is election reform really no.1 in the UKs priority

[sadoldgit]

really..?

 

whilst europe in on the verge of economic melt down....voting reform somehow seems to be top of the list in all this

 

WTF...?

 

There will always be economcial situations to deal with but we won't always have such a goldern oppertunity to modernise our ridiculous and unfair voting system

 

Go for it Cleggy!

[buctootim]

There will always be economcial situations to deal with but we won't always have such a goldern oppertunity to modernise our ridiculous and unfair voting system

 

Go for it Cleggy!

 

Agree. Its not like its a choice between one or the other. They can do both simultaneously.

[JackFrost]

Tories got 36% of the votes and got 47% of the seats in the commons

 

labour got 29 % of the votes and got 40% of the seats

 

lib dems got 23 % of the votes and got less than 9% of the seats

[dune]

The Tories are not going to give in to clegg over PR. Ultimately Clegg has no choice but to either form a coalition with the Conservatives or allow the Conservatives to run as a minority government. Labour cannot deliver PR for the simple reason that all the Tories + enough Labour MP's would defeat the motion so there would be no point in forming a minority coalition with Labour.

 

David cameron is going to be Prime Minister and the best the Liberals can hope for is a few concessions on some policies and a couple of cabinet places. PR ain't gonna happen.

[sadoldgit]

The Tories are not going to give in to clegg over PR. Ultimately Clegg has no choice but to either form a coalition with the Conservatives or allow the Conservatives to run as a minority government. Labour cannot deliver PR for the simple reason that all the Tories + enough Labour MP's would defeat the motion so there would be no point in forming a minority coalition with Labour.

 

David cameron is going to be Prime Minister and the best the Liberals can hope for is a few concessions on some policies and a couple of cabinet places. PR ain't gonna happen.

 

I think that you will find that people are fed up with the disproportion between votes cast and seats. David Camerson will not be PM for very long if he does go ahead on his own and will do well to listen to the will of the people.

[trousers]

Tories got 36% of the votes and got 47% of the seats in the commons

 

labour got 29 % of the votes and got 40% of the seats

 

lib dems got 23 % of the votes and got less than 9% of the seats

Does anyone have a similar breakdown based on just votes in England?

[Joensuu]

Does anyone have a similar breakdown based on just votes in England?

 

In England:

 

Con 39.6% of the vote vs 55.8% of seats

Lab 28.1% of the vote vs 35.9% of seats

Lib 24.2% of the vote vs 8.1% of seats

[Joensuu]

The Tories are not going to give in to clegg over PR. Ultimately Clegg has no choice but to either form a coalition with the Conservatives or allow the Conservatives to run as a minority government. Labour cannot deliver PR for the simple reason that all the Tories + enough Labour MP's would defeat the motion so there would be no point in forming a minority coalition with Labour.

 

David cameron is going to be Prime Minister and the best the Liberals can hope for is a few concessions on some policies and a couple of cabinet places. PR ain't gonna happen.

 

Clegg won't last long as party leader if he doesn't get PR. The members of the Lib Dems dont' care about having cabinet members, or agreement on any other issue. Only getting PR passed as law will be enough.

 

The Liberals need to get not just the flimsy agreement to throw a referendum, they need the party agreeing to the concession to be whipped into supporting both the public campaign, and the passage of the law through the commons.

 

Don't forget all the nationalists want PR too, so the SNP, PC, SDLP and Liberals will all agree to the same concession from a Labour government - ensure PR passes into legislation.

 

Clegg has too much to lose from allowing Cameron to govern.

[Wes Tender]

Does anyone have a similar breakdown based on just votes in England?

 

This is a very interesting article giving the figures and also arguing that there will be an impetus for the break up of the union, or at least a movement gathering momentum towards an English Parliament.

 

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/facts-and-ficgures-on-fragmentation-of-uk

[dune]

I think that you will find that people are fed up with the disproportion between votes cast and seats. David Camerson will not be PM for very long if he does go ahead on his own and will do well to listen to the will of the people.

 

Who are you to presume to know the will of the people???

 

Weren't the Liberals on 29-31% in the polls right up until polling day???

 

What went wrong???

 

Do you think that maybe the electorate dumped them because they wanted a new government???

