Will Gord’s voting reform plan look like an act of desperation?
June 9th, 2009
The overwhelming problem for Brown and his minsters in proposing electoral reform is that it looks like a reaction to Labour’s historic defeat at the polls in the Euro Parliament elections. It has the appearance of an act of desperation.
For it was only two nights ago that the party was getting the terrible news about a total collapse of support in virtually every part of the country. So why start talking about the voting system now?
If Labour had been really serious about the issue then the time to go forward would have been after its historic 1997 landslide when provision for looking at change was included in the manifesto. That got dropped after Labour saw the fruits of first past the post and was never reinstated.
So what’s the point of tomorrow’s announcement? Is it another one of Gord’s great wheezes to create dividing lines between him and the Tories? The only problem about these, of course, is that Brown has a history of falling flat on his face. Remember the 10p tax band fiasco or, more recently, his ludicrous YouTube piece on MP expenses.
He’s going to be asked if he’s trying to fix the system so Labour can cling onto power. That’s a highly damaging accusation and Brown, if he follows his usual approach will deny the glaringly obvious, which could further undermine his standing.
I sometimes wonder whether there is anybody at Number 10 who has the confidence and authority to tell the PM that he’s making a prat of himself.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Yes.
First!
Second preference - Second!
1st?
No
4. Roger has opined. The result is clear…
There will be “debate”, but nothing else will come of it unless there is a co-alition including the Liberal Democrats.
It looks desperate and sleezy.
Besides, he will not be able to get it through.
Besides, the idea that the Lib and Labour Left can dominate a PR system has just been demonstrated false by the Euro elections.
You may be right Mike.
If however it is a substantive measure to introduce Electoral Reform after a referendum, I’m sure you will give the Yes Campaign your support, as your party will do.
From last thread:
Yawn, Tim. I’ll try and explain this to you as slowly as possible.
Nearly EVERY voting system has ’safe seats’. If it is List PR, those at the top of the list will nearly always be safe. Even if it is ‘open list’, there will be at least some representatives of that party ’safe,’ probably coming down to name recognition (alongside STV).
AV does not necessarily make ’safe’ constituencies ‘unsafe.’ Bootle, Kensington and Chelsea, Manchester Central and South Staffordshire are going to still safely go to the top party, because the candidate tends to get over 50% on the first count. In Witney in 2005, Cameron scored 49.3%. I defy you to tell me that Cameron’s position as MP for Witney would not be safe under AV. It is probably as safe as houses. The big impact AV would have would be on marginals and semi-solid seats. But the countryside is still likely to return Tory MPs, and the inner cities are still likely to return Labour MPs. All AV would do is add a few more ‘marginals’ into the equation.
.. On thread. Is the Pope a Catholic?
Of course it is. It is the desperate last resort to fix the political system to try and save Browns bankrupt and corrupt party.
re 7. The party still feels bitter about what Blair did.
Of course we will campaign strongly provided its the right form of fair votes.
lol@2
7 Tim you are akin to Roger, you are always wrong, just like your loathsome party is always wrong.
4. The great Roger has spoken! Browns not going to put the case for electoral reform back 30 years. He’s going tp put it back 50 years!
The MSM will savage this proposal as a blatant attempt to cheat after appalling election results. Brown could not be announcing such a proposal at a worse time for Labour and actually I think it might restart leadership grumblings immediately.
There is nothing wrong with the current system other than some constituencies are too small
it is simple and understandable
over time so called safe seats can become marginal and vice versa - if a party wants to win power then it needs to win in marginal areas
Labour will do anything that they think will give them an electoral advantage
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it’s probabaly a ….
Daily Rant out the starting boxes,
“Would you buy a constitution from this man? Brown pledges to rebuild Britain’s democracy and signals end to ‘first-past-the-post’ polls”
The other problem being that he only has about 7 loyal people left and some of them are opposed.
Jack Straw hates it. Blunkett does too.
Is this the right party for an argument?
7. Interesting what the Lib Dems have to say on this.
AV would benefit them (probably) as they would be the ‘tactical vote’ for a lot of people and AV is essentially enforced tactical vote. They could hope to get 10-20 more MPs under such a system.
But it is not proportional. They will not score relative to their vote percentage.
The big question is - do they sell their principles for political advantage and a few more MPs under a disproportional system, or do they withold and demand the whole hog - the STV they have always craved?
I wonder if Gordo would have been elected by his party under any form of AV. .. Tsk silly me, no other candidate was allowed to stand.
Hampshire County Councils election vote-share:
Con 185608 46.85%
Libdems 134198 33.87%
Lab 36194 9.14%
UKIP 23844 6.02%
Green 6947 1.75%
EDP 4200 1.06%
Ind 3822 0.96%
BNP 1386 0.35%
No. it’ll look and be a waste of time.
It is an act of desperation and unfairness in my opinion, but will the public see it like that? The answer depends on:
a) Media reaction
b) Other Parties reactions
c) The anti PR element in Labour’s reaction
I remember being told at a lecture c1999 that in 1997 AV would have produced a more heavily skewed result (I think 430+ Labour and c135 Conservatives), but would be interested to see if anybody has figures on this.
Also If I were a Scottish Labour MP I would be wary as Labour are so unpopular in Scotland at the momenet there would be massive anti-Labour tactical voting.
19. I would probably reluctantly vote for it as a stepping-stone to STV, although I would be holding my nose when doing so.
The expenses scandal touched a nerve and so there is a mood to change things. In some ways it’s unfortunate for Labour that they did so badly because it will invite the sort of criticism that Mike is making.
So, rather strong Mike I think and if you do continue the one-sided tirade against Labour you are making a prat of yourself. You should be much more balanced e.g. asking whether a sub-40% Tory vote is definitely going to see them home. Some perspective needed. You’re beginning to get like Guido, and that’s not a compliment.
As posted on the last thread In terms of the politics it is probably net negative for Brown for the reasons Mike lays out. However there are some potential positives.
Positive - He gets on the front foot and gets to talk about change. Electoral reform appeals to a subsection of voters on the liberal-left. He gets to set the agenda and change the topic of conversation.
In reply to GIN on the last thread. I understand that the timing looks (and is) bad and for that reason is probably bad politics. But on the substance of the change it:
A) Would be unlikely to result in a partisan Labour advantage for the reasons Ted (not a supporter of the govt. as I understand it) explains in the previous thread.
B) Would only happen after a referendum.
Conservatives will criticise it for the timing - that is good politics - but looking at the substance it is not clear what the objection is.
Where can I find a complete list of government ministers, down to the very junior ranks and PPSs?
For someone who is so found of playing ‘I’m a celebrity, get me in here’ with the HoL, he’s a fine one to talk about democratic renewal. It’s almost funny.
As a staunch supporter of fair votes, if Brown is proposing a referendum on voting reform, then he can get lost. If the question was enacting that 1+1=2 he would lose. The only way for a referendum to get approved is for Brown to oppose it.
I’m reposting kierans contribution from the previous thread, as it sums up the Tory outrage, which is pant cacking dressed up as politics.
Really confused at the Tory outrage.
How is this undemocratic in any way? It will only happen after a referendum. If people don’t want it they will vote against it.
How is this an attempt at partisan advantage? Labour benefits most from FPTP, changing the system will likely hurt them as Ted has argued.
How is it a ‘coup d’etat’? It is highly unlikely to be implemented before the next election.
There is a debate to be had on whether AV is a better system than FPTP but the idea that this is a sinister plot to overturn the will of the people is absurd.
by Kieran June 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
24. Surely, however, changing the voting system once will probably leave it entrenched for at least 50 years.
You won’t get a change to STV any time soon if AV comes in. There will be little political will to change it again.
re 19 The LDs will not accept AV and will be very wary about dealing with this lame duck government and lame duck prime minister. Also Clegg is a lot smarter than Brown.
Does he look comfortable in this pic ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm I think not.
19. As a lib dem who joined the libs in 1979 because of its PR policy I’d say that Clegg will tell Brown to stuff AV where the sun doesn’t shine.
