And another thing…

So what’s your solution to the House of Lords problem?

Will probably get Griffin’s cousins from the far left too, then they can argue about who killed more people and holds the title of “most vicious” – close call

So we should avoid a fair voting system because our system is so pathetically weak that the mere presence of Nick Griffin in Westminster would bring it crumbling down?

Or might, just might, the benefits of a fair voting system outweigh that issue? Perish the thought.

In an odd sort of way, I think the fact that a democracy can elect the unelectable without collapsing into a gibbering heap is sign of a strong democratic system – and should be applauded.

To quote the most famous thing that Voltaire never said: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it”

I disagree with Nick Griffin and all he stands for – just as I also disagree with those on the far left and all they stand for.

I however, don’t need the government to then decide that I am too feeble minded to make up my own mind on the issues they raise, and censor their views.

Is our democracy really not strong enough to cope with having a few odd-balls within its institutions?

If so, then the problem isn’t Nick Griffin, but the very structure of British democracy itself.

Pish, Tom.

There are many ways to gerrymander PR to stop the BNP. The easiest way would be to use STV with relatively small multimember constituencies.

Of course, you’ll then point out that STV isn’t necessarily proportional, and you’d be right.

The effective threshold the BNP would need is around 20% with 4-member constituencies, and 14% with 6-member ones.

And what about when the BNP win seats – as they do in local bye elections – with somewhere in the region of 25% on a three or four way split under FPTP, when up to three quarters of the voters have not supported them? Is that fair and democratic? Will you be raising your glass of champagne, Tom?

sounds like a great excuse to do nothing, Tom.

““Ah,” the retort comes, “you can’t stop the BNP by gerrymandering the electoral system. You have to beat them with argument.” Yeah? And how did that work out in the European elections?”

Bear in mind those elections took place at a time when faith in the main parties was at an all time low. I doubt they’d get so many votes usually.

Either way, the idea of treating one party differently because they’re nasty isn’t democratic. As far as I’m concerned, Labour, the tories and the BNP are all as bad as one another- should I be campaigning to have passes removed from the lot of you?

“Monty Python couldn’t make it up”

But New labour will certainly give it a go. We have a rise of extremist parties as a direct consequence of New Labour using immigration as a political tool. Now we have New Labour resisting constitutional change as a consequence of the rise of extremist parties.

What’s next? Prorogue Parliament just in case one of them gets elected?

You people aren’t fit to run a fete.

This is of course why the whole thing is being proposed at the fag end of the Labour government when it has no chance of happening before they’re kicked out but might help stop a few of the pro PR mob drifting to the LibDims

@Sam at 1.06 pm: “So what’s your solution to the House of Lords problem?”

First off, I don’t see it as a “problem”.

Read this. I voted for 100 per cent appointed last time I got the chance, and I haven’t changed my mind (though I accept I’m on the losing side on this one).

STOP PRESS

Minor Labour Jock MP thinks millions of people who voted for a party he doesn’t like should be told to do it again. Properly this time. EU/Irish advising

If duly elected, I have no problem with BNP representatives taking their seats in councils, parliament European Parliament or the House of Lords.
So many Labour and Tory activists are hung-up on the FPTP system, as the only method of keeping out the riff-raff i.e. anyone but them. Any parliament needs to reflect its electorate, and an uneducated electorate will always include racists, fascists, communists, and yes even socialists. If everyone is to be represented according to their proportion, then we should not shut the door to them, or gerrymander the system.

Course, given that the BNP are even further left than labour I’m not sure why you are saying that the far-right is the issue….?

Also have to agree – I like the Lords the way it is – curmudgeonly old fossils are a necessary brake on unfettered going where the populist winds blow.

Yes, it’s a bit of bother, this democracy malarkey!

Right, that’s it. I am going to get myself elected just so that I can sit next to you in the “workers canteen” every day and dribble whilst you’re eating.

Threatening people with the bogey man is just plain daft.

When that bogey man in question is a democratic and legal political party, it becomes, yes, pythonesque.

Let’s get this straight: the BNP exists because you, New Labour, have not only failed to address the core issues, you have mislead the public as to your intentions about them.

You are responsible for Nick Griffin. Not even Nick Griffin is responsible for himself, or those who vote for him. Your party has had twelve years to deal with immigration and the failure of so called “multiculturalism”, and despite all the spin of the last 24 hours (Newsnicht was working as an unpaid Labour PR firm) your party has paid out millions of pounds for “social cohesion” – money down the drain on projects that were meant to make people like Great Britain.

On your watch we had the worst home-grown terrorist atrocities in our history. And you expect people to trust you and not the BNP?

No idea what Chatter 88 is, but it will be reasonable for Barking or any other place to prevent anyone taking their name in vain.

The BNP would have representation in the PR Lords, but Griffin would need to resign his MEP seat to take one I would have thought.

