Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by IdleAdjt, May 6, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sat here bleary eyed and a little disappointed with the election I actually feel it is now time for a change in the electoral system.

    It is surely not a working democracy when a party with only 36% of the vote can be put into power with such a majority. With the majority Blair has, he now has a licence to play party politics and continue to impliment his policies which may not be supported by the majority of the voting nation.

    I understand (although happy to be corrected), that the Labour party have, since achieving power in '97 implimented a series of boundry changes that favour them. This will make it more difficult to have a truely popular party in power.

    Is it not time we bought in sweeping reforms to the electoral system and moved to some form of proportional representation?

    I am aware of the arguments that say that PR leads to weaker governments and an inability to get things done, but there must be some "fairer" system for this country. At least if we had PR then in the current parliament, the consensus of two of the 3 major parties would be needed to pass a bill. Would this not be more democratic? At least it could then be argued that each new law would be the result of a majority decision.
  2. How come no Tories were saying this in the 1980s and 1990s?

    Just wondering...
  3. As unfair as it appears, those in power do need a clear mandate to change things. If everything the govt. tried to do ended up as a watered-down compromise nothing would ever get done. We'd end up like Holland dammit. :twisted:
  4. You are right. I am not a rabid Tory but someone who believes in a fair system where the view of the electorate are represented. This current system is not particularly democratic in my opinion. When you have a leader like Blair and Thatcher who can mobilise the party behind them, it all becomes a bit of dictatorship.
  5. I like holland! [​IMG]
    However your quite right, with the Additional Member System govts will end up like the welsh assy. The Labour Party could only operate successfully if they governed as a coalition. Nowt gets done, Also PR does and can get confusing depending on which method is used. If people get p1ssed off at putting envlope A into Envlope B, then wait till they encounter Single Transferable Vote!!!
  6. Explain.
  7. [quote="Cpl_ripper

    Nobody likes a smug git! :wink:
  8. Then we are in agreement. But please let's not have a bigger version of the Welsh Assy. It's a total fuster cluck and I rue the day I ever voted for it. (In my defence I was tired of 18 years of Tory colonial rule- 36 constituencies, 2 Tory MPs and Welsh Secretaries like little Billy Hague and that horse's c*ck John Redwood.)

    Anyone who did A level politics knows that a PR thread is going to go round in circles. We might discover the means of achieving perpetual motion but little else.
  9. But STV could do us the favour of disenfranchising the chavs as surely they'd not be able to understand the complex instructions and haven't spent enough time in school to know their numbers! :D :lol:
  10. Aye and cnuts like me :!:
  11. What about the Additional Member System?

    It's used for the scottish parliment and seems to be a half decent compromise.

    it allows me to vote for one candidate as my Local MSP (allowing me vote tactically or to vote for an individual regardless of party) and for a party as well. Dependent on the proportion of votes that party gets in my area, they get a number of 'list' MSP's thus ensuring that all parties get a proportional representation in the parliment.

    anyone have any thoughts on that system?
  12. Say what you will about PR, STV, AMS (hmm!);

    Its been said (by me, but not only me) before, there are many people who are utterly disenfranchised by the current system. Two parliaments ago the local boundaries changed and I am now in a reasonably safe labour seat. The MP is utterly useless, he didn't even bother to turn up for the vote on the recent anti-terror legislation (and his total turn out in the last parliament was only just in double figures!), but nothing I as a (reasonably) responsible citizen (I use that term in its original sense) can do about it. He is getting paid to represent me - but he clearly doesn't (and probably couldn't if he wanted to).

    Limit the franchise I say and let it mean something. Let it be acquired for service, or qualification, or the holding of a stake in the society in which you presume to have a voice in governing. It is for good reason that the word 'democracy' was shunned for most of the past four centuries as synonymous with the anarchic rule of the untamed mob. To work as it should we ought to seek a return to the purity of its origins, the voices of those who put their nation first working to secure the best for their people, not the rabid baying of those who see short term gain for themselves at the expense of the society to which they owe their very existence - or absolute monarchy, that might work.
  13. I've always thought that if we were to change from FPTP to PR then AMS is the way to go. The Electoral Reform Society has a really user-friendly way of explaining electoral systems (wish it had been available when I was studying for my Politics A' Level! :roll: )
  14. Sounds fairer that the current one. I understand the fact that with party politics a leader can push through unpopular bills by use of the whip. We should never forget that for the MPs it is their job and they don't want to rock the boat too much. We then end up with a one party state for the duration of the parliament. This is not what we shoudl want. We elect an MP because he will do good for his constituency and the country as a whole.Sadly we now have the cult of the leader and all real decisions are made by a very select few.