The PM Glass Box.
The Glass Box is where the PM team meets in at 18.00 every weeknight to discuss the content of the programme.
We try to be honest with each other, but not hurtful, as we talk about what worked and what didn't...what met our expectations and what fell short.
This virtual glass box is where you're encouraged to take part in the same spirit. Tonight's PM editor Eloise Twisk will read your comments and may well add her own.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Wayhay! Grommit's bike is back!
Complain about this comment
Well done David Miles, very well done.
Complain about this comment
2. Who is David Miles, Mrs. Eff? Are YOU David Miles, perhaps? And why are you congratulating him/yourself?
I think we should be told. ;o)
Complain about this comment
Eddie Mair - yet again another terrible interview, this time with jack straw.
why do you keep asking him about resigning instead of asking him what the department is going to do to stop it happening again?
Was it human error? Systemic? Because of underfunding? I wanted to know what Straw had to say about these probation issues, not to hear him continually bat away the pointless (and typical westminster village) question about resigning.
Complain about this comment
I'd hoped to have a day with poles being open we'd have news cycle without speculation on purely party political nature and Eddie managed to jack straw without drifting ,I became grumpy after WatO. I came to the web site to get the full text of this important speech Was it there?
Complain about this comment
OY! Where's me Pizza?
Complain about this comment
Why was Eddie continually asking Jack Straw why he should resign? Given that the decisions that led to this tragedy were almost certainly made many management levels below him, there are only two reasons why he should resign:
1. If he had direct input into the decisions that led to the tragedy or had received documents that could have allowed him to prevent it.
2. If this tragic mistake was directly caused by systems put in place by Mr Straw.
I am no fan of Mr Straw, but responsibility is a hierarchical process - the head of an organisation cannot be directly responsible for every decision made by every individual. come on, Eddie, you've seen The Apprentice, that's a great example of how blame works.
Wouldn't it have been much more useful if you had asked what Mr Straw was going to do to prevent this happening again?
Complain about this comment
Eddie, you let Jack Straw off very lightly. You let him get away with a false alternative - he spoke as if sorting out the probelm and resigning were alternatives. They are not. What he should do is sort out the problem (which was his responsibility in the first place and which he has demonstrably failed to do) and then resign because of his responsibility and failure. Anything less is inadequate - but what else can we expect from a career politician?
You should have been much harder on him.
david337
Complain about this comment
There has already been a resignation over this sordid case. Should any professional resign from their job for making a mistake?
Probation should not have been initially given. Blame the 'do good brigade' for allowing criminals to have more rights than honest, decent members of the public.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the Tiananmen coverage. Horrified to hear it has been suggested that the furore is being "got up by the media". The fortieth anniversary of the Kent State massacre is next May 4 - then you'll show them! If you have time, what with reviewing the changes made to demonstration policing in the UK 12 months after the "kettling" killing. Oh, you forgot the 90th anniversary of the Amritsar massacre on April 13, I think, or did I miss that?.
Complain about this comment
Jiffle (7) Said,
"Come on, Eddie, you've seen The Apprentice, that's a great emample of how blame works".
Jiffle - Your fired!
Complain about this comment
There isn't going to be a two-state solution.
Complain about this comment
Redheylin (10)
You forgot the 190th anniversary of the Peterloo massacre in Manchester at St peter's field where 60 - 80,000 attending a meeting demanding reform of parliamentary representation due to the Napoleonic wars leaving many in chronic unemployment and starvation. 15 people died with 400 - 700 injured. It caused the government to crack down on reform. But a local news paper grew out of the massacre, the 'Manchester Guardian' Which today is the 'Guardian' News paper.
Did you vote Today?
Complain about this comment
Funny JD, I was absolutely sure that the PM team will not miss THAT one! Unless, that is, by August the BBC has come clean; "now it's 5pm and heeeeere's Eddie to tell you what the cool people will be chattering about for the next ten minutes!"
No, I did not vote: no candidate has approached me and none has offered a manifesto with which I agree. But thanks for reminding me! Question to PM! This week there've been questions of voting 1) for independents and 2) by proportional representation. I'd like to know; is there any system by which PR can represent independents? That is, supposing that is what I am supposed to be thinking. Oh, new story today, sorry for thinking about things. I'll resign.
Complain about this comment
Redheylin (14)
There is a person on this blog called Sid. He seems to be the resident expert on PR. If you hang about he might be round later. I'm sure he'll have something to say.
Sid, are you there?
