Thought of the Day
May 8th, 2010 @ 22:11 | permalink
To those people currently demanding we immediately switch to using PR in general elections: PR is what gave the BNP two MEPs last June. Were you also amongst those protesting against the system back then? If so, please kindly make your fucking minds up. Else put up and shut up.
Demelza added…
May 9th, 2010 @ 10:54 | permalink
And that's in a system which isn't used to PR. I think we'd see a fragmentation of voting patterns, with all manner of petulant minority would be kingmakers.
Replacing the tyranny of the majority with the even more insidious tyranny of the minority. We have a bit of that at the moment with the Scottish Labour party wagging the English Dog. Imagine how bad it would be if we got a Lab-Lib pact that required support from the various nationalists to have a majority? All they'd have to do is threaten to pull out and there will be vast wads of cash (extracted from the already overburdened English taxpayer) flying in their direction before you can say election.
A Con-Lib deal might be an utter nightmare or it may reign in the social authoritarians on the Tory side and the economic socialists on the Lib Dem side and make a good fist of it. We shall have to see.
Jess-i-ca added…
May 9th, 2010 @ 12:56 | permalink
FPTP has served us well for a long time, but the whole thing needs a revamp.
~ why can't I vote separately for the person I want to represent me locally, and the party/person I want to run the country?
~ West Lothian question
~ fixed term parliments
If the price of electoral reform is that BNP, Respect or assorted other minorities get a bit more profile then so be it. I think the majority of the British public, including those who are currently too apathetic to vote, are wise enough to know when these fringes form a danger and to vote against them having any real political clout. So we get a few BNP MEPs or a Respect MP? Long term, what power do they have?
How do you mean locally? You already have several levels of local(-ish) government. Parish (not always), town/borough and country (unless you are in a unitary like Southend). Add to that the national governments in Westminster and Brussels.
With regards to parties I'd like to see the death of them - or at least an end to their current existence as monolithic entities and instead have shifting groupings of people who are of similar minds on issues but which last only so long as the issue is under discussion. No more party whips trying to discourage independent thought amongst the lobby fodder.
As for the nagging West Lothian question. Personally I'd like to see a proper devolution rather than the half-arsed version we have. The regions (England, Wales, Scotland, NI) should be left to run their own internal affairs and no MP for one of the regions is allowed to have a vote on something which doesn't affect their region. One set of MPs spending most of their time on regional business but meeting up at certain points of the year (or in an emergency) to discuss matters affecting the entire union.
In theory fixed terms parliaments are a good idea - removing as they do the ability of a government to go to the country when it feels it has the best chance of success (or hanging on until the last possible moment like Major in '97 or Brown this year). But what about situations like '79 when a government loses a vote of confidence? Do we go to the polls in the middle of a term, does someone else get a shot or does the loser stay in place until the term expires? Also will fixed terms mean we get election campaigns rivalling those of the USA which (seem) to go on for years?
If we are going to swap FPTP for some form of PR then which is it to be? The Euro elections use PR and as a result the voters are separated from their MPs by use of the party list and (meaning the MEPs are usually people who the party hierarchy wants) and are distant from their huge constituencies. Can anyone name more than one of their MEPs off the top of their head? Or do we go for the system used in Scotland, Wales and London of constituencies plus another set based on the percentage of the vote obtained? Can any system in the end be described as 'fairer' than the others?
One change I would like to see is more uniform sized constituencies. By head of the population Scotland, Wales and the inner cities are grossly overrepresented in Westminster giving them undue influence and currently providing the Labour party with the ability to hang on. Obviously they'd be one or two places (such as the IoW and the Western Isles) where it would be an impractical but it should be possible on the mainland.
Electoral reform sounds good but it is an exercise that will require thought and deliberation rather being another ill thought out, hastily rushed item like so much recent legislation. It would be nice to hope that the Lib Dems as principle proponents of electoral reform are aware that it isn't something that can be done overnight.
…
Taking the current situation at face value it looks like the Lib Dems - or at least those outside of the leadership - want to have their cake and eat it. Let them. Let's see how they cope with electoral oblivion if they are seen to be propping up an unwanted and discredited government as part of a so called 'progressive collation' (the very thought of which makes me want to find the sick bucket) that will be an unstable nightmare that'll collapse fairly rapidly - especially when the Lib Dems discover that the Labour party aren't exactly in favour of PR either.
Fancy joining in?
Text Formatting
The comment form only accepts MarkDown Syntax. Any (X)HTML will be removed. A basic guide to MarkDown is given below and a more through one can be accessed via the links provided.