And Another Thing…

Do you say that as an MP confident he’ll survive next May’s bloodbath?

Mandelson has probably done the math and recognised that if he wants to avoid the Labour party becoming an endangered species outside of Wales, Scotland, and North East England, it may be time to look again at PR!

Hey Tom.

Do you realise according to tonight’s poll, 48% would prefer you to be PM than Gordon Brown?

” a Populus poll for The Times finds that 48 per cent believe that “literally anyone” from Labour’s ranks could do better, without naming alternatives. Only a third of voters say that Mr Brown is the best leader available to Labour at present.”

Quite right, but furthermore I think that any significant electoral reform from such an unpopular government will only reflect badly on the Party and present an open goal to those who would accuse the Gvt of trying to fix the system to save themselves. (See Matthew Taylor above!)

But are you so sure he doesn’t want to split the party? So many of his utternaces clearly demonstrate that he does. Derek Simpson and your erstwhile John Cruddas are self evidently spoiling for a tantrum.

Yes Tom,

We wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression that Labour are actually sticking to any of the 1997 manifesto promises, now would we.

That would never do.

BTW – when ARE you going to make your move against Gordon Brown?

Its strange only when a party is about to loose so heavily does it turn to PR.

All my Italian friends are sure that the reason Italy have had such poor governnments since the war is totaly due to PR. it makes for weak government. All the deals that have to be made just waters down policy so much it achieves nothing.

Its PR that has let the BNP into Europe.

People need to think long and hard before they embrace PR.

If you want the BNP in Westminster support PR.

I would support Tom to be leader of any party. He may be misguided but he is honest as far as i can see, and he has a sense of humour, and a nice wife and family.
He is Scotish but then you cant have everything.

Bit concerned about his Asda coffee habit but hey there are programes for that.( do they have Waitrose in Scotland)

On the up side – for you anyway, Tom; I see that Labour are 1% up in the polls.

Amazing!

Tom

We fight wars in faraway places, in the name of democracy, where many of our brave soldiers die. Yet at home, we are quite happy to elect a party to government with a landslide victory, supported by only 26% of those eligible to vote. Then change the Prime Minister without an election, and ‘appoint’ his second-in-command.

Furthermore Tom, you can then vote on English-only education & English-only NHS policies, etc…, when your English colleagues can’t return the favour.

Gordon Brown doesn’t generally put things across very well, but he is right about the “Gentlemans Club” that is Westminster.

We need a fairer voting system, and a more democratic AND written constitution.

Heaven forfend actually making for a better system of deomcracy when it may cause sitting MPs some discomfort. After all the electorate are of no import when compared to MPs careers.

Any voting for electoral reform should not sit in the hands of MPs.

The rationale for not changing the system appently being, MPs wont like it and it will cause divisions in party loyalty, just before a General Election. Absolutely no reference to the fact that it may make for a more connected and effective democracy and it should be the electorate who vote for the electoral system, not MPs.

This article displays exactly the: myopic self-serving thought process; contempt for Democracy and the electorate, which is why MPs are reviled by so many people.

Marmite is grim stuff.

In all seriousness, if the undesirable concept of an unelected Lord who is ineligable to vote in a general election commenting on potential changes to the voting system is lost on his Lordship, I trust you and any sane Labour MP will spell it out to him in no uncertain terms.

http://www.irfanahmed.org/2009/09/time-to-forget-electoral-reform.html

Agreed. This is a fool’s errand.

Gordon has neither time nor support to ram this through before the next election. On top of which the Lords can very reasonably delay any constitutional changes until the clock runs out.

What a shame you weren’t in the Commons in 1832, 1867 or 1884 to say nothing of 1928.

The old ways are the best, eh?

With the internet, we could ALL vote on any Bill in Parliament.

Remind me again, exactly WHY do we need MPs or Parties?

Johnny Norfolk: “If you want the BNP in Westminster support PR”.

Or, to put it another way, if you want the issue of immigration addressed, support PR. A different system is not inherently a worse system.

Parents’ votes should count extra as they are not voting short-termist and are trying to look after the long term future of this country.

Likewise, no-one should be allowed to become a minister without having a personal interest in the future prosperity of the country.

In the interests of fairness though, church goers should have their votes reduced by 33% as they tend to block vote and often vote on single issues.

Also, people with ongoing medical conditions should have their votes reduced 50% as they will inevitably vote for the party that promises to do most with the NHS.

Or we could have one adult one vote.

I actually think a separation of the house of commons from the leader of the country would make sense. Have a head of state that shapes policy and then signs it into law while the commons debate the relative merits of various policies and budgets. This way the people would still be represented locally in a first past the post election but the country would be governed by the winner of the popular vote – votes that would be transferrable allowing minorities (greens etc.) to have a say in the direction the country takes.

Or is that too American for you?

Hang on, Boris Johnson got elected mayor of London. Maybe this is a bad idea after all.

FPTP is simple to understand and allows independents to stand with some chance of success.

PR (whichever version you choose) favours established parties, especially those with lists.

Lists are the most undemocratic concept ever foisted upon this country. Yes, even though it helps the conservatives in Scotland.

So I’ll side with Tom.
———————

Bet Tom’s having a rethink now )

I’m glad to see ‘such nonsense’ will likely be defeated before it gets anywhere near the electorate. I can’t understand why some in Labour are still pressing for it though.

Any referendum at election time will just remind voters that Labour didn’t honour its last promise on one, and for a Government to promote fundamental changes to the electoral system at a time when it’s likely to lose, will undoubtedly be seen as cynical.

Certainly the Tories will portray it as such.

When in doubt, just ask yourselves:

“What would the Swiss do?”

I think we should reform the voting system asap.

Anyone under 30 is immature and should not be allowed to vote: as most do not bother, it will make little difference.

Anyone who has been on state benefits for more than 10 years is clearly not a contributing member to our society and should not vote. As many do not it should make little difference.
All those over 60 should get two votes as they tend to vote more and the extra vote would give them an incentive to live longer – but subject to the 10 year rule above.

No Scots MPs are allowed to be Ministers – ever.

I commend these proposals as just as logical and as likely to be implemented as any Government ones

I meant to add this to my previous comment.

It’s always struck me that the Lib Dems’ stance on PR is rather arrogant. Effectively they seem to be saying; ‘We are a wonderful and great party that is surely destined for Government if only the pesky FPTP system didn’t get in the way’.

Has it not occurred to them that the reason they languish in third place could be for the simple reason they are…er.. not very popular!

I’m not entirely convinced either that PR will help them. One of the Lib Dems’ ‘strengths’ is doing well in by-elections. As a voter who has experienced a number of their, often, very very negative campaigning in by-elections, their approach is usually based on; ‘we’re not the other two’, or ‘only the Lib Dems can challenge here’.

PR will surely negate some of the effectiveness of this anti ‘other party’ vote. The EU elections give some indication of the impact of PR on Lib Dems.

Here are their results for the last 5 elections (obviously caution needed due to the low turnouts):

2009 – 4th
2004 – 4th
1999 – 3rd
1994 – 3rd
1989 – 4th

Hardly a ringing endorsement is it? I think the old maxim of; ‘be careful what you wish for’, applies.

@Old Holburn

The reason why we have an elected representative is that the vast majority of us do not have the time, the inclination, the intelligence or the resources to grasp the nuances of the bills that pass through the house. When debating stem cell research do you want the slobbering masses to make decisions based on what they read in the Daily Star? Do you want the euthanasia debate decided by what Zoe says about it on Page 3 of The Sun? (btw. how long has she been 25 for?)

We have a bunch of elected MPs who have access to funds to enable them to get the best possible advice and make their decisions based on that. It is a system I am in agreement with. e.g. I have a degree in Economics but all that means is I recognise how little I know about how the economy works and how many factors have to be taken into consideration when deciding on what to do with our billions of pounds. I do not want a plumber making that call, I do not want a surgeon making that call. I want someone who has had access to the best research and experts to make that call.

I would think there is zero chance of any binding change in the electoral system being made by the current dead duck government.

Though its interesting you mention the Lib Dems vested interests – as they don’t do very well when the public has a choice of protest votes.

The electoral system should be something we all agree on, as many of us have to consent to be governed by parties we don’t like at some point, in exchange for a fair chance to change that situation at the next election.

Using this to score party points just before an election you expect to lose is cynical and will most probably rebound as the public really doesn’t like this sort of low manipulation.

I’m not against electoral reform – I’m, against one party changing the system to suit itself without seeking cross party consensus.

A government elected under PR is the result of a raft of shabby, back room compromises,eventually stitched together to resemble a single, unified party.

What a recipe for stultifying inaction and lack of progressive thinking.

In a popular vote,the most popular should win.

Simple.

As Tom says, there’s probably enough opposition in the HoC to block any proposal to change the voting system regardless of the method chosen.

Even if the government manage to somehow bulldoze a referendum question through the commons then the HoL can block it for up to four sessions (e.g well beyond the legally mandated date for the GE).

Theoretically the government could force a series of “short” sessions to use the Parliament act to blast through the Lords but now we’re in fantasy-land and that would trash their entire legislative programme for the coming year.

More likely they’ll propose to hold a referendum on the subject which leads to a raft of “you can’t trust Labour with referenda” articles in the press.

Lose-lose for Labour. Why is Mandy even suggesting it?

[...] Tom Harris opposes electoral reform [...]

[...] Tom Harris opposes electoral reform [...]

[...] Tom Harris opposes electoral reform [...]

Tom’s opposing lots of things at the moment.

I suppose that one of the main benefits of being outside the tent is that you get to piss in.

Governments based on less than a majority (50 per cent) of votes, are not legitimate. That’s why PR is needed (preferably STV, but open party lists would also do).