Complain about this comment
redheylin,
Don't ask me, I haven't got a clue what you did to get reffered. It wasn't me.
Complain about this comment
fjd @ 15
Well, I am here ... but 14's gone, so I don't know if I can be of any help ...
Complain about this comment
FJD - me neither! It has happened before, though. I take it as a compliment.
Complain about this comment
Sid, my question was; we have heard a lot of talk of PR and also of returning independents in forthcoming elections. But would it be possible to have a PR system that returned independents? Has anyone thought of a way that large parties will not remove all independents?
Complain about this comment
Personally I think they overcomplicate PR to try to get absolute representation. Better to have a simple, practical, solution that keeps much of what we have that is good while providing better voter representation.
The 1,2,3 method, transferring votes until one candidate has > 50% of the vote allows us to keep constituencies (thus allowing us to complain directly to the MP who needs our vote).
Also it removes the need for tactical voting and negative campaigning (since the votes will just shift elsewhere, but not to the negative candidate).
Would it help independents? Yes, because the main argument used by the main parties is that a vote for a minority is a wasted vote. 1,2,3 voting removes wasted votes so that argument goes away.
(I've called it 1,2,3 voting because PR people have two names for it - told you they overcomplicate things!)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ah! modded. What an honour ladies and gentlemen. Did I say something interesting for a change?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Single Transfer Votedoes what you are looking for.
Complain about this comment
Oh? We probably failed to adopt one of two or three predictable half-truths that have been offered to us on the subject we have been told should be important to us.
Complain about this comment
As Jack Straw has ultimate responsibility for the Probation Service he should resign following the deaths of the two French students. An apology isn't enough.
Complain about this comment
RJM 24, What are Single Transfer Votedoes? Is that like Single Transfer Videotapes?
Complain about this comment
Eight minutes left to vote. Get on your trainers.
Complain about this comment
A votedo is a luscious dish consisting of vole-meat wrapped around duchesse potato.
Complain about this comment
Vole-meat?
Not only is your screen in urgent need of a lint-free, anti-static clean, but you are in danger of being targetted by the Vole Liberation Front, and you don't wish to know what they might do.
It is slow, it involves strategically-placed long teeth and after about five hours you will beg for death.
Allegedly.
Complain about this comment
STD does seem to promote public scrutiny of independent candidates but... suppose we get a majority of independents; who will be the PM? We really vote for a PM via a local proxy, do we not? We don't care; they can clean their bird-baths, we will pay... so long as the tie is the right colour.
Vole meat again, dont know where, dont know when... No Frances O, the BBC will never capitulate to the VLF, though it does seem inclined to protect moles....
Complain about this comment
Oh, btw, redheylin, if you're new to this odd world of the PM Frog, it's a running joke that I'm a vole partisan.
No offence meant.
But I still maintain that a voTedo involves* no vole.
* almost a pun
Complain about this comment
But veal know we'll meet again...
Veala Lynn.
Touche, whoever you are.
Ave atque vole!
Complain about this comment
STD?? I mean the STV of course. Yes, the single transferable vole. GSOH. GIB. N/S.
Frances, I was joking in the first place. VoTeDoes really refer to a form of urbane scat-singing popular amongst foxtrotting crooners of the thirties, the antecendent of doo-wop, sometimes called 23 skiddoo-wop.
Complain about this comment
Enuff already. It's burrow time.
Single transferable vole is completely unacceptable under the new scrutiny of exes*.
* Excavations, of course.
We of the VLF say NO! to second holes.
Glad you're over your STD.
Complain about this comment
"Involves", on the other hand, is an anagram of "voles vin", a gorgeous example of French peasant cuisine that contains...no......aargh.... mercy! I want to die!.
Complain about this comment
redheylin, jiffle: I've written some stuff here.
1,2,3 votes in single constituencies is properly called AV (Alternative Vote), and while it means you get an MP who fewer people have voted against, it is not a good system for choosing a national parliament - it is not proportional (and would have made Gordon Brown's current majority even larger).
A similar system in multiple-seat constituencies is called STV, and is probably the best way to get a proportional representation nationally while retaining a local link.
Independents? One of the problems is knowing what they stand for. Martin Bell stood as the Not-Neil-Hamilton candidate - but what did he do in parliament? What are his views on tuition fees? NHS funding? Replacing Trident? Europe?
A really good independent candidate could easily get elected using STV - as long as people knew what they stood for.