25 - yes, whether the Tories are 2% off a landslide majority in a poll conducted days after 40% of people have just voted for ‘other’ parties is far more important than Labour crashing and burning at everything while simultaneously trying to stay in power forever.
31. I am not so sure… A change from AV to STV requires nothing more than a boundary review; it is not a revolutionary change.
“So what’s the point of tomorrow’s announcement? Is it another one of Gord’s great wheezes to create dividing lines between him and the Tories?”
A dividing line that he hopes will see the Libdems torn as they were during the Lisbon Treaty vote in the HoC’s. Do they back Brown’s proposals, and in doing so, lose that much needed equidistant required so close to a GE? This is a dividing line that the Conservatives will be delighted to be seen to oppose right now. Much bigger headache for the Libdems IMHO, especially in Scotland after the 2007 voting fiasco. STV excites activists in some parties, but it doesn’t set the heather on fire with the voters.
“He’s going to be asked if he’s trying to fix the system so Labour can cling onto power. That’s a highly damaging accusation and Brown, if he follows his usual approach will deny the glaringly obvious, which could further undermine his standing.
I sometimes wonder whether there is anybody at Number 10 who has the confidence and authority to tell the PM that he’s making a prat of himself.”
Mike, as I said on the other thread, the timing of this is beyond parody. Brown will destroy credibility of his party for god knows how long.
30. Tim, I couldn’t care less if there’s a new voting system: I may not like it, but I don’t believe this media-inspired posturing that the Tories would never hold power under a PR system, for instance. The electorate have a funny knack of getting what they want (or deserve) in elections.
It is the timing I find repugnant here.
30
Tim no original thought of your own.. no I thought not, you are just as devoid of thought as the Labour Party is. Let Gordo try it and see how far it gets. I’d like to see Gordo argue that it was unfair that Labour won 3 elections on FPTP and suddenly when they are in the sh*t they want to change the system… I think the electorate will understand the motivation behind it all.
Tim.
The problem is corrupt behaviour of MPs, not the electoral system.
We had a case of AV recently at a local by-election in Aberdeenshire where the Tory candidate polled the most votes, 31.47%, but the Lib Dem candidate only polled 26.66% on 1st preferences but won on the 5th count when an Independent candidate was elminated and his 2nd preference were distributed.
1) Gold
2) Shredded Wheat
3) Golf balls
4) A Knuckle Duster
5) Scabies
I want to vote for 1) Gold - therefore it is my first choice. Of the remainder, I do not want Shredded Wheat, I do not play golf and I am not violent so knuckle dusters are no good. However, I am worried about an outbreak of scabies so I rank 2, 4 and 3 in that order as blockers.
My prejudice against a good bout of scabies has made me randomly rank things I do not care a jot for.
AV is not democracy - its the politics of class warfare enshrined into law.
When the announcement is made, won’t people just wonder what the *%#! he’s talking about and what it has to do with any of their actual concerns?
23. You’re right that the media reaction is key. If it is very hostile it will once again raise questions about Brown’s judgement and also his honesty since this is clearly his latest fad (no doubt there are loads of historical quotes where he rubbishes electoral reform}. The law of unintended consequences tells me that this will raise leadership doubts afresh.
37 - I think that is over the top. If this gets to a referendum it will either pass or fall. Two years latter nobody will care. Labour may be out of government for 20 years, but it won’t be because they proposed AV.
re 25. I’m not anti-Labour just anti-Brown who I consider to be the worst PM of my lifetime.
41. And? That is how the system is intended to work…
The timing is repugnant? Did you miss the recent expenses scandal then?
36. It IS a revoluntionary change because it would introduce (rough) proportionality. FPTP and AV are disproportionate systems.
Once the voting system is changed once, I kid you not, all political will for future change will be killed stone dead for decades. Stable politics does not operate under a banner of “oooh, in 2005 we’ll use FPTP… then maybe go in for a bit of AV in 2010… and, hey, let’s try out STV in 2014…”
Look how long it took (and probably will still take) to replace FPTP. We’ve been using it for 200+ years. It may not take that long to change AV, but you have to admit once the system is reformed a large amount of politicians and people are going to sit back and think “right, job done, that’s safe for 50 years…”
Wouldn’t it be easier for Brown to simply outlaw the Conservative Party, or disbar it from standing for parliamentary elections?
It would be more honest.
Darn tootin’
47 - and what?
25- “In some ways it’s unfortunate for Labour that they did so badly because it will invite the sort of criticism that Mike is making.”
Your statement reveals that you believe it is merely a coincidence that Labour is suddenly seeking to overturn the electoral system at the very moment that they stand on the brink of annihilation, as revealed by last week’s election. I don’t think many people here share your opinion that there is no connection between the two.
41.Marcia, still hearing about it on the doorstep when I was delivering the Euro stuff. I know why are our candidate won the FPTP vote against a Libdem who had a surname that had bigger recognition in the area.
O/T, but swine flu appears to be on the march again…
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sharp-increase-in-number-of-swine-flu-deaths-414194.html
From Conhome
The text of the initial Conservative reaction is as follows:
“With his call to change the electoral system it is clear the Prime Minister is trying to change the rules because he thinks he will lose. If Gordon Brown is as concerned about democratic renewal as he says he is there is an easy way to fix that, call a General Election now.”
39 - Tim no original thought of your own
I proposed this last week actually, Mark Thatcher Fan
This is truly hilarious.
Brown has proven himself completely inept.
AV will hurt Labour just as much as the Tories, if not a fraction more. Tories will scoop up UKIP second votes by the boatload, as well as enough LDs to largely compensate for Labour’s gains from them.
If, on the other hand (and more likely), it’s just an attempt at creating a dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives, then the idea is even more bizarre, since the timing and “surprise announcement” nature of the proposal makes it look like gerrymandering even though the effect would not be.
Besides, the general public generally accepts FPTP/plurality winners.
So it’s bad politics on two levels, as well as unnecessary. Another Brown masterpiece!
Shredded Wheat isn’t as nice as gold, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with Shredded Wheat!
WILL SOME PEOPLE HERE CALM THE F*CK DOWN AND STOP MAKING tim LOOK SENSIBLE.
Not terribly keen on AV and certainly not STV !!!
My own preference would be one of the forms of AMS or MMP used in Scotland, Germany or New Zealand.
Oops. Backpedal lads ….!!!!!
I appear to have set the cats among the pigeons. I reported earlier that the prime minister is set to announce tomorrow that changing the voting system for general elections will be examined as part of a package of proposals to reform Britain’s political system.
Just to be clear: the prime minister’s statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system. It will instead call for a debate on whether the electoral system should be changed and which new system could be adopted.
In a statement to MPs tomorrow, Mr Brown will say that there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made. Earlier today, he chaired a meeting of the new Democratic Renewal Council - a group of ministers - which agreed to consider moving towards a new system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/06/a_call_for_deba.html
53 - but in the end the candidate with greatest overall support within the ward won.
42 - The advantage of AV is that it allows voters to express their preferences.
Say that I am very left-wing (or right-wing). There are the following candidates in the election:
Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
Green
I want to vote for the Greens but it is a Labour / Conservative marginal. I prefer Labour to the Conservatives. Under AV I get to vote for the Greens without making an unfavourable outcome more likely (a Conservative victory). This would apply to a Conservative in a Labour / Liberal Democrat marginal.
It is not enforced tactical voting - you can just express one preference and if the London Mayoral election is an indication (SV slightly different but similar) many will.
The downside of AV is that it magnifies the winners premium, making big majorities more likely.
I hate to say it, but I think Richard upthread has a point - Mike is showing his antiBrown petticoats. This is the third or fourth tirade in a row against the Dear Leader. It starts to feel one-sided.
And yes I know this is Mike’s blog but he doesn’t want to get a reputation for ranting.
Ontopic - not necessarily desperation, but it will certainly look feeble and slippery. A beaten leader suggesting a bending of the rules. Not good.
Moreover, it will be easily picked apart by the media: why are you doing this now, why not before, is it cause you are losing, why wasn’t it in your manifesto, why should we believe any of your promises. Etc.