There is pitifully little difference between some UKIP and Tory MPs and the BNP, bring them on.

The BNP just got over the thresholds for a seat in each of two regions at the worst time for a Labour Government for some time, when all Westminster politicians were under the hammer of the Expenses fiasco.

I wouldn’t bet that the BNP will keep both their seats, and certainly their minor success doesn’t argue against democracy to my mind.

There is no doubt whatsoever that excluding representation of their stupid opinions would be more counterproductive from Labour’s point of view. than allowing them to raise themselves to their rear legs at Westminster.

There would be more point to stiffening the libel laws to reduce lies in the Dully Maul & Tele, insisting on fulsome corrections, than to attempting to pervert expression of a wide range of British opinion in a way which would not promote better government in any case.

“Not even Nick Griffin is responsible for himself”

What I mean by this is that Griffin is a meme, a standard, a flag flying that people can coalesce on. The BNP is an ad hoc party, born out of frustration with the main parties.

In a way the BNP is just like the Greens used to be, a fringe group of loonies. Now that “Green” issues are mainstream, the Greens themselves have very little democratic influence – it has been subsumed into the mainstream.

The BNP will go away, if the concerns of their voters are addressed by people who understand those concerns, and are willing and able to address them in a compassionate, humane and unequivocal manner.

You get your choice really – democracy at the risk of a bunch of idiotic voters voting in an idiot like Griffin or the democratic deficit that is FPTP and the purity of big parties. The only reasonably good argument for FPTP is to enable “stong” government. That does not apply in the Lords as the second chamber.

OT, the demise of National Express as a rail operator must be a symptom of how wrong Labour has gotten franchise policy. At £1.4 Billion – the charge the government made to NE to run the East Coast line, don’t you think you have been a bit greedy?

So the BNP get a seat or two in the Lords. So what? Democracy extends to the loathsome, too.

Fixing democracy to exclude is anti-democratic no matter what your motives. Likewise, your belief in freedom of speech and democracy is not tested by your views toward, and treatment of, people you like, but how you deal with those you loathe.

Let’s get a grip: the BNP has the right to freedom of speech and the right to seek elected office. Likewise, I have the right to hear their filthy ideas and the idiots who vote for them have every right to do so.

So, to ask again, what’s the problem?

Any elections for anything should be first past the post. Its not perfect but it stops people like the BNP, Greens and other minority nutters getting in.

You just cant beat Labour, its their fault the BNP are in the Euro parliment, so now they are going to set it up so they can get into the Lords. Just whats the matter with them. Some of them are just THICK.

It’s a real shame that you’ve had to descend into weak territory Mr Harris. Whether we like it or not (and trust me, I don’t) the BNP are a legitimate party, who have received votes in the past and will do in the future. The nature of democracy is that unpalatable elements will come to the fore in tough times. Yours is the most undemocratic argument I’ve ever heard against any electoral system.

Perhaps its time for MPs, that represent the party I am a member of, to start making the positive case for immigration. Lets change the rhetoric, stop conceding ground to ‘The Sun’ and right wing publications and put forward the cultural as well as economic case for migration. Once you start doing that lets see how well the BNP do…

TOM: >> “You have to beat them with argument.” Yeah? And how did that work out in the European elections?

Does that not say more about the quality of the other parties’ arguments than the system?

There are real issues that some people feel the BNP address (they do, but not in the right way!) and then there are the candidates for the big parties. Candidates like Tom Harris who has voted against his party how many times, 4 was it? Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that there were only 4 occassions in your time in Parliament that the government policy was not in the best interests of your constituents?

Pass a rule change that says you can only get a pass if you “don’t have funny-looking eyes”?

As odious as Mr Griffin’s views are, is this comment really necessary considering that he lost his eye in an accident?

I personally don’t agree with the principle of PR but to argue against it solely on the basis that it will allow people in that you don’t approve of, is poor, arrogant and unhelpful.

When Griffin appeared on QT the thing that struck me most, apart from obviously all the furore, was that it was the first time, that I recall, the subject of immigration was broached on the programme.

It sometimes makes me wonder if PR is what it takes for MPs to listen.

Perhaps you could rig the postal votes to make certain you get all the seats ?

Sorted.

So, you don’t agree with democracy?

Because that’s how it reads.

Fantasy that immigration has never been addressed on the tedious Question Time.

But then, the BNP survives because people forget.

The remarkable thing about this post is the implicit admission that the author thinks gerrymandering is OK if it excludes people he particularly dislikes from democratic representation. Great advert for his own belief in democracy. Perhaps one day it will cross the minds of mainstream politicians that the fear of people like Griffin getting elected might force our Parliament to address issues which it really should have tackled long ago without the need for such pressure. Silly me. Of course they already do know this, that’s why they are so wedded to FPTP.

I do like your ‘Chatter 88′ for ‘Charter 88′; they gabbed for Britain at the time. They are now ‘Unlock Democracy’ and rather charmingly state that they now incorporate Charter 88.

http://www.charter88.org.uk/

The trouble with giving the ‘people’ what they want is that they often don’t want what we gabbers want them to have – which is why you never see polls on bringing capital punishment back.

It’s said – I suppose it is true – that true democracy in the Muslim world would see the Islamists sweep to power everywhere. I would guess that the BNP – even with compulsory voting – are only going to gather 15% of the British vote at most; but if they do perform at that level they surely deserve representation in both chambers. I don’t like it, but can’t see how they can be denied.

For the record, in this post I am not actually advocating that we change an electoral system in order to prevent the election of fascists. I’m making the point that some of those who support PR are the same people who bang on about giving the BNP “no platform”. I’m trying to illuminate an inconsistency in their logic.

That really hit home, obviously…

Tom said: “I’m making the point that some of those who support PR are the same people who bang on about giving the BNP “no platform”. I’m trying to illuminate an inconsistency in their logic.”

This is exactly right. One can empathise with the feeling “can’t we just shut up these abhorrent fascists”, but their views often hopelessly undermine the very free speech and liberty they hope to protect from Griffin’s snarling guttersnipes.

‘I’m trying to illuminate an inconsistency in their logic.’

I have to say Tom, that I do not support ‘no platform’ because it is fundamentally undemocratic. As is the argument you seem to implicitly support in opposition to electoral reform.

We’ve established that you oppose pure proportional representation. Fair enough. However, would you support a system such as AV or AV+ which maintains the constituency link whilst allowing voters to vote for who they want, rather than engaging in tactical voting?

“would you support a system such as AV or AV+…”

No. AV would be seen by PR reformers as a half-way house and they wouldn’t support it any more than they support FPTP. AV+ is even worse than AV, because it creates “assisted places scheme” MPs who represent “super-constituencies” and who would set themselves up as rivals to the properly-elected MPs in the same area.

In Holyrood, the assisted places scheme is used to put those who have failed to be elected in the constituencies into Holyrood as MSPs anyway.

Sorry Tom some people are just blind to see what can happen with PR. No matter how you explain it to them they either dont or will not understand

Tom,
Just because you don’t see a problem does not mean that a problem doesn’t exist.
The lookouts on the Titanic didn’t see a problem until it was too late.

If there is rivalry between MPs in the House of Commons and The House of Lords I see no overwhelming problem.

I was a Labour Councillor sharing a ward with a Tory fairly happily for a couple of years, it does happen.

My guess is that Jack Straw is looking to the future, good on him – the pinpricks of BNP, and Tommy Sherridan not withstanding.

Didn’t the latter win 7 seats in the Scots Parliament, and where are they now?

BTW I regard all the systems like AV, AV+, STV etc as examples of PR. Strict PR with one national list may well be what is proposed, we shall see.

Maybe we shall move on from that after a few years’ trial, of the system, not mine Blog host . . .

I despise the BNP. I do believe in democracy though so I do think our legislators should be elected. Call me a Nazi sympathiser if you must but isn’t an elected legislation chamber preferable to an unelected one?

F***ing Nazi sympathiser…

You know, I’m trying to think what the Swiss would do. After all, they’re the richest, happiest, healthiest, most educated people in the world.

Ah yes. Local, total, democracy

No Stokie, they are not. They are Swiss though, and you may be welcome there in my experience.

Sorry Tom but this is really poor. I want Nick Griffin in Parliament (always assuming he has a certain level of support). It’s called democracy, a concept both you and New Labour don’t seem entirely to believe in.

We’ll see how anti-PR Tom Harris is after he loses his seat next year and tries to get himself on the Glasgow Regional List for the Holyrood election in 2011.

So Nick Griffin might get a seat. So what? Do you really find him that scary?

Scare tactics?

Or a realisation that after twelve years of power you can’t argue effectively with people who now appeal to your core vote?

You certainly aren’t going to fix much with this piece of gushing irreverence

Tom, do you understand that there are a significant number of us who despise New Labour as much as you despise the BNP? 1,000,000+ it seemed at the Euro Elections.

It is an absolute travesty that you lot are in power and I support any gerrymandering of the electoral system that will stack the odds against of keeping your mendacious leadership out of our parliament for good (i.e. – making a Scottish vote worth 1/10th of an English vote seems arbitrary enough).

I fear Lord Griffin less than I fear Lord Mandelson.

Pretty unlikely that all BNP voters despise Labour, there are many more conservatives with such attitudes..

But there are many, many more people who loathe and fear the conservative party and despise the BNP, than despise and fear Labour, despite the fact that Labour is the prime target for such feelings having won 3 General Elections in a row.

We also have excellent reasons, history instructs . . .

Bloody hell Tom! sometimes you talk so much sense I don’t understand how You got involved with that load of cretins purportedly running the country.

firstly, as the present Lords is deemed non geographic, it allows non English lairds to pontificate on English only affairs.Stormont,the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament are lords free.
An elected Lords will invoke the upper West Lothian Question.
secondly, if an elected lords can still be overuled by a parliament act there is not much point in doing anything.

I’ve written a lot more about this, using some fairly harsh language (not something for Ronnie or Reggie to read with you, Tom) on my blog about Lords reform being one of Labour’s biggest failures in office.

But when I read your comments here, I thought I’d add a bit.
I know you’re really trying to say “People whining about the BNP getting a voice are the same people wanting PR”.
You may be right on that. You may not, I don’t know, I don’t listen to the mouth-breathing morons that supposedly scream this from the rooftops.

What I do know is that I get very nervous when I hear politicians saying they don’t trust the people to vote the right way. That they don’t trust the people to make the right choices on something, that we’d all be better off with a Lords that’s selected or inherited instead of direct-democracy.

I believe in democracy. I’m crazy about it, and I care even more about it than I do my own political issues, because democracy is at the cornerstone of everything we do. Without it, without freedom, everything else we do as a people is pointless.

If I weren’t a democrat, I’d simply achieve my political aims the old fashioned way; I’d raise up an army, I’d wander on down to Holyrood, take control, shoot anyone that opposed me, secure the border, get on the TV and declare myself King etc.
But I do. I would rather sit in Parliament opposite Nick Griffin, as a democratically elected MSP (assuming the grubby little oik stood and got elected as an MSP) than live in a country where our Parliament didn’t have any such scumbags in it, because it was selected by those of a certain birthright, or those who sit in influential positions in London. Why? Because the people would have spoken.

I may not agree with everything you say. I may oppose every last word from your mouth. But I will defend it, to my death if needs be.

Lord Barking Griffin? (With apologies to Barking)

Btw I see not need to abandon the use of the title ‘Lord’ for the members of the second chamber, and why should we go to the Romans for “senate” as the Americans felt a need?

In one sense I agree with Tom here – there are certain things, no matter how many people want it, just shouldn’t be allowed.

For example a return to slavery or capital punishment, or 90 days detention, or torture, or a state religion, or a removal of habeus corpus ora removal of the presumption of innocence.

Allowing the BNP into Parliament isn’t one of them! If we had suffiecient Constitutional rights then even a BNP government with a massive majority would be limited in the damage they could do. What a shame that wasn’t in place in 1997. (Or 1992, or 1979 etc. etc.)

There will probably be about 450 Lords (or whatever you want to call them).
The Lords will be elected by thirds meaning 150 members at each election.
You could use STV with at least three member constituencies.

This would mean that there would only be about 50 constituencies, with 1 Lords constituency covering 7 Commons constituencies. “Lord Griffin” would need 25% of the vote across these 7 constituencies to be elected. Their best last time was 17% in Barking and while this will be higher next time it is unlikely that they could get a share of the vote that high across 7 neighbouring constituencies. Therefore, it is probably just as likely that he could become an MP as a Lord.

It is shameful to see anti-PR Labour and Tory MPs use the defects of the dreadful closed-list PR system that they voted to use in Euro elections as a bat with which to hit all forms of PR.

[...] subjects. With regards to his latest post however I sympathise with Tom but feel he is wrong on this. People like Griffin, however loathsome, should not be seen as an impediment to electoral [...]

Election by thirds is usually taken to mean that 1/3 of the total members are up for election after every third period of their term.

For example:

450 Lords are elected or appointed or a mix at the beginning.

2 years later 1/3 of them retire and their seats are up for election. 150 Lords are then elected, probably including some of the same people, some new ones.

2 years later another 150 retire and 150 are elected for these seats.

A further 2 years the remaining 150 Lords retire and there are election in those 150 seats. All 450 who were in place at the beginning have now either retired and not sought re-election or stood for election, successfully or not.

And so forth.

There is no very good reason why the constituencies for the Lords need be the same size, or why there should be the same numbers of Lords for each.

Tom I laughed a lot at the Nazi sympathizer remark but seriously why do you always seem to deploy straw men in your argument against pr? Surely the only argument about pr that is worth having is not the one based the possibility of bogeymen getting elected but whether it’s a fairer way of counting votes than fptp? It’s then up to the rest of us to persuade the electorate not to vote for bogeymen rather than design voting methods that are designed to frustrate the popular will.
PS As a six year old evacuee my Mum was visited by Rudolf Hess in Eaglesham – perhaps it’s in the blood….

[...] Thursday, he warned against using proportional representation for House of Lords elections – unless [...]