Complain about this comment
Sid, thanks for that, but your comments beg the question - you more or less say that we cannot all just elect a local independent on the basis of perceived honesty and hard work - though that is what people seem to be asking for - we need parties to set policy at national level, even though parties and party-voting breed poor local accountability. But I was asking about a different kind of proportionality? Did the people cast the vote because they like the candidate, the policies, the party leader - Or are they voting against something? And if it is a matter of policy, what do I do when no party reflects my views? For example, you linked to an LDP page: what if I support PR yet oppose an elected upper house, while thinking that the Con candidate is actually a better fellow but that his party's manifesto stinks? Am I not always required to vote once upon a host of unrelated matters and does this not dumb down democracy to a kind of mock-war, a football game, that simply promotes simplistic thinking and social division?
Complain about this comment
Eddie - go and get some rest. Go on!
Complain about this comment
There'll be more tomorrow...
Complain about this comment
It's going to rain.
Complain about this comment
No doubt, Mrs Eff. No flippin doubt. But more of what?
As for you, redheylin, I'm glad to tell you that you've been misinformed. Voles Vin is, in fact, a scrumptious English wine available from the VLP at only 1 kg of grass (legal), fruits, bulbs, twigs, buds, and roots per 75cl bottle. We like fresh, mind you, not dried.
Complain about this comment
redheylin @ 38
Your question seems to be: what are the chances of finding a candidate who is a 100% honest and hard-working person, with whose policies you agree 100%, and the answer is: zero. The voting system will make no difference to this.
However: STV gives you much more choice, and increases accountability, in that there is competition within parties as well as between them. If you can choose between half-a-dozen candidates from your preferred party, that will give you a fair amount of choice.
The only way to a perfect match is to stand yourself!
Complain about this comment
Sid, Thanks for your comments (37).
Yes, I did mean Alternative Vote, but can never remember the name - had to look it up on the ER site, and still had to click though most of the alternatives before I found it. Think 1,2,3-Vote! is way more memorable :)
STV is a step backward because of the loss of direct accountability of a single MP. One person who needs your vote and is accountable to you. Not three, or five, or six - one. If you've ever worked in business you'll know that you have to make one person responsible for a task. Collective responsibility is almost always a recipe for disaster, make that a certainty when politicians are involved.
So, we have:
AV - silly name, sensible system
STV - sensible name, not so useful system.
As I said earlier, PR reformers seem obsessed with 'proportionality', which on the surface seems a good principle, but what are we actually trying to achieve here? A system that funnels the will of the people into a practical, workable government is what we're after.
Finally, anyone see the irony that the Scottish system, carefully (over)designed to give full representation, was so complex that it managed to disenfranchise thousands of voters?
Guess the answer is KISS!
Complain about this comment
Sid (37),
Also, surprised by your reliance of political parties for your representation. Political parties are a short-hand to allow lazy voters to make easy decisions (and often to avoid discussion of the actual issues).
You often see that party politics can drag Eddie, et al., into trite, trivial debate that totally ignores the real issues. (Sorry Eddie, your interview of Jack Straw was a perfect example of that - playing the man, not the ball!.)
You get the government you deserve: Vote lazy, get... well, what we've currently got!
Complain about this comment
red 29, Thank you. I Googled, but couldn't find the recipe.
Complain about this comment
FO 30, In France it is known as Vol de mort.
Complain about this comment
redheylin @ 38, perhaps you could explain something to me, since you use the phrase: what does "begs the question" actually mean? I know that it's from some legal term and isn't obvious, and I haven't been able to find a proper definition of the term.
Complain about this comment
JK Rowling writes:
Blast! Someone's got the plot of my next seven best-sellers!
Complain about this comment
jiffle @ 44, 45
You may not be surprised to learn that I disagree with you on a number of points.
1) Our current FPTP system suffers from trying to do two jobs at once - to elect a local MP and to elect a national government. It's not really very good at either. In 1951 Attlee polled more than a million votes than Churchill - but Churchill got more MPs, and therefore formed the government.
2) STV - you say you lose direct accountability; I say I'd rather have a choice of six MPs to take my concerns to.
3) Proportionality - Labour got 55.7% of the seats in 2005. They got 35.2% of the vote. If you think that's fair or sensible, I'd say you're wrong. PR reformers don't actually get obsessed with proportionality - 'roughly proportional' is fine.
4) Government by independent MPs is not practical, which is why no country uses it.