A weak gesture by a weak man.
3 hours. Is that a record for one of Gordo’s great ideas to fall apart?
Well Janet Daley has made her mind up:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/janet_daley/blog/2009/06/09/gordon_brown_tries_to_rig_the_voting_system
58- JackW
AMS or MMP?
But who will the jacobite party include in its coalition? the OMRLP?
From BBC:- ” Mr Brown will say there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made to the voting system. ”
Sweet baby jesus, you couldn’t make it up could you?… if he says that with a straight face, he’s a better actor than Blair.
59 - Booooo.
Relax herd boys, get your trousers laundered.
42. There is also the problem that the people voting for minor parties get the option of having their voice heard twice.
“Meh, we want UKIP, but twist our arms and we’ll take Tory as a second option.”
It is those UKIP voters who may control the power to elect the Tory MP on a SECOND vote. The people who voted Tory on a FIRST vote had no such power to transfer their second preferences.
I’m still not entirely sure what the democratic reasoning is for making second (and third, and fourth) preferences vital and, when it comes to the crux of the count, equal to the first preferences of the top candidates.
59 - thank you for posting that link.
I guess even Brown isn’t [i]quite[/i] as nuts as I assumed in 56. Close, though…
Yes. It’s dreadful timing. As a supporter of electoral reform I ought to be annoyed or depressed but it’s been a long day and all I can do is laugh.
This proposal will be shot down by the simple statement: “Labour only want to change the voting system because they think they’ll lose”. That will resonate deafeningly, because it’s blindingly obviously true.
The time to introduce this kind of measure is when you have just won under the old system. All Brown needs is a time machine back to 1998.
@tim: you’re showing the same grasp for your party’s interests as the PLP did last night. PR would make it much harder - maybe impossible - for the Conservatives to achieve a stand=alone majority, but it would make absolutely and eternally impossible for Labour to do so. Under PR there will be no Labour ‘crusade’. Coalitions don’t do crusades. I suspect, though, you would have something bigger to worry about, namely government by a centre-right coalition for the next zillion years.
Is that like a referendum on Lisbon?
not much of a connection between FPTP and the expenses scandal - i think the electorate will find it odd that electoral reform is the answer to stop the abuse of second home allowances by government ministers - voting reform that looks like a change in the rules to help the same ministers hang on
Labour can announce any policy they like and see if it runs. But 1 day after he told the plp he was listening and going to change, he announces another policy to the nation, not in parliament, but to Robinson.
Only 24 hours and he’s ignored his mp’s again.
68. That is why STV is better… your vote moves along until it elects someone…
As pointed out earlier, this is what happens when you try and announce these cunning stunts via the state broadcaster instead of standing up in Parliament and having a debate. Gordon is a numpty.
65 Chris. I draw the line at the Officials of the OMRLP - Far too sensible. The loony wing of the old Tories has much to commend it !!
I wasn’t freaking out.
57 yes, but I don’t want Shredded Wheat, I want Gold, I am merely using Shredded Wheat as a blocker against Scabies (because I am a tribal Goldist and we hate the Scabies, nasty bunch) - my vote for Shredded Wheat in place 2 is a negative vote, I have no positive feelings whatsoever for it - it therefore should not get returned on the back of my negative vote (or anyone elses)
I am more than happy to vote in a referendum on a properly considered series of options for reform - that is not however what is being offered. The referendum will require 50% support and a minimum turnout requirement, if that passes, so be it - but given the enormity of changing how we elect a government and our representatives, it deserves rather more than a quickie meeting and announcement-by-toenails
Brown’s overall record as C of the E and PM is arguably not at all bad. But his record as a canny politician is pants. In terms of party politics, leadership and public perception his instincts seem to be universally bad.
If it was Tony Blair proposing something like this I think everbody would be frantically trying to work out what he was up to and exactly how this particular wheeze was going to beneift Labour and keep Blair in power.
But this is Brown. This is probably a cunning plan from the Baldrick school.
Who is going to vote Labour in the hope of getting any sort of PR? Nobody! There are plenty of other alternatives who have long supported PR.
What will labour activitists think? They have just seen a PR system in action (Labour 16% and seats for the BNP). Yes, I know that is a different PR system, but explaining all that is just the first problem.
Dear old Gordon will soon be proclaiming the merits of fixed term parliaments - ten year ones no doubt - visit to the Queen delayed by five years.
“Earlier today, he chaired a meeting of the new Democratic Renewal Council - a group of ministers - which agreed to consider moving towards a new system.”
The man just takes the piss with everything he does. The ‘Democratic Renewal Council’ is just a rubber-stamping by selected members of the Cabinet. No outside expertise, no view from opposition parties. It’s like the North Korean Parliament.
The media, now that it didn’t get what it wanted, Brown Out, and it made people like Ankles Kavanagh look stupid, because he told his readers he would be gone by Monday, they will do anything to get him out.
Every policy brought forward, whether it is a change in policy or not, will be the next knife edge for Brown, because as with most policies, there will be people in the party against it. How many more votes will there be where the media pack will say if he loses it, it will be the end?There are plenty out there who put their reputation on the fact he was gone or sources have told them they have 70,80,90 signatures for the ghost e-mail, all of them were wrong,these will be going all out to get him out asap.
Why does the BBC make such a big splash about something which is just the musings of a departing prime minister
74. STV is certainly better than AV in the context that I’ve just mentioned above. This is because (and before I get leapt on I know there are caveats and there can be a level of disparity and so on and so forth) the proportion of MPs elected is ROUGHLY equal to the proportion of first preference votes the party got.
If a party got 30% of the first preference votes in STV, no matter where that vote may go in certain constituencies at the end of the day the number of MPs is going to be roughly in the 30% range.
Much better.
52 - No Brown wants to change the agenda and seem like he is pushing reform. I think you are right that people will think that they are connected - but as has been pointed out this will not benefit Labour at the next election.
1. It will not be in operation in 2009/10
2. If it was it would likely hurt Labour.
Lectures on moderation from SeanT.
The other critisism is that they should give us the referendum they did promise in their manefesto before offering new ones.
After the UKIP vote of last week, they would be better not reminding the voter about that one.
Yes, but the real world is a bit more complex than, “I want X and only X, I don’t want to vote for anything other than X, ever.”
Incidentally, what’s with the refusal to publish even a redacted version of the report into Shahid Malik’s doings? As the whole thing depends on rental values, all we need to know is how much was being paid and the address of the property, and anyone can see if it’s a genuine market rent?
83 - If there was to be a by-election then it have be done under AV.
67. The psychology of tim’s “herd boys” tic is interesting.
Obviously, since 95% of people in last week’s UK election didn’t vote Labour, any sort of gathering is regarded as a threat to him. This is odd, because I like to think of Labour as a democratic party, rather than a frightened oligarchy, although Gordon Brown’s latest cabinet reshuffle does challenge that.
The assumption that everyone else involved in political discourse is a “boy” is also very Gordon Brownian.
77 - You were king of the Harras,
The calmest of the herd.
The others soiled themselves on command.
61 thats not expressing preferences, it is expressing prejudices - you want Green, awesome, vote for them - your next reaction (in this example) however is who you DON’T want - thats my problem with AV - its all about stopping someone..very unhealthy and tribal.
78. Agree with you entirely, but of course FPTP is exactly the same.
Labour and Lib Dems poll better than Tories in my constituency. I don’t want a Labour MP, so although I’d naturally vote Tory I’m going to vote Lib Dem because they’re the best hope for keeping Labour out.
I may be indifferent to or actively dislike the Lib Dems. I may just dislike them less than Labour.
Democratic Renewal Council - do we know who is in this council - why does it have such a Stalinist name - how long have they been working - just long enough to get a press release out ? Was it formed just after the Andrew Marr show last Sunday - IS Ed Balls on it I wonder -maybe a few more of the curry night boys club
Tim
You proposed absolutely F*ck all unless is was under direction from the bunker.
Gordon Brown would do well to remember that Labour introducing PR in Holyrood has led to an SNP Government ruling with Tory support.
