A call for debate
I appear to have set the cats among the pigeons. I reported earlier that the prime minister is set to announce tomorrow that changing the voting system for general elections will be examined as part of a package of proposals to reform Britain's political system.
Just to be clear: the prime minister's statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system. It will instead call for a debate on whether the electoral system should be changed and which new system could be adopted.
In a statement to MPs tomorrow, Mr Brown will say that there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made. Earlier today, he chaired a meeting of the new Democratic Renewal Council - a group of ministers - which agreed to consider moving towards a new system.
Key ministers are known to favour a system in which voters could list their preferences - the so-called Alternative Vote or AV system - rather than simply voting for one candidate as they do now. Peter Mandelson backed it in a book which he co-wrote with Roger Liddle. Jack Straw - who opposes proportional representation - is happy to consider a move to AV.
The new Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, recently called for a referendum on electoral reform to be held at the same time as the next general election. However, sources have told the BBC that it is very unlikely that the necessary consultation and legislation could be carried out in the necessary time. Some ministers also argue that it would not be electorally helpful to have the referendum on the same date as the election.
I also understand that the government plans to push ahead with legislation to make the House of Lords largely or fully elected in the autumn. Although it will not be possible to complete reform before an election, ministers argue that "it is time to see the colour of the Tories' money" on this issue and that public pressure for reform will grow, once the allowances of the House Of Lords are examined in the way in which MPs' have been.
One cabinet minister told the BBC tonight :
"There is a strong feeling in the cabinet that we should have a bold programme of reform. We don't want to end the next year with a whimper."
PS: For the political trainspotters among you, AV is not proportional representation. Indeed, it can be less proportional than First Past the Post. It is the same as the system that was used in the London Mayoral elections. Voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an "X" against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting "1" next to their favourite, a "2" by their second choice, and so on. If a candidate received a majority of first-place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However, if no single candidate got more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom would be redistributed. This process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority.
UPDATE, 09:13, 10 June: Just to be entirely clear, the vote for London mayor is actually conducted under a variant of AV called the supplementary vote system, where you can only express a first and second choice. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates are retained, and the rest eliminated. The second-preference votes of the eliminated candidates are then added, if appropriate, to the tally of the top two candidates to decide the winner.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
For any elected party to lose so badly in an election, and then turn around and say they are going to reform the voting process just sounds terrible, almost Stalinist.
Complain about this comment
How about proportional representation for the House of Lords? Otherwise, there will just be two chambers elected (for the time being) on the same system, when you might as well just get rid of one of them in that case. It defeats the purpose of the House of Lords, surely?
The alternative vote system sounds like a waste of time if it won't be anymore representative.
Complain about this comment
Throughout the modern political era electoral reform has only ever been proposed by parties who dont fair well through the current system, hence why the lib dems have been calling for reform for so long. Perhaps, finally, even Gordon Brown has realised that Labour stand no chance in the next general election under the current system or indeed any system known to man.
Complain about this comment
Strangely enough Mr Brown and his predecessors seemed to think the voting system was OK when Labour was given majority after majority. Now that they have been destroyed in the European elections and facing the same in a general election he wants to change it.
One wonders whether this referendum will be the same as the Lisbon referendum. I.e. not a referendum at all, they will change the name to Vote Idol or something and claim that it is totally different.
Still, at least we now know the price Mr Brown paid to stop Alan Johnson from challenging him for power.
Complain about this comment
Any system that prevents someone taking over as PM mid term, usurping power and refusing to give it up, will be a significant improvement.
Complain about this comment
Right......so Labour lose heavily in council and Europe and are on course to be annihilated next year so they want to change the system. Will the 'new system' apply to councils too? If this fails will they then try to declare a state of emergency or something to hang on to power? Wouldn't put it past them!
Labour/Gordon Brown - we never do ANYTHING unless it is for PARTY advantage not the country's.
Oh and can someone PLEASE stop Brown claiming that he has to stay as we wouldn't forgive him for walking away in our hour of need? I think the last few days have shown we don't need him and certainly don't want him. Labour MPs have ensured they have another year of troughing but after that? Yet again thinking about themselves not the voters they claim to love. Cowards all apart from the likes of Frank Field and others who stood up for their constituents!
Complain about this comment
Cowardice and arrogance in the same move from Mr Brown and his Governement croanies, toadies and lickspittles.
Firstly they say that they want to consider changing the voting system, not through any sense of altruism one feels but because they might - no, would - lose a General Election under the current system and then they form a Democratic Renewal Council wich, democratically, is only made up of Government Ministers!
Yesterday all we heard from The Cabinet and the PLP was taht Mr Brown was putting the country first by staying on to sort out the problems we face. No he's staying on to keep his party in power. If he really wanted to put the country first he'd call a General Election!!!!
Complain about this comment
So GB wants to change the voting system.
Could this be a desperate ploy by Labour to gain a few extra seats in the
next general election?
With the current first past the post system labour have no chance.
Complain about this comment
Is an elected house of Lords wise, as surely this will just mirror the make-up of Parliament therefore acting as a rubber stamp on any legislation passed. What is needed is an independant upper house that scrutinises and puts checks and balances in place.
What it should not be is a back door for getting 'friends' into the process of Government as in members of the cabinet, or reward for supporting the parties as at present.
Complain about this comment
This doesn't amount to much. So Brown is making noises about "debating" electoral reform; didn't Labour promise rather more than that before the 1997 election? They still kicked it into the long grass when they found they didn't need the Liberals as much as they thought they would. The only way for AV to happen will be to hold the next election using it, before the Tories can come to power and bury the issue for another 10 years. Even Alan Johnson would not be likely to do that. So I'll once again end up with an MP who has the support less than a quarter of the voters in the constituency.
I sense more real intent regarding Lords reform; after all, the process has at least begun. But there is no time for the legislation to be rammed through before the election.
It does seem we are sentenced to many more years of quasi-elected governments with near-complete power and no effective review chamber. This will keep us locked in this spiral of growing public cynicism, leading to falling voter turnouts at elections, leading to even more unrepresentative and unresponsive government, leading in turn to growing public cynicism, falling... You get the picture. Depressing, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Ah, so it's just another of Gordon Brownzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz councils/committees/five-year plans. Should have known by now that nothing ever actually gets done by him.
Incidentally, why has Political Reform become the new hot topic in Westminsphere? Is it because it's being used as a decoy away from MPs' expenses? I fail to see how the "first past the post" voting system compelled Gerald Kaufman to claim for an £8,865 Bang and Olufsen tv set etc.
The People (so patronisingly referred to as "the ordinary people" by politicians. Remember us?) want to see some prosecutions and, maybe, convictions for the MPs' expenses scandal. Reforming the voting system, Parliament or changing the window dressing at No10 is completely irrelevant and will NOT assuage public outrage. Alas, it seems the police have all but washed their hands of the matter and most of those involved have quietly been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Parliamentary authorities and crawled back into ministerial positions.
The voters will not forget.
On an entirely different note, please encourage Stephanie Flanders to avail herself of a Twitter account.
Complain about this comment
This is the leader of a party, and government, who was never elected into his current office, and has just gone through a round of elections which put them (depending on the poll) either worse than 1918, or behind UKIP.
He might not even manage to be in charge of his party at the next election either.
And he thinks he had the moral authority to totally change the democratic nature of the UK, in terms of both how votes are counted, and what chambers are to be elected?
Unbelievable.
And no, I don't think the House of Lords should be fully elected. I think it needs to be held accountable - but not to the same whims that drive the elected politicians around election time. We need a set of politicians whose vote can't be bought.
Complain about this comment
Again another example of the elite political class not taking any personal responsibility!
- Mps defrauded taxpayers with their expense claims - blame the system..change it.
- Main parties get properly challenged in an election - blame the system..change it.
At least we know, whether we agree with them or not, what the small parties stand for. The main parties flip-flop with whatever the media decide is a big story from week to week.
The lack of consistency puts me off voting for the main parties.
Complain about this comment
Is this supposed be bold decision making? It is pathetic and nothing more than an attempt to pull the wool over the electorates eyes. Brown is a lame duck premier and nothing he says and does will be taken seriously by anyone, especially so when a significant number of his party have voiced openly what they think about him, which tallies with what many critics have said about him for years. This sorry situation will drag on until next Spring, and all because Brown hasn't the courage to resign.
There is indeed a case for electoral reform to the process itself, but what he could and should do is change the system:-
a) by creating fixed term parliaments;
b) preventing parties changing premier mid-way through a term;
c) and change legislation to automatically trigger a general election if a premier, for whatever reason, decides to retire mid-way through his term of office.
And if they really want to be radical they should consider moving towards a system like the American Senate and Congress with a directly elected Premier, but don't hold your breath.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it funny how when facing electoral wipe out the Labour party all of a sudden shows an interest in electoral reform.
And a referendum to be had too eh?
How about the Labour party sticking to its word and giving us a referendum on the Lisbon constitution... sorry - treaty?
The constitutional reform I am most interested in is on recognition and representation for England. The only country in Europe without its own parliament.
The reform I want to see is to have English legislation handled exclusively handled by English MPs.
Is it too much to ask that a nation handles it's own law?
Complain about this comment
So Crash Gordon becomes Klingon Brown?
A government with so little elected talent. Fewest elected ministers since 1945. First speaker to be forced out for over 300 years. Fewest votes since 1918?
Labour will go down in the history books but not for the reasons they thought back in 1997.
Good grief.
Complain about this comment
It's all just PR again. More spin and mirrors.
From Nick's article:
Gordon Brown's statement "will call for a debate..."
Gordon Brown "chaired a meeting which agreed to consider..."
Typical Brown isn't it. More reviews, debates, commissions, reports, meetings to discuss this, or consider that. All so he can put out a press statement to make it seem like he is the man of action.
But he's not capable of action, except to waste more taxpayers' money so that some of the usual suspects can sit in a room all day and discuss.
Gordon, the time for discussing is past. Look around you man! The country is in trouble. You shouldn't need a full-scale review on everything to tell you to act. For God's sake man! DO SOMETHING!!!
Complain about this comment
What we need is a load more committees, lots of unelected princes of darkness ennobled, more civil servants.
The other day browns vote of confidence was promoted by the bbc as a 'victory'
For gods sake how low will it go?
Complain about this comment
...and while all this is going on LDV has gone, Vauxhall is being set up for a fall, the economy is (expletive deleted)
Complain about this comment
Nick
No comment on the loss of personal freedoms in this country?
Is it OK for the Metropolitan Police to torture suspects and use waterboarding? Who sanctioned this? Of course it is too much to expect that any cowardly member of this government will accept responsibility.
Complain about this comment
However cynical the reception to this news of proposed reform - understandable given the timing - an overhaul of the voting system is desperately needed.
Fewer people vote, and the numbers have been dropping since the days of Thatcher, which means every government since has been voted in by the minority of people in the country.
"Voter apathy" is an over used phrase, and something of a misnomer: people want to vote, but the struggle is with who to vote FOR (rather than against).
AV is certainly an alternative worth considering - making the House of Lords electable may be more problematic, but desirable if we want to be a real democracy.
Complain about this comment
This is a smokescreen to deflect public anger over MPs expences That is the first issue that should be addressed. I am reminded of a government funded advertising campaign addressing benefit cheats with the rather apt tag line of "No ifs or buts". Until Parliament accept that flipping is tax evasion - phantom mortgages is fraud - and claiming for charity donations is offensive, and in cases like the WW11 battle of Britain £5 donation offensive to servicemen and should be automatic deselection.
The second thing Parliament must address is the size of Parachute payments MPs receive when they are not re elected at a general election, the amounts reported are obscene. I don't know how true it is but on a BBC phone a retiring serviceman phoned in to say after 23 years dodging muck and bullets in Northern Ireland Bosnia Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan his resettlement grant is £550.If this is true its wrong and the government and Parliament as a whole must accept it and deal with it without any further smokescreens
Complain about this comment
Mortified, mortally wounded, Brown would want to reform the voting sys tem wouldn't he? Is he not the architypal window dresser?
Yes, he said he would reform the House of Lords on the Andrew Marr programme (along with an investigation into local council and the BBC's expenses and salaries, hmmmm).
By "reforming the House of Lords" does he mean no more parachuting of his unelected mates into it such as Mandelson, Sugar and Glenys Kinnock, in each case to save he, Brown's, own skin?
Complain about this comment
The first thing he should do if he is going to reform the Lords, is change the rule that you can't be kicked out for misdemeanors, fraud, graft, theft, troughing -merely sent to Coventry for 6 months and a slap on the wrist.
That doesn't seem to difficult to organise, does it?
Regards,
Complain about this comment
calm down everyone, it's just a little chat about possible different ways to count votes - there's no way the system is going to change for the next general election - or the one after, for that matter
Complain about this comment
Any reform of the voting system might include an incentive for voting which would lead to more than 75 per cent of the electorate using their right to vote. Proportional representation is preferable, but any kind of reform would lead to a step in the right direction. How can we have a representative Government, at any level, when only about 35 per cent of voters contributed to the results?
In my opinion, this is where reforms need to be targeted.
How about money off vouchers for food as an incentive to turn out on polling day!? Or something similar could be initiated, but only if it could be seen to be completely devoid of any party-political connections.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness.
They are thinking about considering about debating about setting up a committe to discuss the possibility of reviewing the options for electoral reform.
if that isn't an example of the type of decisive government we've come to expect from Gordon Brown then I don't know what is.
Complain about this comment
I am glad Mr Robinson has made it clear that this is not yet fixed and is still to be debated, he made it clear on TV, but no doubt the media decided oh Robinson said that this may happen so that means it will we will put it as it shall happen typical media rubbish.
Mr Robinson you did make it clear, no need to apologise, just some people who have selective hearing obviously decided to change the 'may' to 'shall'
Complain about this comment
newthink wrote:
"Is an elected house of Lords wise, as surely this will just mirror the make-up of Parliament therefore acting as a rubber stamp on any legislation passed"
Depends on how and when elected. If HofL elected on entirely proportional methods or if elected mid-term of HofC then would probably be a different make up.
Complain about this comment
When Gordon Brown reforms the political system in Britain I shall eat my hat riding a frozen flying pig from hell whilst revealing the Theory of Everything to all the angels that can dance on the head of pin. I shall be carrying out this feat on the Greek Kalends.
My witnesses will be a Dodo, the first Rabbi to become Pope and an infinite amount of chimpanzees.
Complain about this comment
What I do think is that they should make in depth investigation and radical reform of the postal voting system.
My son is very severely disabled due to a bike accident as a teenager and had a postal vote, quite rightly, when in hospital, rehabilitation centres etc. Now he accompanies us to the poll station and that is what HE wants. An officer there takes him into the booth (he is wheelchair bound) and sees that he votes for who he wants OF HIS OWN VOLITION, ie we are not looking over his shoulder trying to influence his vote (he wouldn't mind you knowing he always votes Conservative by the way!)