What I have done is choose the party whose ideals I like most, and work to change the bits I don't like. You obviously don't know me personally, and won't be aware of how much time I've put in to politics (no, I'm not a professional politician), but your suggestion that party politics is for lazy voters is actually quite offensive.
Complain about this comment
CG @ 48
Petitio principii - a philosophical term, meaning 'assumption of the principle' - refers to a circular argument (e.g. I know that the Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible).
These days, to beg the question has quite a different meaning*, as in the post you refer to.
*something like: here's an obvious question no one has asked.
Complain about this comment
Hi Sid (50),
We agree that the current system is broken beyond belief (points 1,3), where we differ is how much change is best.
I can see the argument in (2). I can also see that it will lead to STV MPs championing pet causes, or worse reducing constituency issues to party political bickering, while ignoring less convenient (to the MP) needs of their constituencies.
I think having someone who voted for by the majority rather than the largest minority (current system) is a huge change, and actually something that STV reverses - STV is all about providing MPs acceptable to large minorities, not the majority. It accepts, even endorses, minority government!
On (4) you're missing the point completely. Government by independents is not a realistic outcome. But having a solid number of independents is a mark of a healthy democracy - they can help keep the party apparatchiks from controlling everything. The world is complex - it cannot be put into into 2 (or 3 or 10) boxes. Independents are vital to remind us of that.
I'm sorry if you find my views on lazy voters offensive, but I stand by them. It's not a reflection on the hard work you have put in, but voters are lazy, and party politics helps them be that way. If voters actually read the manifestos I'd retract my opinion, but how many voters have you ever met who had read all the manifestos?
Complain about this comment
Ah, interesting.
Now that redheylin's comment (14) has been released from moderation limbo, it seems that he is one of those very rare individuals that has actually read the manifestos...
...and, guess what, none of the parties were acceptable to him. I'm not surprised.
He is, nonetheless, a shining example to us all. We only have to vote once every couple of years, and yet it is beyond the overwhelming majority of us to find out what it is we are voting for.
Maybe if more people read the manifestos, the parties would be forced to have policies worth voting for?
Complain about this comment
jiffle 52
Whilst I agree with you about the benefit of having independent MPs you confused me with the following:-
Minority government is what we have at the moment. A minority, less than a million of those who diligently cast their votes, decides not only which party will form the government but what the size of its majority will be.
It would take a very large number of independents to overcome that problem.
True, if all political parties were made illegal the current system would work very nicely but the turkeys won't pass that into law.
Complain about this comment
RJM (53)
Like the thought about turkeys! I should have been more explicit however:
I was talking about the selection of each MP - currently by the largest minority of constituency votes. AV transfers votes, ensuring that the (single) winner has to be acceptable to over 50% of the voters.
STV (as I understand it) has multiple MPs who have all reached a certain quota (obviously less than half), thus we are back to having representatives selected by large minorities.
A weird aspect of STV is that excess votes over the quota for a winning candidates also get reassigned to second choice candidates. Thus, if you vote for a popular candidate, it is random whether your vote goes to them or your second choice. Of course this means the order of vote counting can affect the result, and ensures a full recount will give different vote tallies (if not a different result) from the first one!!! (See what I mean about PR overcomplicating things?)
AV will only help independents in two ways:
1) By allowing an independent candidate who has fought a good campaign and appears second on the majority of votes to beat those from the main parties.
2) By preventing the "A vote for X is a wasted vote" argument.
Complain about this comment
Sid, Chris, I did indeed mean "principii petitio". I was saying, Sid's answer takes for granted the idea that we will vote once and that one vote will then be interpreted by the politicians according to their own interests. For example, the World at One just discussed the extent to which the Local Coucil poll results are due to credit crunch, resignations or expenses. Nobody suggested even once that they reflected how people felt about candidates' ability to run their local council. And this is self-evidently absurdus (Latin for daft)
Sid, if I run myself it will not help; everybody else still has the same problem, and so will I, I will not necessarily know why folk voted for or against me and what it is they want. Mind you, these days I am tempted to run for Labour just out of pity, that they cannot find a single person who is able to string the words together to defend their corner. Unable to stick the credit crunch to the conservative govt that deregulated, unable to assert that it is their own efforts at transparency that have brought expenses to our attention, for all their efforts, they must be the worst PR team politics has seen since Ethelred the Unready.
No, only Jiffle has caught on slightly: why exactly can we not vote for local candidate, PM and core manifesto policies separately, and does not the party system itself breed the problems? Otherwise, the vote is open to misinterpretation. Now we have a new bunch of local reps - not because of how they will set and spend council tax, not because they are honest but just because they are "not Labour".