Everything Brown touches turns brown!
Clearly if his proposed attempt at Constitutional Reform is blatant political mischief then the Tories and Crossbenchers in the HoL can ensure any bill is killed off before next Easter by which time it would need to be heading for the Royal Assent if it is not to fall before the GE.
Politically things seem to have leapt in the past fortnight from a repeat of 1978-9 to 1982-3 with Brown being transformed from Jim Callaghan into Michael Foot.
Could we be seeing the initial soft shoe shuffle between moderate despairing elements in the Labour party and the less idealistic politically hungrier elements of the LibDems?
Many on here have talked about a centre/left realignment post GE but what about one before the GE? SDP MarkII?
Ignoring the harpies who have flounced off due to feeling slighted, James Purnell and a number of others seem more like the heirs of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams than of Tony Benn and Michael Foot.
Now that would make the next 11 months very interesting!!
84- I suppose it is possible that he is only angling for the “reform” agenda and that the sort electoral system that would emerge from the process is only incidental to his strategy. Of course, nobody will believe that (likely not even his few remaining supporters)!
46. You’ve always sounded pretty anti-Labour as well Mike.
“The Labour Party is corrupt from head to toe.” - if I remember correctly?
70. MichaelK June 9th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I agree - I posted something similar. Brown only seems to want things he can control - problem is democracy if it feels cheated or not best served will mean evolution of the political players in the system!
RPT 226.I seriously think that Gordon Brown wants to hang from a lampost! Not by Tories but his own side!
Lets suppose that this all works and the Labour/LD get pupertual power - what sort of country would be left? Three legged homophredites with two heads? (I am joking!)
Honestly Labour have not thought this through! The LD would run for their lives after a short period in power assuming they won enough votes with Labour to form a government. I really do think the proponents of this are thick!
If Labour and LD are in power they are essentially one party in an election. No government can go on indefinetly without making mistakes that will mean it becomes very unpopular. Firstly the pious and useless LD dont like being hated/ having the piss taken. Secondly Labour & LD will have equal blame thrown at their door.
by Martin Day June 9th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Can someone shed some light on the nomenclature? According to Wikipedia, AV is a system where you just put a tick (or not a tick) against any number of candidates (which I’ve never heard of before). What I thought was AV they refer to as ‘range voting’. (’”AV” can be considered to be range voting with only 2 levels (approved (1) and disapproved (0))’.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
The most damaging accusation Brown will face over electoral reform is that of ‘fiddling while Rome burns’. In a week when LDV Vans and C&G sink without trace, Brown solemnly proclaims his intention to spend a year tinkering with the voting system. As the months grind by, and the debate between various PR systems becomes increasingly tedious, the public will not be impressed.
Instead of power of recall, Brown tries to play up PR, which of course has got absolutely nothing to do with the expenses scandal.
If anything the scandals will get worse under just PR. In Europe where PR is the norm politicans are even more remote from their electors and oligarchic abuses of power even worse.
Labour’s desparate attempt to rig the voting system is really caused by their desire to evade hanging for treason. Justice is slow but sure. They will never evade justice. I expect a UKIP/Conservative government will be a lot tougher on the Commies than a Conservative one.
Most forms of PR make politicians immune to removal, even at 5 years periods. They can hide behind a party banner, even more so than is possible under FPTP.
I read a blog post earlier today (can’t find the link right now) that put forward the counter-narrative idea that Gordo was actually a crap chancellor (pretty much all of his ideas were a disaster) but really quite a good PM (actions since the banking collapse have been generally right, even if a fluke).
Personally I don’t care which phase of his career is viewed with more contempt, but I thought it an interesting view of the world.
99. AV is Alternative Vote, not Approval Voting…
47.Chrisco, I was actively involved in that by election, and the Tories will be reaping the benefits of that result for a while to come….
I am delighted with what Brown’s is planning to do tomorrow, and we have a Libdem MP at Westminster right now. Keep it up please.
Enjoy it Tim. Cameron may have lots of opportunities to do the same. End to union subsidies and funding perhaps.
That’s the problem with what you are doing.
Lower the bar and you lower it for the next lot.
To be fair to Mike, he is a punter and I don’t believe he lets his personal opinions get in the way of his bets. He may dislike Labour at the moment, but then lots of people do. I’m sure he is very cautious about his bets and his posts on here. When the Tories are in power I am fairly sure when they start doing unpopular stuff Mr. Smithson will have something to say about them too!
101. And likewise in India where they use FPTP…
67. The irony is that in the 1997 and 2001 general elections and the local elections from 1996-2002, this so called “herd-boy” voted the same way as young Timmy.
59 - he knew what he was doing when he announced that earlier. He was salivating to be first with the news.
Anyway - Brown said on Marr that this democratic council would be be a mixture of people not just ministers.. “wait and see, you’ll be suprised” I think were the words he used. Well, no I am not suprised at all.
Oh dear. Brown doing what he does best.
This man is so wedded to fair voting and democracy. Not. Coronations, elections that never were, not putting a secret ballot to his MP’s, appointing his cronies to the Lords. And now he embraces electoral reform.
Get lost Brown. Please.
104. Good luck to them, if they get the votes…!
103: ‘AV is Alternative Vote, not Approval Voting’
Cheers, my puzzlement is abated!
81. No - the North Korean Parliament meets in public.
100. Wonder who will be the ones consulted and making decisions on whether to introduce a new voting system?
Betchya it’s the National Democratic Renewal and Supreme People’s Council of All The Talents….
92 - thats why would rather there be a more robust discourse and a series of options put forward - referably by an independant commission. Then we get to pick what we want.
If Brown were to plough ahead on AV then the answer would be to propose options to be included in the referendum.
If a plug blow a fuse, a complete rewire of the house is an option - but I wouldn’t proceed on the basis of it being my only option.
Is it (for lack of a written constitution, informally) legal for a British PM to change the voting system for the next GE with a simple majority? It sounds fairly outlandish to me.
If Brown were serious about this change, he would surely seek at least a 2/3 majority if not a referendum? Doing this alone is just something I cannot comprehend being allowed in a serious democracy. In fact I stopped really being surprised that Berlusconi is returned by the Italians no matter what he does (”eating babies? Ah, we all make mistakes. Makes us human!”) when he changed the voting system before the election last time he happened to be PM. Does not compute.
Finally, I simply do not understand why PR is such a topic. Is there really any widespread feeling that FPTP is fundamentally broken, and be it only among Labour supporters? I always feel as if proponents of PR compare the reality of FPTP in Britain with a very idealized abstract version of PR. And when it comes to electoral advantages, if Britain switched to PR, voters would vote and parties would act differently. If Labour thinks PR means a permanent centre-left majority, they would be in for a surprise. In PR Britain, the LibDems are cuddling up to Cameron as we speak. Because he will have the largest party. And the coaltion. And the jobs.
Wouldn’t it be smarter for Brown to be seen working 24/7 on reforms to address the expenses scandal?
91 - Yes expressing preferences is sometimes about stopping something.
Without AV many voters face an awful choice. Either vote their conscience or waste their vote and let a party they dislike be elected.
AV allows voters to be rational.
Party A is closest to my views I will give them my 1st preferences.
Party B is next closest to my views so I will give them my 2nd preferences.
And so on.
This stops the voter having to make tactical decisions.
106. Labour moan about Mike now, but he’s always been very consistent that brown was/is a disaster. If Labour had actually taken notice of Mr Smithson in 2007, maybe, just maybe, they wouldn’t be facing electoral oblivion now?
I’m sure, had PB been around 2001-2003 Mike could have been just as consistently in attacking IDS.
I think the real reason any reform of the voting system was dropped back in 1997 was because this was a jolly wheeze improvised by Blair, which did not have the support of Labour MPs.
So the Liberal Democrats, who had taken Blair’s promise seriously, were quie simply betrayed by Labour.
I very much hope that this time the Liberal Democrats will sit on their hands and leave it to the Labour MPs and the Labour Party to campaign for Brown’s proposal, coming in perhaps in the last couple of days, once the Labour people have done the work and shown they are serious.
I’m not convinced they are.
81- Democratic Renewal Council.
For gord’s sake. Can anyone please rid us of this clueless, lumbering, jackass, cowardly, muppet?
No matter what Brown does now the media pack will go for him, mainly because so many said he was gone by the ned of last week or they had sources that had told them that there was 60,70,80 signatures when quite clearly they were wrong.
Every or any policy change will be damned and every vote in the commons will be described as a knife edge with every media seeking Labour backbencher glowing in the media spotlight.
101. As a tight fisted finance director who is the butt of a certain amount of teasing from my colleagues about my rigouros pilicies, I can tell you that if you put enough effort into drafting a fair and clear expenses system you minimise abuse. Where there is a will there is a way and the nature of an electoral system employed has nothing to do with how sound the controls on expenses are.
113 - a quite brilliant touche there!
108 - I wouldn’t necessarily include you in the term.
Nor the intelligent Tories on here such as SallyC David Herdson or Richard Nabavi.
I’d use it to describe those who pop up to say bunker/nokia/draperbot when anyone posts anything they disagree with.
A good example is post 94 on this thread.
From one of the really dim herd members.
So dim he thought Tony Blair tried to join the Tories in the early nineties.
I’m not sure whether anyone has made this point, but the Alternative Vote is not a proportional system; all it does is ensure that the single winner for the single vacancy has 50%+1 of the valid votes. It is thus a refinement of First Past the Post and all the evidence is that it tends to magnify the majority of the leading party at the expense of the minor parties. It is the system that has returned Livingstone twice and now Johnson as Mayor of London.
116. He will go for a referendum because he knows it would be unthinkable in the modern world to try and change the system without it.
Theoretically, however, the Parliament is supreme and can do what the heck it wants! Change the voting system, bring back hanging, withdraw from Europe, make everyone wear red on Thursdays….
However, I imagine changing the voting system has in the past been governed by one of those crusty gentlemanly conventions and deals that it wouldn’t be introduced unless it had broad support in the Commons - I’m sure that’s the only way it’s really seriously been proposed before (in the 1930s - curtailed by the war, I believe). However, as Stalin McBroon is always keen to demonstrate, conventions don’t need to mean ****!
108 “in the 1997 and 2001 general elections and the local elections from 1996-2002, this so called “herd-boy” voted the same way as young Timmy”
Same. It’s a strange way to try to win back votes. I guess they don’t want us any more. *sniff*
62.Seant, it starts to feel one sided because Brown is the worst PM in living memory. How do you balance that one?
He has barely fallen out of one disastrous week politically, and then he immediately staggers into another one, and with yet another desperate relaunch of policies headlines. They are going to be briefed to the media like this one, and they will have fallen apart before the newspapers goes to print, and all before they are officially announced. Beyond parody.
What do you want Mike to do? He could go on Osborne’s speech today, that ain’t going to make life any easier for Brown right now.
116. Yes it is legal. The Crown in Parliament can do pretty much whatever it likes.
The problem here is what Brown calls the ‘Gentleman’s Club Rules’. What he doesn’t get is the reason that gentlemen’s clubs generally run very effectively is because they only let gentlemen in.
The reason why it’s never been necessary to introduce formal mechanisms such as 2/3 majorities or confirmatory referenda is that parliament had a built-in sense of self-restraint as to what was reasonable or not to do. Other governments would not have dreamed about making such drastic changes to the constitution without having the backing of a general election pledge, and probably quite a prominent one.
117. The nature of AV is tactical though. Once voters get used to it you know full well it will be for most of us:
Option 1 - the Party I like best.
Option 2 - the Party that will stop the party I like least winning.
117 Who you don’t want to be elected should play no part in any voting decision - the gift of democracy is to grant representation, not seek to block the ability of others to grant that same boon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1191903/Captain-Brown-clinging-wreckage.html
“The success of the Gordon-must-stay campaign is a dream-come-true for the Tories.
The danger that he might be replaced by someone more like a human being, such as Home Secretary Alan Johnson, has been averted - at any rate for the time being.
The Brown Government will now stagger on, devoid of authority or public support.
There will be the drip, drip, drip of tales about more rows within the ministerial ranks………….
His sudden conversion to electoral reform is a crude bid to keep Labour in power and himself in office.
Otherwise so-called new policies will turn out to be just like the old ones, probably relabelled ‘visions’, maybe new targets in public services and promises of ‘more resources’.
But the Treasury has nothing to spare. It is already up against its borrowing limit
Tim that was a typo I meant 80’s and we’ve been there before. sadly you are like a dog biting its own leg, you wont let go.
123 My voice shall be herd!
123- hi Tim- as a tribal Labour man, I do not think we are any position to slag off Tories at the minute. Just look at what a shower of rubbish we have for a government at this time.
Hmm. So Mike admits that the post isn’t about the merits or otherwise of the proposal, but because he thinks “Brown is the worst PM in living memory”?
Interesting.
From what i understand, you have to rank all the parties in order.Is that correct?? Because I dont want to vote labour, bnp, lib dems… however lowly i rank them. I want to vote for the tories and only the tories. who the hell are the government to tell me i have to vote for another party aswell!
123. Well as a rule, I don’t like any of these “bot” or “herd” terms. I think anything that lumps people into boxes is a bad thing. I was pleased Mike got rid of the “bot” thing and think he should get rid of the “herd” term, too.
Anyway, you’ll be pleased I’m calming down and my blood pressure’s returning to normal since Robinsons clarification.
BBC leading with a massive black hole in NHS funding from 2010.
134 - I agree.
I voted Green last wek and called for brown to be replaced.
However I also called for a referendum on Electoral Reform and will support the Labour Party if they introduce one.
I doubt they will be bold under Brown however.
If they were to be the Tories would be all over the place, as this asn the previous thread exhibit.
135. A more enlightened soul could fill me in if I’m wrong, but I *believe* you do not have to register further preference if you do not want under AV - you just run the risk that your vote will have no bearing on the final outcome, a bit like FPTP.
(I know that’s the case for STV).
The Constitutional Convention in Scotland (basically a Lab/Lib Dem club micturating in anxiety at the prospect of independence) introduced AV for the Scottish Parliament in the expectation that it would prevent the SNP from ever forming a goverment. Oops.
The Lib Dems later made the adoption of (the highly preferable) STV for local authority elections their price for backing Jack MacConnell as First Minister. STV has decimated Labour at local authority level, in spite of their hopes of gaming the system by creating 2/3 member wards rather than 4/5 so that the result would approximate FPTP.
On AV, Gordon’s calculation may be the same for England as for Scotland - he can get effective majority government via coalition with the Lib Dems, with the same opportunity being denied to the Tories (in Scotland, the SNP). In Scotland, the Lib Dems refused to form a coalition with the SNP even though their manifesto overlapped the SNP’s quite significantly - certainly more than it did Labour’s - and this refusal was plausibly alleged to have been manufactured in London by Gordon and Ming Campbell.
You have been warned.
Well, the BBC is headlining with the NHS funding crisis. The PR stuff is just billed as Gordon wanting to have a look at things. I suspect this was just a gimmick to give Brown some relief in the news bulletins and Robinson over egged it…
105 - Sally, that’s true, but since we’re talking about electoral systems, I’d view this as one of the great advantage of having a very powerful House of Commons and a relatively weaker upper house in the Lords.
While one lot in the Commons can do something dramatic, when the pendulum swings after a GE, the other side can do precisely the opposite if they wish.
The only bar is if enough time has passed that the original idea is now accepted by the general public. A strong HoC is actually a very conservative (small c) force, since while it has the potential to maker massive changes, in practices, that vast power can never be used because of fear of what the other side will do the same to them in a few years time.
For instance, remember the changes Heath tried to do in the 70s, which were reversed by the Wilson/Callaghan administration. It took SEVERAL terms of Conservative administration to truly create long-lasting significant change that Labour couldn’t reverse.
Vast power in the HoC is in practice also almost completely limited by fear, cowardice and political self-interest. Only real visionaries with a lot of willpower, who are also successive general election winners, can really force through major changes. Even Blair, who for all his faults, I would rank second to only Thatcher in terms of being a forceful PM in recent memory, knew this and so moved cautiously (of course, he also felt the psychological weight of Labour’s electoral history/expection in a way Thatcher never had to contend with, which also made him cautious).
This paradox of a strong Commons that rarely actually acts strongly, is also part of the reason I don’t like tinkering with the electoral system - it’s a very finely balanced system of checks/balances, esp. since it evolved organically over centuries rather than by design. Alter it and the potential for unforeseen consequences is too high for this conservative (small and large C) to want to risk it.
What happens in the STV system if the voter declines to vote 2,3,4,5 etc. Is the ballot paper spoiled or not?
140. One gets the feeling it went a little like this:
*A little birdie in Robinson’s ear* - “psst, you know what, Gordon wants to reform the voting system.
*Toenails* - “Oh my good golly gosh, that’ll be a big splash” [runs over to BBC and makes them go haywire on the story]
[Meanwhile MSM pick up on the story and blast it as Gordo moving the goalposts]
*The little birdie* - err.. Nick… you know what I said earlier?
*Toenails* - Yes, yes, of course…
*The little birdie* - well, he’s not going to be THAT bold, it’s more of a sorta… consultation…
*Toenails* - whoopsie.
Farce over Glenys Kinnock, the makeshift minister who can’t even do her job because she’s still an MEP
Downing Street sources last night insisted Mrs Kinnock had resigned as an MEP.
But a European Parliament spokesman said he had no knowledge of her quitting the post. ‘We would normally get a formal notification if that had happened,’ said the spokesman. ‘But we haven’t had one.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191715/Farce-Glenys-Kinnock-makeshift-minister.html
136 - Fair enough.
I’ll single out the more bovine posters by name rather than grouping them together.
MTF is the ultimate bunker/nokia know nothing.
He knows nothing about politics or betting and is as useful as Douglas Bader on a Strictly Come Dancing Tour.
Is that better?
142 - if they mark an ‘X’ or 1 then the voter’s intention is clear and is counted.
116, 117
I disagree. Democracy is about expressing your will about how you are governed. No electoral system does this perfectly and each has advantages and disadvantages.
FPTP though is a blunt instrument. It denies some voters the chance to fully express their views. AV allows them to be more nuanced.
The timing of this announcement was shocking. For it now to be backtracking after only a few hours shows how indept this government is: http://tinyurl.com/m4hnq6
134 Unfortunately you are right. The PLP had one last chance to redeem us this week - it flunked it. Defeat seems to me to be unavoidable now.
142. Good point - if enough voters refuse to indicate 2nd/3rd/4th choices, no candidate might reach the 50% mark. What happens then?
130. Whilst i dont vote BNP and would not due to the rubbish policies.
Why should there views/representation of the party not be viable as a democratic force. Maybe they have a point however unpaletable to the majority it may be.
Maybe they feel that they represent Labour voters who have been cheated by the last 12 years of power?
I do not think that just because someone hates a party it is right to curtail there freedom of speech. Whilst i think the BNP have odd ideas, why should they be banned and attacked whilst the counter argument from leftwing pro-immigration parties be honoured and worshipped in multicultralism?
Not what i think but an interesting point for policy makers!
It will be interesting to see the order of events.
Will it be a debate presumably long and detailed and then the referendum on the particular form of PR suggested within the debate OR the debate and then simply the refendum on whether or not we move to PR or not. I think Alan Johnson suggested the latter course a couple of weeks ago incidentally.
My own view is that this is indeed desperation but I would support AMS as it is proportional and maintains the constiteuency link for most MPs.
Would Voting reform also perhaps include Weekend Voting which was resurrected as recently as a year ago perhaps?
135. Under any sensible system you can stop expressing a preference when you get to the zomg-none-of-these point. However, there are non-sensible systems. There was some discussion on here a couple of weeks back of the system used for electing the Australian Senate.
141. For the same reason, I came to believe FPTP for the Commons is the right system and PR for the Lords (perhaps allocated on GE share) is the best option.
I don’t share this “The Lords would be more legitimate” bumpf. If you ask people to vote on a government, they vote on a government. If you ask them to vote on a revising chamber, they vote on a revising chamber.
You’d then have the strong government vs politically divided and therefore more considerate upper House. I do worry party politics would skew it though.
145
Tim
How many times has Ken blown you out of the water.?
59.ScottP, unbelievable. Is PB.com that powerful now?
147 I’ll have to leave it as disagreeing with you on the basis I have set out. Still, maybe the country will get the chance to debate it and find the best system for them, be that a retention of FPTP or some system of proportionality.
141 You justify FPTP as delivering ’strong’ government, for which you mean unrepresentative. Either a voting system reflects national opinion or it does not. Those who support FPTP want democracy to be easy without the inconvenience of having to win the battle not just during a 4 week election campaign but for a four year fixed term parliament.
150 - I think that in some of the local election contests in Scotland in 2007 if they did not reach the quota but all votes have been exhausted then the one with the most votes at this stage was elected.
152. Apologies for jumping on your comment - AMS does have advantages - but I find it the most loathsome electoral system going.
Not only do you have two classes of MP (why should half MPs have a duty to a constituency and half MPs have a duty to… err… the whole country) the top up would most likely be closed list. Meaning the big politicos like Brown, Darling, Smith, Balls - would get returned to Parliament come what may. And we’d lose that delightful chance of seeing big cabinet beasts losing their seats.
142. “What happens in the STV system if the voter declines to vote 2,3,4,5 etc.”
That’s fine. It just means that that vote won’t be counted if the first preference doesn’t win (which is exactly what the voter wanted, of course).
116 - There is no need for tactical voting under AV.
Say there are 5 candidates in an election which I rank in order of preference as:
UKIP
Conservative
Lib Dem
Labour
BNP
The seat may be a Labour / Lib Dem marginal. In this case I can vote in line with my preferences and it will affect who is elected. The same would hold if it was a Conservative / Lib Dem or a Conservative / Labour marginal. I.e. You don’t have to adjust the way you vote to the place you live in. You can just vote your conscience.
AV is useless. If i believe in a political party, i vote for them. Its like following a particular football team to me. i know i’m tribal. but why not? i don’t have second preferences. Whenever i vote in the London Mayoral election i feel extremely uneasy endorsing other parties other than my own. Why should i be made to do this? The choice is a pointless one. If i wanted the Tories, why would i ever want to rank Labour or the Liberals? Chossing a vote for political parties isnt like ranking your favourite colours or foods.
Well according to the Beeb Brown will neither propose a timetable nor plump for any particular system, so yes, I think this is another 10p/youtube fiasco. Anyway, if anything was happening my mole (who has now left the Treasury but is still very much in the loop) would’ve surfaced, and she hasn’t.
Let’s see Brown get it passed on the floor of Labour conference this autumn before we jump the gun on this.
If Gordon tries to change the voting system then he must be arrested by the army and tried for treason!!!!
You know the penalty - phut phut phut!!!!!!
I am not in favour of death penalty but sometimes you have to put the country first!!!!!!!!!
Suggest everyone reads the BBC report carefully:
“The new Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently called for a referendum on electoral reform to be held at the same time as the next general election.
However, sources have told the BBC that it is very unlikely that the necessary consultation and legislation could be carried out in that time.
Our correspondent added that the alternative vote, or AV, was not a form of proportional representation.
Mr Brown will say there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made to the voting system.
He will say ministers will push ahead with a bill to make the House of Lords largely or fully elected.”
ie:
1) The real action is going to be a BILL to change the House of Lords.
2) The change to the voting system for the Commons is going to be a lot of talk with almost no prospect of even a referendum before the GE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8092235.stm
158. But then we get back to the awkward debate on FPTP v PR, ’strong unrepresentative government’ vs ‘proportionate but government by backroom deals’.
I think the debate’s been gone over enough times by now to draw the conclusion that neither is great, you just prefer one bad system over the other.
150 - what am I saying - there is only one candidate left at that stage.
Sorry to disagree with everyone, but I think you’re all missing what Brown is aiming to do here. (I do accept that in an everyone else vs me split, there is the possibility that I might be wrong).
Brown has no intention of bringing in voting reform. There’ll be some constitutional changes he could go along with - removal of the hereditary peers from the Lords, for example - but if he proposes PR, it will not be with the aim of actually introducing it.
The most obvious reason is that it would be disastrous for Labour; the EP election results show that. Labour’s scoring in the low-20s in the opinion polls yet managed just 16% in the ballot boxes last week. Even a combined total of Lab+LD+Grn totals little more than Labour alone won in 2004. The vote for the big parties fragments horribly.
So if he doesn’t want it, why would he propose it? It’s back to the old plan of dividing the Tories from the public. Being seen to be doing the right thing and hoping that the Conservatives will oppose it. The advantage of bringing the proposals in now is that if the Lords block the plans, he can’t bring them back in the next parliament as there’ll have to be an election first so he’s under no moral obligation to use the Parliament Act. He’d be doing it to see it voted down.
However, there lies within this cunning plan a danger for Brown. The Tories might not oppose it (or at least, not in the House of Lords). What if the Conservatives were to support a referendum on voting reform, rather like they supported a referendum on Lisbon? It would be politically impossible to oppose it and bring in reform before the election.
Attempting to force a referendum would remind voters of Labour’s renaging but would also put Brown in a bind. I very much doubt he would actually want to go to the public with these proposals, not least because PR is of interest only to political anoraks, so the debate could easily get bogged down in slogans. And because there’s (a) the suspicion that Brown is trying it on and (b) the desire to kick the government, it’s entirely likely that the government would lose the referendum.
163 - Then just give a 1st preference. There is no need to put down any more preferences if you don’t want to.
162. But you are voting bnp, even if you rank them last! by having to rank them you except them as a legimate party. Is it not also the case we enter a situation where a party doesnt canvas for itself but the votes of other parties. ie if you vote lib dem thats ok,but please give me your second vote!
167. Thank golly he’s going to finally do what Tony should have done in 1998 before he realised the cronyism was too convenient - reform the Lords. It’s been crying out for change for years.
A bit worried what ‘change’ Gordo (himself very satisfied with the cronyism it affords - see the Radient Glenys and Lord Suralan) will propose though…
I’ve had a thought. Scrap the Lords! The second chamber can be the National Democratic Review Council!
Well,judging by the Daily Rants headline about Brown it seems that Dacres long love affair with Brown is finally over!!
For me STV is te least worst option if we have to change, as it retains constituency link. But this is a diversionary tactic….it won’t work, as people don’t care enough about voting systems, and it plays into the “he’s only proposing this after 12 years because he knows he’s going to lose brigade”
Lose, Lose….
147. It’s certainly true that FPTP is blunt and PR seems more democratic, at least in terms of representation. Personally, I feel that voting is relatively more about deciding who governs and relatively less about deciding who sits in parliament. When it comes to forming governments however, PR in all its variations is simply not very transparent. Italy and Israel are extreme examples for how the true “election” frequently occurs after the vote and it is only party leaders who get to decide. The same is true in Germany, though. Our system works best when the parties neatly group themselves into opposing camps, which gives voters a straight choice.
Where it’s not that easy, we run into massive problems. The state of Hesse recently had to hold a second election after a year of uncertainty because rebels in the centre-left SPD would not tolerate a coalition with the post-communist Linke. In a similar situation in Hamburg in the same year, the Conservatives surprisingly formed a coalition with the Greens. While it makes sense for our Greens (who are fairly pragmatic), it most probably was not what Green voters had in mind when on election day.
My impression is that in functioning democracies, the electorate will make the system work for them. So PR would certainly not be a disaster for the UK. But you will lose the clear distinction between government and opposition that you currently have.
Given we have now five parties in Germany, with the prospect of either a continued Grand Coalition or of three party coalitions after the next election, perhaps we could organize a swap? The German voting system is a PR/FPTP hybrid, so it could be a nice little “My Very First PR” for Britain…
167. How can Brown change the House of Lords when he has more Lords in his government than any time since Lord Sailsbury?
166. Ave it 09
I agree! Gordon Brown is an arsehole!
A Bullet in the head is best for him and his party! His supporters need a bullet in the head as well. It is not the Labour party anymore but the Brown dictatorship electoral college!!! Any move by Non Brownite members in the PLP is met by deselection threats.
There own fault but we need to get rid of the problem before debating the past!
Gordon Gordon Gordon - Out Out Out!
I hate Brown! He is the shitist, crap,one eyed idiot ever been given charge of anything!
172 If you have 5 on the ballot then you have up to 5 preferences. You can have as many or a few as you like. you don’t have to use them all.
170. Hmmm. If you’re going to have a referendum, and go to all the trouble of setting up the polling stations and print the ballot papers, hiring the staff and all, what plausible reason could there be for not including more than 1 question?
What type of voting system would you like?
Are you in favour of the Lisbon Treaty?
156. ChristinaD. Never doubt the power of PB.com
Have you ever paused to consider why people are unable to leave…
163. “If i wanted the Tories, why would i ever want to rank Labour or the Liberals?”
Because the Tories had no chance of winning in your seat, and you thought one of the other parties was less bad than the other?
170 - Hague has been positioning to oppose any change in the Electoral System (by tying the BNP vote to PR)since before the Euro results came out, so I think its highly unlikely they would oppose FPTP in a referendum.
Are you arguing they might support a Referendum but oppose any change?
168. Euphemism appears to cloud the debate on PR, as evidenced by the phrase “backroom deals”. Even within a single party Government the various factions argue their position and via the whips drive through an “agreed” outcome through ‘backroom deals’ - I don’t perceive this to be the best mechanism to deliver the best policy outcome. PR just widens the consultative process within Govt and the policy outcome - which may take longer to agree - may well have a greater longevity and underlying support.
171 really? not explained on the ballot as far as i remember.
172 - No. In that situation I would rank my 4 preferences and leave the BNP box blank. However if I preferenced them 5 it would have no impact. That could only matter if all other parties had already been eliminated. If they had then my preference wouldn’t matter - they would already be elected. Under AV your last preference could never contribute to that party being elected.
And parties will still canvas for votes. They will ask people to preference them as high as possible. They will say - please vote x number 1. If you do vote for another party though consider ranking us 2nd.
Maybe Gordon read my guest article?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/10/would-av-finish-off-the-tories/
170. So it’s me that’s wrong. Brown doesn’t really want to even propose PR, just talk about voting reform.
And he marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.
This is a damp squib.
There will be no overhaul of the electoral system. Gordon’s just trying to steal headlines again.
186. Rod, your too late mate. Robinson has told us the whole thing is little more than a discussion. Nothing much is happening after all. Shame you wasn’t here two hours ago, you would have had a lot of fun.
As I posted two threads ago, this is a complete waste of everyone’s energies. For a consultation, a Referendum Bill to pass both Houses of Parliament, a referendum campaign and a Parliamentary Reform Bill to pass both Houses of Parliament in under a year is the stuff of fantasy. Getting a referendum in that time frame would be pretty good going.
This is not about changing the constitution, this is about keeping the Prime Minister.
158 - not exactly, no.
I like FPTP not because it delivers ’strong’ government, but because it delivers weak/cautious government where it’s also very easy to see who’s in charge & how they got elected.
Representative democracies are about providing a mechanism that allows the population to FEEL represented, while not allowing politicians too much actual authority to make crazy changes, since most politicians are inherently inadequate of making consistently good decisions. The latter statement can be proven at looking at the vast majority of MPs of all parties in the Commons, 80%+ of whom are the proverbial ass with a rosette.
I’m a conservative (small c) by nature, so any system that both allows the public to FEEL represented, but also prevents politicians from doing doing too much harm to the country by changing too many things at once, is a good thing in my book. FPTP is “just democratic enough” to allow most of the the public to be happy their views are heard while preventing the elected representatives from having the power/courage to do too much in one term.