BUT there are millions who have a postal vote for nebulous and strange reasons. Our Disability Social Worker has one although he is able bodied, fully employed, married with a young family and a bike rider. Why?
It is well documented that millions here not speaking proper English (that old immigrant chestnut again) get postal votes and their relatives complete them on their non speaking relatives' behalves - usually Labour voters I believe).
THAT is a cat among the pigeons too, but needs reforming before anything else - in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
excellentcatblogger wrote:
"No comment on the loss of personal freedoms in this country?
Is it OK for the Metropolitan Police to torture suspects and use waterboarding?"
They have been ACCUSED of this. I am sure you don't assume everyone accused by the police is guilty so why assume the police are guilty when accused of something?
And actually, if it stopped me being blown up by some crazed suicide bomber then yes, I think it is OK to torture suspects.
Complain about this comment
Have they addressed the problem of when 70million Turkish Moslems will have carte blanche to come here when Turkey joins the EU later?
How will they be voting when we let them in?
Complain about this comment
Well said #1 timbrowne.
How can a party tht just scored a whopping 15.4% in a countrywide election possibly assert their authority in a move to cahnge the voting system?
This is school playground politics. I didn't win the game so we're going to change the rules. The only transparent thing about the man who wants to improve transparency is that you can see straight through him. How ironic.
Why are the BBC choosing not to report the news that the man who wants to improve transparency is blocking the publication of the enquiry into Lord Malik's expense claims?
The only thing that has happened in 36 hours since newlabour MPs saved Gordon Brown's hide is that he has got even worse than before.
He will go, there is no question in my mind; the examples from history are legion of people begging for forgiveness and then becoming even worse examples of themselves than before. He will go down in flames with his party. And there is no question that newlabour have been drifting for five years and from a policy perspective will go out with a whimper... they have achieved nothing except rising household debt and a bloated public sector coupled with an horrendous arrogance towards the pople who put them in power.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Didn't the BNP just pick up two MEP Seats using Proportional Representation for the EU Parliament?
I think that the Liberals-Socialists might need to be careful of what they wish for when seeking changes to an Electoral System that does allow for fringe and 'beyond the fringe' parties to exist but realistically prevents these fringe parties from ever attaining a voice in the UK Parliament.
Do we really want people to vote for anyone other than Labour and see MPS from the Monster Raving Loony Party as MPs via preference vote?
There again is there much difference between the Labour cabal in Parliament today and Screaming Lord Sutch's followers .... they all live in Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Complain about this comment
How surprising, faced with losing power, and struggling even to be the major party in opposition, all of a sudden McStalin wants to talk about electoral reform. Only 12 years since they made a manifesto promise on the subject, although to be fair, that promise was made to keep the lib dems happy while there was a possibility of a hung parliament.
My guess is they will bring an experimental system in the south where the candidate who finishes 5th in each constituency gets elected. Based on the recent elections, that would give Labour a huge power base.
Complain about this comment
Shouldn't he deal with the expenses first. He seems to have covered up the report into Mr. Malik's expenses. It seems that he will not change and he will ignore public opinion.
What a worthless distraction. I'm not surprised you took the bait.
Complain about this comment
'In a statement to MPs tomorrow, Mr Brown will say . . .'
If, Nick, you have a reliable crystal ball, then fine.
Otherwise, why is this announced/leaked/spun to you before the House of Commons?
Complain about this comment
Reform Higher Education
There is NO informed public debate about significant decisions.
The public are NOT able to participate effectively in decisions affecting them.
There is NO adequate scrutiny of the decision-making process.
The authorities are NOT accountable for the spending of public money.
The authorities are NOT scrutinised to ensure they do their job properly.
No public right of complaint to the regulators.
NO public right of complaint to the National Audit Office.
Powers of the Auditor General to intervene have been removed.
There needs to be an inquiry as to why 75% of undergraduates from poorer families drop out or are forced out of University.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I'm a bit thick or something, but I really don't see the point of putting the voters to the trouble of rating the candidates from 1st to 4th choice (or if there are more candidates perhaps to 12th or 17th or whatever) and then not doing something more useful with the information gained.
Surely, if the voting was just directly weighted - e.g. a '1st' vote gets 4 points, a '2nd' vote gets 3 points, etc - then the voters might perhaps feel more connected to the appointed MP (or Councillor, or MSP) even if s/he wasn't their first choice.
Then again, perhaps some people would be happy to vote for one person only, but not be prepared to vote 2nd or 3rd place candidates.
Couldn't the BBC and ITV - with all their expertise on voting, e.g. Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor and the like - proffer Gordon a bit of a steer on this?
But Gordon really does need to do more than just reform the mechanics of the election system - not that he probably has the time to even do that now.
We really need an English Assembly, a much smaller Westminster UK Parliament and an elected prime minister - at minimum - to substantially restore confidence in the UK democratic system.
And much more importantly, the British people, in my view, have clearly voiced that they want some mechanism to be able to boot out of office MPs, or seemingly also Prime Ministers, who let them down. So his reforms need to address that issue too.
The era when the electorate voted in their allegedly respectable and trustworthy representatives from their communities who then, because they had the trust of their electorate, went on to do pretty much what they liked - however altruistically or otherwise - without further reference to the people and protected by some assumed parliamentary immunity to accountability, are surely well past.
In the main, nowadays, it seems the electorate trust their MPs no further than they can see what they're up to.
Complain about this comment
Labour propose AV as there are fewer reasonable options on the left than on the right, so Labour would be more likely to win and remain in power indefinately as a second choice.
This should NOT be a matter for one party to reform. It should be investigated by a cross-party panel which should include independents and academics, where there is a majority of academics. There proposals should then be placed before the people in a neutral information campaign leading up to a referendum.
No one system should be "promoted" over any other system. Each system should be explained fully to the electorate in a dispassionate and neutral manner and the electorate allowed to choose the system they would prefer to use.
Complain about this comment
So Brown is not planning to change anything until after a referendum? Why does that not inspire the greatest amount of confidence? Could it be his track record on referenda?
Complain about this comment
So an AV system works like this:-
Labour voter -
1st Labour (obviously)
2nd Honey Monster Party (nutters don't stand a hope)
3rd Lib Dems (lets push the Tories further down)
4th Conservative (that's messed up their average)
Conservative voter -
1st Conservative (obviously)
2nd Honey Monster Party (anything to do down the Socialists)
3rd Lib Dems (glad they are standing, the more the merrier)
4th Labour (I fixed their wagon properly)
Result
The Honey Monster Party win a landslide, form a government and invest 25% of government revenues in the honey industry. This kick starts recovery and economy is accidentally fixed.
The law of unintended consequences will ensure that future governments will be less representative than under our present system. The electorate is now so used to tactical voting that an AV system could open the door to extremist political parties.
Complain about this comment
The Jenkins report nicely describes the hugely negative and partisan impact of the AV system
I quote
"85. The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence. "
It would appear that Brown lacks Jenkins' concerns about hugely partisan changes to the UK constitution :-(
Complain about this comment
Andy C555 said,
'They have been ACCUSED of this. I am sure you don't assume everyone accused by the police is guilty so why assume the police are guilty when accused of something?
And actually, if it stopped me being blown up by some crazed suicide bomber then yes, I think it is OK to torture suspects.'
With that kind of circular logic you may very well end up like the Oozelum bird.
Complain about this comment
Let's get down to the basics. NuLabour are prepared to offer a referendum on a voting system that would benefit them. They are not, however, prepared to keep to their manifesto promise to have a referendum on the European Constitution now disguised as the Lisbon Treaty.
Talk about arrogant hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
"Oh and can someone PLEASE stop Brown claiming that he has to stay as we wouldn't forgive him for walking away in our hour of need?"
-------------------------------------------
Indeed, when Brown says, "What would people think if we were to walk away now?" According to the recent poll, roughly 96% of the population, (those people eligible to vote who did not vote labour), would be utterly delighted! Labour only managed to get 4.6% of the population to vote for them (15% of the 31% turnout) Surely that makes labour OFFICIALLY a tiny, fringe party of wackos and loonies?
As I have been saying for a number of years now, there is no such thing as a mainstream party anymore.
What would hard working families think? Well my family is a tax paying hard working family, (my daughter, wife and myself all are lucky enough to be in work), would be deliriously happy if labour quit en masse!
Complain about this comment
Er....haven't we been here before? What happened to Jenkins and AV top up, with a referendum on the change? Oh, on the back burner until the pilot light went out because New Labour realised that it was going to continue to benefit from our absurdly anti-democratic electoral system for the Commons. And what is the point of announcing that it might be considered all over again - but nothing will happen until a new general election, after which ... nothing will happen.
The BBC also needs to reconsider its politics reporting. Last night on Radio 4's ten o'clock news there was no mention at all of the Jenkins' recommendations; not even Vernon Bogdanor mentioned it (is this because he's now in the sticky embrace of No: 10?), and Nick Robinson doesn't mention Jenkins here either. Please get up to speed.
I expect that the sum total of any reform in our national politics will, in the end, be a visitors' centre at Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Nick get them to look into postal voting - the potential and actual vehicle for immense voting fraud:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_by_post.aspx
Complain about this comment
apparently under the AV system labour would have had bigger majorities in the last three elections........ anyway this talk of reform is just more smoke and mirrors, so much for the fresh start....more openness etc, the first thing the new open GB does is keep secret the report that allegedly clears Malik..... so no change there then!
Complain about this comment
Brown needs to look not at how Parliament is elected, but the shape of government. To that end, there is a case for adopting a US style approach/structure to our parliamentary system.
1. All elections are fixed term
2. We vote for a Prime Minister who selects his cabinet from the whole UK. Then we might have a cabinet of all the talents rather than the bunch of ninnies and self-serving cronies we currently have.
3. We elect a Lower House and a Upper House. Each house then carries out what it should be doing now - but can't becasue Thugs and Bullies (under the guise of whips) are at work. Nameley, each house debates the proposals of the PM and his Cabinet and either approves or rejects them.
In this way we are likely to have more independents in both houses since the election of the PM and his/her policy making quango will be independent from the elections for Parliament.
This is the sort of thing Brown and his cronies should be investigating and proposing - not some half-baked mutterings to make it look as if the Cabinet is providing a vision for the future
Complain about this comment
re32 andyc55
On that basis, as all the recent terrorist attacks have been by muslims, why not take out every 10th muslim and beat and kill a few ?
No ? I certainly hope it is no.
Confession from torture is bound to be unreliable and therefore of doubful benefit never mind the primary humanitarian concern that all torture is evil.
On the latest police out of control evidence, I believe it was on drug related matters anyway. They think they are USA Guantanamo guards. Have any been there for training?
Complain about this comment
A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, 'What are all those clocks?'
St. Peter answered, 'Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone who has ever been on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock move.'
'Oh', said the man. 'Whose clock is that?'
'That's Mother Teresa's', replied St. Peter. 'The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.
''Incredible', said the man. 'And whose clock is that one?'
St. Peter responded, 'That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.'
'Where's Gordon Brown's clock?' asked the man.
St Peter replied, 'Jesus has it in his office - He uses it as a ceiling fan.
Complain about this comment
Allowing a government who are up to their necks in the sticky brown stuff to move the goal posts is outrageous.
This is a desperate attempt, by a desperate party, lead by a desperate man, desperate to stay in power any which way he can!!!
yes the voting system for Westminster is extremely outdated and unfair but rushing in to an alternative so quickly with very little thought is going to solve absolutely nothing.
REMEMBER up until yesterday Brown would have nothing to do with PR
in fact he slagged off the lib- dums regularly!
Goodness me the road to Damascus must be hell of a busy these days.
Sid
Complain about this comment
You can only but be totally cynical about these latest moves by Gordon Brown. They are part of a desperate attempt to regain some popularity in the same way that delaying the bill for the privatisation of The Royal Mail is designed to appease his backbench detractors and win back some support. It may fool his MPs and buy him some time with them but it won't fool The Electorate.
Complain about this comment
No electoral mandate in the country, no positive electoral mandate from his own party. Mr Brown does not have the mandate to wade into issues as serious as the constitution. He should stick to the "caretaker" role he is so desparate to cling on to until the matter can be debated as part of a general election campaign.
Complain about this comment
"However cynical the reception to this news of proposed reform - understandable given the timing - an overhaul of the voting system is desperately needed."
The real cynicism comes from the Government and particularly from Brown and his close circle.
And it isn't the voting system that needs overhauling. It is the political parties and the attitude of MPs. What we need are political parties that balance leadership and vision with listening to the voice of the people and MPs who realise their purpose is to serve those who elect them and not feather their own nests. When we have those the proportion of people who vote will increase.
Complain about this comment
Let the parties battle it out in a General Election with their manifesto's covering these key areas as standard:
The Economy
Electoral Reform
The Lisbon Treaty
The parties should pledge to implement their proposals on the above within the first two years of the new Parliament, if elected.
The country can choose then which party is best placed to handle the downturn, which party has the best plan for Electoral Reform and which party is best for them when it comes to Europe.
If you like Downing Street e-petitions, then there is one called Go to the Country Now and that is calling for Parliament to be resolved and an immediate General Election, at that point, we the electorate can choose who we want to govern the country.
If the BBC permit it, then the link for Downing Street e-petitions is http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/GoToCountryNow/
Complain about this comment
Rather than AV, we should perhaps look at AV Plus (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=56)
This introduces a little more balance. I admit that I have moved more and more towards PR, to be honest. If nothing else, it helps eliminate the idea of the "safe seat" that has allowed MPs to take their jobs, and therefore the electorate, for granted.
Also, looking at recall systems and changing structures in the way legislation is introduced in parliament - strengthening the committees and making the cabinet more accountable.
PROBLEM: The Tories, as usual, are against almost any change and are stuck in the past. The few that Cameron has proposed are tinkering at the edges and are pointless with reforming the electoral system itself.
Yet again, we will get conned out of fairness by the Politicians.
They really don't give a damn about us, do they?
Complain about this comment
"Just to be clear: the prime minister's statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system."
Of course it wasn't Nick, Gordon Brown is incapable of making a decision or having his own views on anything.
Complain about this comment
44. Colin, thanks for that. EVERYBODY should read it and tell their friends!
Complain about this comment
#58
Sorry, I of course intended to write 'dissolve' Parliament and not 'resolve' Parliament, although resolving it would be pretty damn good!
Complain about this comment
459. At 07:34am on 10 Jun 2009, Saintmm wrote:
(Sorry, I blogged on the previous thread when this one was down)
Seems like more Government tinkering but there are two serious points to consider.
According to the 'experts', the AV system would have led to bigger labour majorities in each of the last three elections
Secondly, this system is in use in Australia and has been described as producing "wierd" results by those in the know. Refer #43.