Complain about this comment
How about if, before voting for a candidate, voters should have to pass a short quiz on the policies of their selected recipient.
No knowledge of the candidate, no vote?! ;)
(Might be tricky to arrange with transferrable vote systems though - curses!)
Complain about this comment
Sid - let me also just say; I am sure nobody intended you to feel offended (50). But you yourself have said in that post that our vote does two things at once, neither very effectively. You have also pointed out in your link how "safe seats" - that is, voting on party lines, not for candidates - breed bad government. While PR may ameliorate this, it is not really designed to do so. The point was also raised by Jiffle; is there not a difference between the vote of someone who has considered the manifesto issues and one who has not?
I offer you again the following example; both the Cons and Lab have pro and anti Europe wings. So how do I register, say, that I am pro-Europe (let alone pro-Europe in principle but bothered in practice)? If I say, "OK, I will vote Liberal", how do I let you know that I am also against an elected upper chamber? And how do I say "actually, I think the Con candidate would be better for the constituency, but I also think their cabinet is a bunch of crooks"? Just for example - I am sure you can understand that one might legitimately hold all these views, without meaning you to feel offended when I point out that I do not wish to appear to vote FOR something I am against, and that voting for parties makes this inevitable?
Complain about this comment
jiffle - i very much agree with the quiz idea.
Complain about this comment
(No voles were harmed in the preparation of the above posts.)
Complain about this comment
Sid @ 50, on a point of order or something: you said that Attlee got a million or so more votes than Churchill but fewer MPs.
I think you meant that the party that had chosen Attlee got etc. Churchill himself didn't get a million votes more; his party did.
(And Brown got no votes at all, on that basis, because he wasn't leading the party at the time of the election so nobody at all voted to make him Prime Minister.)
It's a quibble, but it does indicate another flaw: we have no say about the leader unless we are either members of the party or members of parliament or in some other way an unelected elite. When the leader is determined to act in a way that not even all the members of his party approve, let alone a majority in the party, there is little or nothing that anyone can do to stop him or her, and we may find ourselves at war entirely because that leader has decided to do it on what turns out later to have been dodgy evidence.
Complain about this comment
redheylin @ 58
STV is the answer to your query!!
Put half-a-dozen constituencies together, then get the parties to offer 6 candidates each (indies can join in as well if they want). Parties whcih put up 6 identikit candidates will fare less well than parties which offer a choice - so you may be able to choose a pro-EU, anti-hanging Conservative, or a Euro-sceptic, pro-public flogging Socialist, or ... etc ad nauseam. You won't be able to find an exact fit, of course - life isn't like that. But you get a lot more choice than under the current system.
Complain about this comment
And another thing ...
Part of the reason I took offence (probably unnecessarily) is that apart from recruiting candidates and getting their paperwork in on time and writing and delivering about 5000 leaflets in the last month, I've also been thinking about the Tiananmen Square episode (no, you can't have a vote, but you can have this bullet!) and elections in Zimbabwe (if you vote we'll cut your hand off!) and perhaps most of all the first free elections in S Africa, when people queued for days to be able to vote ... and comparing those situations to what we have here (I can't be bothered) makes me very cross.
Complain about this comment
jiffle @ 55
"A weird aspect of STV is that excess votes over the quota for a winning candidates also get reassigned to second choice candidates. Thus, if you vote for a popular candidate, it is random whether your vote goes to them or your second choice. Of course this means the order of vote counting can affect the result, and ensures a full recount will give different vote tallies (if not a different result) from the first one!!! (See what I mean about PR overcomplicating things?)"
This is not true*. What happens is that ALL a candidate's first preference votes are rechecked when they reach the quota, and ALL their second preferences are re-distributed - but with a value of less than one. This is all made quite clear on the ERS website.
The weirdness you describe does not happen.
*though it is complicated
Complain about this comment
Wow... just found out that Adolf Hilter was elected via PR. And not just AV or STV, but fully proportional, get MPs for each % of the vote, PR.
(Strictly, his party was elected, not him. And by elected I mean 'had the largest party').
Was researching how 'nutter-proof' each electoral system is. Looks like none of them are. Or rather, it's amazing the political effects a full-on depression can have...
