Alan Johnson has done a good job raising the issue of PR. I am fully in favour of AV plus and I have never been an STV zealot. Put bluntly, STV is too messy, whatever the complex arguments put forward by its proponents might be. The overwhelming majority of voters are simply not interested enough but they should be able to make the effort to tick or cross two boxes, as they would be required to under AV Plus. Also, having an advocate such as the Late Roy Jenkins is a powerful argument for AV Plus. Jenkins devised what he thought 'would work' with the British system, not what he considered the best system.
Around this comment by Mr Johnson, others have mentioned reform and it is reassuring to see the pendulum swinging back to somewhere near to equilibrium. Sure, a large number of our politicians have let us down badly but this does not mean the system is fundamentally flawed. And - a key 'and' here so it shall go in capitals - MOST OF THEM WERE TORIES. This pleases me as John Tory must be found out before the next election.
He has not changed. He is not 'new'. He is the same old right wing, anti-European, mildly bigoted person we all know and cope with, like that uncle we all try to avoid who smokes 40 a day, drinks Campari and calls people 'darkies' but who is a relative so who comes along to all the family events.
Anyway, that was a digression. I am fighting an election against a Tory so forgive me. [Although, to defend my opponent, she is a youngish woman of ordinary background who completely blows my argument out of the water...but let's never let real life get in the way of blind prejudice.]
Parliament needs minor reforms which are not rocket science:
1. Give MPs a reasonable salary and then abolish the ludicrous expenses scheme. Pay distant MPs additional costs for travel and given them all a standard allowance for a second home in London based on the cost of renting a one bedroomed flat or buying one in one of the cheaper parts of the capital within easy public transport reach of Westminster. If they want something more, they can pay for it. If they bleat about having their families around, give them a P45 and tell them to work for someone else.
2. Introduce a sensible voting system and fixed term Parliaments. Blindingly obvious to all but the most stupid of individuals.
3. Elect the House of Lords based on sensible regions, not the disastrous ones the Tories devised in the 1980s.
4. Ban any man entering the building wearing tights. If they persist, sit them down and explain that it is now the 21st century. If they want to wear tights, give them a list of appropriate clubs in their area and invite them to join one of them. In other words, update the practices of the legislature - that's legislature, not house of varieties or recording of 'The Good Old Days, ladies and gentlemen - and tell anyone stuck in the past to move on.
Everything else is less important. These four reforms will make everything more logical and intelligible and any attempt by HM Government under the Luddite in Chief to set up an elaborate commission should be resisted by anyone wishing to retain their seat whenever they manage to prise Gordon's whitened knuckles from the reins of power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm all in favour of compromise to achieve something, but I disagree with your objections to STV.
If people can put a couple of crosses on a ballot paper, surely they can order the candidates. They only need to mark a "1" by their first preference and leave it at that if they're feeling lazy.
The big argument in favour of STV, where AV+ loses, is the power it gives to voters to support their party without having a candidate foisted on them: I can choose to support the Conservatives, but not be forced into voting for one Tory candidate, for example.
Your point 4 might be a little biased against having a transvestite MP, but in my experience most TVs prefer stockings to tights, so may not be a big deal. :-)
Costigan, your points on STV are entirely valid and sensible but they are the comments of someone interested in politics. What all us politicos must remember is that the great majority of people attending polling stations would not generally know one politician from another and will invariably vote by party alone. Consequently, giving people the choice of candidates may be considered largely irrelevant.
As I noted, AV plus was devised by the very able Roy Jenkins as a system which would work for our country.
As to TVs, as a good Liberal I would of course support their right to stand for Parliament - indeed my old local party did field one of the butchest TVs in England as their candidate for the 1997 General Election. One man turned me away from his house shouting: "I'm not talking to you: you're not wearing a dress!"
Listen to the radio yesterday the interviewer asked for a simple explanation of the AV+ voting system. Such a thing is not possible. On the otherhand a simple explaination of FPTP is not possible. The Conservatives got more votes in England than Labour, that's why they have fewer MPs ! The Welsh Nationalist vote is in a few constituencies so they have MPs, whereas the Green party get more votes but spread accross the country - tough luck - no Green MPs. The Lib Dems get fewer MPs per vote cast than the other parties, so justifying giving them less money and coverage, which means they get fewer votes and less MPs. People are told the party with the majority wins each seat, but actually the party with the highest number of votes, but rarely with a majority wins. The Parties all target effort of "swing voters" - the people who can't make up their mind and switch from one party to the complete opposite like a demented newtons craddle. Are these the people we wnat to determin who's in power ?
There are many sophisticated arguments for STV but the average voter simply doesn't care. We can argue all we like but this simple fact remains.
Anyway thanks for your thoughts.
My own preference is for STV minus rather than AV plus.
With STV minus voters can either list candidates in order of preference or tick the party list box and therefore their vote follows the list set out by the party. This tackles the can't be bothered to list people problem.
(It also makes counting easier!)
In additon, the party with the largest number of 1st preferences gets a number of bonus seats - say 25-50 which actually makes the system less proportional.
The probelm with AV+ is that is was desigend primarily to appeal to Tony Blair. Like all top up systems, it menas the better you do in constituencies, the worse you do it the top up section.
Fundamentally, the result of elections ought to be linked to how you vote. If this isn't the case, then it's not democratic.
If people could try STV for local Council elections, they might quite like it.
Please for the love of god get rid of FPTP now! Multiple parties or candidates with overlapping policies actually destroy each others chances of winning in the FPTP system even if those policies are favoured by most! How is that democracy? Frankly I don't care if it's AV Plus or STV. I support both. Both have clear advantages and disadvantages over each other: AV Plus encourages probably the more rigorous debating because a candidate has to truly "win" over all the others to get in, unlike in STV. Also, AV Plus preserves the geographical link between constituents and MP, making it clear which MP constituents would need to communicate to afterwards. Oh, and travel less distance to meet. On the other hand, STV is more likely to be representative of more of the public, which is a serious advantage, but doesn't have the advantages of AV plus mentioned above. But both would be a MASSIVE improvement over FPTP, truly. However, the "big party/corporation/club" system will remain unless we take all the money out of political campaigning by banning all political campaigning that does not invite an equal say by all MP candidates in a given constituency, and instead encourage that to happen, and even fund it from the public purse where necessary (it may not cost anything to the public purse since that media's ratings would go up anyway so they might want to fund it themself for that reason), so we hear from all of them and as often as possible before the election.
Post a Comment