Stop piddling around Gordon, it is a waste of Government time as it couldn't be introduced before the next election.
Reform the house of Lords by all means if you dare. After all, we wouldn't want the Cabinet to lose the unelected Lord Mandelson or Lord Myners or the future Lady Kinnock or the future Lord Amstrad, or......or.....or.....etc, would we?
Complain about this comment
@5 "seanspa wrote: Any system that prevents someone taking over as PM mid term, usurping power and refusing to give it up, will be a significant improvement."
---------------------------------------
Agreed. The displacement of a Prime Minister, by his/her party, due to unpopularity, mid term, should lead to an automatic general election. The death of a leader would be different as that would not be due to unpopularity and then the deputy PM should take over.
Recall powers must also be granted to the electors in each constituency.
Most importantly, the MASSIVE in-built bias in favour of any party inherent in the constituency boundaries MUST BE ENDED.
It is a gross and profoundly anti-democratic disgrace that currently, labour could get a million fewer votes than the tories and yet STILL be able to form a majority government. They could potentially lead a coalition minority government with 1.5 - 2 million fewer votes.
The tories need to heavily defeat labour at the polls to even draw with them in seats (leading to a hung Parliament). Labour have a built-in majority (allowing for new boundries) of about 48 seats. This is a gross violation of democracy.
Complain about this comment
This voting reform guff is just political smoke and mirrors, let's get back to MPs' expenses, that was much more fun - once you got over being angry at knowing that tax payers had been take for a ride for ages.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
For AV voting, try this little test and see if it is fairer than FPtP.
Four candidates stand for election.
1- Mr A, Incease Tax Party
2- Ms B, Cut Spending Party,
3- Ms C, Love You Feely Party,
4- Mr D, Hate All Foreigners, Right Is Might Party.
But there are only 4 voters (Just for this test).
Each voter decides No. 4 is by far their last choice so put him last but when the votes are counted, the other 3 candidates have only one vote each.
To win under AV you must get over 50% of the votes and, as no-one but No.4 has, he wins! Hooray for democracy!
In FPtP system, No.4 would of course loose his deposit as he would not recieve any votes.
Am I being too simple, please tell me.
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
Sorry Nick but Journalist and Politicians are tarred with the same brush they are all that busy telling us what we are saying that they dont listen to a word we are actually saying nor take anything in which is why ultimately actions speak louder than words
The Great British public voted against Labour because they brought the world economy down by failing to regulate the markets and Bankers mainly hosted in London.
When the financial sector went on a spree at the turn of the millennium, a spree that was predominantly immoral, certainly unethical and totally antisocial they were supported by the socialist government anxious for the tax revenue to stick into health and education where they had promised so much to the electorate
Now having encouraged all the anti social behaviour of these fat cats they have had to pour billions of our money for years to come into these greedy mouths to keep them functioning.
And worse they have done not one single jot to change the ways of these usurers or to regulate these people and have done nothing to persuade America or Europe to do anything about controlling them either.
Worse the money they took in did not create a better education service or health service it was all tied into more and more jobs for administrators to replace the manufacturing losses.
The by word became targets to check progress and checks to check the checkers al with targets to be checked its an administrators nightmare and no service in sight.
In fact service either public or care for the customer is going backwards like fellowship support and community they are all being eroded by a beggar my neighbour, self interest, me first mentality that discredits us all and is amplified by the way some of our politicians have stuck their noses in the trough with expenses.
Not because they are inherently bad people but because they are, like the vast majority of us, weak followers of fashion trends and of our leaders bad or good.
So think first, we are deeply disappointed because the government is not tackling the issues but rather as usual papering over the cracks for the next incumbents to deal with. Government has to get back to basics make life simpler, less paper, less rules, give time to common sense, restore moral and ethical practice.
To bring back civil values to which there is no trade, no price, no swap and to focus on service of public, neighbour, employee and family.
Ask not what I can do for me but how can I help our society be a better place for thee.
Complain about this comment
58. At 09:50am on 10 Jun 2009, damiendruce
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not be a bit more patient, really, its only till next year, just wait a year, this is what is wrong you see we have become such of a rush society no patience whatsoever, 'I'm gonna sit here until you get out the way' attitude 'i'm in a rush get out my way'.
If we all be a bit more patient and understanding what better lives we'd lead, what a better country, what a better society so next time rather than rushing, think a bit, slow down.
I know the majority are angered with our PM, but don't try to evict him, remember it will be the General election in what less than 12 months time, so please, just wait, I'm not an MP, I look forward to voting for the first time next year, I am only 17, but I think we should really be more patient about our politics, 'Rome was never built in a day'.
Complain about this comment
"Just to be entirely clear.." - Paul Mason had this story a long time before you did, just as Betsan Powys had the Welsh 'Tory Story' ahead of you, and it would be polite of you to acknowledge that occasionally..
Complain about this comment
This is classic mis direction. The magic circle would be proud!
I think we can now conclude that NULab have continued to practice their magic tricks. Perhaps Gordy and Peter think that by pulling rabbits out of hats, flowers from up their sleeves and eggs from behind each others ears, that the electorate will forget about their recent electoral kicking, and the economic meltdown.
Truly, this bunch are a stain on the underpants of humanity.
Complain about this comment
#51# IDB123
Totally agreed.
Sadly though, those currently in any position to make such changes are far too attached to the status quo, so any reform is unlikely to be comprehensive, or even significant, and almost certainly won't reflect the wishes of the electorate.
I particularly agree with the separation of voting for an MP from, by inference of the party that MP belongs to, voting for a prime minister.
It's total twaddle and probably always has been. If the people are going to in any way choose the prime minister then just let them vote for the one they want.
I've never understood why British people haven't demanded the right to do that. It seems so fundamentally undemocratic.
I also quite like the idea that the person elected to govern the country can select his/her cabinet from a wider base of expertise than just those who managed or were popular enough to get elected into the House. Though, as we increasingly see, Gordon seems to have a way around that.
Complain about this comment
Is it possible that when a posting is considered, we could be positive and say which system we would like, instead of being cynical and suggesting that any decision a politician make sis for their own good.
I would agree with flamepatricia, that no-one should have a postal vote unless they have a good reason. I am suprised though, that she is so sure the she knows how her son votes. With-in our family, we discuss politics and we openly talk of how we might vote, but I have no idea who my sons vote for.
I would say that some form of PR is preferable, but I'm not sure which one would produce the most representative parliament. I'd be open to persuasion on that. We need a system that allows new ideas to grow but keep out the lunatic fringes.
There has been a lot of talk concerning how many MPs we really need. I can't say I know the answer to that. How big should the government be? How many ministers?
How much should they be paid? At the moment an MP gets arond 68k, I would say that is enough, but if that's enough for an MP then I should say we should have a maximum wage, as we almost had until 1979. I have suggested before it should be in the region of 150k.
So, instead of just criticising every move that the government make, how about adding to the debate?
Complain about this comment
GB will no doubt want us to accept that he has been 'trying to reform' the parliamentary voting system for years. But as always with this 'last past the post' PM....it's too little, too late. Unfortunately the recent circus in Westminster means nothing GB does will ever be seen as right for the country. We are at the begining of very worrying times evidenced by the attacks on the BNP leader yesterday ouside our House of democracy.......I fear there will be much more direct action as the people are revolting!
Complain about this comment
My Local election ballot had three parties on it. They were CON, LAB, LIB.
If you consider that Labour are somewhere in the middle of this group, then using the proposed system:
The average LIB voter would vote LIB, LAB, CON.
The average CON voter would vote CON, LAB, LIB.
And the average LAB voter (many of whom won't vote CON EVER) would vote LAB, LIB, CON.
Isn't this simply a way to guarantee that if Labour came in second as no one would get 50%, they would win an election based on second votes?
Or am I being too cynical here?
Please discuss.
Complain about this comment
Dear All,
A bit of a correction to my post at Number 66.
For AV voting, try this little test and see if it is fairer than FPtP.
Four candidates stand for election.
1- Mr A, Incease Tax Party
2- Ms B, Cut Spending Party,
3- Ms C, Love You Feely Party,
4- Mr D, Hate All Foreigners, Right Is Might Party.
But there are only 4 voters (Just for this test).
Each voter decides No. 4 is by far their last choice so put him last but when the votes are counted, the other 3 candidates have only one vote each.
To win under AV you must get over 50% of the votes and, as 3 candidates got only 2 votes each and No.4 has 4, he wins! Hooray for democracy!
In FPtP system, No.4 would of course loose his deposit as he would not recieve any votes.
Am I being too simple, please tell me.
Complain about this comment
#44 colin_dancer
On the other hand, even an 'unfair' system would probably feel more fair to many voters than finding the person you voted for to have no integrity and to be cheating the expenses system.
A great deal of this is about people FEELING disempowered and unable to change things.
(That - in all honesty - is probably the main cause of last week's electoral results, including the low turn-out)
Complain about this comment
I assume everyone has noticed that hypcracy of sticking all your mates into the lords, then proposing to reform it to stop people sticking their mates in the lords.
Complain about this comment
Hmm - sounds a wee bit fishy to me, as others have said.
The solution is really pretty simple.
1) Elected House of Lords, but elected during mid term of House of Commons
2) Fixed term House of Commons terms - say 4 years. This means House of Lords would be 4 years too, but 2 years after H o C General Elections
3) Executive to be separate from the Parliament. By all means, the leader of the largest party is PM, but then ministers are nominated by him / her, and scrutinised by both houses, within a fixed time of say 1 month, and then appointed. Ministers need NOT be elected, but must be approved by thise who are elected.
4) I might be in the minority here, but the existing 1st past the post system is what I would describe as the very basis of democracy - i.e. simple majority rule, so I see no need to change to a system which will undoubtedly lead to hung parliaments and little progress
5) Compulsory voting - but a "None of the above" option. If this option is the majority in a constituency, then election has to be re-run with new candidates.
These measures may be "couragous" and in a Yes Minister world that would be "brave", but make the changes now, and confidence in the system would surely be restored.
Complain about this comment
35. At 09:27am on 10 Jun 2009, Menedemus wrote:
"Do we really want people to vote for anyone other than Labour and see MPS from the Monster Raving Loony Party as MPs via preference vote?"
If that's what the electorate vote for made manifest by a particular voting system then, by definition, that surely IS 'what we really want'.
Or are you saying 'we really must manipulate the system to ensure that the electorate don't get what they really want'?
Complain about this comment
To appease Cameron, and to deliver something close to real democracy, adopting the Irish Single Transferrable Vote system is the best way forward; a good mix of PR - from party lists - and constituency-based MPs. Only problem with this system is its complexity, as poor Peter Snow would be kept up much later waiting to fill the colours in his swingometer.
Complain about this comment
#74 sweet
Why do you think your average tory voter would put Labour as their second choice. Seems unlikely to me.
Complain about this comment
My God Nick the labour party are well and truly done for. More consultations, more debate? When are they gonna get the message that we've had enough. We're sick and tired of their endless abstractions and non action. What a disaster they are. What choice do they offer for 'leader': a tony Blair clone (David and Ed perhaps) or a mock new leftie, you know what I mean, a blairite with a bit of a conscience. What a wreck of a party, what a bunch of woodentops.
Complain about this comment
AV will very likely be helpful to both labour and the lib dems, with a voter expressing a preference for either of them, resigned to having the second choice in case first choice vote goes wasted. Conservatives hardly have a party that is very much aligned on policy.
More principally, voters will be largely in the dark on how AV will work out after polling. And there will be much miscounting and horse (policy) trading between parties.
AV is a clever labour trick. It is not a good system, but it favours labour who will point to other parties as opposing reform when these parties raise valid objections against it.
Mr Robinson, I suppose that you asked about Sugar, Myners, Vadera, Mandelson and the Standard Chartered when that labour politician commented that the conservatives should come clean on reforming the lords.
Goodday!
Complain about this comment
67 Hack-round.
Neat analysis, but a tall order for any government "to give time to common sense, restore moral and ethical practice."
With the current MPs expense/allowance exposures we have an opportunity to compare our elected representatives against each other by what they have done, rather than what they say.
I suggest this gives the electorate an additional power to judge who we would like to represent us.
"Ask not what I can do for me but how can I help our society be a better place for thee."
This is an ace comment Hack-round. In one sentence you have summed up my perception of all the recent expense exposures and cabinet resignations.
Complain about this comment
"And actually, if it stopped me being blown up by some crazed suicide bomber then yes, I think it is OK to torture suspects. "
-----------------------------------------
Andy, I just bet you are in favour of dunking suspected witches and other assorted heathens too aintcha?
There is no proof, (ZERO NONE NADA ZIP ZILTCH) that torture keeps us safer from terrorists. Torture does NOT create truth. It only creates legally worthless confessions and a very deep motivation to enact revenge. NOTHING MORE.
Torture is used to extract confessions, NOT to get to the truth. The American administration tortured a confession out of one innocent man who confessed to Al Queda having links to Saddam, THUS creating the fictional link between Saddam and September 11th which the British and American adminstrations knowingly and falsely used to gain some degree of popular support for the Iraq war leading to the deaths, mutilations and displacement of over 4 million people.
That is what torturing people into confessing to false plots gets you!
Additionally, give me 45 minutes and a waterboard and I could have you confessing to abducting Maddie McCann, SERIOUSLY! so the whole issue of "gaining intelligence by waterboarding" is legally dead!
IF regular juristic dilligence proves beyond doubt that a person is committing or planning to comit a terrorist act, then upon the successful and fair conviction in a court, that person could be imprisoned and tortured slowly to death, rescussitated again and then repeatedly killed, for all I care, BUT ONLY UPON CONVICTION.
All 'suspects' by the nature of the term 'suspect' are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Would you really have our entire judicial system overturned? In answering that, ask yourself if YOU have EVER been left alone with a child. Now think how you could PROVE that you have never molested that child, should YOU need to prove your innocence? And in thinking about that, would you like to change the current system of justice to be guilty of charge until you prove yourself innocent?
Therefore under the current correct system ALL suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court, before a jury of peers.
Innocent people should NEVER be tortured! END OF!
Complain about this comment
#78 davie
Fixed term would mean it was ok for a party to change leader without having to go to the country again?
How would we fit all the other elections in in the meantime? Euros, County and District?
Complain about this comment
They can propose all they want but ,whatever voting is in place at the next election will see labour decimated.With Gordon Brown not listening to the electorate , the electorate are going to have their say......
If he had time he would no doubt be looking at ways to reform the system without us getting a referendum,he has a track record on this.
Complain about this comment
No12Pomwom
No55 Caractac,
Are you prepared to forecast how many more political lunatics will, on this blog, demonstrate their ignorance by implying that we elect Prime Ministers in the UK.It may be of interest to you, however , I doubt it, that Mr Brown was elected by his party unopposed, a common occurence in democratic organisations.