Complain about this comment
Sid - I agree that PR would be an improvement. It is not "the answer", though, because 1) I cannot vote for it and 2) it is not designed to address my concerns and 3) if raising the question, which takes a good deal more effort than voting, draws the allegation that "I can't be bothered" then I have to acknowledge, once again, that democracy is not, after all, a matter of finding out and acting upon the informed decisions of the public, but is rather a form of ritual combat where we prevail by making others look bad.
Chris G, your point is certainly valid and not a mere point of order. We vote for constituency candidates, yet we are being told that our vote is, rather, the "mandate" that cowardly Gordon has failed to seek. Our would-be government cannot fairly represent our constitution and ignores the outcry that a constituency MP be accountable to voters - it is all about "your leader". I do not want to do anything that gives any of those people the idea that he is my "leader", yet those people are telling me they will interpret my vote in this way. I want to select an honest constituency MP and it will already be hard enough to find, without that MP being relegated to his bench while his party grandees congratulate themselves that this means, without fail, that I adore them and everything they stand for.
Complain about this comment
Sid (63)
Sid, are you sure people don't vote because "they can't be bothered" deserve your scorn? On the surface this may sound like an unsophisticated argument, but is it? Isn't the expression "can't be bothered" another way of saying "not my priority" and is this not because of the accurate assessment many people make of British democracy as being distant, unrepresentative and unresponsive?
Could it not be true that people who do vote are simply legitimising a broken political system?
This is in contrast to (for example) the daily demands of earning a living which, for most people is a major direct and increasingly pressing priority. There aren't many people who say they "can't be bothered" to work or eat or breathe. etc.
Complain about this comment
Joseph Walker @ 67, the question perhaps could be phrased differently: "what would people be doing instead of voting?"
Given that people do not have to give up very much in order to vote (and if they live inconveniently far from a polling station, it is really remarkably easy to get a postal vote) it might be that they think half-an-hour watching telly is more important to them than voting, but for most things it isn't an either/or choice: you don't have to miss a meal in order to vote, or lose an hour's work and pay, or stop breathing for a while.
I can't help feeling that given the lengths to which women went to get the vote, and the lengths people go to all over the globe, and the queues of people we see waiting to vote in countries all over the world, not bothering to vote here is shameful. Not one single ballot paper ought to be left unused, even if the best that people can manage in the way of expressing their feelings is to spoil their papers.
To excuse not voting by saying "oh but it doesn't mean anything" is clearly flimflam, because it *does* mean something. Hundreds and thousands of people have died, and die, to get votes: they mean something. My grandmother sweated to get the vote: she means something. My great-great-great grandfather sweated to earn his vote: he means something. Nelson Mandela sweated for his vote: he means something.
Universal sufferage: use it or lose it?
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure it's good enough to say those that don't vote are too busy watching the telly.
Just because voting and fighting for the vote had real relevance in the 1920's or in S.A. in the 80's doesn't mean it's equally relevant in the UK now. It seems extraordinarily complacent to think it is. Voting only to respect the efforts of past generations seems noble but ultimately pointless.
If people won't vote, we have to look at why they won't vote, not to condemn them based on some elitist notion that the British electorate are somehow especially stupid or lazy.
Voting should be a natural activity and an important part of everyday life. The fact that it isn't for many people is not because they are dull, idle and ignorant.
Complain about this comment
Comment 69 was meant for Chris_Ghoti @68. Sorry!
Complain about this comment
Joseph Walker @ 69, I understood which post of mine you meant, don't worry.
"watching telly for half an hour" was an example, and I would bet (given how much time we all seem to spend watching telly if we have one) that a fair few members of the electorate *were* doing it instead of going out to vote. There are other things that may have been done instead: mowing the lawn, or buffing their nails, or making a model of the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks, but those are probably minority interests.
We get the vote free, gratis and for nothing, and in too many cases we value it at least as much as we have to pay for it, I think.
I think that if the general opinion were that not voting was despicable rather than not mattering or being a brave stand against the system, this would be a good thing. If what is wanted is a stand against the system, spoiling a ballot is at least saying *something*, not turning up might mean *anything* and so means nothing at all.
Complain about this comment
Well if enough people did not vote it could initiate a political crisis which might force significant changes to occur in Parliament and our democracy that Parliament itself is unwilling or unable to make.
I feel the danger of simply arguing that voting under the current system is our only choice does more to prop up this broken democracy than any amount of predictable partisan defence of it that is made by MPs and ministers whose power we see maintained safely within it.
In other words the act of voting is political in itself. And equally the act of not voting carries a political message, neither of which have anything to do with party politics. Instead they imply what level of loyalty the Electorate continues to hold towards the institution of British Parliamentary Democracy.
Complain about this comment
EEE... when I think how lucky we are in this country and how much better ALL our main party leaders are than Pol Pot, I am frankly amazed that anybody has the temerity to desire to express a preference between them. Are you all not frankly ashamed to swan off and vote, knowing that the poor people in Mexico are ruled by drugs lords? And are you not proud to live in a place where you can raise any political question you like without people coming along and engaging in abuse rather than debating the issue?
Complain about this comment
JW @ 72
What you say sounds very good - but there is not a mechanism which might make it work. There is no threshold below which a government loses the authority to rule. The ONLY way you can change things is by voting. If you don't vote, then your vote counts the same as someone who really just couldn't be arsed.
Complain about this comment
Well, I thought it was all about constitutional reform and how the House can reconnect with the people and involve them in politics? They are all going to listen to the people - so I heard.
So here's an idea - the percentage of the vote you get is the percentage of manifesto commitments you are allowed to enact. So "sorry, you only got 25 per cent of the vote and only had four clear ideas. Pick any one." This will force parties to come up with large numbers of crazy ideas, which will entertain the electorate. Or, if they stick to sensible ideas, they will only need to work 25 per cent of the time, which will save money.
Complain about this comment
Seriously, though, it was said on PM today that Labour losses are a result of Labour voter fall-off without increase in the Conservative vote. How is that not a clear message? Well, actually, I will tell you how - because the politicians feel entitled to interpret results any way they choose.
Complain about this comment
The only way I can see, at present, by which to tell politicians as a class that yes, you care enough to vote but no, you don't feel prepared to vote for any of them, is to spoil your ballot-paper by writing "none of the above" on it. As Sid says up there, not using a ballot-paper at all doesn't make it clear whether you are fed up or were too busy feeding to bother to turn up.
I know that the spoiled papers don't get counted, but I think the people who count you in and out (not the people behind the desk, the people at the door) might ask questions if only half the number of people they had counted as coming to vote got votes counted. If nothing else, their party would then know.
Complain about this comment
They would not know why none of the above was acceptable. For that they'd have to reconnect with the voters and all that stuff they keep saying. They'd end up having to discuss issues one by one, before going back to the house so the whips can tell them to take no notice of what their constituents want.
Complain about this comment
CG _ I think spoiled ballots are counted.
Complain about this comment
Sid, I just saw results from Herts and it listed the number of spoiled ballots: 2475. For the first time ever, the Lib Dems took all the county seats in the St Albans constituancy. Still trail the Tories overall by quite a bit. One reason for the success might be the expenses problem our Con MP has had.
Complain about this comment
Hi redheylin (75),
Thought about something similar to your concept after cooking up my performance-related-pay idea (PM Glass Box 19).
But eventually decided there are probably too many ways that governments could twist the system by throwing in irrelevant policies as filler. Manifestos are hard enough to read without wading through 75% rubbish (some might claim they are already 100% recycled rubbish!).
I still like the idea of linking something to turnout - linking pay to turnout would also get MPs to challenge their own party's policies if they think they'll cost them money, rather than meekly toeing the party line.
Complain about this comment
David - well done St Albans Lib Dems!!
Complain about this comment
jiffle (81)
This week's "Any Questions" made it clear that a large number of people seem to want debates and referenda on aspects of vote reform. However, the BBC seems to take the attitude "OK bor-ING! - we talked about that in 1980".
The Labour Party wrecked their credentials when Tony Blair reneged. The Liberals blew it last week by opportunistically calling for an election rather than pushing reform. And the Cons have never wanted it. All three parties continue to appear on the radio and tell me why I voted/did not vote. Then they tell me how they need to listen and reconnect.
Meanwhile the public has no choice, if it wants to "send a message", but to vote in local council elections without taking the slightest stock of local council issues.
Clearly, if they had a mechanism to declare their feelings about expenses and another to give or not give a mandate to G Brown, they might be able to consider voting on local issues.
A vote in the current system is a vote for bad government.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to explain also why I really do not want an elected upper house. It is because then the upper house will be full of politicians. In fact, that will then be the true goal. Our local MPs will have even less power, and political elite cadres will have no check upon them.
I want electoral colleges that return their own members for at least twenty years. I want the forces, police and civil services, health, education religions, union congress and c. all to have their allocated seats and their own elections - typically, perhaps, to reward long service as today. I would like no question that a candidate has to stand, but rather that they be elected on the understanding that it is ignominious to refuse.
