Petition tool – help

Please complian to the BBC about the inaccuracy an unfairness of their reporting
Tory +3.8% Votes +97 seats
LD +1.0% votes -5 seats
DOES NOT mean the LDs lost at the polls! they gained +1%; it's not as good as they hoped….
the LDs lost at the seat allocation!
I guess it's better to only be allowed a quarter vote than no vote – but the system is still corrupt

OK the tories end up ad the single party with the largest number of seats and largest individual share
ot the vote so that means they have a mandate to govern…so they say. But, their share was about 36%
so 64% voted AGAINST a tory government and as a result they do NOT have an overall majority which
by our current system is considered a mandate to govern. So by our existing rules they DO NOT and
judged by vote share they DO NOT. A change to the system is needed to get away from our antiquated,
broken system. The only remaining countries in Europe relying upon a majority system besides UK are Malta, France and Greece (working well for them ain't it). Germany on the other habd has had
coalition governments almost continually since the post war period and they don't really seem to be doing too bad.

So why do we need to stick with a majority system ?

Tories argue that their beloved first-past-the-post system enables strong government which we need in the current economic climate and that the situation we now have indictes the sort of chaos that would inevitably ensue undre PR. What nobody seems to articulate that it is precisely to avoid “strong” government – which brought us the Iraq war, privatised railways and un-regulated banks – that we need the concensus politics PR would deliver.

You're just a bunch of socialist watermelons. The voting results last Thursday showed NO indication whatsoever that British people were demanding a change towards any system of PR.

The only party which wants it are the LibDems (and Old/NewLab opportunistically) and they received about 1% more votes than 2005 but with fewer seats.

Where's your mandate????????????????????????????

Vic, I have lived in Germany since 1984. I always voted Green and was disappointed each election until they joined up in a coalition with the SDP. Then they were out and now it is the Christian Democrats and the Federal Democrats. So, not really unlike Britain eh?? Even the Green's that managed to get into “Parliament” really don't have much of a say any more. It's all just another type of horse-trading. My point? None of the systems will give you waht you seem to want. In the East Germany town where I live most of the people actually say that after 20 years of our “democracy” they wish the wall was back up!!! Honest. Wouldn't like it myself, but these are people who lived in a totally different system. Maybe the whole system of democracy is broken!!!

How many people who would like to have supported the Liberal Democrats at the election felt they had to vote for another party in order to make their vote 'count'.

How many times have they been told that a Lib Dem vote is a 'wasted' vote by the national media ?

The only way people can make their true voice known is by PR – we have a rare moment in history when we've the opportunity to achieve change, I hope Nick Clegg and others do not waste this opportunity.

The LibDems achieved a certain number of votes across the country and where their votes equalled a majority in particular constituencies, the LD MP was elected. It's as simple as that. This is the same for any party. IF the British electorate really wanted PR, they would have voted LD to get it. They did not.

This ramshackle outfit is simply saying “WE didn't get what WE wanted, so We are running a demo in Westminster”.

How selfish.

What about the rest of us ??????????????????????

Let me add this:
I strongly support modifying the constituency boundaries to ensure that each one has an equal number of voters. That would be fair to all parties. The current mess was introduced by Old/NewLab via the puppet Electoral Commission run by its Labour luvvy Jenny Watson for the sole purpose of gerrymandering the voting system to ensure that Labour win more seats with fewer votes. Check out this website which shows you evidence of that:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystem…

where it says:

“Voters are represented unequally. In 2005, the average number
of votes per MP elected was: 26,906 for Labour, 44,373 for
Conservative and 96,539 for Liberal Democrats”

How do we go about organising co-ordinated demostrations of support around the country for PR?

One could start by extrapolating from the fact that 23% of voters chose Lib. Dem. – a party with a strong commitment to PR.

That issue would be sorted out by correcting constituency boundaries, not by PR.
See my other post above about the number of votes required to elect a LD MP -vs- a Labour MP. That's been caused by Old/NewLab gerrymandering over 13 years.

How many even know the difference between PR voting systems? One in five?

Sorry, I see your group as little more than watermelons with an agenda of trying to keep the Conservatives out of office forever, using the ploy of PR to achieve it. PR in Britian would deliver a permanent government comprising of various heads of the socialist snake.

We should not change our Political System without taking our National Security into account. Do the people know that the First Past the Post System actually protects us?
Eg. If Germany had adopted the First Past the Post system, Hitler would never have got into power! I just rang the BBC to ask for a Public Information… programme about the reasons why our Political System has always been held in high esteem by many countries throughout the world. We should protect our Sovereignty and British Constitution.

I live in Germany and ,yes, it is quite normal to have a “hung” parliament. However, there are 2 main parties – Christian Democrats and the Socialists, same as in England. All the other parties are just minor, to be used in coalitions when useful to either of the main parties. There is usually a lot of wrangling and I wouldn’t say there is any better standard of government here than in Britain. The “minor” parties only get a reasonable say when they are in the coalition and afterwards are discarded (along with their ideas). Seems to me that what makes the LibDems in different in the UK is there call for PR. Once they get that will they still exist? Most likely they would become a minor party with a few niche offerings or be absorbed into the Labour Party.

