General election results 2015

[french frank]

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.

That is where we disagree - unless you think that most of the voters are not 'sane right thinking' people. I think (and would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong) that most people lumber to the polling station for the election, place their cross in one of two boxes and lumber off again.

The ones we should really be concerned about - obviously - are those for whom the result matters. People are fond of saying that we are 'one of the wealthiest countries' in the world: we are. That's why the majority is cushioned against real hardship. And those who play the game of divisive, vitriolic, tribal politics don't help. But that's just how I view it.

[Sir Velo]

That is where we disagree - unless you think that most of the voters are not 'sane right thinking' people. I think (and would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong) that most people lumber to the polling station for the election, place their cross in one of two boxes and lumber off again.

I think most people (or at least those that vote) appreciate they're left with very little choice under FPTP. That's a main driver behind the apathy you note. PR, however, would bring more choice and a real sense that how one voted mattered. Whereas, most people know in this country, except in a few marginal constituencies, that their vote has very little effect on the overall scheme of things.

The ones we should really be concerned about - obviously - are those for whom the result matters. People are fond of saying that we are 'one of the wealthiest countries' in the world: we are. That's why the majority is cushioned against real hardship. And those who play the game of divisive, vitriolic, tribal politics don't help. But that's just how I view it.

None of this prevents us from implementing a fairer system of representation though. In fact what you say rather Panglosses over the issue; if we have tribal politics then you have to ask yourself whether FPTP isn't the primary cause of this. At the risk of repeating myself, we live in a pluralistic age, and this should be reflected in the composition of parliament. The etymology of parliament is, after all, a place for speaking, and currently the vast majority of the British people are denied the right for their voice to be heard. You might not like what they have to say, but they have the right to say it.

[french frank]

Sir V

I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with. I'm 110% in favour of PR (unlike at least two people here who I would not insult by suggesting they were neither sane nor right-thinking). I am against FPTP. I do think it results in poor government.

The point at issue is how PR can be achieved. The obstacles are two major parties who have shown no stomach for it, preferring the Buggins' turn style of government; and an electorate that appears content to stay with what they've got, on the grounds that they can turf one lot out and vote the other lot in when they feel a 'change' is necessary.

[Serial_Apologist]

Sir V

I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with. I'm 110% in favour of PR (unlike at least two people here who I would not insult by suggesting they were neither sane nor right-thinking). I am against FPTP. I do think it results in poor government.

The point at issue is how PR can be achieved. The obstacles are two major parties who have shown no stomach for it, preferring the Buggins' turn style of government; and an electorate that appears content to stay with what they've got, on the grounds that they can turf one lot out and vote the other lot in when they feel a 'change' is necessary.

If it were practicable and equitable to have the Scots FPTP + STV combo suggested upthread somewhere, I'd go for PR in a referendum or voting for a party that included it in their election programme, since it seems to combine equitability nationwise in proportionately distributing the voting percentages while retaining the FPTP element of local accountability.

[Sir Velo]

Sir V

I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with. I'm 110% in favour of PR (unlike at least two people here who I would not insult by suggesting they were neither sane nor right-thinking). I am against FPTP. I do think it results in poor government.

The point at issue is how PR can be achieved. The obstacles are two major parties who have shown no stomach for it, preferring the Buggins' turn style of government; and an electorate that appears content to stay with what they've got, on the grounds that they can turf one lot out and vote the other lot in when they feel a 'change' is necessary.

I apologise if I misrepresented your views. I thought upthread you said something about a referendum to bring in PR should be opposed on the grounds that those who were advocating it were only doing so because they had lost under the current system.

However, where I do take issue is on the point that the electorate is happy with the situation they've got. As I keep saying ad nauseam we don't have only two parties any longer. Fewer than 25% of the UK electorate voted for the Tories in 2015 so there is just no basis of truth in the view that under the current system the electorate can turf the other lot out when they feel like it. Given it only takes 25% of the electorate to get a party into power, you must surely see my point that the majority of the populace are excluded from having any form of say in the composition of the government for the next five years. That can't be right; and that has to be overturned by any democratic means offered.

[ahinton]

I apologise if I misrepresented your views. I thought upthread you said something about a referendum to bring in PR should be opposed on the grounds that those who were advocating it were only doing so because they had lost under the current system.

However, where I do take issue is on the point that the electorate is happy with the situation they've got. As I keep saying ad nauseam we don't have only two parties any longer. Fewer than 25% of the UK electorate voted for the Tories in 2015 so there is just no basis of truth in the view that under the current system the electorate can turf the other lot out when they feel like it. Given it only takes 25% of the electorate to get a party into power, you must surely see my point that the majority of the populace are excluded from having any form of say in the composition of the government for the next five years. That can't be right; and that has to be overturned by any democratic means offered.

Sure, but the farther that UK moves towards greater number of prties and the more success each - or at least some - of them can garner, the less likely any strong form of government will be, irrespective of whether FPTP is retained or any alternative or combination of alternative voting system/s is/are adopted.

[Serial_Apologist]

I apologise if I misrepresented your views. I thought upthread you said something about a referendum to bring in PR should be opposed on the grounds that those who were advocating it were only doing so because they had lost under the current system.

However, where I do take issue is on the point that the electorate is happy with the situation they've got. As I keep saying ad nauseam we don't have only two parties any longer. Fewer than 25% of the UK electorate voted for the Tories in 2015 so there is just no basis of truth in the view that under the current system the electorate can turf the other lot out when they feel like it. Given it only takes 25% of the electorate to get a party into power, you must surely see my point that the majority of the populace are excluded from having any form of say in the composition of the government for the next five years. That can't be right; and that has to be overturned by any democratic means offered.

I don't think ff was saying FPTP is what most people either want or are satisfied with; rather that they don't realise the falseness of the choices they think they are making when voting under its aegis.

[Serial_Apologist]

Sure, but the farther that UK moves towards greater number of prties and the more success each - or at least some - of them can garner, the less likely any strong form of government will be, irrespective of whether FPTP is retained or any alternative or combination of alternative voting system/s is/are adopted.

Well you do still have strong government - but government of companies and "consumer choice", backed up by law, civil surface and police. This is what I've always understood by the quip "whoever you vote for, they still get in".

[french frank]

I don't think ff was saying FPTP is what most people either want or are satisfied with; rather that they don't realise the falseness of the choices they think they are making when voting under its aegis.

Ferzackerly. Nor was I saying that 'a referendum to bring in PR should be opposed on the grounds that those who were advocating it were only doing so because they had lost under the current system'. What I was saying that the argument for - or against - PR should not be on the basis that it was 'better' or 'worse' for any particular party, but on the basis that it was fair and better represented the will of the electorate.

I backtracked on opposing the referendum on the grounds that it could be interpreted as opposing PR itself. I'm sure that many people who are now complaining about 'petty dictators' in Bristol must have been among the majority who didn't see the importance of voting in the mayoral referendum. They didn't envisage the consequences, or make the connection.

[ahinton]

Well you do still have strong government - but government of companies and "consumer choice", backed up by law, civil surface and police. This is what I've always understood by the quip "whoever you vote for, they still get in".

Well, OK - "strong Parliamentary government" would have been what I should perhaps have written.

I like this "civil surface", though - except that I'd like it rather better if only it failed to surface far more often than is the case!

That said, whilst we're so far only in the early days of the longstanding two-parties-+-alsorans situation that some are already prematurely crowing is actually over, it remains the case that, as this does indeed disintegrate, the kind of "government" that you write of here might begin to fray at the edges unless almost all parties with seats in HoC continue to support it whatever other agendas they might have.

[subcontrabass]

Sure, but the farther that UK moves towards greater number of prties and the more success each - or at least some - of them can garner, the less likely any strong form of government will be, irrespective of whether FPTP is retained or any alternative or combination of alternative voting system/s is/are adopted.

Do you want "strong" government or just good government?

[ahinton]

Do you want "strong" government or just good government?

One obviously wants good government but when it's provided by a party with a tiny majority, as now and when incresing numbers of parties are being represented in HoC, the possibility of "strong" government, good or bad, might risk being lessened.

On a specific issue that I imagine will be forced (mercifully) to bite the dust not least because of the paucity of the present government's "majority", Cameron's apparently avowed desire to pull the rug from underneath the UK Human Rights Act 1998 is perhaps as good an example as any of an attempt at bad government that might further weaken an already far from strong government (albeit of only just over one week's vintage).

I would therefore urge everyone who cares about this vital issue to sign - and spread the word on - the petition at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...r-human-rights which was lauched less than three days ago but has already attracted almost 182,000 signatories - that's the equivalent of almost one in every 165 people who voted in last week's General Election and the tally is increasing rapidly.

[Beef Oven!]

Do you want "strong" government or just good government?

30 years of bad government.

Review
'This is an astonishing achievement – that very rare thing, a genuinely original book and an immediately essential guide to the failures of British politics. King and Crewe go deep, without a shred of pomposity or a phrase of false rhetoric. From now on, every political journalist, civil servant and would-be minister needs to start here.'

(Andrew Marr, Journalist and author of 'My trade: A short history of Journalism')

[Sir Velo]

Sure, but the farther that UK moves towards greater number of prties and the more success each - or at least some - of them can garner, the less likely any strong form of government will be, irrespective of whether FPTP is retained or any alternative or combination of alternative voting system/s is/are adopted.

Don't you think we've had enough "strong" government for a while?

By the way, who's to say - without a whit of evidence to the contrary - that wider representation won't produce better government?

[ahinton]

Don't you think we've had enough "strong" government for a while?

By the way, who's to say - without a whit of evidence to the contrary - that wider representation won't produce better government?

But how is that "wider representation" - and of whom and what - likely to be achieved? Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons and the far more recent divisiveness arising from the gradual disintegration of what was broadly two-party politics likely to undermine any possibility of "wider representation" of anyone? Even arguments over which might be the most just and fair electoral system, however possibly intelligent and persuasive in and of themselves, won't cut much ice in practical terms if too many people are persuaded to support too many parties and, in so doing, seek to espouse too many contrasting sets of agendas...