General election results 2015

[Flosshilde]

No - there wasn't even a referendum to re-convene the Parliament & devolve powers, unless you call the 1997 General Election a referendum. I assume (I don't remember) that it was in the Labour Party manifesto.

Presumably if introducing PR to Westminster elections was in a winning party's manifesto & Queen's Speech then it could be introduced without a referendum.

[ahinton]

You can simply delete, via the Modify route, if desired. Should you choose to do so in this instance, I will follow suit. ;-)

Thank you for this. Done, methinks!

[Serial_Apologist]

Understood, thank you. Did you all vote for that particular system in a referendum?

Seconded, Floss, with thanks.

[french frank]

Presumably if introducing PR to Westminster elections was in a winning party's manifesto & Queen's Speech then it could be introduced without a referendum.

Blair had it in his manifesto to hold a referendum, but didn't do so. Brown reaffirmed it (but only for AV), but he didn't win.

The truth of the matter seems to be that changing the electoral system is not high on most people's agendas (with exceptions, of course). Yes, if you put it to them like that, they would rather see the money go to the NHS.

[ahinton]

Blair had it in his manifesto to hold a referendum, but didn't do so. Brown reaffirmed it (but only for AV), but he didn't win.

The truth of the matter seems to be that changing the electoral system is not high on most people's agendas (with exceptions, of course). Yes, if you put it to them like that, they would rather see the money go to the NHS.

Quite - and can anyone realistically and justifiably blame them, given the amounts of taxpayers' money that would of necessity be involved (and perhaps ultimately wasted) in the necessary research and implementation (if any) necessary for the thorough exploration of an alternative system or systems in the light of the massive confusion over which such an alternative system or combination of systems might or might not as a consequence be thought to merit assuming the place of the admittedly already well and truly flawed FPTP?

Cynic, moi?...

Anyway, never mind that; while "call me Dave" apparently seeks to tinker with the UK Human Rights Act 1998 rather as Elgar evidently stated at various points that he didn't want anyone to do with what he left of his Third Symphony almost a quarter century earlier, if anone here feels disposed to sign the petition against the former, please do so as I have done at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...r-human-rights along with almost 175,000 others (at the time of writing) who have done so within a mere couple of days or so of its launch.

[Beef Oven!]

You've given yourself away Richard - you do read ahinton's posts!

Hurrah!

[ahinton]

Hurrah!

OK, so Rowan Atkinson happens to possess an Australian Stuart piano which presumably he plays as and when time permits but, that said, your references to him, in or out of his Blackadder guise, are somewhat lost on me for the time being so I might well appreciate and be usefully informed by your explanation thereof if you could be so kind as to provide such...

[Richard Barrett]

There seems to be a general feeling in the UK that referenda are somehow not cricket and should be kept to a minimum. But what actually are the arguments against extending this kind of direct democracy to issues like for example NHS privatisation, which arguably affect people more immediately than EU membership? The Swiss, for example, had 12 referenda in 2014 alone. I suppose it would be rather inconvenient for the political class, but surely they are there for our benefit rather than the other way around.

[french frank]

There seems to be a general feeling in the UK that referenda are somehow not cricket and should be kept to a minimum. But what actually are the arguments against extending this kind of direct democracy to issues like for example NHS privatisation, which arguably affect people more immediately than EU membership? The Swiss, for example, had 12 referenda in 2014 alone. I suppose it would be rather inconvenient for the political class, but surely they are there for our benefit rather than the other way around.

No objection, if you develop a culture for referenda, which we don't currently have. The most significant change since the war (at least) to the way Bristol is run has been the election of a mayor. In spite of local campaigns on both sides, only 24% of the electorate even bothered to vote (that was in the referendum, not the election, which itself had a similarly poor turnout).

[jean]

...But what actually are the arguments against extending this kind of direct democracy to issues like for example NHS privatisation, which arguably affect people more immediately than EU membership?

The problem is that any referendum question has to be phrased in such a way as to admit of a clear yes/no answer.

You can imagine how the present government might frame any question about the privatisation of the NHS.

[MrGongGong]

The problem is that any referendum question has to be phrased in such a way as to admit of a clear yes/no answer.

You can imagine how the present government might frame any question about the privatisation of the NHS.

The terms of the question will largely dictate the answer i'm afraid.

It does seem that the recent election was "won" by those who don't understand maths (not that I do, he hastened to add!)

[Richard Barrett]

The problem is that any referendum question has to be phrased in such a way as to admit of a clear yes/no answer.

Why could there not be more than two possibilities? (As in parliamentary elections!)

[Richard Barrett]

the recent election was "won" by those who don't understand maths

... the Tories understand maths of course, and they'll be wanting to stage their referendum as soon as possible, hopefully at a time when the UKIPs will be too busy stabbing each other in the back to notice it's going on - oops!

[MrGongGong]

Why could there not be more than two possibilities? (As in parliamentary elections!)

You mean there REALLY can be more than two possible ways of doing things?

I don't think many people believe that (sadly)

[Sir Velo]

The truth of the matter seems to be that changing the electoral system is not high on most people's agendas (with exceptions, of course). Yes, if you put it to them like that, they would rather see the money go to the NHS.

This isn't just about the NHS though is it?

Given only just over a quarter of the electorate voted for the party which now has a majority it seems unlikely that most people are in favour of FPTP. Moreover, having a referendum to change to PR is not just a case of changing things for short term gain because one doesn't like the result, but to bring about a more sane and democratic form of government. It's been an issue for decades, and certainly a significant concern since the early 80s with the rise of the SDP. While between 1928 and 1979 there were arguably only realistically two parties to vote for in Britain, that situation no longer pertains.

Furthermore, quite why one should be in favour of a system which allows a party elected on a minority vote to have carte blanche to implement whatever policies it likes is a strange one. Surely, a far better form of government is one which encompasses compromise, consultation and consideration for other viewpoints. Britain has changed vastly since the 1930s in its demographic and the two party state is now an anachronism which needs to be addressed. While I agree with you that there may well be many who will vote in any referendum without full understanding of the issues involved, that really isn't any different from how any election plays out.

Given the lurching from one extreme to another, I think any sane right thinking person would want a change in the way in which our representatives are elected to a more appropriately democratic electoral process.