If you had PR at the queens speach you would have Nick Griffin and another 10 of his thug mates sat as MP's, I am all for fairness, but PR sucks, look at Austria – no thanks

Er a mandate is 23%? Well I hate to see what other things that could cover then, how many people would vote BNP if a small percentage gives a mandate, it is not even 25% off the people who voted, turnout at 65%, that makes it about 1 in 5 of the voting population – hardly a mandate? In that case we would be Iran now???? You cannot have your cake and eat it….

I have just come in and noted there was a demonstration of around 1000 people outside Lib Dem headquarters today.

I am sure that now is the time for a huge demonstration to take place showing how many people support electoral reform.

However I have no idea as how to organise such a demo and what permissions are required.

To be a success you would need a huge turnout, at least 100,000….Possible ? Anyone planning ?

It is time for real change and to show Westminster.

I don't think we will achieve any significant electoral reform under our current, and failed political system, so it's time for REAL change.An end to party politics is what we need.No more towing the party line;no more voting against your beliefs; and no more being bullied into abstaining on vitally important issues.Let's not get dragged into a phoney argument on electoral reform.Let's knock it all down and start again.

Reply I had for “Mend our voting system” from Lib Dem Julian Huppert……

Thank you for your email. My apologies that I will not be able to reply to all of you individually – I have had thousands of emails on this topic. I would also be grateful if you did not reply to this email, unless you are one of my constituents, as I simply will not be able to read them. I hope you understand!

This election has given us a very awkward outcome. Despite the fact that the Lib Dems got a million more votes than last time, we got fewer seats and a very disproportionate share. This is a very complicated time to try to work out what to do next.

I am a passionate believer in political reform. I have been a member of the ERS for many years, and was an active supporter of POWER2010 as well. I earnestly hope that we can deliver political reform.

However, the Tories have traditionally been unsupportive of political reform, and while Labour have had a last-minute conversion to the cause, it is still unpopular with many in their party.

Nick Clegg is sticking to the promise he made to talk first to the party with the strongest mandate. I do not know the current state of those negotiations, so I cannot say how far they go. To be acceptable, they would have to include a very large component of Lib Dem principles and values – we stand for more than just PR. We will see tomorrow how far they have gone.

The alternative would be a deal with Labour and smaller parties – a Lib/Lab deal alone does not have sufficient votes in parliament, even though it does in terms of votes. Nick Clegg has already met with Gordon Brown, but I am personally skeptical as to whether it could work to deliver electoral reform – the numbers are slim, and I am not sure that Labour, under Brown or anyone else, could actually deliver the votes needed to deliver reform.

We will have to see what negotiations and discussions bring. I earnestly hope that we can achieve political reform, but if neither other party is able and prepared to work with us on it, then we will not be able to. We will in any event continue to argue for Lib Dem values and ideas, whatever the final outcome.

I would also add that I consider it important for the national interest to get the right outcome, not the fastest outcome possible.

Can I also suggest that those of you with Labour or Conservative MPs contact them urgently, as they are the largest stumbling block to a fairer system.

Yours,

Julian

—

Dr Julian Huppert MP

Member of Parliament for Cambridge
Liberal Democrat

Martin is quite correct. Party Politics serve only limited self-interest groups, and are generally divisive. We do need a system of government which fairly reflects the will of the people.
I have submitted similar views to 38 Degrees, in the hope that we may be able to test public opinion on the matter.
Given the huge gulf which exists between public opinion and party policies, the obvious conclusion is that we are not honestly represented.
We can no longer allow political parties to set the agenda of our debate. As long as we follow their lead, we will continue to fall for the illusion of democracy which the parties have created.
Hands up if you think we live in a democracy—–Put them down again—-We don't

It simply isn't good enough to say that we would have 10 BNP people in parliament, if we allow PR. I am not & never have been a supporter of BNP. On the other hand, I recognise that political correctness has stifled any debate on matters which are of deep concern to many people. If these perfectly legitimate views are not allowed within the mainstream of politics, you can bet that they will find another outlet.
As for any system which allows the electorate to be better represented, PR may well allow the BNP to be represented. This would be in proportion to the number of people who voted for them. You cannot deny those voters a say in the running of our country. You cannot seriously believe that rigging an electoral system to bar elements you don't care for is democratic, can you?

The way people voted on Thursday does not disprove their desire for electoral reform. Indeed, most of the political blog sites I have visited are awash with posts demanding just that.
Historically, boundary changes have been used to weaken the prospects of one party, to the advantage of another. It is further proof, if any were needed, that political parties cannot be trusted. They are only interested in creating the illusion of democracy, not in democracy itself.
Please Kevin, moderate your style of debate. Abusive comments serve only to detract from these debates. They are unecessary and unwelcome.

Stephen:
Please don't lecture me. I've forgotten more about politics than you will ever know.

You choose to hang out on sites which carry similar views to yourself. That is what people do and it's why you keep seeing sites advocating electoral reform. I have never seen such demands on any politics site/forum that I frequent.

I logged onto this site and commented precisely because I saw a demo going on in Westminster demanding electoral change and this site was mentioned — but I doubt if more than 1 in 5 of those demonstrating understand what PR is. I suspect the demo was secretly organised and funded by Old/New Labour or some other shady outfit affiliated to it. That is how socialists behave. Corruption is their modus operandi.

All of you fail to understand the true serious state of Britain's economy at this time, being deeply hidden by Brown. There may be a time for a referendum on some sort of better voting system but today is not the time.

I repeat my previous comment: “voting results last Thursday showed NO indication whatsoever that British people were demanding a change towards any system of PR.”

You may find this doesn't support your personal wish, but it is nevertheless a fact, proven by the voting results: the LibDems got about 1% more votes.

-HAND-

Kevin,
You appear to be comfortable in leaping to the assumption that you have “forgotten more about politics than I will ever know”. What you base that assumption on is a matter for yourself. I can tell you, however, that I have been politically active for well over thirty years, and have stood for office.

I was not lecturing you, merely suggesting a more tolerant tone to your responses to the views of others. People may well hold different opinions than myself, in which case I debate with them. As neither a socialist, or a watermelon, I find it insulting to be labelled as such.

You may well be an intelligent man, and I'm not going to engage in a battle with you over academic qualifications, except to say that I have had the benefit of a higher education. Reading many of the posts adjacent to your own, I believe that most of the contributors have attained a decent level of education. That being the case, I will continue to treat them with respect and civility, as I expect to be treated myself.

Thank you for drawing my attention to your concerns. They have been noted.

Regards
Stephen Hawkins.

________________________________

Reply to Stephen Hawkins (reply button not available!):

Stephen, you wrote:
“…I have been politically active for well over thirty years, and have stood for office.”

That says it all really, don't you think.

You simply ignore the fact that Britain has a serious financial crises and Clegg said from the start of negotiations with the Tories that discussions were aimed at creating “a strong and stable government in the national interest” to deal with the economic problems.

Yet, what do we see? why yes – a demo taking place in Westminster to apply pressure on the LibDems et al for PR, even though a large majority of them almost certainly have no idea whatsoever how PR works. Clearly, there's a lot of people who either don't understand the magnitude of our crises OR choose to ignore it for very selfish political motives.

We already know that Old/New Lab have no interest whatsoever in the national interest …that has been clear from Day 1 by Brown's Marxist Cabal's repeated attempts to throw sand into the cogs of discussions between LDs/Tories. But Clegg has fooled everybody by saying one thing and then betraying the nation by doing another.

Where's Clegg's much vaunted “new politics”?

Current behaviour by Clegg and LibDems will cost them dearly at the next election.

IF there ever was any chance of a new voting system being voted for in this country, the actions of this pressure group and the LibDems have put it back many years, due to the fiasco going on, on our TV screens.

I am still of the mind that the PR demo I saw, and another “instant” one Monday pm, have been organised by the LibDems or New/Old Lab. Given your admitted political connections, that is now confirmed.

regards

Well said, Roger.
We have all seen the way “strong” governments behave. Blair, for instance, didn't listen to his cabinet or parliament, and he certainly didn't listen to us.
That is the heart of the issue. We have no control over those who are supposed to represent us. Our local MP's cannot be recalled by us, and are answerable only to their party.
There is a huge gulf between public opinion and the policies of most parties. If PR can give us more control, I'm all for it. For me, however, PR does not go quite far enough, and I see it only as a step in the right direction.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Kevin,
I'm so sorry you are suffering from memory loss. It has now become quite clear to me, from the statement you made concerning loss of memory, that the problem is worse than I first feared.
You certainly appear to have a very low regard for the people who have contributed to this debate, and I fear you have fallen into the trap of labelling people in a general (and insensitive) way.
You seem to believe that we are part of a sinister Labour plot, aimed at the destruction of all you hold dear. If you want to talk about this type of corruption, let us drag out the very long list of Tory corruption.
I'm not a Labour voter. I do not support the Labour party, or any other party, for that matter. Before you ascribe political loyalties to members of this community, it would serve everyone better if you were to check your facts.
The subject we are debating has featured on every news channel I have seen. It is obviously of concern to many people, and needs no further mandate than that. We want to debate the issue, and it is our perfect right to do so.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

The economy is important, but the economy will always be important. The uniqueness of this situation is the opportunity to bring about a proportional electoral system.

The history of democracy is the history of struggle against the few who call the shots, for the opinion of every person to be considered equally. Our current system is profoundly undemocratic as is evident from the grossly disproportionate election results. There are many reasons I disagree with the Lib Dems but I voted for them this time because of their supposed commitment to a proportional electoral system.

I believe that 'tactical voting' and 'wasted votes' are symptomatic of our current disproportionate system. It is absurd that the tiny constituency in which you live dictates how you should vote, forcing you to vote against the party you don't want rather than for the party you do want.

I think that the demand should be made unequivocably to put power behind every vote, and for each person's opinion to be considered equally; to be represented, proportionally.

Malta has the STV system. But one party does dominate politics. It is so sure of its popularity that even oversubscribes candidate lists. So much for giving minor parties an edge or guarantees of hung parliaments! People will vote for who they like.

Richard:
The economy is not just important at this time, it is in crises and almost certainly far worse than you folks imagine. We not only have a deficit and debt crises created by Gordon Brown which has to be dealt with urgently to bring about a balanced budget, but there is a serious problem in identifying where our future wealth will come from. Think about that.
Manufacturing has declined hugely in the past 20 years and The City replaced it as the major source of tax revenues. Now that has taken a major setback. Consequently, we are facing lower state spending, rising unemployment and poorer living standards for a generation. All this is thanks to socialism.