This may be very cynical, but this is why I vote Conservative (big C) in elections. Not because I support them as a party per se, but because they’re the least worst option in terms of changing things excessively quickly.
FPTP is just democratic enough (or rather, just undemocratic enough) to force politicians to move cautiously, while still allowing for some gradual positive change. Give them too much of an electoral mandate and who know what they’ll do…!
Mike,
Have sent you a contribution, and hope others will do so.
I read something yesterday suggesting that the site had been overtaken by the “Right”, and others thinking that it was only a reflection of what was happening, anyway.
I very seldom post, but enjoy the thoughts of all of you.I hope that , whatever your leanings, you help to keep this site going
OT I thought PBers might enjoy this article. Get your bids in - all for a good cause!
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4427196.Duck_house_put_up_for_charity_auction_by_Sir_Peter_Viggers/
176. perhaps we could organize a swap? The German voting system is a PR/FPTP hybrid, so it could be a nice little “My Very First PR” for Britain…
What we need is a system where each voter specifies under which system they would like their vote to be counted and then we use a formula to combine all the results together in the right proportion. Maybe Duckworth and Lewis could design the rules.
187 Sadly I think you may be right.
We’ll end up with a Royal Commission on
“How do we devise an electoral system that the Wiggins can understand”
170 - The only way that the current Government would get a referendum on AV passed would be if Gordon Brown espoused first past the post.
184 - Of course. In London the vast majority of voters only used their first preference vote for mayor.
Friedrich - AV is not PR. It could be even more disproportionate than FPTP.
The arguments about voting system can be based at the macro-level and the micro-level. I.e. what is the impact on the system vs. what power does the individual have to express their preferences.
AV makes minor differences at a macro level, however it does free individuals from the tactical dilemmas of FPTP.
178 yes its a fair view!
Labour love BNP!!!!!! They changed the euro election and bnp got in!!!! They want it at westminster too!
Labour are so desperate to fill the cabinet that they will be asking brons and griffin to go there soon!!!!!!!
180. If the Conservatives somehow managed to get a referendum on Lisbon, and Brown was serious about voting reform (since writing [170], it’s become apparant that he’s not serious about even looking serious), the two questions could be put together.
182. That’s exactly what I’m arguing. If we’re going to have a debate, let’s have a proper debate and give the decision some legitimacy. That means either a referendum or a general election. A referendum on PR would be much the same as one on Lisbon: Lib Dems united and pro, Tories united and against, Labour wobbling somewhere in the middle.
167.MikeL, check out Nick Robinson’s Oop’s moment linked by ScottP@59. I keep asking this, but who is running the Downing Street media operation? This could end up with some bad front pages for Brown tomorrow, and once again, self inflicted.
He and his bully boys can arrange a PLP meeting that would make Stalin proud, but they cannot even brief an announcement without turning it into a negative headline right now.
Is Robinson bobbing out nad yelling ‘PR’ before bobbing out again and saying, ‘Opps. Sorry!’ a little like the HO letting Hyra Hindley out for a walk in the park to test if the Daily Mail would start screaming?
Job done.
Newsnight - Ban MPs from second jobs!
We know what that is all about!
I agree with banning second jobs but also cutting the number of MPs. I suspect most backbench MPs who dont attend debates 97% of the time spend much working time doing something else!
Lets hang tube strikers now!!!!!
£40,000pa for pulling a handle and they want a pay rise above inflation?!
Get the army out of afghanistan and in to drive the trains!
Benefits all round:
- I can get to work
- All RMT = sacked
- no more senseless british deaths in asia caused by labour!!!!
I note that Nick Robinson makes the same point as me:
“sources have told the BBC that it is very unlikely that the necessary consultation and legislation could be carried out in the necessary time.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
202 lets just ban undesirable political parties ie Labour and BNP!!!!!!
Michael Savage for foreign affairs minister!!!!
Arrest jacqui smith now!!!!!!!
201 That would be ‘Myra’.
NEW THREAD!
The answer to Mike’s question is of course yes.
Labour would though have to be very foolish to support AV at the moment as seems to be proposed as its a system which amplifies the swing against unpopular parties and we all (except Roger) know who that will be at the next election.
I suspect though that AV would have less effect than is believed.
Consider the two mayoral elections (in North Tyneside and Doncaster, traditional Labour strongholds) last week where AV was used.
North Tyneside had only 37% of AVs used and this in an election where a Con/Lab runoff was certain.
Doncaster had 39% of AVs used but here these AVs actually overturned the first round result and not in the way that would be expected. The first round was won by a centrist Independent councillor backed by the LibDems and Greens but he was overtaken in the second round by the right wing populist EDP candidate.
Personally I think this talk of electoral reform is just a ploy by Labour to stop the LibDems from turning on them. Labour are disintegrating among their traditional supporters and are terrified at being replaced as the anti-Conservative party. They’ve already lost their dominance in Scotland and are seeing in now disappear among the working class in England and Wales.
The question is Clegg happy to settle for being Labour’s lapdogs or does he want to replace them as the main centre-left party.
Off topic.. it’s quite weird reading the latest swine flu stats for Scotland, knowing that you actually make up one of the number of suspected cases.. I’ve not had the phone call though so assume I’m clear. Now, where is that Tamiflu!
For those who are betting on the next speaker:
“Labour backs rebel Tory MP as Speaker to thwart Cameron”
“(…)Mr Bercow, who has the support of at least 100 MPs, said: ‘I am campaigning and seeking to influence colleagues on all sides of the House.’
Tory MPs may support the former Labour minister Frank Field, but his colleague Michael Foster MP said Mr Field’s attack this week on Mr Brown had angered the party and scuppered his chances.
Other expected candidates in the first round of the secret ballot on June 22 are Tory grandees Sir George Young, Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Patrick Cormack; former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe; respected Tory MP Richard Shepherd; and Lib Dem Sir Alan Beith.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191916/Labour-backs-rebel-Tory-MP-Speaker-thwart-Cameron.html
Ave it 09 - how do you view the prospects of a Lib Dem gain in Watford at the next GE as predicted by Jack W’s ARSE?
206. Hyra Hindley sounds like a business renting out bogeymen to scare the Daily Mail.
176. They use AMS in Germany, I think? That’s used in the UK for the devolved legislative elections in Wales and Scotland so it wouldn’t necessarily be our first experience of it (I had to get this in before Stuart said something).
Out of interest, if Germany did use FPTP, how would it play out? In the UK, AMS would result in lots of constituency Tories and Labour but a much higher proportion of top-up Lib Dems. Would a similar (but reverse) effect be the case in Germany in a move to FPTP with the CDU/CSU and SPD winning most constituencies and the FDP, Greens and Communists being badly hit?
198. brons = Brown
Both like turds on the sole of your shoe! At least Brons can string a sentence together where as Brown seems only capable of operating via strings pulled via Mandelson!
No! Derek Simpson is on Newsnight!
Derek Simpson = Boring Bastard! Monotone!
You can just imagine him (Derek Simpson) saying dispationetly - I have a large metal object i will ram up your arse: How do you feel about that?
194 At least D and L voting would mean that my vote counted if it started raining on the way to the polling station and I went back home instead!
NEW THREAD
197. You’re right of course. PR can have different forms. AV seems to me to be a senisble modification of what the UK is using currently.
Ave It 09 - how do you view the prospect of a Lib Dem gain in Watford at the next GE as predicted by Jack W’s ARSE?
New thread
In the real world the moment someone tries to explain the merits of AV+ or STV two third of the electorate goes “huh”? The other third are rabidly for it or rabidly against it. Then the bit that is confused gets told “It’s the fat fool Gordo trying to fix things” and they all go “It’s got to be a bad thing” and it will all be over.
Each system has advantages and disadvantages - but contrary to the beliefs of some on here - they all represent compromises and no one’s vote “doesnt count” for each choice represents a trade-off. But try to explain any system to people and watch as people against explode in anger. The thoroughly confused electorate will then look at Gordo and decide it’s a trick. So this entire debate is pointless.