And another thing…

Ah, but that’s not quite true which brings FPTP to the problem I have – You actually vote for both party and the councillor. Whether people realise or not, it is true.

I have an unfortunate position in which I would like a particular person to become an MP. Problem is that he’s in a different party than the one I would want in power.

Willie Sullivan is mostly there because of the word “Labour” however, he should still stand for some of his personal beliefs, otherwise we may as well have PR. When this reflects badly on Labour, surely withdrawing the whip is the answer..

Government is poor enough without watering it down further. To all those in favour of PR I would remind them. that because of PR the BNP are now sitting in the Euro Parliament. If it comes here they will be in Westminster. Just leave the system alone not all new things are good.As that is why the left wing BNP are now with us.

Wanting a system in which the size of party representation at Westminster reflects the proportion of votes cast is not silly. The matter of the billboard may be, but fairness is not.

So as an MP, Tom, do you represent your own views, the views of the Labour Party, or the views of your electorate?
As a constituent, and non-Labour voter, how do you represent my interests?

Anyone who stands under a party’s banner believes that that party’s polices more broadly benefit his constituents than any other parties. Any candidate who doesn’t believe that shouldn’t be standing.

How do I represent your interests? By supporting a Labour government I believe I’m representing the interests of all my constituents. But if your interests include, for example, supporting independence, then I would be very proud to oppose those interests at every opportunity.

It’s impossible for any MP to be in agreement with all his constituents on any one subject. My advice to any voter is to support someone who is able to exercise judgment, who won’t simply cave to the most populist causes going and who has the best interests of their constituents at heart.

I see no reason why even more power should be given to political parties. Power should remain with the people whereever possible and practical.

First past the post, where constituents vote for their preferred delegate to represent them in the House of Commons, is unquestionably the least-worth electoral system for British democracy – democracy, of course, being the least-worst form of government.

So Tom, there is something wrong with a Labour Councillor arguing in favour of what a Labour Prime Minister has promised will be in the next Labour manifesto (namely a referendum on the voting system?) And for this he is being attacked by a Labour MP?

What strange times we live in.

Oh Tom,slightly disengenious outrage I suspect. God saves us from this uber loyalty facade. We have endless polls saying the voters want electoral reform as a big response to the political crisis caused by ‘loyal’ MPs (loyal to who, the party? the people? themselves?)So what you and others are doing by trying to block reform are damaging the parties electoral chances. Balls position is about getting ‘conservative’ labour MPs like yourself on board for his leadership bid.see http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/01/balls-accused-of-blocking-electoral-reform/

It’s refreshing to see a Labour MP admit that he regards the party as more important than any “issue”.

Are you suggested an outright ban on internal democracy within the party? That differing ideas should never be proposed and discussed in order to save some pathetic facade of party ‘loyalty’? That once the leadership say ‘this is what we think’, it brooks no discussion whatsoever? That’s not loyalty, that’s inertia. No wonder Labour is in ruins and totally bereft of ideas.

Tom, your stance on electoral reform doesn’t reflect the views of all your constituents. Had the government been elected by PR, the UK surely wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq in 2003. As a strong supporter of the war, is that where your opposition from electoral reform stems from?

Stephen M Corner: “Are you suggested an outright ban on internal democracy within the party? That differing ideas should never be proposed and discussed in order to save some pathetic facade of party ‘loyalty’? That once the leadership say ‘this is what we think’, it brooks no discussion whatsoever?”

Hardly. Which is why I’m taking the opposite view on AV to the Prime Minister. But I’m not doing it by putting a billboard up in his constituency.

If you wrote that without your tongue firmly in your cheek Tom, you are as shameless as Alastair Campbell.

Electoral reform is “wild-eyed and crazy”? If so, then so is democracy. The limited form of this we practice in this country was perhaps well suited to the nineteenth century in which it developed, but is no longer acceptable. It really is indefensible that the 4% of voters in marginal constituencies whose votes may vary should be able to determine the outcome of elections (and that consequently parties tailor their policies to buy the support of that 4%, rather than in the interests of the 96% majority).

You condemn anyone who might “start to believe that an issue rather than (their) party is the most important thing”. Just read that again and consider what your readers must conclude from it. For rational voters it is the issues that are important, not the party. No one who believes, as you apparently do, my party right or wrong, deserves to be elected.

And of course, any reform must take into account the West Lothian question. Sorry Tom, but the current state of affairs is utterly out of order.

This too needs attention …. Labour can get a majority on 36% of the vote, whereas the Tories need 42%

Sergeant Plodder – I know I’ll regret this, but I decided not to delete your comment, even though it’s way off-topic. Tell me: what on earth has the West Lothian Question got to do with the perceived imbalance in the electoral system? Don’t the Tories fight seats in Scotland (answer: yes, they do)? It can’t be that Scotland is over-represented at Westminster because (a) the boundaries of Scottish constituencies were redrawn in the run-up to the 2005 election to make them the same average size as English seats and (b) anyway, Scotland was “over-represented” for centuries, long before the West Lothian Question started being asked and when the Tory Party considered itself a UK party and won elections on that basis.

Funny, but I seem to remember ‘electoral reform’being part of Labours Manifesto Commitments in 1997.

Unfortunately, since they won with such a thumping majority, they soon ‘forgot’ about the need for reform and were happy to go along with FPTP which delivers a virtual 2 party duopoly and allows governments to form with over 100 seat majorities on less than 25% of the votes cast.

Whatever FPTP may be – it certainly isn’t democratic.

Strangely I find myself in agreement with Ed Balls but from a completely different angle – the electoral reform has only come out of the closet for Labour because they realise that with it in place, they would not now be starring into the abyss of a complete drubbing at the coming General Election.

There should be no such thing as “Safe seats” for MP’s – it leads to nepotism and corruption – witness Speaker Martin who initially said he would only stand down from his seat if his son was accepted as the Labour Party replacement – as reported widely in the press.

I can’t think of a better illustration as to how far nepotism and corruption has infected our political process under this Labour Government.

We desperatly need PR in this country to avoid this tweedle dum and tweedle dee system of government that is so devalued.

There are few MP’s that I consider to be ‘clean’ from both the Tories and Labour – Maybe Tom, Kayt Hoey, Frank Field, Bob Marshall-Andrews and Tony Benn had he still been an MP.
As for the Tories, erm? I’m sure there must be some, but names escape me at the moment.

“…allows governments to form with over 100 seat majorities on less than 25% of the votes cast”

Of the votes cast? Really? You don’t mean “less than 25% of those who were entitled to vote”?

An entirely justified criticism of Mr Sullivan, IMHO. It sounds like another example of the kamikaze instinct amongst some Labour people to prefer feeling all morally superior to actually making a realistic assessment of the compromises real power entails. Labour had 18 years of that – what a waste.

Sadly, Tom, you oppose electoral reform for two, partisan, reasons:

1) The FTPP system locks things down to basically two parties. The Labour party spend 40 odd years from the 1880s to the 1920s trying to elbow their way into that two party relationship, greatly helped by both the implosion of the Liberal party and the Conservative adoption of Gladstonian Liberalism.
2) It keeps out the BNP and other ‘minority’ parties

Leaving aside 2 as clearly being about denying people representation because you dislike their representatives, point 1 is enough, even as a probably Tory voter this year, to convince me that electoral reform is VITAL.

The correlation between, for a topical example, expenses abuses and ’safe seats’ should also be lighting a rocket under the anti-reform camp. In point of fact, safe seats under FPP effectively disenfranchise up to 70% of people.

I hold no special brief for STV or ATV or any other acronym, except, perhaps, UAV (unmanned aerial vote – an experimental democratic system to run alongside Gordon’s ‘vertical farmers’) but I do know that when we have governments, blue and red, elected to rule us with under 40% of the national vote, we don’t have a functioning democracy. They rule as well as they would as if they had a 100% mandate. We live in elected oligarchy, I fear, and Tom is ensuring that we remain there!

Tom, the wider public supports voting reform because people are tired of party hacks and their narrow-minded, tribalist antics. An obsession with the “sport” of politics clouds the underlying principles and purpose of the Labour Party.

Clause IV of the party’s constitution states quite clearly: “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.” Why then are some in the Labour Party so opposed to a fair democratic process?

Willie Sullivan isn’t the one letting his party down – he’s campaigning for a value to which Labour is constitutionally bound: democracy.

Ed Balls is a hypocrite on two counts: first, by working behind the scenes to undermine a Labour Party commitment; second, by feigning support for it in public.

The billboard will serve no other purpose than to tell voters the truth about their elected representative. If you think that will damage his chances of winning a seat, then maybe you should have a private chat with him about his politics.

How on earth can you defend Ed Balls on any matter?

“My advice to any voter is to support someone who is able to exercise judgment, who won’t simply cave to the most populist causes going and who has the best interests of their constituents at heart.”

Good advice Tom. The problem is finding one of these folks to vote for. Perhaps if we had some meaningful PARLIAMENTARY reform, something I haven’t really heard you opinions on, we might find it easier to vote for such people.

The system as it exists at the moment is that far too many supine party hacks who no little else beyond the experiences of professional politics.

The idea that anything as important as reform to the very system that provides you with the power requires careful thought and a powerful mandate.

Just two things passing bills from Balls will result in you lacking.

Proper constitutional change, if required, needs to be carefully drawn up. You guys legislating as ‘message’ with fag-packet policies is not the foundation one needs to do this right. The monkeys you work with have screwed up enough stuff with your at best thoughtless gestures, at worst malignant meddling.

Just like to point out I don’t favour any of these parties, however:

UKIP got (virtually) as many votes as the Democratic Unionists(9), Plaid Cymru(3), Sinn Féin(5) and Social Democratic and Labour(3) COMBINED, yet have no representation in parliament, the others have 20 seats!

Also, Labour have a massive majority in spite of having:
35.5% of the votes;
25% of the available votes and ;
15% of all people in the UK voting for them (yes, including children, prisoners etc.)

The Upper House is in more urgent need of reform than the Lower one though.

Scotland deserve to be over-represented as not only do we have 3/4ths the land mass of England, we also have England as neighbours.

So I take it you won’t be voting for Alan Johnson then once Brown has finally been got rid of? I saw that he was debating Boris in favour of PR last week.
The point in general is well made and reminds me of the swivel eyed brigade obsessed with Europe in the other lot.

Thanks Tom,
You’re correct – it was ‘possible’ votes cast – I stand corrected.

This from the history of politics website – 2005 GE:

The result gave Labour a Parliamentary majority of 66. It also produced some interesting statistics:

Labour’s percentage of votes – at 36% (down by 5% from 2001) – is the lowest any winning party has ever achieved.

More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour – but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England.

There was an overall turnout of 61% – up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so. More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%).

Labour’s share of the total possible electorate was 22%. (This is what I was thinking of Tom)

Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast

The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast

The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast.

Both the Electoral Reform Society and ‘Make Votes Count’ expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the ‘first-past-the-post’ system.

No representation without taxation, Paul…

“But that’s what happens when you start to believe that an issue, rather than your party, is the most important thing”

Thus demonstrating what is rotten about the current system. Not only will you not think for yourself and make up your mind about the issues, you denigrate anyone who does.

All the great reformers and thinkers were dissenters such as Churchill, Wilberforce.

More recently, MPs who never got into government but who nevertheless changed things for the better, such as Leo Abse or Sydney Silverman all sacrificed high office for principles. Had Robin Cook lived, he would most certainly have remained on the back benches, and yet, he was proved right about his “point of departure”.

It just will not do to blindly follow the party line. In the great stationery cupboard of public life, are you a rubber stamp or a paper knife?

And there was me thinking we were going to be putting forward slogans intended to discourage people for voting for the dreadful Mr Balls. I’m really disappointed.

I support FPTP. But I would like to see the number of MPs reduced by about 25% (not the 10% Cameron is proposing). At the same time I would like Constituency sizes to be standardized with a tolerance of +/- 5000. Larger constituencies would naturally result in far fewer ’safe’ seats because the constituency would be more diverse.

I’d also like English votes for English laws. MPs representing devolved countries/regions should not be allowed to vote on matters which do not affect their own Constituents.

My advice to any voter is to support someone who is able to exercise judgment

But isn’t your judgement to always toe the party line?

I realise that you think the party matters more than your constituents or the country, as do most of your fellow travellers in the labour party, and that is a major problem.

On PR, whichever version you pick it’s a crock and just gives more power to the party bosses.

I hate to be pedantic, Paul, but Scotland is 3/5ths the size of England, being that the former covers 30,000 sq. miles and the latter, 50,000.

There could be a case for Scotland having more MPs per head because of the distances in rural constituencies.

Go then Stewart, make that case.

I could do with a laugh.

I think the fundamental weakness of PR is that it will almost certainly produce coalition governments in perpetuity, as has happened in most other countries which have tried it. What is wrong with that? Just the very minor point that with a coalition, you have a government that not one single person in the country has voted for. Not one. ‘Lib-Lab-Green’ or ‘Con-UKIP’ or ‘Con-Lib’ aren’t on the ballot paper. So each party puts forward its program for government, and you vote in the full knowledge that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of that program being implemented. What you end up with instead is a load of deals done behind closed doors, leading to policymaking in which the people have no say whatsoever. If you want to increase public disdain for our democracy even further, PR is an excellent place to start.

At least with FPTP you can argue that more people wanted a Labour government in 2005 than a Tory one, and the result reflects that. It’s not pretty, but it keeps the Lib Dems out, so it can’t be all bad. I think that when most people talk about reform of our political system, what they actually have in mind is public flogging of those caught with their hands in the till, followed by an election in which the public have the chance to get rid of them. Beyond that, whether people are in favour of PR (in all its various manifestations) will depend on how you load the question. It’s hard to have a strong opinion on something you don’t know anything about and aren’t interested in, and that makes it very easy to lead public opinion in the desired direction.

Well, Tom – can you really say we have a balanced system when you can be elected to a Scottish constituency and affect what happens in England, but not vice-versa?

Forgive me Dickie, but STV doesn’t automatically mean a coalition government.

That’s an old canard that the FPTP duo-poly like to spread around as fact. Along with always citing Italy as an example of PR.

The Italian form of PR is not STV and IS a lash up hybrid.

Just google it (Whatever did we do before Google LOL)

All FPTP ensures is a two party state and a majority government on the basis of less than a quarter of the popular vote. (is that OK Tom?) Whatever that is – it isn’t democracy.