You wrote: “The uniqueness of this situation is the opportunity to bring about a proportional electoral system.”

I have no idea why you think that our economic crises creates such an opportunity.
Do you?

In any case, after the sordid goings-on over the past few days, with Brown & Old/New Labour AND the LibDems demonstrating their selfish anti-democratic socialist interests, I doubt if the electorate would support any change to PR. If Brown tried to ram through a change in the law WITHOUT a referendum (as he said yesterday), it would almost certainly be killed by the House of Lords or even the courts, if not by his own Party.

FYI: I have long believed the whole system of government in Britain is in need of change — including the voting system — and I have argued for over 10 years for a proper written Constitution which sets out what the roles and responsibilities of a government elected under its provisions will be and how such a government will be elected. Trying to tackle ONE single issue when the whole darn system is falling to pieces in front of our eyes is naive and shortsighted.

You folks who want PR should get real and smell the coffee.

Campaign for a proper written Constitution, owned by the collective citizenry and for the first time in history place “the people” in control, not corrupt politicians.

regards

Hi Kevin,

“I have no idea why you think that our economic crises creates such an opportunity.”

You misinterpret my point about the opportunity for PR. The opportunity does not arise from the economic situation, but rather the unique post-election political situation. The economy is the most fundamental part of any modern society as you describe, but it is because it is perpetually important that the economy has been the big issue and will be again in the future. The unique situation is political in that the Lib Dems, who campaigned promoting a proportional electoral system, are in a fortunate situation in that they hold the balance of power. Nevertheless, it appears that even this opportunity was not sufficient for them to bring it about.

You go on to say that manufacturing has declined in favour of finance, which is true. However you then somehow equate this trend, along with lower state spending, rising unemployment and poor living standards, with the apparent influence of socialism. Socialism has not been a force in British politics for some years now, and when it was a force, for better or worse, it was a force for higher state spending and higher employment (higher living standards would be the desired outcome but that is a different discussion), precisely the opposite of the stated problems.

You are right that a wider reform is needed, people from all persuasions can agree on that – unless their own power is at stake, as we have seen at this election. However I maintain that as a part of the fundamental reforms required, a proportional electoral system would be highly beneficial. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of 'tactical voting', by ensuring that as long as you do not hold a particularly fringe set of views, there will be enough people in the larger constituency who will vote the same way as you, and you will be proportionally represented. Furthermore this will remove the concept of a 'wasted vote', again assuming you are not on the extreme fringes.

Regards

Kevin— You suggest that a mere boundary change will bring about all that is necessary to make our electoral system fair. This theory of yours begs many questions, not least of which concerns historical community links.
The very idea that politicians should be in charge, or appoint those in charge, of deciding where new boundaries should be is dreadful. The situation we are in has been, at least in part, caused by the re-drawing of council wards, and regional boundaries.
Your question regarding how many people would know the difference between types of PR is one that I am unable to answer. What I can honestly say is that the contributors on this site appear keen to embrace a more representative style of democracy and, given the facts, will be well able to consider them and arrive at a considered opinion. An ability which you appear not to credit them with.
Your arguement appears to suggest that you have superior political knowledge, and that you have forgotten more about politics than I will ever know. To me, your arguements are shallow and vapid. I am now content to allow this community to judge for themselves.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Yes Kevin, we do speak for ourselves. Each and every one of us puts forward our view and, by this kind of debate, attempt to find common ground.
Your condescending and attention demanding style does not, in my opinion, add in the slightest to this debate. Hitting the question mark button repeatedly is a sign that you demand an answer, and that you want it quickly. On a personal note, I respond very badly to that kind of attitude. One question mark is usually sufficient to let us know you are asking a question.
I was, and I remain, totally unconvinced by your claims of superior political knowledge. Your debating style (if it can be called a style) is lacking in so many ways that I am unable (unwilling) to list them.
Regards,
Stephen Hawkins

Damien— You appear to be under the illusion that we need some sort of mandate before we discuss our political views. Where on Earth do you get that idea from? All we need is the will to debate our own views, whilst considering the views of others.
Do you represent the “thought police”? Are you to be the arbiter of what we may legitimately debate?
Please respond, as I would be interested to know why you think we need anyones approval to discuss issues which are important to us.

Kevin— My involvement in politics over a long period of time does not, as you imply “say it all”. I was actually the elected Chairman of an organisation devoted to political reform. If you are implying that I enjoyed no success, that I was somehow inferior, you may wish to re-appraise your position. At any rate, I have dealt with enough politicians and ministers of state to give some credence to my views.
You appear unable to construct your debate without trying to undermine other contributors. The rash and quite foolish assumtions you leap to are childlike. I have never once attributed party loyalties to any other contributor and wonder why, in almost every post you make, you feel the need to say something about us that you cannot possibly know. It beggars belief that an intellegent adult would leave himself wide open in this way.
Given your extremely free use of the question mark, I wonder why you didn't use it at the end of your question to me. (Rhetorical–no need to answer)
Regards
Stephen

Kevin—- As the undisputed King of assumption & wild attribution, I now ask you to explain what you mean by your comment “that says it all”. What, precisely, is that supposed to mean? What is this “all” that you claim to have gathered from the tiny shred of information you have?
You continue to denegrate the views of this community by telling us that we don't understand the situation, and that you alone do. Since the first post of yours that I read, I formed the view that you look on this community as foolish and errant, and that we were all just waiting to receive your wisdom and be guided by you.
We all understand that politics is corrupt, and we have spotted an opportunity to make our views known. I, for one, intend to continue to speak out against our undemocratic political system. If I fail to change anything, at least I will have had the satisfaction of saying “I tried”.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Richard:
Fair enough, you say it is the post-election situation which creates the unique opportunity.

But ISTM this doesn't change a fundamental requirement for politicians to give the economy their No.1 priority — it creates the wealth that we all live on — and not to allow themselves to get bogged down in distractions about PR or other matters. The Tories have gone as far as can be expected on AV, by offering a referendum. I believe that Clegg demanded a new law introducing PR *without* a referendum! Of course, Brown agreed just to stay in power.

But I note that LibDems achieved only a 1% rise in their electoral vote last Thursday and that doesn't look like a mass movement in favour of PR. Also, after the shenanigans over the last few days — with Clegg doing a u-turn and hawking his wares to get the best deal — I doubt that the electorate will vote for it in a long time, not least because post-election-horse-trading would become the order of the day under PR.

My reference to manufacturing and finance was about the tax revenues they create which provide the funds for state spending. Their decline must mean fewer jobs and lower state spending. Hence, as a nation we have to find new sources of wealth creation to replace them.
That is not going to be easy given the rise of low-cost Asian economies. I believe the days of honey are over in Britain for a few years. [I note that UK unemployment has risen again today.] This will have to be reflected in lower state spending in many areas: downsizing govt is the only sensible solution, and of course therein lay Brown's crises: he was always obsessed with ever higher state spending and ever bigger government with little reagrd of where the money came from. We are now virtually bankrupt.

People hold different views of what defines socialism but that is often because they prefer not to see their own personal beliefs as socialist. But any party/group which advocates more government, more laws, more state power and more control ie: bigger government placing itself as supreme above all else, is fundamentally socialist. That is what socialism is all about:
“power and control”.

That said, socialism comes in a multitude of disguises: Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro et al were all socialists, despite some people (including the socialist BBC) claiming that fascism is a “far right” ideology, but it most certainly is not. Fascicm is a nasty authoritarian strain of socialism and has much in common with communism. See:
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html>
<http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=29437>
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazi…>

Thus, socialism has been in power for the past 13 years in Britain, and once again has wrecked the country. It always does. It doesn't matter what fancy packaging it wraps itself in, Labour is always socialism. In Brown's case it was old commie Marxist socialism, in the case of Blair it was quasi-fascism along the lines of Mussolini.
Consider the stream of anti-liberty laws passed by Old/New Labour over the past 13 years.
All absolutely typical of socialist governments.

Further, it is widely accepted that the LibDems are ideologically much closer to Labour than to the Conservatives and that LibDem membership is heavily populated by various varieties of socialists.

Now, the problem with advocating PR is that it would only attempt to solve one problem in the overall picture: the excessive powers of govt, unaccountable politicians, quangos, so-called 'independent' agencies of govt (eg CPS) and growing abuse of police powers are all issues which need to be addressed and each of them is just as important as the voting system.

One could easily attempt to deal with each problem in isolation, but in my experience the most effective way of sorting out all of these problems is to create a written constitution which becomes the supreme law of the land and cannot be violated. Articles setting out the rules for electing a government would form a part of the constitution — and I would not disagree with something fairer than we have today. The constitution would include a Bill of Rights, setting out your inalienable rights which no elected government could violate.

Constitutions invariably place 'the people' in supreme power, not the political class.
This is why you will never hear the words “written constitution” pass the lips of any politician — turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

regards

Stephen:
We were led to believe by the spokesman at the Westminster demo that there were people from all parties taking part. That may be true but I also believe it was organised by the LibDems to place pressure on its negotiating team. My view was further confirmed when a 2nd demo happened *spontaneously* and further demos happened outside the Cabinet Office. These people appeared within one hour. Coincidence? hhmmm.

Thus, it was not a wide ranging group of cross-party people as we were led to believe but an organised LibDem attempt to influence the LibDem/Tory negotiations.

Frankly, it doesn't matter now what it was. The LibDem/Tory deal has been signed and a future referendum will be held on AV. Whether you will get the result you want remains to be seen.

Your admission that you have past/present links to politics must tell us that you are not simply a non-partisan person who wants PR, but you have a political agenda. Right?

My previous comments are mostly based upon the view that you and others wish to have PR implemented whether or not a majority of the population want it. Hence the Westminster demos.

FYI: there are very many people who understand the seriousness of our current situation — I debate the issues with them — from our economic crises to the chaos in government — but few of them are socialists. Frankly, socialists are driven by dogma not by commonsense or deep understandings. One look at the financial crises created by Brown is evidence of that.

You are making wild speculation about how I see this community. I meet people everyday that have goodness in their hearts and want this or that, but simply don't understand the bigger issues. That's why I have said that there are bigger issues than PR: our whole system of government is falling to pieces in front of our eyes and is in need of major repair and reform to place 'the people' in control by way of a written constitution which became the supreme law of the land.

regards

Hello Stephen.
Sorry but your assumptions about me are wrong. Please see my other posts which outline where I am coming from.

regards

yada yada yada.

regards

Kevin—- Once again, you have leapt to the wrong conclusion. My involement in politics has been non-aligned. I do not represent, support, or belong to any political party. To be honest, I am not in favour of political parties.
I am not a socialist. I am not a Tory. I am not a Liberal. What I am is a politically aware individual. The current financial problems, and the scale of those problems, have not escaped my attention. The reason that we are in this mess is, at least in part, due to the fact that the British public have no say in the decisions made on our behalf.
You must know that a huge gulf exists between government actions and public opinion. Even the criminal justice system fails to reflect public anger at outrageous crimes. If we continue to allow “experts” to fail in their duty to us, we will continue to see soaring crime figures.
Government has reached so deeply into every aspect of our lives that it is fair to say that we have less freedom than we have had in many years. The levers of power need to be closer to the public, before we are entirely subjegated.
You still appear, Kevin, to read more into what people say than is actually there. Ditto with your comments about the demonstartors. You are saying that they are a kind of “rent a mob”, and I wonder if you have any evidence to support your claim. My own view is that the majority were simply brassed of with the current political situation, and wanted the parties to be aware of public concern.
Where they members of a political party? I don't know but, then again, neither do you.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Hello Stephen,
You appear to be guilty of being what you accuse me of. <shrug>

Like you, I can claim that I have no party political affiliation and in my case it is 100% true. The same may apply to you, but unless I'm wrong, you broadly support the LibDems and PR. In my case, I much more strongly support current Conservative views of economics and society than those of (say) Labour. I came to the realisation a long time ago that socialism destroys everything in its path — always in the name of “progress” of course.
[Stalin slaughtered up to 30 million people and Chairman Mao slaughtered up to 70 million people in the cause of socialism. Other socialists slaughtered varying numbers. And each time it fails, it reinvents itself with a new name: in the UK it became "New" Labour, but is little different to "Old" Labour except that Blair adopted quasi-fascism in lieu of Brown's Marxist communism.]

I repeat my earlier comments that the demos I saw were timed very opportunistically and gave me good reason to believe that they were being orchestrated at very short notice from intel received from persons inside the LibDems. I did not say nor did I claim that there was any element of a “rent a mob” involved in the demos as you allude, but I do believe someone was in the background pulling the levers and that is most likely LibDem people, trying to get their beloved PR imposed on the Tories or Labour in negotiations.

Please understand that my concern was that the demos were attempting to apply pressure on the negotiations which risked creating distractions at a very important time. The only game in town was to focus at sorting out our nation's financial crises, otherwise we will all suffer more than expected.

All of that said, I agree with many of your other comments above. You know, the gap between us is not large — it's just that I believe far more of our system of govt needs reforming and repair than just the voting system. Changing the latter by itself amounts to doing more surgery on a dinosaur. Hence I strongly favour drafting a proper modern written constitution which would solve your concerns on voting as well as many others.

peace
regards

Kevin— Once again, I am aligned to NO political party. You assume that I am a closet Lib Dem supporter, when nothing could be further from the truth. A plague on all their houses.
You may well be right about our views being fairly similar, but we will never know for sure as long as you keep on saying things like:
“This ramshackle outfit”
“yada, yada, yada”
“You're just a bunch of socialist watermelons”
“I've forgotten more about politics than you will ever know”
“Sorry, I see your group as little more than watermelons”

As long as you keep up this sort of nonsense, we are not going to get to test your theory. Of course, I can't speak for everyone on this site, but I have never reacted well to being subjected to this kind of thing. When you can remember that others on this site are entitled to their opinions, and are just as intellegent as yourself, we can debate.
In the first ever response I made to you, I simply asked you to moderate your tone. I now repeat this request, in the interests of fair and reasoned debate.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Stephen:
Good try but … calm down.

You will hopefully appreciate that my earlier comments were made after watching the demos taking place around Westminster by people who I'm sure have little idea about how the various systems of PR work once you get past admiring their nice names. That must raise the question of what the real motives were. There are right times for opportunistic actions, but that was not one of them IMHO. As I've said ad nauseam, the only game in town right now is how to solve the current financial crises and get the private sector economy out of intensive care, so it can once again play its lead role in creating the wealth that we all live on.

It is surely not surprising that people involved in a narrow and selfish PR demo were seen as watermelons by myself and I'm sure by many others who don't share their view and want to focus on the major issue at this time, which is not PR if election results are anything to go by.

Insofar as “this site” is concerned, please recall my earlier comments that this site was mentioned on TV News in connection with the demos in Westminster, so I naturally thought it was the home site of those demonstrating. In addition to that, of course I fully accept your right and that of others to debate PR as much as you like — on here and anywhere else you wish. I just felt it was inappropriate to be having a PR demo in Westminster in an attempt to influence negotiating positions when there were other vitally important issues on the table.

peace
regards

Hello All.
It is my firm belief that fear of significant change is a huge factor in keeping the party system afloat. If you really think about it, there is actually no need for political parties.
Parties are, of course, devisive. Taken to extremes, we can all conjour up mental images of steriotypical “types” which to us are symbolic of their adherents. It creates a chronic mistrust of the values & attitudes of each group, and causes people to cling even closer to the party they see as being socially and culturally closest to themselves.
I very sincerely support the idea of PR, and hope that we may, ultimately, rid ourselves of all political parties. Representatives would then be answerable directly to the people who they were elected to represent. No excuses—no backsliding—no party whips to tell MP's how to vote. Just the electorate to insist that THEIR will is carried out.
Simplistic? Maybe. Acheivable? Maybe. Worth aiming for? Oh Yes.

“If you really think about it, there is actually no need for political parties.”

If there are no political parties, presumably you would have them banned?
How would you do that?
How will you prevent them from creating informal parties for voting purposes in the HoC etc?
How would individual politicians fund their election campaigns and other ongoing costs of being an MP which are not directly chargeable to expenses?
How would you determine who was to be 'The Executive' after an election?
How would that Executive select Ministers?

…..just asking.

regards

Well, Kevin, I was rather hoping that you might help with that. If you can agree, in principle, that party politics is very divisive, and that they actually represent no-one but themselves, then we have at least identified the problem.
There has always been a civil service and, as we know, they conduct the day to day running of government departments. A change in government really changes very little, as most of the functions are procedural. The only change is of party ideology.
Surely it is not beyond our wit to provide political oversight of the organs of state. Perhaps you may make some useful suggestions as to how this may be acheived.
The plain truth is that we are badly served by the party system. Our problem has always been that representatives simply do not represent. Off the top of my head ,I can think of at least a dozen cases
where politicians have introduced legislation which the polls have shown do not represent the will of the people. That is what “democracy” should be—the will of the people. Whatever we have right now does not deserve to be called democracy.
Representatives salaries & expenses could, I'm sure, be settled by consensus, with built in checks & balances. Groupings would be irrelevant, as MP's would have to vote in the way a majority of their constituents told them to vote. Control of individual MP's would fall to the people who elected
him/her, and any failure to comply with the majority would result in a recall. As things stand, only the party can discipline an errant MP.
I fully accept that all this would be a radical departure from what we all know and hate. It is, however, a price we would have to pay for anything approaching a democratic system of government. What we have now is a parliamentary dictatorship, and not a particularly benign one.
I know that this could not happen overnight, and that I do not have all the answers. I do believe that the 38 Degrees membership can provide many of the answers through debate and deliberation.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

Hello Stephen,
Sadly, I don't have any magic solutions to these complex issues except to say that you are not alone in your observations; they have been debated frequently in other forums by myself and others who believe the current system of government is broken and in need of repair/reform. And the problems go way beyond the voting system.
But change is much easier said than done.
I hope you find the following comments interesting, even if you don't agree with everything I say:

Wherever I look inside government I see organisational/operational chaos and confusion, turf wars, secrecy and very significant powers being exercised by unelected people (faceless civil servants/quangos/agencies/appointees etc). It is quite astonishing that no organisation chart of our government exists anywhere which shows us who reports to who and what the lines of accountability are and in many cases, what their job is.
Much of the blame for this can be laid at the door of the Civil Service because they are responsible for the effective and efficient day to day running of the government machine and should maintain clear information for us to see. But the C/S has become too powerful, too influential, too unaccountable and too self-serving. And of course far too expensive.

It is no surprise that Paddy Ashdown described Britain's system of democracy as an “elected dictatorship”. That is what it is. But the alternative is difficult to implement because politicians would fight it tooth and nail and British people have been used to a very top-down system of dictatorial government for centuries and having to accept personal responsibility for their own lives would be very challenging for many people.
A significant minority would be incapable of doing it. IE: not being told what to do would leave many people confused and rudderless.

But there is only one effective solution to the ancient mess: a proper written Constitution and Bill of Rights, which clearly set out the rules and voting system for electing a democratic government, what its roles and responsibilities are and lines of accountability. Then, as they say “if it ain't on the list, it's none of the government's business”.
No ifs and no buts.

Of course, many other Articles would be included in the Constitution — included MP expenses rules — and it would become the nation's supreme law owned by 'The People' under which government operated. In previous debates on this subject, I have suggested there should be a Constitutional Supervisory Board (CSB) to monitor compliance. This would be a bit like the old Law Lords system, except that its members would not be appointed by politicians and it would be pro-active not reactionary. It would have the power to reject any govt Bill if that Bill sought to override the Constitution. A measure of its success would be that an elected government would quickly learn what Bills they could get through the CSB and which they couldn't.

The BoR would set out our inalienable Rights acquired from birth which no elected government could override, under penalty of criminal prosecution.

This website link has some interesting ideas for better govenment:
<http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bettergovernme…>

On political parties: they tend to polarise MPs into tribes for mutual benefit and with the whipping process heavily used, tend to get votes through in line with party leadership requirements. The term “voting fodder” is often used to describe this process. It is an appalling structure because it invariably ends up with Bills being voted into law by MPs who often have not even read them. This was commonplace in the last 13 years under Blair and Brown — we now have many laws on the statute book which are poorly concepted, poorly written and poorly implemented. Labour's raft of anti-liberty/social laws rank high on this list and the police are high on the list of state agencies who abuse their powers, often with impunity. Cameron's new government is planning a Great Repeal Bill to clear them out and to give people back their freedoms and to roll back the authoritarian Almighty State.

MPs who regularly obey the whips can usually expect to receive patronage; perhaps as a ministerial bag carrier, junior ministerial job or committee chairman or some other 'nice to have' perks.
MPs who regularly disobey can usually expect that their political career will be stunted, if not ended. They are branded “mavericks” for their disobediance.

Even if the party political structure was formally banned and every MP was officially “independent” — that in itself is very difficult to achieve — MPs would still create informal coalitions for voting purposes. Human beings are very tribal by nature and like to hang out with other like-minded people. And many are lazy or have limited brain cells and are willing to follow like sheep. Banning political parties brings in many other related issues, like campaign funding. It might also mean that only the rich could stand for parliament.

Also if you wish to change the current MP role from “representative” to “delegate” that would imply local people becoming much more involved and informed about ongoing issues. It might also open the door to locally engineered corruption to manipulate votes. I'm not saying it cannot be done but one would have to fully understand the mechanics and implications.

On the Civil Service (C/S): as you allude, it is responsible for running the machinery of government and I have mentioned above that it often fails the nation for self-serving reasons. Worse, it is often the case that new laws are passed over to the C/S to create the rules/regulations/procedures to implement the law. It is at this time that the C/S often produce regulations which do not comply with the law but attempt to subvert it. There are a number of legal cases where C/S regulations have been found to be unlawful. I believe that some rules around Customs and Excise, UK Border Agency immigration and the police are way out of line with the law, either in the letter or its spirit. Whether the regs reflect C/S prejudices or their political masters is difficult to say. The process of reviewing and matching rules/regs/procedures with the law is poor or non-existent and relies on dedicated and competent political masters. They have been sorely lacking in the last 13 years.
EG: in 2002 the Blair govt was served with a legal ultimatum by the EU Commission, because several years earlier Customs & Excise had introduced regulations which blatantly and knowingly violated the Single Market Treaty and which sought to deny people exercising their lawful rights. This had prompted hundreds of formal complaints by Brits returning home from a holiday in Europe. But only after the EU ultimatum did the minister responsible for the nonsense get sacked (Paul Boateng) and the regulations changed to comply with the law. Most notably is that Boateng's Treasury boss at that time was Gordon Brown who quite obviously knew of the unlawful regulations. I am pleased to say that I played a part in Boateng's downfall . It's too bad that I couldn't net Brown too; he feigned ignorance.

In summary, I won't prattle on any longer but I hope I've said enough to convey my view that the problems with our system of government go way way beyond the narrow but important issue of our electoral voting system. Trying to change one piece of a very complex system is like doing surgery on a dinosaur.

In his book “The State We're In”, Will Hutton put it like this:

“No state in the 20th century has ever been able to recast its economy, political structures and society to the extent that Britain must do, without suffering defeat in war, economic collapse or revolution. Only traumatic events on that scale deligitimise the existing order to such an extent that a country concedes the case for dramatic change.”

regards

Kevin—As you said, there may not be much distance between our respective views. Thank you for your very informative post, which I will study at length.
My views are not limited simply to electoral reform, and my posts were tailored to suit the strand of discussion the community was engaged in. I do realise that there is much more to be done, and I assure you that I am not a “one trick pony”.
As a young soldier (many years ago) I was full of vim & vigour, always believing that my country was in the right, and our government was infallible. But then, as now, the military suffered betrayal. This forum is not the place to discuss operational matters, or how our government p****ed up our backs. Suffice it to say, I have never trusted a politician since.
It is only proper that I refrain from divulging the true depth of my contempt in this forum. My main point is that I have lived quite a long time in a dictatorship, and would like to end my days in a democracy. Perhaps this is a pipe dream, but it is one I cling to.
Regards
Stephen

Kevin—- Sussex or Nottingham ring any bells? Yes or no will do.

Hello All,
I do realise that what I am about to share with you is fairly radical, and that many may not entirely support my views. Still, this community exists to consider and modify a wide range of considered opinions.
Some people take the view that, with our country in such a weakened state, this is not the time for any serious boat-rocking. I take a contrary view. My hope is that we can really exploit this opportunity to the fullest and, before the next election, significantly increase public awareness.
It may sound mad, but I think we should do as much damage to the political system as we are able to do. This may not do much for our economy, or for our international standing, but it may bring us a bigger prize by far—-our freedom.
It is certain that politicians will not give up their grip on power without a fight. I feel that I must remind you at this point that, throughout history, political reform has carried a high price. A few blogs, whilst very entertaining, are less than a flea bite to the corrupt & corrupting business of politics.
I welcome all your constructive suggestions.
Regards
Stephen Hawkins

P.S. Kevin— Does Sussex or Nottingham ring a bell? Yes or No will suit my purpose.

Sorry, neither place ring any bells.

Sorry Kevin—mistaken identity. Not a problem.

Sorry, neither place ring any bells.

Sorry Kevin—mistaken identity. Not a problem.