Lib Dems doing well - but do we really want a change in electoral system?

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Just a thought....

If you were employing someone for a job, would you give it to someone with no experience?

Happens all the time or we would run out of workers Oh you were talking about the Tories

torontoboy45

StevieJ wrote: »

Of course the LibDems have still to overcome the potential undermining by the media, is this fair ?


Lib Dems slip back in polls

Three quarters of the article based on one poll and this slipped in at the end

But three other polls suggest the surge which followed Nick Clegg's runaway victory in the first debate is not receding completely.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100425/tuk-lib-dems-slip-back-in-polls-dba1618.html

have you noticed just how hysterical the media has become over the last few days? sheer panic and desperation across the spectrum.
cleggy starts to look like mr. alternative and murdoch's rottweilers (amongst others) start to foam.
the biggest laugh I've had so far comes courtesy of the Sun, which commissioned a poll which found, to murdoch's horror, that the voters appear not to fear an LD gov. - so the Sun didn't publish! priceless.

hugheskevi

I wonder how many people actually support a change in electoral systems, even if they are Lib Dem supporters in other ways?

I am no Lib Dem supporter but would support electoral reform. I live in such a strong Labour seat that voting is pointless, in fact, they may as well not bother having an election in this borough The voting system should make every vote equal, not dramatically favour the votes of people living in marginals.

Just a thought....

If you were employing someone for a job, would you give it to someone with no experience?

No. Although if the choice was someone without experience or someone who had a proven track record of failure I might be tempted to take a punt on the inexperienced candidate.

"A weak currency arises from a weak economy, which in turn is the result of a weak government." - Gordon Brown 1992

£/$ May 1997=1.65, now=1.54
£/China May 1997=13.65, now=10.5
£/Yen May 1997=202.4, now=144.7

A._Badger

The 'Tory Press' record is a tired cliche. At least we have a choice not to buy Murdoch's rags or the Mail, none of which have even a quarter the clout of the poll tax-funded BBC, which has been actively campaigning on a 'Lib-Dem or Labour - anything but the Conservatives' platform for over a decade.

If you want to hear media hysteria, listen to yesterday's Any Questions on Radio 4, for which the BBC had, clearly, bussed-in a whooping, screecing audience from Labour HQ.

Personally, I think Poppinjay (above) is thinking along the right lines. We need to proscribe political parties altogether. They inevitably lead to bully-boy government, where the nastiest rise to the top and dictate policy to the lower ranks, who trot into whichever lobby they are instructed, like lambs to the slaughter.

Another interesting idea would be a Swiss-style Canton system (again, with party groupings banned).

If people are serious about democracy, then (to misquote Gandhi) it's time we tried it.

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

The 'Tory Press' record is a tired cliche. .

Maybe if you dig deep enough

So the recovery can cope with a significant fiscal tightening, particularly when the world economy is strong. That, however, is not the only risk. Kenneth Clarke is one of my favourite politicians and I have never really seen him as an attack dog. I am prepared to believe, when he warned a hung parliament could mean Britain calling in the IMF, it was with a twinkle in his eye. He was in the Commons in the 1970s and knows that when Britain did call in the IMF in 1976 we did not have a hung parliament and that the balance-of-payments support Britain required then is not needed now. Economic crises in Britain are no respecter of majorities. Sometimes, as in 1931, a coalition government was the political solution to the crisis.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article7107164.ece

poppingjay

torontoboy45 wrote: »

have you noticed just how hysterical the media has become over the last few days? sheer panic and desperation across the spectrum.
cleggy starts to look like mr. alternative and murdoch's rottweilers (amongst others) start to foam.
the biggest laugh I've had so far comes courtesy of the Sun, which commissioned a poll which found, to murdoch's horror, that the voters appear not to fear an LD gov. - so the Sun didn't publish! priceless.

I allowed myself an hysterical chuckle at this one, it would be so funny if it wasn't real life. But fortunately only a few more weeks of this 'Britain's got an Election' farce to go, then regardless of who wins, everything will continue just as before. It's a Punch and Judy show costume change at half time...nothing to see here.

carolt

hugheskevi wrote: »

I am no Lib Dem supporter but would support electoral reform. I live in such a strong Labour seat that voting is pointless, in fact, they may as well not bother having an election in this borough The voting system should make every vote equal, not dramatically favour the votes of people living in marginals.

The point I was trying to get at, is how many people actually favour a change to proportional representation, as this poster clearly does, for reasons they describe.

On the positive side, yes, it clearly means every vote counts.

BUT on the other hand, it can often mean in practice that small minority parties are the power brokers in an election, and thus the far right/left parties, religious or nationalist parties often hold undue influence in countries where it is practiced.

Plus you lose the connection of an MP to a constituency which you have under our current system - in PR, as I understand it, you just get whatever % of MPs that party wins off a long list - the one assigned to your area may live nowhere near it and have no local knowledge/interest at all.

Personally, I favour keeping our first past the post system - although I'm sad it keeps, say the Greens out of power, it does a pretty good job of keeping the BNP out of power too. And my MP has local accountability.


Also, re the other electoral issue, the reform of the House of Lords, I'm not at all sure a directly elected second chamber is the solution. I mean, it's not as if our directly elected first chamber did such a good job, is it? Not at all sure that the traditional inherited titled haven't done a better job than the new appointees.


Thoughts on this?

kabayiri

carolt wrote: »

Plus you lose the connection of an MP to a constituency which you have under our current system - in PR, as I understand it, you just get whatever % of MPs that party wins off a long list - the one assigned to your area may live nowhere near it and have no local knowledge/interest at all.

Thoughts on this?

How does this work when you get a politician parachuted into your constituency, because it considered a 'safe seat'?

Doesn't this imply that the parties consider national interest to take precedence over local selection?

carolt

I agree, it's not a perfect system, but surely better than one where there is no local link at all?

hugheskevi

Personally, I favour keeping our first past the post system - although I'm sad it keeps, say the Greens out of power, it does a pretty good job of keeping the BNP out of power too. And my MP has local accountability.

There are many formats of proportional representation (PR), eg you can have PR with the restriction that only parties achieving, say, 5% or more of the vote get seats. That avoids marginal/extreme parties such as the BNP getting representation from a small smattering of votes across the country. If they achieve 5%+, well, that's a democracy and you just have to accept the will of the people.

Personally I favour some form of PR, but have no strong view on what exactly which type of PR and would welcome a sensible debate around that. I am a bit skeptical of the transferrable vote type elections - I think simplicity should be an objective in itself, but open to the arguments for and against.

Also, re the other electoral issue, the reform of the House of Lords, I'm not at all sure a directly elected second chamber is the solution. I mean, it's not as if our directly elected first chamber did such a good job, is it? Not at all sure that the traditional inherited titled haven't done a better job than the new appointees.

I agree that an elected chamber is not the solution.

The quality of debate in the Lords is vastly superior to that of the Commons, which tends to be dull party-politics. Some of the Commons committees and especially Select Committees can be good though.

Personally I am quite happy for unelected veteran politicians, lawyers, clergy, etc, to be in the Lords.

And one thing I would be very much in favour of are to make all votes in the Commons anonymous - let the strength of debate win the day, not whether you are blue or red.