Hey, did you know? Lords don't get paid at all! All they get is 250 quid a day expenses, poor loves. But that's another issue.
Complain about this comment
Hi redheylin,
Agree about elected upper house - no point fixing Lords until we've fixed the Commons.
Heard Jonathan Dimbleby jump on the PR debate - "don't want audience bored with technical details". What an idiot!!
The voting system drives the behaviour of our politicians - it is absolutely fundamental. Suggests to me that he is more interested in the discussion than the solutions (given his job, why should I be surprised?).
Complain about this comment
I can understand that Any Questions has a pre-arranged format that makes it necessary to prevent politicos (in this case Libs) from going off into manifesto rant mode. There's already enough trouble getting straight answers.
However at this juncture I am not hearing a lot of background (never thought I'd see the day that I'd be told there was a plot to destabilise the elected govt twice in as many weeks, only to find that it was regarded as a sideshow - the Home Office hijinks in particular look v murky to me). There's a lot of glib stuff about reform but the opposition has found it can do well by doing nothing apart from attack Brown, and the BBC is doing little to change that.
You know what I'd like? I get tired of this scenario;
"So here in the PM studio to discuss the matter we have the well-known back bencher Mr Red Rentamouth and Lady Eton-Bluerinse.."
Red: "I am against it. Down with it!"
Lady E: "That's typical! Any decent person supports it"
Eddie: "Sorry, have to cut it short. I am sure the debate will go on.."
Now, again, it would take days of broadcasting to cover reform proposals.
SO here's da big idea! We need all the background programming like File on 4, all the ones that can afford a half-hour on a single issue, to be reported on the news roundups in digest form in order to give a springboard, then we need RECORDED interviews to EDIT out the tosh and maybe 15 mins per day devoted to the single issue of the week. Then we might get a bit of depth.
This is meant to be public service broadcasting. The people are asking for a service. That's it really.
Complain about this comment
Sid 82, I am now awaiting the party invites. Hope they will be before we go to France.
Complain about this comment
DMcN and Sid, thank you for this information. I had thought they stopped counting the spoilt votes: I'm glad to hear otherwise.
2475, eh? How does that compare with the figures for the rest of the ballots?
Complain about this comment
There's an interesting letter in this week's New Statesman (obviously published before the vote had taken place, let alone counted), by a chap called Dr Ian Flintoff.
It argues that since the Profumo affair, the media have rules unchallenged. Party leaders toady to the red tops, fearful of bad headlines. "The media...have constructed an entire false and cohesive epistemic system that makes democracy impossible. Democracy depends on an enlightened people who know what they are voting for."
The full letter can be seen at www.newstatesman.com/letters (about half way down).
I'm not sure about it all starting with Profumo, but his arguments do make a lot of sense. I suspect many people gather their impressions of the political parties and policies from the media - and when many sections of the media seem to have been on an anti-Gordon campaign for over a year, is it any wonder Labour's support has dive bombed?
Perhaps a prime example of the media's power was the meteoric rise to fame of the Blue Party's leader. IIRC, nobody took much notice of him until *that* conference speech, when suddenly his party overtook the Red Party in the polls and pretty much remained there ever since. A media-savvy politician ("Webcameron", cycling into work etc.) who has done an outstanding job of criticising the Red Party without creating many radically different policies of his own (unless you count simultaneously reducing taxes and spending more money...or at least that's the impression I got from the headline policies on their website...)
Complain about this comment
mittfh(89) It seems to me that the Labour Party have already paved the way for the Tories by introducing Conservative-style policies in advance of any election. The Tories don't have to be radically different - there will be a smooth transition when they take control, I'm sure.
I say this with sadness, by the way.
Complain about this comment
C_G 88, Herts electorate 816,950, total votes 318,510 (I added quickly), poll 39.3 percent, spoiled ballots 2475. You do the maths.
Complain about this comment
a=y-m2sq-aq=v6tp14~Ttx+4ht-y+quz/rt=.......yep...thats.
42.
Complain about this comment
mittfh (89):
"Democracy depends on an enlightened people who know what they are voting for."
Sums up in a single sentence what I have been arguing for years. A democracy requires the following:
1) A free press that reports events without an obvious editorial agenda.
2) An electorate that take the time to read what the candidates are actually standing for.
3) A voting system that enfranchises all the voters, not a select few.
Given we in the UK have none of the above, we do not have a democracy. We merely have the illusion of one.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS