainly not a system for dynamic governance. Some PR countries seem to avoid this by tweaking the pureness of the PR but even Germany took months to agree a somewhat unsatisfactory grand alliance after their election.
Decisive government, even from minorities, is a good thing although do we really want a repeat of Blair in 2005 with a comfortable majority on 35%? That led to decisively the worst government in our recent history.
My suspicion is that a largeminority of those who vote UKIP in the next election would have put Tory as a second preferenceif AV had gone through. This won't happen now
I've posted on this forum on and off for 10 years now. In recent posts I've noticed an element of resentful agression in pro tory posters, exemplified by the disproportionate fuss made over me refering to Osborne as Gideon. Seems they are worried or is it just that I supported the tories in my pre 2010 posts?
As someone who has relations involved with this please do not paint it as Sihnalese vs Tamil battle; Ceylon is much more complex. Most 'corner-shops' are already on the radar...
- Some forms of PR *reduce* the power of parties: open lists and STV do for example, where voters can pick between candidates of a party. Even if a party bans a popular MP or candidate from standing under their flag, PR gives them a much better chance of being elected as an Independent than FPTP.
- Whips serve an essential purpose. While I share a scepticism of over-mighty governments, those governments still have to be accountable. How is that possible if an MP can go off and do whatever he/she wants? Who do you hold accountable for what the government does? On the flip side, why should parties support individuals who they cannot then expect to vote for their key policies? To remove whips is to remove the party structure altogether, which might undermine the government's power but would undermine the opposition's even more.
- I couched the argument in terms of party interest because it's very rare that parties will do something against their own interests and even rarer that a party will make a significant change against its interests. If the Conservative party was to adopt such a policy, a reasonable portion of it, including its leadership, would first need to believe in it being beneficial to both party and country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Political_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies
You have got form: Please do not ask for Morus and DC to have to put you back in "you'se" potty. You do understand that Auntie Hortence has already occupied 'The Attic', no...?
Though CR should have said 1966 as the last time Labour won a majority without having a Christian Democrat (domestic policy) / NeoCon (foreign policy) as leader. Indeed, 1966 was the second of only two times Labour's ever managed a workable majority with a leader from their own tradition.
To refer to him by his birth name is impolite. Why do you do it? There must be a reason.
But, as always, it is the *threat* of being kicked out that is important in keeping government close to the people's views in aggregate. Reducing the power of this threat encourages parties to deal with each other and develop a "consensus" which may or may not be aligned with the interests of the voters.
In Britain we elect individual constituency representatives who in theory should be answerable to their constituents. I would oppose anything that moves away from that.
Also, there is a demographic shift in that area towards the Conservatives, counterbalancing the move to Labour in seats like Edgbaston. I would say that means North Warwickshire is a lot less likely to be Labour's easiest gain than the raw figures imply.
I agree with the rest of your post entirely.
25% UKIP/BOO Tory
15% Cameroonist Tory
15% Liberals
30% Social Democrat
10% Assorted lefties/green
5% Nationalists
Let's say that this split is maintained over time.
I'd suspect that the UKIP/BOO Tory would never be invited to participate in government, despite there being a clear majority of right-leaning voters (55% vs 40%, excluding the nationalists). So the result would probably be a permanent Social Democrat/Assorted lefties/green government.
Your view that it is "big parties that supply PMs" only works when the big parties are in the centre.
The statement from C_R was :
"The last time Labour return to power (sans Blair) with a majority was, um, 1964."
........................................................................................................
Without wishing to be rudely pedantic it's simply factually incorrect and there was no mention of a viable working majority. Accordingly my point noting Oct 74 was accurate.
That is not a criticism. They are simply looking after their own national interests but it is certainly not as a result of their electoral system.
Bit frustrated by the qualifying result, Vettel had a real shot at pole and human error (his or the team's) cost him. On the other hand, the bet was technically green (less than £1, though, for a £10 stake).
Writing the pre-race piece now.
PR remains a vile system.
To take an example, let's suppose these were the results from a 6-member constituency (I'm using a smaller size for ease):
Lab1 - 18500
Lab2 - 12150
Lab3 - 15000
Lab4 - 17150
Lab5 - 11000
Lab-x - 25000
Con1 - 8500
Con2 - 6500
Con3 - 9000
Con4 - 5000
Con-x - 12000
LD1 - 12500
LD2 - 8750
LD-x - 5000
UKIP1 - 15150
UKIP2 - 12000
UKIP-x - 8000
Grn1 - 10000
The 'x' figures are where voters have chosen the party without specifying a candidate.
The overall scores would be:
Lab 98800
Con 41000
UKIP 35150
LD 26250
Grn 10000
Using D'Hondt, that would mean the seats would be allocated as Lab, Lab, Con, UKIP, Lab, LD. But, unlike closed lists, the candidates elected wouldn't be taken simply by reading down the list but in order of their own popularity within their own party's list.
So: Lab1, Lab4, Con3, UKIP1, Lab3, LD1.
An unpopular member of a party list would fail to win enough votes against his or her colleagues and would still be voted out even if their party was locally popular.
Interesting piece as always by David. Although I've been a member of the LDs and predecessor parties for over 30 years and strongly believe, as a system, STV is infinitely preferable to either AV or FPTP, I've also come to realise that the electoral system isn't really the point.
The much greater question is about the nature of politics itself - the modus operandi of parties and the disconnection felt by so many toward the political process. The reality is that in most instances you need a party machine (even if you call yourself Independent or Ratepayer) to get elected as it's physically impossible to get your message over to x thousand people.
Even a process of Open Primary is a choice between competing party members and if winning the Primary becomes more important than winning the election wither or whither the democratic process ?
Whether it's through a single party (as in Britain and the US), two parties (Germany and arguably Denmark) or a bloc of parties, there is almost always an adversarial "right" or "left" formation - politics wouldn't be the same if we all agreed on everything ?
The problem then is elected representatives of the people have to function both as that and as members of the party that got them elected. That creates a tension when a Party policy is unpopular with the majority of the electors. Yet democracy is not about populism - we see it on here when supporters luxuriate in high opinion poll ratings almost as a virility symbol. Being popular isn't the same as being right and while the dictator can do unpopular things because he has the force of the State to support him, the democrat has to try to persuade the electorate that the policy is right.
I don't have any answers as you can tell but we need to re-define what political parties are or should be about, what kind of elected representatives we want to have and how we want them to engage with us whether it be by Swiss-style referenda or more informal US "town hall" meetings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26791763
There would be a probably terminal political price for a unionist party that backpedalled on the issue.
It could also be part of a reforming government which commands support from Lab and L/Ds and could be a foundation stone of a Lab-L/D coalition.
http://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/
I know the vast majority of MPs are hard-working people who will do whatever they can for their constituents but to what extent are they much more than a "super-councillor" who can take on the local authority or other agencies with more clout than the individual ?
Of course, it shouldn't matter if your politics and those of your MP diverge but that isn't in and of itself an argument for the negation of large numbers of votes and the lack of representation of the same.
Having a member of Parliament to whom I can go if I have a problem shouldn't come at the cost of having my vote count for nothing but that's how it is under the current system. Given the overwhelming desire for a reduction in the number of MPs, it's going to be even harder for an MP to "cover" a constituency of 120,000 electors or more in the future.
If we always have coalitions that means always having negotiations and manifesto promises being tossed overboard. If I vote for party X because of a certain promise and they ditch it because party Y dislike it there's a clear problem. And if the coalition has a certain non-manifesto policy which is rubbish, which party is held responsible?
PR means local conditions don't matter, so, as suggested below, we would have more smaller parties, each arguing for their pound of flesh in negotiations to form a government. It would not be people electing governments, but elected politicians deciding who should form governments.
Even at 500 MP's we are at 92K.
The old East Germany continues to have a radically different profile, with an aging and shrinking and less productive workforce, but now the old West is losing patience with the huge cross-subsidies provided to the East after reunification. At the same time, Germany struggles with the same immigration-based challenges as the rest of Western Europe. Germany is no pillar of social cohesion.
However the point was when did Labour last achieve a majority government before Blair. The answer is Oct 74.
3 member constituency = 210,000 voters
4 member constituency = 280,000 voters
5 member constituency = 350,000 voters
6 member constituency = 420,000 voters
The BBC Scottish politics postings cannot be compared, because the public are banned from comment on (most) BBC Scotland politics stories! However, there was a very marked difference in 'clientele' BTL in the days before BBC Scotland panicked and cut the comments.
3 HOURS AGO
A viable independent country wouldn't need to use someone else's currency.
I really cannot see why "independent" Scotland wants the rUK to run its economic policy. Independence means independence, any rUK backtracking on this would lose all credibility, which is why this unamed "minister" is not willing to go public.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=drive_web
200/1 for UKIP in Cannock Chase isn't right IMO. Ought to be something like 50/1. They got 25% of the vote in last year's local elections, the same as the Tories, with Labour on 40%.
I'd also argue (as it's my view) that it's an entirely rational view to be opposed to a currency union, north or south of the border.
Under a PR system the most important thing is being number 1 on the party list which means the party view of you is more important than the public's. I know people talk about open list PR but I'll believe that when I see it.
You would be able to vote for a party within the bloc to ensure that party has the maximum strength within the new Coalition - the current UK Coalition is dominated by the 305 Conservatives as against the 57 LD MPs - had the numbers been 205 and 157, the Coalition would look very different.
Maximising the vote for your party maximises its bargaining power - I would also contend that most individuals have difficulty with one or more policy of the party they support at one time. That's life - there's no such thing as the perfect party with which you are always in agreement - it depends whether the policy with which you disagree is a deal-breaker in terms of your support.
The other thing that should be done is that central government should fund any mandated obligations through central funding. Local taxes should be solely for local items where policies are set locally rather than, say, social care where policy is set nationally and funded locally. As a result local voters should be able to draw a clear line between what they are charged in council tax and the composition of their local council and determine what they want to do accordingly.
That then makes the local party the arbiter of local democracy and drives a coach and horses through such language as "in theory should be answerable to the constituents"
Multi-member constituencies are a perfect excuse for our representatives to say it is nothing to do with them. With such a system you would effectively reduce MP recognition and accountability to that of MEPs.
I would have no problem with a system that had single member constituencies with AV or STV but again anything that actually gave proportionality to parties is, for me, utterly anti-democratic.
All votes should be free votes and a government should win them through force of argument not bribery and blackmail as they do currently. The current whips system is utterly corupt and needs to be swept away.
Oh and your last sentence was incorrect.
" If the Conservative party was to adopt such a policy, a reasonable portion of it, including its leadership, would first need to believe in it being beneficial to both party and country."
should have ended "beneficial to the party." If it turns out to beneficial to the country as well that is usually purely coincidental.
And that is not picking on the Tories. The same applies to all the other parties as well.
I'll be interested to see what a more mature consideration, in the event of a Yes vote, would bring (as with much else to do with the negotiation issue).
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?