Complain about this comment
#86 wasowenright
With a fixed term 4 year parliament, "none of the above" voting, all cabinet position held up to scrutiny by parliament, the chances of a leader leaving mid term is vastly reduced.
As for fitting in the other elections - time the ones we can control (council, district) etc. to take place at same time (on separate ballot sheet) as either the H o C General Election or H o L elections - means that on a fixed date every 2 years, we vote.
Electorate would be better able to put concerns to elected members as there would be no huge time gaps between national elections - compulsory voting gets the tunrout a "mandate" issue resolved.
Complain about this comment
68. At 10:13am on 10 Jun 2009, defenderofparliament
Why should I wait? I have a wife and children that I need to support, I have been made redundant twice in twelve months because the Government could not regulate my industry - Financial Services, and to be honest young man I have seen quite enough of this ineffective Government.
I admire your interest in politics at such a young age, I was very much the same at fourteen, but there are issues that need dealing with right away and that can only be done with the country deciding on who they want to take us forward.
If it is Labour, then so be it, if Conservatives get in then great, lets see how it goes. The key here is to make them all more accountable, when they mess up then they need to allow their employers, the electorate, to decide on the best course of action, just as your boss would in the private sector.
Stay interested young man, but please remember there are families up and down the country that have been paralysed by this incumbent Government! You need to take a look at the bigger picture.
Complain about this comment
Completey Outrageous.
An unelected leader, with a cabinet full of unelected ministers, who is facing political meltdown at his next election has decided that the electoral system (the one that just gave him and his cronies a kicking) is outdated and need reforming ...
Where do we live? Is this any kind of democratic process? Are we now living in some 3rd world dictatorship?
Dear Gordon Brown
Kim Jong Ill, Robert Mugabe, Hu Jintao and others must be saluting you and wondering how they can give their regimes the vener of democracy that you have managed to.
Regards
Complain about this comment
"How can a party tht just scored a whopping 15.4% in a countrywide election possibly assert their authority in a move to cahnge the voting system?"
---------------------------------------
Let's get the scale of this correct shall we? It was 15.4% of a 31% turnout! So, in reality LESS THAN 5% of those eligible to vote supported Gordon Brown's labour party.
There is NO SUCH THING as a mainstream political party anymore.
The MASSIVE MAJORITY of non-voters can easily throw out the old-guard, EX mainstream parties now. ALL OF THEM! ALL they have to do is actually VOTE.
Do something positive www.nonvoters.org
Complain about this comment
31 flame patricia
ie we are not looking over his shoulder trying to influence his vote (he wouldn't mind you knowing he always votes Conservative by the way!)
How do you know he votes conservative? or is it with your attitude he dare not do otherwise, and what gives you the right to tell all and sundry the way he votes, isn't it supposed to be a secret ballot.
I know the lads severly disabled, but dont foist your opinions on him to further your cause, if you dont see his ballot paper you don't know if he may of voted Libdem or even Labour, he could tell you anything he wants to keep you quiet.I guess you'll refer this one too Patricia
Complain about this comment
RE: 51 IDB123
You are describing something like a US system without the electoral college. This is spot on. I have been thinking along those lines for some years. Without repeating what you have already written, I will add why this is so important.
The problem with the British parliamentary system is that the PM wields more power than the president of the US (in relative, not absolute terms) for the simple reason that there is no separation between the executive and the legislature. In a word, by holding a majority, the executive is able to force the legislature to vote a certain way by using the 3 line whip. This is not democracy but autocracy. MP's have a stark choice: if they defy the whip they will alienate the PM and may probably jeapordise their careers. They may even have the whip removed in extreeme cases. There has been a notable increase in use of the whip in recent years which has lead to a raft of barmy legislation being forced through the commons. This amounts, imo, to a violation of the spirit of parliament and is leading to an abuse of power. If the lower house exists only to serve their constituents, AND cannot sit in the cabinet then this abuse cannot happen. The PM, for his part, will be free to select his (talented) ministers from the among the great and the good of our country PROVIDED they are approved by the lower house.
That's it. Any tinkering with the way votes are counted is like a man painting his windows while his house is subsiding off the edge of a cliff.
Complain about this comment
Who cares about electoral reform?
Just stop fiddling your expenses and claiming it was - within the rules.
Classic Brownian attempt to blow smoke up the electorate's as*.
More dividing lines, more useless rhetoric from Brown aides.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
75. At 10:23am on 10 Jun 2009, tobytrip
Am I being too simple, please tell me.
I cannot say, but in the absence of an as neatly explained contrary explanation (so far), and the certainty that our WUVI-obsessed, bubble-centric, Lobby-dependent MSM 'reporting' stars will fail to do so, I will simply say thank you and err on not being too impressed with any future efforts to spin this otherwise.
Should my opinion on the matter ever get sought rationally via the ballot box again, of course.
Complain about this comment
Until and if it actually happens, I will treat it as spin designed to stall, distract and buying time. Politicians are good with words and excel in applied psychology.
It is better not to believe and be pleasantly surprised (very small chance) than believe and be disappointed, yet again.
Complain about this comment
No23 flamepatricia
I am sure you will be aware that there is always a substantial number of government ministers in the House of Lords, regardless of which party forms the government, all unelected. Are you arguing for all politicians at Westminster to be accountable to the public through the ballot box? Do you think the people should have the right to decide on who should be their Head of State?
Complain about this comment
On the quiet we have already had electoral reform.We now have a system of government along the EU lines,non elected commissioners running the country and a house of commons that is only there for the pretence of the electorate.Poor old window dressing Harman has been replaced as deputy prime minister by someone was wasn't even voted in by his own party let alone the country,still,she cannot complain as she fully supports Brown.
Complain about this comment
81. At 10:31am on 10 Jun 2009, wasowenright wrote:
#74 sweet
Why do you think your average tory voter would put Labour as their second choice. Seems unlikely to me.
================================================================
I agree, but is it less likely then putting the lib dems second (I thnking under normal circumstances, not our current ABL kind of situation).
Complain about this comment
90. At 10:46am on 10 Jun 2009, damiendruce
Thank you Damiendruce for your encouragement.
I am very sorry to here of your being made redundant twice over the past year, I understand the feelings of family's at this moment in time, My parents are also struggling, and under immense pressure at work as I think the majority of people are.
I hope and feel assured that whatever government is in, Including this one we have at present are doing their best for us, It may not seem it, but they are trying, and I will take your advice on looking at the bigger picture
Complain about this comment
This is just change for its own sake. I can think of no reason to change the political voting system just because the media want us to, or because everybody seems to hate Gordon Brown. We elect a party, not a prime minister. I personally think this is a good thing. There are problems with every system, but at least this one gives a country some stability. The downside of course, is that when the media / public get bored or fed up with a leader, you read nothing but bad news, miserable rhetoric and weasel words designed to cause constant pressure on the incumbent government. This whips everybody up into a fervour of anti-Government thinking that means you never, ever get to hear about anything good that the Govt might be doing. This, above all else, is what causes annoyance and damage to the process. Bad news sells, so bad news is all we ever get. It never occurs to the media to write more balanced articles that break this hideous and destructive spiral, even in the depths of a recession when some good news might actually do the country a power of good.
The unelected zillionaire press barons that orchestrate all of this in the name of profit care not one whit for the country, its people, or anybody else unless they're good for a few quid. We cannot be led by these people into changing our political system to suit them.
Complain about this comment
Let's just get something clear here. From 1935 on Neville Chamberlain, Churchill, Macmillan, Callaghan and John Major were all prime minister for more then a year without calling an election: in the case of Churchill 5 years (exceptional circumstances though) and Macmillan almost three years. Additionally Eden and Douglas Home were also prime ministers for shorter times without elections. We do not elect prime ministers, we elect governments. Labour was elected for 5 years in 2005 and like it or not they're entitled to stay there till 2010 with whoever they like in charge. Your vote from 2005 is still in force. We may not like the goverment but this continual implication that it is somehow anti-democratic simply isn't true. If we changed the goverment every time the electorate got cold feet about their previous decision we'd be having elections every 6 months....
Complain about this comment
Can we be assured that Mr Brown will insist - on any discussion of constitutional reform - of reviewing the post devolution settlement and especially the anti- English bias ? I would propose three specifics :
1. The Boundary commission should be instructed to reduce the number of MPs to (my preference) no more than 400. Constituencies should be of roughly equal size and Labour's inner city rotten boroughs enlarged to include a wider franchise.
2. When the House of Commons votes on matters devolved to Scotland or Wales,and which therefore impact only English constituents,the Speaker must rule that MPs from Wales and Scotland do not vote, given that they lack a democratic mandate on those affairs, and should not rule on matters (eg Student fees in England) which do not impact their own constituents.
3. The Barnett formula must be scrapped. Public expenditure must be allocated on an equal per capita basis (calculated for the lifetime of each Parliament) for the four main constituent parts of the UK. The Scots, especially, should have no problem with this.Emotionally, as a proud people, we have no intention accepting largesse from the English. And we have voted ourselves the right to raise (or lower) our own income tax rates by up to 3% if we so wish (and are rather surprised the English don't yet enjoy the same privilege).
Meanwhile the House of Lord's can be reformed to be at least representative, if not fully elected. I would propose including MEPs - partly to give them something to do - but also to ensure the revising role of the second chamber be extended to EU legislation which increasingly dominates UK Law. I'd also limit numbers to no more than 400, and allow for regional representation to allow (like the US Senate) smaller regions to enjoy disproportionate weighting. Those regions could elect and/or nominate representatives for a fixed period.
All very simple. Meanwhile the Governing Party which has been rejected massively by all parts of the Kingdom in recent elections must not be allowed to fix a new set of voting rules unless and until it has submitted such principles to the Electorate. Mr Brown is fond of saying he has always championed constitutional reform : let him therefore put that in a manifesto asap for the electorate, given it was not in the manifesto of his predecessor (who did of course promise "to serve a full term".
Complain about this comment
The reason turnouts are so low is because many people see voting in a safe seat as pointless because you vote for that party thats going to win anyway. or you vote for another that doesn't stand a chance. Your vote could be a waste of time either way. A change to PR system could make more votes count. So what if a few BNP people get in. Its up to our useless politicians to make them look like the idiots they are.
Nothing will happen though. This country is to conservative with a small 'c' ie Stuck in its ways.
Complain about this comment
No95 Robin
You will get the election you want, when Mr Brown decides.There was an election in 2005, the governing party was elected for a five year term.Were you to young to remember the event?
Complain about this comment
Why are we suddenly seeing all these old, failed Labour hacks crawling out of the woodwork. Roy Hattersley and Neil Kinnock would do well to crawl back under the hole from whence they came!
Complain about this comment
#106:
It was 5 years more the pity but not with Gordon Brown at the helm. That thought may well have exercised the voters' minds more thoroughly!
Complain about this comment
"I doubt it, that Mr Brown was elected by his party unopposed, a common occurence in democratic organisations."
How could he have been ELECTED by his party when there wasn't an election?
There wasn't an election because all the other potential candidates were bullied out of standing except for one, who only wanted to give Gordon democratic legitimacy by forcing a competition. Then the PLP was bullied by Brown's henchmen and pitbulls into not supporting him, thus preventing a competition, as Brown HATES democracy.
Brown was NOT elected, for that would mean a leadership election would have taken place. Brown was APPOINTED!
Complain about this comment
Nick, I am quite often told that I have my head in the sand and look at Labour through rose tinted glasses and so on. it doesn't worry meI'm far too old in the tooth for that. what does puzzles me is the reason that I get all this guff is because I don't agree with the myriad of Tories that engulf your bloggs, even though they always insist that your a Labour sympathiser,I have never suggested that they have their head in the sand and so forth, so why are they abusive to anyone that has a different opinion to them, the Tories on this blog have a advantage of at least 90% so whats there problem their constantly abusive towards my prefered party, I can understand if they want to disagree with me and other Labour supporters and accept that, but the agression shown is out of all proportion, The only thing that it conveys to me is that like their leader they find it hard to control themselves and have reasoned debate perhaps with a little fun and banter, after all nothing we say on here is going to change anything anyway.
Complain about this comment
#103 sloggers
Agreed.
Complain about this comment
another thing.
All of you banging on about how Brown wants to fiddle the system so he can win. The present system keeps the current 2 party see saw political system in place. PR wouldn't help either Labour or Conservative its most likely to help the Lib Dems and maybe other parties. Maybe it could put an end to the North/South(Labour/Tory) divide. Don't start whinging at me about Northerners voting like sheep either.
Sorry you know who that was a rant I do appologise.
Complain about this comment
No103 Sloggers,
I wonder if you are aware of how refreshing it is to view a contribution that demonstrates with every word such knowledge and understanding.
Complain about this comment
One can only hope that this will be a real referendum for the public to decide, and not one of those Gordon Brown type.
Yes, we were going to let the public vote, but then decided, that the change would have no real effect and doesnt really mean anything anyway, so we passed it through parliament, without the publics consent because frankly the electorate is too stupid for important decisions like this.
Referendums.
Complain about this comment
#66, you are being too simple. In your example, party #4 gets eliminated after the first round because he has no first choice votes. Your example then breaks because there is no way of distinguishing between the other 3 candidates.
With more than 4 voters, #4 would still have come last, but anybody who voted for them would have their vote transferred to their second choice party.
The system works as long as people don't try to vote tactically - hopefully they will be put off by the risk of getting an extremist. The big winner would be the Lib Dems, who currently lose out due to Labour claiming a vote for the Lib Dems could let the Tories in ,and the Conservatives claim it could let Labour in.
Complain about this comment
112. At 11:31am on 10 Jun 2009, dhwilkinson wrote:
another thing.
All of you banging on about how Brown wants to fiddle the system so he can win. The present system keeps the current 2 party see saw political system in place. PR wouldn't help either Labour or Conservative its most likely to help the Lib Dems and maybe other parties. Maybe it could put an end to the North/South(Labour/Tory) divide. Don't start whinging at me about Northerners voting like sheep either.
Sorry you know who that was a rant I do appologise.
======================================================
But they aren't proposing PR. They are proposing something else.
Also they are only doing it now after 12 years as they look certain defeat in the eye.
Of course gordon has always wanted to reform it, and we'd be fools not to believe him wouldn't we.
Complain about this comment
#109 sicilian
You don't seem to get it. You vote for a representative for your area, known as a constituency. He or she goes to parliament to represent your area's interests. Over time groupings have emerged that represent broad-brush visions of how society should be organised, and as much as people go on about freedom and less government, society has to be organised. These groupings, we call them parties, decide on their leader and, until we are brave enough to do away with the monarchy and re-instate a republic, the King or Queen will ask them to form a government.
That seems quite simple. There is no reason for a government to hold an election when they change leader nor is there when the opposition do. If there were, we would have had a lot of elections as the Tories drop one failure after another. So, it is quite wrong to keep on saying Gordon Brown is not elected, he was elected in exactly the same way as your MP was.
We have a system that allows the PM to decide when an election should be called, as Margret Thatcher did when she decided to take advantage of the Falklands factor. There she had been elected to serve a full term but decided to, "Cut and Run", as Michael Foot put it.
If that needs changing, then so be it. But don't keep on about parties using the system as it is, or PMs using their power as it has been handed down to them. Please.
Complain about this comment
Hasn't everyone missed the point? The LibDems want PR and insist on it as part of creating any electoral deals. This is an attempt at a compromise and points the way to a Lib/Lab pact to stay in power.
Complain about this comment
And where are we on better scrutiny of postal voting, clearly necessary given postal voting malfunctions in the past, not least the Glenrothes byelection where the marked voters register went missing after 1 out of every 7 votes came in by post and a swith of half those postal votes from labour to SNP would have nailed it for the SNP.
Postal votes, the next scandal, coming to a cinema near you, and it will make the expenses scandal look like a walk in the park.
Complain about this comment
I think he'll choose "last-past-the-post"................
Complain about this comment
#113
You are being one eyed. Yes, #103 sloggers was factual as far as he/she went but none of these people replaced someone who specifically stated he would do a full term.
Tony Blair stated this as he knew, as did Mandelson, that Brown was unelectable within the UK electorate. (TB tells a porky.....how ridiculous).
I have met many Labour voters who felt betrayed when Blair left power after 2 years in order to let the disaster that Brown is into No.10 to fulfill a personal and long coveted ambition.
Complain about this comment
Will people please now get off giving Gordon Brown a hiding.
Mandelson is now the ventriloquist making all the moves. Gordon is simply his dummy sitting on his lap moving his lips up and own to Mandelson's words.
There has, once again, been a coup d'etat within the our Government led by an unelected peer of the realm. Still, makes a change from a coup d'etat from an unelected commoner, I guess.
Complain about this comment
"45. At 09:36am on 10 Jun 2009, Poprishchin wrote:
Andy C555 said,
'They have been ACCUSED of this. I am sure you don't assume everyone accused by the police is guilty so why assume the police are guilty when accused of something?
And actually, if it stopped me being blown up by some crazed suicide bomber then yes, I think it is OK to torture suspects.'
With that kind of circular logic you may very well end up like the Oozelum bird."
Poprishchin
It what sense is my logic circular? The first part of my post stated that a mere accusation does not prove guilt. The second part stated that I supported torture to prevent terrorist activities.
For the logic to be 'circular' each statement would depend on each other to be true. In fact, each statement stands independent of the other.
If wildly different phraseology had been used you might want to argue that my viewpoint created a moot point of the issue to the extent that I was saying that if the police were innocent they should not be punished and if guilty should not be punished but that hardly makes my logic 'circular' and isn't what was being debated and wasn't what I said, there being no indication of my views on whether the police should be punished if guilty.
Complain about this comment
It is perfectly clear that Brown only chooses to look at alternative voting systems after 12 years of Labour misrule because he knows he will loose at the next election.
Introducing a new system that favours parties that do less well under First Past The Post is a cynical ploy to enable a few more Labour MPs hang onto their seats.
The idea of Brown allowing a referendum is laughable when he has steadfastly denied us a vote on the European constitutional treaty.
This man knows no shame.
Complain about this comment
Voting reform? Isn't that something of a joke considering Mandelson will have a lot to say and he's an unlected MP?
One reform should surely be that NO unelected MP is in Government, this is not democracy.
Another reform which needs to be added is that no MP who has been sacked once, let alone twice should be allowed to return and third and last that no MP who has defrauded the tax payer should be allowed to return.
From what I can see a number of MPs who are still in power have got away with theft from Brown down and those who were expendable dealt with ie Ian Gibson.
Maybe a law should be passed stating that the Government can do as they like, when they like and how they like, or have they already done that!
Complain about this comment
Electoral and constitutional reform should not be for the government of the day (even if it wasn't the present shambles).
There should be a Royal Commission, or somesuch, so as to provide a balanced set of proposals for longterm improvement.
Complain about this comment
purpleDogzzz #85.
Don't be silly. I am well aware that witches don't exist.
Torture is legally dead? What is that supposed to mean? Can you not differentiate between torture for information and torture for confession? Do you seriously think our fine armed forces torture the Taliban so that they can 'confess' to something? Of course not. They are after information. As you say, there are torture techniques that are highly persuasive and people are likely to say something. If that information is shown to be wrong, then the torture can start again.
Let me ask you this. If your family were kidnapped, would you want a captured terrorist to be tortured to reveal their whereabouts or would you be content to wait for your family to be beheaded at the terrorists' leisure?
Oh, and writing "END OF" (even in capitals) actually doesn't add any weight to your argument. It just makes you look silly.
Complain about this comment
Debating electoral reform is a smokescreen to divert attention away from expenses. It can wait until after the general election, if it's put forward in a manifesto & people make a clear demand for it. In the meantime, the general public isn't going to take kindly to the proven corrupt continuing to test the public in terms of how much MPs can get away with, by seeing if they can meddle with a system which has functioned quite adequately for a very long time.
Though, to the arm-twisted agenda in question... I admit that FPP voting is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as I'd never completely agree with one political party. However, being asked to vote for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th place, when those parties represent even less of my ideal is just plain stupid. I want my ideals levelled up, not down. As it stands now, FPP automatically denies the large minority of the population (a very big majority, if you take into account stay-at-homes) any balloted agreement with the political executive. In my mind, the best system would be one where everyone is governed according to their own ideals. Thereby, you'd get 100% agreed governance. i.e. You vote for X, then you get an X government, not vote for X & get a Z government, because other people have a greater say in what happens to you. How it would work, in practice, though, is a different matter. Another possibility is some sort of specific "mix & match" voting. One where, for instance, if I agreed with the Tories on everything but Europe, then I'd vote Tory at a GE, but with the specific opt-out, on that matter, & have, possibly, UKIP to represent me, in that regard.
Though it'd be rather complex, I think that a fully apolitical civil service, one which directly & regularly polls me on every issue, which not impossible in the computer age, would probably be the best alternative to FPP & a corrupt Westminster. Whether it's a good thing, or not, it'd take Westminster out of the loop & give completely firsthand government to everybody. Though, I'm probably so far ahead of everyone that a lot of this sounds like crazy talk, to other people.
Complain about this comment
Reforming the voting system would be meaningless without a move to multi-member constituencies. It is the winner-takes-all logic of the single-member constituency that distorts the will of the people, perpetuates the two-party state and has enabled successive minority governments - none of them had the support of a majority of voters - to smash workers' rights, inflict the poll tax, go repeatedly to war and sign away our democratic and social rights to EU bureaucrats and big business.
I live in a safe seat, and I'm sick and tired of having my MP chosen by the local Conservative party. I want my MP to be democratically accountable, and I want to choose who represents me in Parliament. That won't happen until we have multi-member constituencies where the voting system allows voters real choice over which parties get the seats, and which candidates are elected. (Actually I wouldn't mind at all if my current MP was re-elected as he does a very good job, as long as I could also be represented by someone else whose political views are more in line with mine.)
STV is one way to achieve this; another would be the system they use in Denmark where you can vote for either a party or a specific candidate. The seats are allocated proportionally to parties (with personal votes counting implicitly for the candidate's party), but which candidates get a party's seats is determined by how many personal votes they get. I think this is better than STV because it is simpler for the voter but still gives real choice.
Complain about this comment
Brown's desperation to reform the electoral system seems to me to be in the vain hope of saving labour seats.
How much lower can labour politics go?
Any lower then they will be out of the pan and into the septic tank.
When Crag the Fithly of Xenobula II found that his cronies in government were in danger of being vapourised in their elections, he proposed a new voting system.
The new system involved eating every second voter who did not vote for his party.
Suffice it to say, Crag the Filthy and his party had a long and successful stay in office.
Complain about this comment
Having just listened to the PMs statement on the constitution he talks again about devolution; for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. When it came to England he only mentioned cities and regions. Doesn't he know that the English have already rejected that? What they are increasingly calling for is equality with Scotland - control of their own domestic affairs, which can only be done on a national, not regional basis, and certainly not regions whose boundaries are wholly artificial, having been devised on a map in Brussels. Of course he will resist proper devolution for England because that would leave him impotent on all domestic matters, having ceded such power in his own constituency to Holyrood. That is his own fault. English devolution, as a nation, must happen if we are to retain the United Kingdom, and at the moment he is like Canute trying to hold back the waves. Past time for a proper public debate about the future of this country.
Complain about this comment
#117:
On the contrary you don't seem to get it. I'm not saying that the process by which Gordon Brown assumed power was in any way immoral or illegal just as the majority of those who stretched the expenses rules cannot be taken to task for the same reason. What I am saying is that because he was unelected by his own party members (because noone then and nooone on Monday had the balls to stand against him) in the eyes of the public ('the court of public opinion' as Harriet Harman put it) he is unelected and that explains much of his unpopularity. This is one overwhelming reason that he badly needs a mandate from The Electorate. He bottled it the first time and is now hanging on for a miracle to the detriment of the country!
Complain about this comment
Brown is not going to change the electoral system. It's just a circus and a show.
Any policies (on anything) that Labour offer with a due date after the election will not change the outcome - only policies before the election will have an impact.
If I were Cameron, I would publicly state that it is a case of Labour changing the rules to keep themselves in power, but privately I would not lose any sleep over it.
Complain about this comment
If Gordon Brown's true motivations for changing the electoral system was to make it fair he would start by sorting out the most absurd situation we have at present whereby opposition parties must poll 5 % more of the vote just to break even with labour. In other words even up the playing field rather than look for ways to give labour further unfair advantage over and above the ones they already have. Go on Nick, how about an article from the BBC on this subject.......
Complain about this comment
@129
I agree entirely, we need a form of proportional representation because the current system isn't representative of how people voted and AV wouldn't change that whereas the system you suggest would.
If you're not in favour of PR then you're basically not in favour of democracy.
Complain about this comment
Wow, Brown has already reneged on the referendum promise. Is this a record?
Complain about this comment
136. At 1:10pm on 10 Jun 2009, vastariner wrote:
Wow, Brown has already reneged on the referendum promise. Is this a record?
========================================================
If browns announcements go much quicker they'll wizz by quicker than the speed of sound and we'll never even hear them.
Or perhaps one day he'll announce something that turns out to be more than just hot air.
Complain about this comment
So far, the electorate has given a clear signal that it does not like the current government.
Then that government chooses not only to suggest that it is interested in 'reform', but simultaneously denies the electorate the choices. No referendum.
If we the electorate are to choose who governs us, surely we should be allowed to say how that choice is made.
When will MPs learn we are sick of them all, and their self-regarding manner.
Perhaps, and despite the frequent statements 'wars were fought for the right of democracy', if we chose all to stay at home and not vote for anyone - no one at all - to leave the polling stations empty.
Maybe that would be clear signal they need.
Complain about this comment
Firstly: we will not get a proper debate. Danny Alexander (LibDem) MP let the cat out the bag "The important thing is to get the debate going, to accept that we need to have change to the electoral system" - so if you think that FTP is the best, or possibly least worst, option do not bother contributing to the debate as the politician will ignore you.
Secondly: I trust Lab on electoral reform about as far as I can throw Cyril Smith. Lab expanded the postal voting system in a way that allowed for wholesale fraud - I think it was described in court as a banana republic - the fraud was almost exclusive carried out by Labour party activists so the Lab gov did nothing about it for ages.
Sums up the current govt attitude, if you cannot win fairly, smear the opposition, if that does not work cheat, if cheating and smearing does not work blame the press and if all else fails change the rules
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see the faces of the labour front bench when Gordon was being put under pressure. Lots of looking skywards and expressions of 'oh why am i here still"?
As usual with Gordon, there will be no debate. No referendum. Not on any issue. No other opinions are welcome. No change here then.
Complain about this comment
I notice that Bottler Brown has decided on not holding a referendum on this issue until after the next election.
This is just more spin from Brown since he knows only too well that the Tories will be in power then.
Camerons already behaving like a spoilt Public school child in deciding that he will not change the current system of voting because it suits him & the Tories (its all about me, me, me you see).
Cameron has as much interest in Public opinion as Brown.
They both look on Westminster as their own private members club, but then whinge & whine that the public dont have any interest when it suits them.
No Dave, I really dont know why people stay at home on election day either, but what the heck, you will get in & thats all that matters really isnt it?
We could go out on the street & ask them couldnt we, but that means mixing with the great unwashed.
I say let the people decide how we wish Parliament to be run, after all we pay enough for the lack of privilege.
Complain about this comment
125Andyc555
You say that the way a contributor has expressed themselves in disagreement with you "makes them look silly"
May I ask how you think advocating torture makes you look?
Complain about this comment
#129 AReaderAndAMiller
An excellent comment, although I live in a constituency with a perpetual Labour MP. All the other votes, including mine, count for nothing. Here they would vote for a donkey or a chimpazee wearing a Labour rosette. I sometimes think that IS what they voted for!
The UK masquerades as a democracy.
Complain about this comment
Once appointed to a Govt post are new Ministers taken away and programmed or do they just adopt a personna?
The Law Lords, bless them, have ruled the obvious , that the use of secret evidence not revealed to the accused is wrong.
Alan Johnson, a posible pretender to the throne and I thought seemed a decent guy, finds this ruling "disappointing".He didnt have to say so and thereby adopt an anti ruling stance.He could have said we accept the ruling of the Court, he has no option on that anyway.
To place the accused in a position where they do not know the evidence against them places them in an impossible position to defend themselves. It is more like something out of Alice in Wonderland than 21st century justice in a supposedly civilised country. Why it took the Law Lords to see this I do not understand. What happened in the lower courts ? Are our lesser Judges not up to challenging such obviously flawed procedures?
So Alan, first pronouncement and you are off my Christmas card list.
Complain about this comment
140 toughtopperbrown
i think that I must have missed something. I understood that Gordon Brown invited all parties to take part in the reform of the electoral system of the commons and the Lords, and I must be getting senile because I thought he said it would be put before the people in a referendum, perhaps you can put this old feller right.
Complain about this comment
"xTunbridge wrote:
125Andyc555
You say that the way a contributor has expressed themselves in disagreement with you "makes them look silly"
May I ask how you think advocating torture makes you look?"
Don't know, probably makes me look a realist. How would you look, standing in front of the relatives of those who died on 7/7, explaining that you hadn't tortured a suspect who had information that might have prevented it. How would you explain it to them?
Complain about this comment
I am all in favour of changing our system to a single transferable vote but I do not see how this makes our politicians any more honest, upright or trustworthy. Few ministers take responsibilty for the action of those who work for them. The decisions are made by committee so nobody can be held accountable. When they do make mistakes they appologise but do not resign saying that they will put things right but they fail to do that as well. Mistakes in expenses, many have repaid. If I made the same mistakes in my tax return, I wonder if the taxman would accept my appologise. We need to bring back the culture of resignation.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
The reason turnouts are so low is because many people see voting in a safe seat as pointless because you vote for that party thats going to win anyway. or you vote for another that doesn't stand a chance."
While there may be an element of truth in that, it doesn't explain why turnout was so low in the European elections which are PR.
It also doesn't explain why turnout is low in seats which aren't safe.
I think it is far more likely that people have been put off voting because they don't see the point.
Complain about this comment
"The alternative vote system sounds like a waste of time if it won't be anymore representative." -- whydoi
In fact, it would be a lot more representative - on a direct representation level for each constituency. Constituencies would be represented by members who commanded the support of a majority of their constituents. FPTP allows MPs to win on a minority of votes from their constituents.
If you mean party support would be more proportional, that assumes that people would be voting more for parties than individuals to begin with.
Complain about this comment
No132 sicilian
It was the AGM at our local social club on Sunday morning.We require a secretary for the coming twelve months. The chairman asked for nominations. There was only one person proposed and seconded.The chaiman announced that the person had been elected unopposed. Does he have legitimacy? If not who has? Do you understand now?
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
another thing.
All of you banging on about how Brown wants to fiddle the system so he can win."
Under normal circumstances PR would be a bad thing for Labour and the Conservatives. However, these are not normal times and unless things change Labour could be looking at a close run race with the Lib Dems for second place in the General Election.
The voting method suggested is one that would favour Labour over the Tories (Lib Dem voters are more likely to chose Labour then the Tories) which would have the result of squeezing the Tory vote.
If Labour really wanted to bring in a fair proportion of PR (one where seats are assigned based on percentages of the votes) they would have brought it in when they were first elected. However, that would have resulted in them losing their massive majority.
Labour are only pitching electoral reform because they face losing their majority the democratic way (at the polls).
Complain about this comment
To tie GB's plan for electoral reform to his electoral troubles is the perfect proof that you don't understand electoral systems.
Brown's poor results in the Euro elections WERE based on a proportional representation system. It is obvious, if you think about the systems, that Labour would do better under the current Westminster system than they did under PR last week.
Also there is value to the AV system even though its not proportional - I know for a fact that when I walk into the polling station I have a party I want to vote for, and also a very clear idea of which party I definitely don't want to see elected and AV makes that preference clear. Say you are a Conservative voter in a four-way marginal - you want to caste your vote for the Tory candidate, but if he polls badly you lose your franchise to decide between LibDem and Labour! The result under AV is far more nuanced.
Incidentally, I also like the idea of the Lords being elected by PR - that would really give a different picture of national sentiment. It would be almost impossible to get a majority control over the Lords and it would act as a really legitimate and effective check on the government. PR for the Lords and AV for the Commons and I think Britain would have perhaps one of the best democratic systems in the world.
That would be a good Brown legacy, but everyone can just carry on making cheap shots at him, because I guess that is easier!
Complain about this comment
One of the benefits of an unelected chamber is that they can held to what is moraly correct rather than to that which is popular. The two are not the same and I remind people that Hitler was elected. I believe the house of lords should consist on some nominated members for life or until sacked by their peers and some elected members. A fifth of the elected members should be elected each year, so that the upper house was voted for at the same time as the lower house making it harder for the political make up to be the same. It would also reflect the voters mood throughout the period of the parliment.
Complain about this comment
The Conservatives seem really keen on Referendums as long as they are likely give them a result they approve of.
Conservatives and labour arent really protecting us from the BNP by opposing PR. If they were any good at their job they would be able to counter idiot griffin and his local country for local people party. They're really protecting their cosy little see-saw arrangment from the Lib dems.
Complain about this comment
AV - Alternative Vote (or Single member STV) would not do Labour much good as it retains many of the strengths of FPtP, namely focus on candidates, no influence beyond the constituency. I prefer this method to all others because it allows you to specify your first preference always and then vote tactically with your secondary preferences.
What Labour must not be allowed to do, is a> have a referendum without a proper public debate because some of the possible voting systems are complex (including AV) and have quite significant consequences (BNP being elected in the case of any system with unfettered PR) and b> set the options and the tone of the question for the referendum. This latter must be free of political influence somehow.
When Labour talk about AV, recently they have been talking about AV-Plus, a Jenkins anomaly which adds a real PR twist - a PR top-up - a party centric mechanism to an otherwise perfectly good candidate-centric system. The plus will allow Labour to inject a few placemen into the commons when their local vote collapses to the die-hards who vote with heart and not mind. Their placemen can hold hands with the BNP who will be injected alongside them.
PR is a reasonable suggestion for selecting 2/3rds of the HoL, but the other 1/3 must be made up of wise old men from church, law, industry and commerce etc, because amidst all this corruption and chaos, it has been the few from the Lords that have spoken out against our moral and ethical decline. We lose the independent Lords at our peril - bad Lords have been the party placemen - and yes, the same ones everybody is banging on about being better through representation in a reformed house.
Labour have no mandate to lead anything, let alone something as sacred as constitutional reform. They are conning us. The only questions we need to ask are: "What is their hidden agenda?" and "How can we resist being fooled by it?"
Complain about this comment
#146 so you are for torture if it saves peoples lives...end justifies the means. ok well anyone supporting that stance has to answer the following question... would you personally torture someone? if not then why expect others to do your dirty work, if yes then ....would you torture your daughter if you thought she had useful information? Once you start down this path you are no better than the terrorists you are trying to bring to justice. As a civilised society we have laws, break them and you are just as guilty as a suspected terrorist! and remember innocent until proved guilty....
to get back on topic, GB knows electoral reform is not a runner, it is something to be discussed by a Royal commission not by a discredited government...GB is just practising sleight of hand as taught him by the master of the art p mandelson.....it has no relevance apart from deflecting from the real matters at hand,...
Complain about this comment
146 AndyC555
I thought we had moved on from an eye for an eye etc.
I would hope that even in their grief those people would not turn into barabarians. If however they did I would have much less difficulty explaining to them why torture is never an option than I would explaining
to the family of the INNOCENT SUSPECT who died under torture that it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I find the advocating of medieval practices by a modern person somewhat more than disconcerting.
Complain about this comment
"braveSouter wrote:
No132 sicilian
It was the AGM at our local social club on Sunday morning.We require a secretary for the coming twelve months. The chairman asked for nominations. There was only one person proposed and seconded.The chaiman announced that the person had been elected unopposed."
Which of course is slightly different to the situation under which Brown was elected.
In your case the people doing the selection were the same as the people doing the voting. In Brown's case the candidates are selected by the MPs and the candidates then stand for election. In your case if the electors WANTED to vote for another candidate they could nominate them.
In the Labour leadership election to stand as a candidate you needed to gain the support of a certain percentage of the PLP. Other candidates did wish to stand but they didn't gain the required number of MPs to support their bid. The actual Labour membership had NO say in the election of Brown
Complain about this comment
"ppmuss wrote:
To tie GB's plan for electoral reform to his electoral troubles is the perfect proof that you don't understand electoral systems.
Brown's poor results in the Euro elections WERE based on a proportional representation system. It is obvious, if you think about the systems, that Labour would do better under the current Westminster system than they did under PR last week."
If Brown was proposing a PR system in line with the European elections I could agree with you. Although, if the European Elections were decided in a FPTP regional electoral college I think Labour would only have won in the North East (and gained three seats!).
However, the suggested method is one that would benefit Labour and hinder the Tories (based on the fact that Lib Dem voters are more likely to cast their second vote to Labour then the Tories as Labour and Lib Dem are both Centre left parties)
Complain about this comment
#146 At 2:05pm on 10 Jun 2009, AndyC555
Very sad was 7/7. 53 people died.....but torture?
Where do you stop? The Department of Health kills 8500 people a year via MRSA and C.dificile. Should we torture them too.
53 people have died due to terrorism in this country since 1997. Between hospital acquired infection and road deaths approximately 130,000 people have died. Due to Government paranoia we are then subjected to billions of wasted pounds on ID cards and restrictions to other liberties - i.e. e-mail interception.
Let's get a grip on reality - no to torture.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
The Conservatives seem really keen on Referendums as long as they are likely give them a result they approve of."
And that makes them different from Labour in what way?
Labour promised referendums on the single currency and Lisbon, but as the vote never looked like going their way the votes never took place.
With the single currency it was because the conditions weren't right (the main condition probably being "Can we win the Referendum?) and with Lisbon the vote never took place because the document was changed slightly and given a new name.
No Government would like to enter into a vote knowing it would lose and so they only do it when they have no choice.
Complain about this comment
@ 135 mandricard
"If you're not in favour of PR then you're basically not in favour of democracy"
i disagree completely!
under PR please explain how a candidate for your area, that you know works hard, etc, but is only 3rd on their party's choice for a seat, actually gets in?
i know their party needs a certain percentage, but unless they achieve this percentage, then the other two candidates get in and the person i voted for does not.
how is a party choosing which candidates get in and in which order they get in, equal democracy?
i could detest a candidate, yet at every election they could get in because of their standing within their own party.
the PR argument and democracy doesnt stack up
Complain about this comment
The main focus should be on ensuring that MPs' and Lords' expenses and outside earnings/work are all properly controlled by an independent body with appropriate sanctions.
Electoral reform is quite different issue and needs careful consideration and collection of views.
The main issue for most families and businesses is achieving economic recovery and selling off shares in the Banks at good prices.
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge
52 people WERE killed on 7/7, 700 people WERE injured. They were all innocent. Exactly how many 'innocent people' have died under torture at the hands of our security forces lately?
And if it was your child and you were explaining to your spouse why it was better the child was blown to pieces than that a terrorist had some water poured on his head?
I guess it's easy from the safety of the sofa to decry torture, probably not so easy for the victims to understand your viewpoint.
You think a terrorist would take pity on you? Decide that you were 'innocent' and so let you go? Why not point out that his behaviour was medieval, I'm sure that'd change his mind.
Complain about this comment
Nick not so much set the cat among the pigeons, more let the cat out of the bag. The 'cat' being Labour's plans to rig the next General Election so he doesn't lose it.
Complain about this comment
First past the post will always be the best system. It prevents extreme parties getting into Government and stops MPs having to do deals to get laws and policies past as under PR. It is also essential in times of recession to have definite Government policies to see us through not arguments, were nothing concrete gets decided on because they cannot agree. This was proved recently in Scotland with PR were they could not get the budget passed to start with because they could not agree until deals had been done.
Brown is only recommending AV because he foresees a time when he may need to power share with the Lib/Dems. After 12 years and goodness knows how many unelected peers (the most under any Government) Brown decides the system needs reform, we should be very suspicious.
What we should be talking about is reform to get England some representation in this Union. Either by Independence or a Parliament of its own.
Complain about this comment
164AndyC555
Perhaps it is the way I am explaining the unacceptable rather than any ability of you to see it as such.
It matters not a jot if they are innocent or adjudged guilty, hopefully not on secret evidence obtained by torture, the physical and/or mental abuse of a fellow human being is not only abhorrent but against the law.
Certainly Afganis and Iraqis have died whilst in the custody of the armed forces.
This thread reminds me of the one earlier about no supportive emails about Gordon Brown being read out. Because there were none.
However wrong you are it is good to hear your lone voice. It confirms how lucky you are to live in a society that allows someone to advocate an offence against the person and it puts the rest of us on notice that civilisation is still a long way off.
Complain about this comment
Andy C555
re '... that kind of circular logic...'
You say:
'I am sure you don't assume everyone accused by the police is guilty so why assume the police are guilty when accused of something?'
OK, good! I agree.
Then you say:
'I think it's OK to torure suspects.'
See your statement above about not assuming everyone accused by the police is guilty.
Maybe I should have called it spiral logic... hence the Oozelum bird!
Complain about this comment
"..Be careful what you wish for.." Was the general line of several Comments on Blog Articles surrounding the Parliament, MPs and the Constitution.
Well, that is certainly the case if PM Jock Brown's announcements today come to fruition.
"Accountable to the Public - - the Voter -- the Citizens whom Parliament serves!?"
So, there will be a Referendum listing all the changes and seeking Public consent on whether or not they agree with the changes? No!
Alright, a Referendum then on a Written Constitution which would reverse/change 1,000 years of UK/England heritage? No!
Well, surely a Referendum on the type of Electoral system to be used for the entirely new House of Lords? No!
At this vital stage in UK/English Constitutional development a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and/or withdrawal from the EU is the least to be expected? No!
There must be a commitment to an ENGLISH Parliament for the ENGLISH? No!
Thus, the New Labour and Conservatives perpetuate their monopoly on the National Governance of UK/England whilst deepening the ties to the EU.
Aided and abetted by a glib Lib-Dem Party: Afterall, they can demand Referendums on everything knowing all the while they will never be confronted by having to carry them out! To hear Clegg demand a Referendum on the voting system whilst constantly refusing to back one for UK/England membership of the EU is just pathetic and exactly the sort of disreputable double-speak that has Parliament so low in Citizens' opinions.
By the time the next General Election is held in May/June 2010 Brown and Cameron will have postured and grumbled appropriately at each other whilst alll the time hiding the conceited smirk of conniving at abuse of power from the British Public.
Complain about this comment
Poprishchin
Clearly, I am accepting that ther may be situations in which innocent people are tortured. That is the fall-out of the situation we are in. My logic is neither circular nor spiralled.
The police may or may not be guilty of torture.
There are circumstances in which the torture of suspects is justified and sometimes those suspects will be innocent.
To you and xTunbridge
What is your view of the bombardment and bombing campaign by the allied forces in the lead up to D-Day? It caused the death of not one or two but thousands of very innocent French civilians. Was it barbaric and medieval that we took such actions to ensure the success of D-Day and the overthrow of Nazi Germany? Should we have not done it and abandoned France?
I doubt that there are members of the armed forces champing at the bit to torture all and sundry on the off chance they have some useful information. I am sure they consider as a last resort taking actions they wish they didn't have to take.
As you say, we are lucky to live in the society we do. The idea that we got here without ever doing things we would rather not have to do to those who would destroy us is naive. I'm just gald that there have been those in the past who have been prepared to do them.
Complain about this comment
We are in one of the worst recessions in modern history.
Who cares about the voting system, the parliamentarians will only debate and approve a new voting system that works and benefits them.
This is as irrelevant as the time wasted at the G8 summit disscussing the 'money laudering laws'.
My point is who cares, the faith is in politics is dead, talk about the BRITISH working class family who are financially burdened, I say do not insult this nation by using their sophistic rhetoric to save their own careers.
Complain about this comment
I'm not quite sure how we got on to the subject of torture, but seeing that we have...
Regardless of any subjective moral arguments about e.g. torture being so beyond the pale that it must never be used ever / terrorists being so despicable that they deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered / etc, surely the main argument here is that the subjects are not terrorists (or, in this case, drug dealers) but *suspects*.
This isn't a case of people being convicted of terrorism/drug dealing, and then tortured to determine where theyve hidden the bomb/drugs.
This is a case of *suspected* or *alleged* criminals being tortured, presumably to find out if they were guilty or not (or maybe just because the police decided they didn't like them).
So the "How can you live with" argument wouldn't be "How would you explain to the survivors/relatives of a terrorist attack that you caught the guy responsible but didn't torture him to find out where the bomb was".
It would be "How would you explain yourself to the survivor/relatives of the person you tortured but who turned out to be innocent".
Or even "How would you explain yourself to the survivors/relatives of a terrorist attack that you were looking in the wrong place for the bomb because the - as it turns out innocent - suspect made up a location just to stop you torturing him".
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge
"the physical and/or mental abuse of a fellow human being is not only abhorrent but against the law"
OK then, you're questioning a suspect and he becomes clearly, visibly, genuinely upset at your questioning. Do you stop? I am sure that the suspect would consider that he is being mentally abused, so do you stop?
Or do you decide that you alone are the arbiter of the morality of torture and carry on?
Complain about this comment
No158 Mark WE
I agree the cases are 'slightly' different. However,I am sure you will acknowledge that all members of the PLP had the same chance to secure the required number of persons to support a nominee.In the event of more than one candidate securing a nomination, the entire membership would have decided who the new leader would be.Can you remember when one of the other parties used to rely on 'the customery processes of consultation' to find a new leader?
Complain about this comment
AndyC555
I wonder if you would be so resolute if you had your knackers crocodile clipped to a car battery?
Complain about this comment
No166
Suggests that it is time England got some representation in the Wastminster parliament.It is reported that approximately 80% of MPs represent English constituencies. The ignorance oozes.
Complain about this comment
Iapetus
"It would be "How would you explain yourself to the survivor/relatives of the person you tortured but who turned out to be innocent".
You would have to explain why you thought the person was a suspect. If you didn't have sufficient reason or had acted unreasonably you would be bought to task yourself. You would have to compensate the wronged as society does when it makes a mistake.
Were it my choice there would be no terrorists, no bombs, no torture.
Or even "How would you explain yourself to the survivors/relatives of a terrorist attack that you were looking in the wrong place for the bomb because the - as it turns out innocent - suspect made up a location just to stop you torturing him".
You would say that you had done your best. What, exactly, more could you have done in this situation that would have made not torturing the suspect better?
Complain about this comment
"Poprishchin wrote:
AndyC555
I wonder if you would be so resolute if you had your knackers crocodile clipped to a car battery?"
I'm sure I would find the experience unpleasant and I would co-operate fully with those asking the questions. I think that's the point of torture. I'm hardly going to say that I should be the only person exempt from things I see as sometimes necessary.
Complain about this comment
173AndyC555
I am arrested . I have done nothing wrong. The authorities decide rather than investigate properly I will be tortured. I still know nothing but I cannot take this treatment so What do I do?
I think of someone who I do not care about and I say try AndyC555 he is the one you want.
Then they come for you.
If that is the kind of society you want may God help you.
Complain about this comment
It's what we've all been crying out for, is'nt it ? ... everyone I know has been saying " To Hell with a general election.. stuff the recession ... yah boo sucks to rising unemployment ... stick the moral bancruptcy of the House of Commons up your jumper ... let's for God's sake, tinker about a bit with the way we elect our parliaments . That's the really important issue facing the country today." ... and lo and behold, Mr. Brown's government, always in tune with the real needs of the electorate, has responded ... Yippee! Makes you feel good to be alive, doesn't it ?
Complain about this comment
"braveSouter wrote:
No158 Mark WE
I agree the cases are 'slightly' different. However,I am sure you will acknowledge that all members of the PLP had the same chance to secure the required number of persons to support a nominee.In the event of more than one candidate securing a nomination, the entire membership would have decided who the new leader would be."
Obviously all members of the PLP didn't have the same chance to secure the required number of supporters or there would have been an actual leadership election! Only one candidate got the required percentage of support. Part of the problem in the way the candiate process is run is that MPs have an interest in backing the right horse (or at the very least not standing against him). If "your" candidate gets the PM job the chance of you being rewarded with a higher paying role as a minister increases.
Complain about this comment
Nick thinks he may have "set the cats among the pigeons".
Of course he hasn't done any such thing.
Gordon Brown has simply told us what he has told us many times before. He has established a committee. Of course it is a retread. It is going to discuss electoral and constitutional change - something that NuLabour has told us it was contemplating on several occasions since coming to government in 1997. However, there are no commitments and there will be no change.
The truly depressing thing - apart from Brown's upteenth hollow promise to reform the way we do politics in Britain - is that an experienced political journalist should permit himself to be used as an uncritical mouthpiece for Labour spin.
The extraordinary way in which Mr Brown made his Common's statement about the work of the Democratic Renewal Council should be enough to convince any sane person that this latest proposal to consider proposals for proposing constitutional and electoral change is going precisely nowhere.
Complain about this comment
bravesouter and #176.
Yes, approximately "..80% of MPs.." do represent English Constituencies.
Now to put that in some Constitutional-Political perspective:
Scotland has a devolved Parliament after a Referendum among Scots (no English participation) and it has considerable authority inc. Taxation powers.
Wales has a devolved Assembly after a Referendum among Welsh (no English participation) and it too has considerable authority although not on Taxation.
After 30+ years of violent disorder and several referenda of the 6 Counties population (no English participation) Northern Ireland has devolved power-sharing-executive who also have considerable autonomy except on defence and foreign affairs.
The only Nation's population not permitted any Referendum on the issue of devolution/break-up of the UK are the English.
The only Nation of the United Kingdom without a devolved Parliament is England.
The Nation with the largest population, paying majority Tax burden and annually providing additional funds to the other 3 nations is England.
The 20% or so Westminster MPs from non-English Constituencies can all debate and vote on matters/legislation concerning only England.
Furthermore, due to devolution, it can be argued England is the only Nation of the United Kingdom entirely ruled from N.10 by an unelected Scottish Prime Minister from a non-English Constituency.
These political-constitutional aberrations are compunded by the United Kingdom's ties with the European Union: In surveys and polls a clear Majority of English Citizens have expressed a desire for a Referendum on EU Membership and/or Lisbon Treaty, the EU Constitution mark II. Whereas Scots and Welsh responses suggest considerable backing for the EU - - England again out of step with the so-called United Kingdom - - and the 'pro-EU' New Labour Government rules with the support of non-English MPs and in issues over the EU it can also rely on the support of the Lib-Dems, another Party with non-English MPs. Thus, England's Citizens are politically disadvantaged yet again!
Yes indeed! It is certainly time England and the English regained their Democratic - Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities at Westminster.
That requires 2 things: An English Parliament for the English and England holding its own Referendum on at least Lisbon, and preferably on Membership of the EU as well.
Complain about this comment
#183 ikamaskeip wrote:
"The only Nation of the United Kingdom without a devolved Parliament is England."
Wales does not have a Parliament. It does not have a legislative assembly. It has an assembly which can ask for Westminster's permission to legislate on certain matters. So far almost all requests have been denied. The Welsh Assembly doesn't even have powers to legislate on the Welsh Language. That power remains in an overwhelmingly English-dominated Parliament which over five centuries has done its damndest to wipe the Language out - and nearly succeeded!
England already has a Parliament. The vast majority of its members represent English constituencies. Wales has 6% representation at Westminster. Do you watch BBC News 24? If you do, you'll rarely hear 'Wales' or 'Welsh' mentioned on it. Its almost entirely an English news channel. I know all about what happens in England, in its education service and the NHS, but virtually nothing of what happens in Wales. You are not burdened with a load of irrelevant news (to you) about Wales. The same goes for the BBC's 'national' news bulletins, Newsnight, Andrew Marr, The Politics Show, Daily Politics etc... they're all broadcast in Wales, and the three main Unionist parties appear on them every time. The SNP and Plaid are virtually invisible. In news and politics programmes broadcast exclusively in Wales, those three parties also get their respective shares of airtime.
I for one would vote for an English Parliament today, because it would mean we would get our Parliament too. Hopefully that would be an entirely democratically elected legislature, elected by a system where all our votes count. There would be no hereditary and nominated second chamber containing bishops from the Church of England. Maybe then we would have a head of state who wasn't queen of England, but an elected Welsh President. In the present iniquitous system, general elections are decided in 40-50 marginal seats, almost all of which are in England. We get to choose between one of two absolutely rotten self-serving parties.
So, before you rant about how unfairly you think England is treated, read the history books about how Wales, Scotland and Ireland have been fared under the British Union.
Five-sixths of Ireland has already gone, and it certainly doesn't want to return. I predict that pretty soon Scotland will follow. When that happens perhaps the majority of us here in Wales will wake up to the fact that we will be a lot better off deciding our own destiny.
Good luck to your campaign for English 'independence'. I just want self-determination for my country. A Wales with a written constitution which invests power in the people, not in a corrupt sovereign parliament, and a bill of rights to protect us from ID cards, the surveillance state, torture and detention without trial.
A Wales which is a full member of the EU (with twelve MEPs instead of the measly four its gets now) and the UN. We would not need an expensive nuclear deterrent, or a large army and navy, just a small defence force able to assist the UN with peacekeeping. No more imperialistic foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
You can wait for Gordon or Dave to deliver these things for you.
There, don't you feel better for that? Hehe
Complain about this comment
braveSouter 176
No it is your ignorance that oozes, if you do not realise that the English are the only ones in the Union that do not have our own Parliament. Therefore they are not fairly represented in the Union. The SNP run Scotland therefore it is frankly ridiculous for a PM to be making laws and policies for England that do not affect his own constituency. We have Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters which do not affect their Country. Brown has no intention of changing this in his reform package.
Then again this may not interest you therefore perhaps we should discuss Cicero instead as this seems to interest you more.
I do recall you picking me up because of a word spelt incorrectly, I would pick you up too for your poor spelling of Westminister. Glass houses and stones or sawdust and plank come to mind!
Complain about this comment
Nick, just so we're absolutely clear, Gordon Brown is an absolutely irrelevant non-entity with no authority or influence. You are a man whose job is to opine on his proclamations. You couldn't put a cat among any pigeons if you were standing in the middle of a flock of pigeons, holding a buttered cat that was having a fit.
Complain about this comment
Didn't the in-coming government of 1997 promise a Royal Commission on electoral reform? Didn't that government lose interest once it saw the size of its majority? Brown's games are so transparently tedious but I suppose we must endure them for another eleven months or so. Maybe things will improve once Salim Malik's prediction of all-Islamic parliament comes true, inshallah.
Complain about this comment
186. At 7:25pm on 10 Jun 2009, Rogerborg
Very Blackadder, I like it!
Complain about this comment
no185 Susan,
You are suggesting that I am not aware that there is no English Parliament, you also suggest that Prime Ministers 'make' laws.
That is what I mean by ignorance.I get the impression that in the main the regular Tory bloggers are rather thick when it comes to fundamental political facts, there are of course a number of exceptions.If you continue to learn I suppose there is hope that you will elevate yourself to their standard.
Complain about this comment
189 braveSouter
I would have thought PMs Make laws is reasonable shorthand for the PM decides what laws are going to be put before Parliament for his majority to confirm.
Complain about this comment
Bryn_Teilo and #184.
I know the Welsh Assembly does not not have full powers - - if it did it would be called a Parliament, wouldn't it!?
I did think my Comment at #183 tried to to deal with Wales whilst obviously I was concentrating on the English perspective of Devolution: It is not the fault of the English who had no vote that many Welsh did not use the Referendum to choose a more powerful, independent stance for themselves.
Frankly, it is incredibly annoying you should criticise the English for a Referenda result in Wales entirely down to the votes of the Welsh: In fact, a perfect example of, 'blame it on London/England..' When exactly will you take responsibility for yourselves!?
It is just wrong on your part to claim, "..England already has a Parliament..", Nonsense: England is the only Nation of the UK that has no such thing otherwise why are there Welsh, Scots and Irish sitting in it alongside the English MPs?
I do not care what your dream of a liberated Wales is like - - just get off England's back - - no nuclear weapons, no Iraq etc., well good for you, but if you check your records all bar 2 of the Welsh MPs voted for the invasion of Iraq and all of them supported the original UNO (which you claim an independent Wales would support) campaign in Afghanistan: Get the 'blame England' plank out of both your eyes and start facing facts!
I do not understand your blinkered hostility to what I wrote because anyone with any political knowledge would read and see I was supporting full independence for all 4 UK Nations. You, of course, so steeped in in angst about England just missed all that as you spouted on about your free-Wales!
Go ahead, persuade your fellow Welsh you are better off without England - - nothing would please most English more - - because for certain the United Kingdom is done for, but, this wretched Westminster Parliament dominated by non-English just does not want to give up its authority!
I just would like to point out that the break-up of the UK does not have to end in rancour: Certainly my #183 tried to avoid that and looked at things from the English perspective without any malicious comments on any of the the other 3 Nations. An England outside the EU with a Wales inside is not a problem - - surely the EU is about freedom of passage for people and goods so just carrying on what already exists in the UK - - England would have no interest in obstructing the development of a prosperous EU-Wales anymore than elsewhere for prosperity is infectious, is it not!?
Complain about this comment
Oh of course after 12 years of ABUSE of Parliament lets throw some SPIN
in to let the PLEBS think he's a DECENT chap.HA HA?
GORDY WE ALL SEE THROUGH YOU AND THE REMNANTS OF nulabour.
JUST GO PLEASE.
Complain about this comment
braveSouter 189
Oh dear, Oh dear if in doubt resort to insult, well I have the destinct feeling you will never be able to raise your standard to the level of these Tory bloggers you speak of. Sticks and stones.
I have never heard any fundamental political facts from you so I would not know if you know any. All I have heard from you is Conservative bad, use any insult to discredit them, Labour good, no reasons why we are just supposed to take your word for it.
Complain about this comment
carrelson @ 250:
You complain asbout The shadow Cabinet. I can't think of anyone more vile than the slimy Mandelson, in it for his own ends and the puppet master who now controls Gordon Brown's every move. Then you have a succession of weak bottlers who ran scared of challenging for the leadership of their party because they were afraid that they might fail. Where is the man or woman who thinks more of their party than they do of themselves? Hats off to James Purnell and the others who at least adhered to some kind of principle.
Complain about this comment
#150:
You didn't read my post properly. Legitimate it might be but in the eyes of many people not a ringing endorsement of his right to be in position.
Complain about this comment
Brown has just been given another chance by the PLP. What is the first thing he does at PM Questions but lie by implying that Labour will not make cuts.
Well done Labour ministers and MPs, you sure have done it now no matter how far off the election.
Complain about this comment
185 Susan
Asserts 'the SNP run Scotland'. Could you let me know the names of the Scottish defence and foreign secretaries. Tory bloggers ignorance is becoming a great source of amusement.Scotland is a wonderful country with wonderful people, I wish them well whatever direction they take.
Complain about this comment
196:
It's only the Thursday after the momentous Monday and already the leopard is re-gluing his damaged spots. Didn't last long did it? I said as much on Tuesday.
Complain about this comment
braveSouter 197
As do I wish them well, so do not try to use that card. However they too would like their Independence and indeed they would welcome an English Parlaiment or Independence to help them in their cause.
You keep saying Conservative ignorance but it is your ignorance because you seem totally unaware of what is happening in Scotland. They have the good sense not to vote for Brown and Labour either.
Complain about this comment
198.
I am surprised it took until Thursday.
The trouble is Brown hides from the media, who themselves are too weak to tell him the truth. It seems he can lie and not be questioned.
Openess, honesty, integrity - no just arrogance.
Complain about this comment
193 Susan
I was not aware it was insulting to draw attention to political stupidity. Have I to assume you do not know the names of the Scottish Defence and Foreign secretaries? I would have thought you would have known if they 'run Scotland'Thats what I mean by the ignorance of Tory Bloggers.Only a fool would associate me with support for the governing party.
Complain about this comment
#191 ikamaskeip wrote:
"It is not the fault of the English who had no vote that many Welsh did not use the Referendum to choose a more powerful, independent stance for themselves."
The devolution referendum of 1997 was on a 'take it or leave it basis'. On offer was basically the same package as 1979, which was overwhelmingly rejected. It consisted of purely administrative devolution on a range of matters, essentially those areas already under the aegis of the Secretary of State for Wales. It does not include criminal justice, the courts and the police. No primary legislative powers were involved. I voted against in 1979, because what was being proposed was really a glorified and expensive talking shop.
It was 17 years of Tory government which persuaded the Welsh electorate to vote Yes in 1997, and then only with a very slender majority. The people of Wales weren't given a choice.
In 2004 the Richard Commission (set up by the Labour-led Welsh Assembly)concluded unequivocally that legislative powers were required if the Assembly was to work properly. That was too much for Tony Blair and Welsh Labour MPs to swallow, so they brought in the 2006 Government of Wales Act which gave the Assembly the right to ask Westminster for 'legislative competence' in certain areas, for which individual requests have to be made. So far, after three years, hardly any have been approved. The entire system is an unworkable disaster. It will be even worse after the next election where its likely that the Assembly will be led by a different party than that in power at Westminster.
I relate all this to clarify the position in Wales, and to balance your contention that England is being treated unfairly. How would you feel if your country, England, only had 6% representation in its parliament?
"this wretched Westminster Parliament dominated by non-English"
It may be wretched, but its 80% English.
Complain about this comment
After 12 years in power where they did nothing about this, they suddenly decide after losing the local/euro elections to change the electoral system.
And, even then, Brown's response is to setup yet another committee and not actually make any decisions/proposals himself.
And, to top it all, have the gall to suggest that they'd put a referendum in their manifesto for it; I think the referendum idea was just a joke by Brown to wind everyone up given the lies they told about the lisbon referendum. Do they honestly think anyone believes that they'd have one? No; if they got in again they'd rig the system in their favour and have no referendum.
What's the point having a committee when none of the electorate will believe whatever labour end up agreeing-upon afterwards? A general election is the only solution, so that the electorate can vote for people who they think might actually tell the truth.
Gordon/Labour/BBC; we've already got a "Democratic Renewal Council" - it's called the people, and we can renew our democracy via a general election.
Complain about this comment
Perhapse what we need is a proper federal system.
E.g., England Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would each have their own parliaments with identical legeslative and executive powers. In addition, we would have a (much smaller than the present) UK parliament, that would deal with things of national importance/relevance, such as defence, foreign policy, etc.
Obviously, what areas of responsibility and what tax raising powers should be devolved to the national parliaments, and what should remain with the federal one will need to be decided, but all constituent nations should be treated equally.
I'm not sure if the current method of chosing the PM could carry over (i.e. it would be the leader of the majority party in the federal parliament), or if it would be better/necessary to directly elect him/her in an additional UK-wide presidential-style election.
Complain about this comment
Bryn_Teilo and #202.
Give it up, will you!
Even that Referendum was weak because 2-thirds of the Welsh (predominantly the English-speaking south) didn't want to risk cutting the apron-strings to England: Wales is where it is politically and constitutionally because you Welsh made it that way. You cannot keep finding fault within your own Nation and blaming the English!
You resent England being dominant over Wales: So what! That was 1,000+ years of history, culture and heritage, but, it is not 2009!
Just how much longer are you going to keep up with this farce that 3.5 million Welsh are all struggling because of the English? It's ridiculous.
Get a life of your own: Better still, get a Welsh life for Wales!
You are not owned by England anymore and any problem you have is now of your making - - get off your English and EU subsidised rear - - do something without finding the excuse of 'England' to explain away the difficulties.
Until then it is all so much 'boyo from the valleys' claptrap and you know it!
England has its own problems: England needs to address those problems itself; many of those problems do lay in a history that is both rough and remarkable - - the Welsh, Scots, Irish have all suffered at the hands of the English - - nevertheless, a United Kingdom did thrive and for centuries 4 Nations did make progress.
Those days are not quite gone, but, most certainly are on the way out and not before time. One definite factor to enable a smoothe transition would be for Welsh, Scots and Irish to finally grasp that they really do have to stand alone. And in all sincerity I wish each Nation prosperity because you can bet the English outside the UK, minus the EU, will make it without a doubt!
Complain about this comment
braveSouter 210
I do not know what on earth you are talking about and I suspect you do not either. You go about telling everyone they are a fool and yet I believe it is you that suffer from political stupidity. I have neither interest nor knowledge of who you vote for, as you do not me, you just make assumptions.
Defense Secretary I believe now is Bob Ainsworth it used to be John Hutton, Foreign Secretary David Miliband. This will change if Scotland becomes Independent. In just about everything else Scotland runs itself we have no such luxury for England. We have no Parliament of our own as the other Countries do in the Union therefore it puts us at a disadvantage. Furthermore as I have already said it is completely wrong to have a PM making laws and policies on education health etc when it does not affect his own constituency.
The elections have proved that the English have a completely different outlook on the way forward for their Country than Scotland. Therefore it is only right we have our own representation.
Complain about this comment
Telecasterdave #200.
Strange as it may seem your 'truth' may not accord with every other person's version.
I do not want a "..weak.." or otherwise ".. Media telling him (Brown) the truth..": I want an independent Media that questions and challenges PM Brown and all our Politicians about what they (politicians) claim to be 'truth'.
Let's face it: The MPs Expenses scandal, the lack of transparency in decision-making, the failure of accountability/responsiveness/open Government is systematic and endemic to the whole of Parliament over many decades.
Jock Brown is the No.10 occupant who has been confronted by it, but, I don't recall Wilson-Heath-Callaghan-Thatcher-Major-Blair really addressing the Constitutional issues of the "Westminster Gentlemen's club", and, if Cameron or Clegg were concerned before the Telegraph revelations then it must have escaped all the UK Media's attention!
Of course, that would be the same Media who never once wrote an article or broadcast a tv/radio programme on that massive gap in the 'democratic process' of the UK/England during those 50 years of Prime Ministers!
So, when you call them "..weak.." I think you are being far too generous!
Complain about this comment
I saw the piece about defing first past the post on the Politics Show. You do get the impression the "First Past the Post" is just the least worst system.
For me the problem is that any system which can be explained easily will not address some issues. It's a bit like Cricket and Duckworth/Lewis. Using the Average Run Rate always seemed unfair, but easy to explain.
Everyone can accept the premise that the more wickets you lose, the lower the total is likely to be. So we know that D/L is trying to be fairer, but is unexplainabale to Joe Average.
It's the same with the Single Transferable Vote. I can't help thinking that anyones first prefence must have greater value than those which follow.
Wouldn't it be possible to have a transferable system based on eliminating candiates? The target would not be to get to 50%, but to have the highest point total when you get down to two candidates. So if you had 4 candidates every first prefernce would get 4 points. The candiate with the lowest total would be eliminated. Those who voted for him/her would then have their second prefernces distributed, but this time at only 3 points a vote. Which ever candidate has the lowest total is then eliminated, this time with any third prefernces being reallocated at 2 points a vote. So on until you are down to two and the highest total wins.
I was just using a simple value system above as an example. Don't ask me what would be a "fair" value to give the preferences though, ask Duckworth and Lewis!
Complain about this comment
#207
The Media are similer to the Politicians in that only want to tell you what you want to hear. Prior to the Credit Crunch it was the Media who indulged in continuing to tell us that increasing house prices where a good thing becuase that's what we wanted to hear. Those who talked of a bubble, a collapse and then a recession where lone voices, often only invited to be rediculed by the media pundits who new "better".
Now the Media is telling us it was all predictable, that the Government is to blame, not us. Why? Because it what we want to hear!
Complain about this comment
#205 ikamaskeip wrote:
"Wales is where it is politically and constitutionally because you Welsh made it that way"
Completely untrue.
There's a lot of emotional bile there in your comments.
I don't blame England and the English. If I had to choose neighbours from the world community, it would be England and the English.
Of course, you weren't taught any Welsh history in England. It was the reverse here. We had plenty of English history in our schools.
Here's a potted version of Welsh history since 1282.
Wales was conquered, occupied and subjugated (Edward I). Subsequently attempts were made to assimiliate it (1536-42 and thereafter). Then there followed four centuries of exploitation (coal and iron) and uncontrolled immigration, mainly from England. One third of Wales' polulation of three million weren't born here. Wales has ended up largely with a benefit culture and many deprived communities. It has qualified twice for European Objective One funding, as being one of the poorest parts of Europe.
Back to Nick Robinson's topic. There does need to be wholesale radical constitutional and electoral reform in the UK. IMO it isn't going to happen under Brown or Cameron. Pigs might fly first or turkeys vote for Christmas.
I don't really know how the rotten system can be changed. It seems impossible because of parliamentary sovereignty.
Complain about this comment
Careful who you make presumptions about, mate!
Your potted history is so short on reality it is exactly like the Junior School History text book version they taught at Tonrefail in the 50s and 60s!
Wales is hard done by because of England: Well, there has to be some truth in that; the union of England and Wales does go back to the Marcher Lords and Owyn Glyndwr having his a#se kicked into the mountains never to be seen again! Come forward 700+ years and Thatcher did for the those gallant pit-princes in the valleys what Henry IV did to that last 'Prince of Wales'.
There is no bile in my remarks. There is reality; you cannot keep looking to what might have been and what was once done - - Wales must, in the American idiom, step up to the plate, and get its act together because nobody is going to do it for Wales in the 21st Century, especially not a rampant-power-hungry European Union.
Wales in 2009 is hard done by because of its history and England: Sorry, but this is just not on in the 21st Century!
Wales was given every opportunity of Scotland to claim a Parliament and the majority of the Welsh bottled out.
Yes, back to Mr Robinson - - in this case Heath Robinson - - as the Welsh Assembly/UK Westminster Parliament relationship is a real cobbled together affair that resembles something he might have come up with, dropped and rebuilt without referring to the plans!
That said, you are on your own; it is for the Welsh to make a difference to Wales, if enough of them care - - that is exactly the situation the English find themselves in with the EU - - upto the English to get themselves out of the mess, but, to do that we have to make our Politicians listen and act on our behalf.
With a Scotsman in No.10 and a multi-millionaire due to inherit the post sometime in 2010, I somehow doubt the English are going to be leant a considerate ear, anymore than you Welsh had for the last 800 or so years!
So, you can at least laugh at us experiencing your grief, although, you will recognise as long as the English are ignored the cause of Wales is even less likely to succeed.
Complain about this comment
206 Susan
Why do you not accept that you were incapable of answering the original question? The answer is simple.The Scottish political system is operating under powers devolved from the UK parliament. You also said the 'Scots want Independence' when did the referendum take place when that decision was made? You said that I have implied that everyone that disagrees with me are fools, that is both unfair and untrue.You also said that I argued that everything Labour did was good. I have never mentioned Labour in any of my contributions.
Susan, Prime Ministers do not 'make' laws, parliament makes laws. I am reasonably acquainted with the 'West Lothian Question' so your assertion that I do not understand anything about Scotland is incorrect.Have you heard of David Hume?
Complain about this comment
bravSouter 212
I lived in Scotland for some time so I understand how the political system works, of course the powers are devolved I never said any different. They do however have their own Parliament which is run by the SNP for health, education etc. England do not. In 2010 they are supposed to get a vote on Independence. The questions you asked me were 'who are the Scottish Defense and Foreign secretaries'?, which I answered.
You do indeed tell people, particularly me, that they foolish and politically inept you have a very aggressive style when posting, it is not necessary.
I have no idea at all what you vote nor is it any of my business, however I do hate class used as an argument, I think that sort of thing is out of date and you seem to use it on a regular basis.
I presume you mean David Hume the Scottish historian and philospher, unless there is someone else called this who I have not heard of in relation to Scotland. In which case one would assume you will again have set a trick question, and call me a fool no doubt.
Complain about this comment
Here's an idea which at one stroke solves the "West Lothian Question", saves billions of pounds annually, makes our elected representatives more accountable and gives England a parliament.
The Welsh Assembly & Scottish Parliament are suspended in their current form.
The assembly members & MSPs are dismissed.
OR
Remove all Welsh & English MPs
THEN
Welsh & Scottish MPs (if retained), OR Welsh Assembly members & MSPs, spend 1/2 of each month in Wales / Scotland working on purely Welsh / Scottish matters, and the other half in London working on British matters. When the Welsh & Scots are away, the remaining English MPs work on only English matters.
Simples!!!
Complain about this comment
The minimum required to allow politicians to regain public trust.
How does 99% of the population receive it's account of Parliamentry debate and discussion ??
Newspapers,television,Parliament minutes or the internet.
There is little room for the public to attend live debates in situ.
In effect then,Parliament works as if it were already on video. com/conference.
One aspect of the expenses scandal is the hold that the status of The Houses Of Parliament has on MP's.In working there,with all that expenses and the media scrum,MP's have become blinded to the important history and nature of the building.
No amount of cleaning can sort the place out because it has become now a tainted monument to Duck Pond House,bath plug,dog food,Flipping, e.t.c, ticker-tape receipts.
So get rid of the ''Houses Of Parliament'' and let hard-working MP's debate from their own constituency office.
There would be more advantages than disadvantages to this move.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS