John Drake Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Interesting article. The real reason David Cameron is sitting on a Commons majority http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/electoral-reform-general-election-results-2015-first-past-the-post Before we start to forget what happened at the election, we ought to reflect on the most gobsmacking aspect of the result. I do not mean that the Tories won. I mean how they won. Some have attributed their shock majority to the dark arts of Lynton Crosby. Others to the lack of appeal of Ed Miliband. Some opine that the Tory win demonstrates that the English are an essentially conservative people. Others think Labour’s failure is a symptom of a worldwide crisis in social democracy. On they go, the theories. I have barely touched on the many interesting explanations for what happened. And they are all wrong. For sure, they may be among the factors that contributed to what happened on 7 May, but they are all insignificant compared with the main explanation for why David Cameron is at Number 10 enthroned atop a Conservative parliamentary majority.There is a big, basic and brute reason why we have just heard a Tory Queen’s speech, will soon be listening to a Tory budget and have five years or so of Tory law-making ahead of us. It is so bloody obvious that no one is talking about it – it is the electoral system. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What's the point of complaining. It delivered Dave a majority so he ain't gonna want to change it. And he's busily making sure Labour have no money for the next election so IMO it'll never change in my lifetime (next 20 years max) My information is that many people liked what Labour offered, they just didn't trust them enough to deliver it, plus they were scared by the Scottish Nationalist card that Cameron played, I reckon he or his successors will have cause to regret that in years to come. But Cameron is such a shallow person he doesn't really care about the future, he may say he does but he doesn't. He just goes on telling the lies like he did in 1992, and getting away with it. “Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.” Clement Attlee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 There is a second, perverse factor. Generally, to vote for a reform, people have to have great trust in the people putting it forward. There was the perverse example of Bhutan going from monarchy to democracy as the King told everyone to vote for it and they were happy doing whatever the King said (I leave out details). When faith in politicians is low, they are more likely to vote against their suggestions and for the status quo. It is why I think increased support for EU and UKIP actually go hand in hand, they both reflect dissatisfaction with Westminster. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Doffarf Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I just wish the United Kingdom would stop pretending to be a democracy. By any sensible and logical criteria, it simply isn't. Holding a pointless ballot every so often doesn't alter that basic fact. And when they found our shadows Grouped around the TV sets They ran down every lead They repeated every test They checked out all the data on their lists And then the alien anthropologists Admitted they were still perplexed But on eliminating every other reason For our sad demise They logged the only explanation left This species has amused itself to death No tears to cry no feelings left This species has amused itself to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I just wish the United Kingdom would stop pretending to be a democracy. By any sensible and logical criteria, it simply isn't. Holding a pointless ballot every so often doesn't alter that basic fact. There are still many far worse examples. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Doffarf Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 There are still many far worse examples. No doubt there are Bob, but ours is the only one that directly affects me. It's all the pontificating about 'mandates' and 'the wishes of the people' that turns my stomach. And when they found our shadows Grouped around the TV sets They ran down every lead They repeated every test They checked out all the data on their lists And then the alien anthropologists Admitted they were still perplexed But on eliminating every other reason For our sad demise They logged the only explanation left This species has amused itself to death No tears to cry no feelings left This species has amused itself to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Its not a simple as the electoral reform lobby makes out. They are making some huge assumptions to suggest that had there been a different system in place, the outcome would have been as they suggested. What do you think would happen to actual voting patterns if everyone knew that 4 million UKIP votes would have actually delivered 80 MPs? Do you think that 4 million would have voted UKIP had there been some danger of actually getting 80 MPs? The protest vote would have disappeared. What do you think those reluctant Conservative, Labour, don't knows or Lib Dem voters who couldn't currently be bothered to vote would have done if by voting they might stop a UKIP MP being elected? Maybe they would have bothered to vote so defeating some of those 80. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to the future Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Something has to change it a joke when 1 party gets 4 million votes and 1 seat and another gets 1.5 million votes gets 58 seats. I also think more people would vote with PR,imagine being a Labour supporter in Leafy Berkshire or a Tory in St.Helens,its a pointless/worthless waste of time actually going to vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Something has to change it a joke when 1 party gets 4 million votes and 1 seat and another gets 1.5 million votes gets 58 seats. I also think more people would vote with PR,imagine being a Labour supporter in Leafy Berkshire or a Tory in St.Helens,its a pointless/worthless waste of time actually going to vote Impossible to disagree with you about the faults of the current system. But it's much more difficult to get everyone to agree the details of a new system that should replace it. The current system has a couple of advantages that could be lost under some PR systems. To start with, the party that wins the election has a manifesto that it is directly accountable for, whereas under coalition governments the manifesto that is eventually adopted is one that no one voted for. Secondly, each voter has a relationship with an individual MP in a constituency. If we take those two elements of the current system away, our politicians could become far more distant from us, which I would have thought is not a desirable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to the future Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Maybe some math expert could work out what the recent election votes would add up to in seats per % of votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidingPie Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Impossible to disagree with you about the faults of the current system. But it's much more difficult to get everyone to agree the details of a new system that should replace it. The current system has a couple of advantages that could be lost under some PR systems. To start with, the party that wins the election has a manifesto that it is directly accountable for, whereas under coalition governments the manifesto that is eventually adopted is one that no one voted for. Secondly, each voter has a relationship with an individual MP in a constituency. If we take those two elements of the current system away, our politicians could become far more distant from us, which I would have thought is not a desirable outcome. To your first point Martyn, parties will still have manifestos, they'll just look a bit different, and discuss what their priorities are, instead of this year election where the big two have clearly put things in to negotiate away. On the second, the German system seems to work very well, keeping constituency links and being proportional. It might mean politics would have to grow up in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Drake Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Impossible to disagree with you about the faults of the current system. But it's much more difficult to get everyone to agree the details of a new system that should replace it. The current system has a couple of advantages that could be lost under some PR systems. To start with, the party that wins the election has a manifesto that it is directly accountable for, whereas under coalition governments the manifesto that is eventually adopted is one that no one voted for. Secondly, each voter has a relationship with an individual MP in a constituency. If we take those two elements of the current system away, our politicians could become far more distant from us, which I would have thought is not a desirable outcome. There are different electoral systems at work already within our own United Kingdom, providing perfectly stable and accountable government, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's a complete red herring to suggest that a proportional system cannot deliver stable government or local accountability. In any case, where is the accountability under FPTP in so called 'safe' seats of which there are still hundreds in this country, where the local MP effectively has a job for life, regardless of their ability to do the job effectively, and where ultimately they are only ever accountable to the handful of party activists or the central party machine who select them? And why on earth should a party that wins less than a quarter of the vote of the total electorate be granted a Parliamentary majority to enact without hindrance a manifesto that the majority have actually voted against? It's ludicrous! If it were happening in some Middle Eastern or African state, those who defend our ridiculous system would be tut-tutting about fraudulent elections and dishonest mandates. FPTP is an utterly bankrupt system that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history at least 30 years ago. Of course the two parties that benefit most from it will cling to it for as long as possible, but that in itself demonstrates why it is unfit for purpose. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Drake Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Its not a simple as the electoral reform lobby makes out. They are making some huge assumptions to suggest that had there been a different system in place, the outcome would have been as they suggested. What do you think would happen to actual voting patterns if everyone knew that 4 million UKIP votes would have actually delivered 80 MPs? Do you think that 4 million would have voted UKIP had there been some danger of actually getting 80 MPs? The protest vote would have disappeared. What do you think those reluctant Conservative, Labour, don't knows or Lib Dem voters who couldn't currently be bothered to vote would have done if by voting they might stop a UKIP MP being elected? Maybe they would have bothered to vote so defeating some of those 80. Your post just proves the point about the need for change. Of course lots of people would vote differently if they knew their vote would make a real difference! At present, how many people compromise themselves trying to second guess the system and prevent the side they like least from winning, instead of voting for what they truly believe in? And how many don't vote at all because they think there's little point in the area they live? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Drake Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 What's the point of complaining. Because nothing would ever change if people just gave up fighting for change and the things they believe in. Democracy didn't just stop on May 8th. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadera78 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 There are different electoral systems at work already within our own United Kingdom, providing perfectly stable and accountable government, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's a complete red herring to suggest that a proportional system cannot deliver stable government or local accountability. In any case, where is the accountability under FPTP in so called 'safe' seats of which there are still hundreds in this country, where the local MP effectively has a job for life, regardless of their ability to do the job effectively, and where ultimately they are only ever accountable to the handful of party activists or the central party machine who select them? And why on earth should a party that wins less than a quarter of the vote of the total electorate be granted a Parliamentary majority to enact without hindrance a manifesto that the majority have actually voted against? It's ludicrous! If it were happening in some Middle Eastern or African state, those who defend our ridiculous system would be tut-tutting about fraudulent elections and dishonest mandates. FPTP is an utterly bankrupt system that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history at least 30 years ago. Of course the two parties that benefit most from it will cling to it for as long as possible, but that in itself demonstrates why it is unfit for purpose. I was going to post something similar about London. We have the Additional Member System in place giving 14 constituency members and 11 London-wide members. Sure, it's not a strict form of PR but it gives everyone a bit of what they want. Unfortunately the GLA is little more than a talking shop but there are the stirrings of a movement for more powers to be transferred from Westminster. One of the potential Labour candidates for mayor is calling for the same powers that Holyrood has. Britain is, in it's own haphazard way, heading towards federalism in one form or another. That gives us the opportunity to re-shape politics in a fundamental way, including the voting system. "Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart." Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Maybe some math expert could work out what the recent election votes would add up to in seats per % of votes http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/system-crisis (some numbers, however this is from one side of the debate) With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Drake Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/system-crisis (some numbers, however this is from one side of the debate) This quote from the above link illustrates that ultimately, all parties lose out somewhere under FPTP in some way or another, so this debate should be a cross-party issue:- First Past the Post is artificially exaggerating divides in the UK – giving the SNP nearly all Scottish seats on half the vote, while excluding Labour from the South of England and over-representing them in Wales and under-representing the Conservatives in the North of England and Scotland. The SNP situation in Scotland highlights the ludicrous nature of FPTP almost perfectly when comparing their position at Westminster to their position in the Scottish Parliament. The figures showing how an AV system would have distorted the General Election result even worse than FPTP help to demonstrate why many of those who support electoral reform voted against what was offered in the referendum on the subject in the last Parliament. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dan Hodges defends FPTP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidingPie Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dan Hodges defends FPTP. what an utter nonsense of an article, comparing the electoral reform society to an alcoholic is a terrible metaphor. An alcoholic has a serious addiction to a dangerous substance (as sadly proven today by Charles Kennedy) whilst the elector reform society are asking for a fairer voting system. I honestly can't see any similarity for comparison! Lets look at a few points "Yes, it may be the same electoral system the British people voted to retain in 2011" - Not true, the electorate rejected AV, nothing proportional was on offer! Also the press made it in to a Nick Clegg popularity campaign Saying the referendum was “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the way we do politics in the UK” is a lied laid bare by the No to AV campaign strategy of saying that is wasn't the right change. Many of their adverts quoted Clegg saying AV was a miserable compromise, or I think David Steele saying AV wasn't the way forward. He's also then going on about what the seat distribution would be under AV. Most people now are arguing for a proportional system AV is not and never has been a proportional system. This article is the typical cherry picked nonsense I expect from people who want to support the status quo. There are better systems, I think what the ERS needs to do is pick a system and get the all the people in politics who want reform, left and right to back it, and start a proper debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 There are better systems, I think what the ERS needs to do is pick a system and get the all the people in politics who want reform, left and right to back it, and start a proper debate. As I said earlier, the difficulty with reforming the system is that there is no agreement on the details of a system to put in place of FPTP. So it would be a good idea for all those parties that support reform to agree on what they would like to see in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff9of13 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dan Hodges defends FPTP. But that talks mainly about AV and takes no account of this: Its not a simple as the electoral reform lobby makes out. They are making some huge assumptions to suggest that had there been a different system in place, the outcome would have been as they suggested. What do you think would happen to actual voting patterns if everyone knew that 4 million UKIP votes would have actually delivered 80 MPs? Do you think that 4 million would have voted UKIP had there been some danger of actually getting 80 MPs? The protest vote would have disappeared. What do you think those reluctant Conservative, Labour, don't knows or Lib Dem voters who couldn't currently be bothered to vote would have done if by voting they might stop a UKIP MP being elected? Maybe they would have bothered to vote so defeating some of those 80. "it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidingPie Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 As I said earlier, the difficulty with reforming the system is that there is no agreement on the details of a system to put in place of FPTP. So it would be a good idea for all those parties that support reform to agree on what they would like to see in place. I couldn't agree more Martyn. Most people can now see that the electoral system of FPTP has issues. We can see the problem, now its time to put forward the suggestion for a solution and discuss it thoroughly. Constitutional decisions need to be properly thought through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Drake Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dan Hodges defends FPTP. Absolute nonsense of an article that deliberately misrepresents the position of the Electoral Reform Society and rewrites history with regard to the referendum in the last Parliament - which quite deliberately didn't offer a proportional system as the alternative to FPTP. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Absolute nonsense of an article that deliberately misrepresents the position of the Electoral Reform Society and rewrites history with regard to the referendum in the last Parliament - which quite deliberately didn't offer a proportional system as the alternative to FPTP. It may be nonsense generally, but where I think he's right is that there doesn't seem to be a general groundswell of opinion in favour of reform among the electorate as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomdooley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I feel a groundswell coming on.I have lived in seven different constituencies and only onc in 50 yrs has my vote gone to the new MP.Count me in for STV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.