 

If voters had wanted a weak political system where every election result was a hung patliament they would have stuck with the Liberals and the Liberals would have achieved 29-31%, but the Liberals vote crashed so what does that tell you???

 

The only people crying are the Liberals, the rest of us just want a strong majority governemt to run the country.

 

It's Clegg that is defying the will of the people by dilly dallying when our nation is in economic peril. If there is a run on the pound make no mistake it will be the Liberals fault and the longer and more protacted the horse trading becomes the more the public will realise that "balanced" parliaments are bad and therefore the more they'll realise that the PR syatem would be bad for Britain because every election would deliver instability.

Edited 10 May, 2010 by dune

[buctootim]

the longer and more protacted the horse trading becomes the more the public will realise that "balanced" parliaments are bad

 

lol. You do realise that the point of democracy is to have a parliament which reflects the votes cast?

[dune]

Clegg won't last long as party leader if he doesn't get PR. The members of the Lib Dems dont' care about having cabinet members, or agreement on any other issue. Only getting PR passed as law will be enough.

 

The Liberals need to get not just the flimsy agreement to throw a referendum, they need the party agreeing to the concession to be whipped into supporting both the public campaign, and the passage of the law through the commons.

 

Don't forget all the nationalists want PR too, so the SNP, PC, SDLP and Liberals will all agree to the same concession from a Labour government - ensure PR passes into legislation.

 

Clegg has too much to lose from allowing Cameron to govern.

 

You ain't gonna get PR. It really is as simple as that. Move on.

[dune]

lol. You do realise that the point of democracy is to have a parliament which reflects the votes cast?

 

I realise that Britain is on the brink of economic meltdown and that the public want a government to deal with this issue. The economy is the big issue in the real world.

[Joensuu]

You ain't gonna get PR. It really is as simple as that. Move on.

 

I hope for sake of democracy you're wrong. Clegg has to play his card right, but if he settles for anything less than a public vote with capped campaign budget, and the campaigning support of whichever party he agrees to join, he will have let down his party and lost millions of voters.

[Joensuu]

Who are you to presume to know the will of the people???

 

Weren't the Liberals on 29-31% in the polls right up until polling day???

 

What went wrong???

 

Do you think that maybe the electorate dumped them because they wanted a new government???

 

If voters had wanted a weak political system where every election result was a hung patliament they would have stuck with the Liberals and the Liberals would have achieved 29-31%, but the Liberals vote crashed so what does that tell you???

 

The only people crying are the Liberals, the rest of us just want a strong majority governemt to run the country.

 

It's Clegg that is defying the will of the people by dilly dallying when our nation is in economic peril. If there is a run on the pound make no mistake it will be the Liberals fault and the longer and more protacted the horse trading becomes the more the public will realise that "balanced" parliaments are bad and therefore the more they'll realise that the PR syatem would be bad for Britain because every election would deliver instability.

 

Blimey, you sound genuinely concerned.

 

I'd say that 5% who wanted to vote Lib Dem gritted their teeth and were forced to tactically vote Labour. Either way, the majority of the electorate voted to keep the Tories out, despite the worst Prime Minister, the worst recession in 50 years, unpopular wars etc... It just goes to show how unpopular the Tories actually are.

[Joensuu]

I realise that Britain is on the brink of economic meltdown and that the public want a government to deal with this issue. The economy is the big issue in the real world.

 

The three strategies for dealing with the economy were broadly the same. The cut now, cut later stuff was just rhetoric. The Tories would (will?) take months to understand the books before they make serious cuts. And both Labour and Lib Dems would have had to have brought the cuts in earlier than their own voters would have liked. Essentially, the economy will be tackled in broadly the same way whoever governs.

 

If we take that as a starting point, lets think about the next big issue, reforming the process of electing our government so that it's even vaguely democratic.

[dune]

I hope for sake of democracy you're wrong. Clegg has to play his card right, but if he settles for anything less than a public vote with capped campaign budget, and the campaigning support of whichever party he agrees to join, he will have let down his party and lost millions of voters.

 

Clegg may well get support from the desperate Mr Brown, but if he goes with Brown he'll be propping up a minority government that the public don't want and it'll be catastophe for the economy. And in any case he won't get PR because Labour won't be able whip suffient MP's to support the motion and those Labour MP's + the Tories would be enough to defeat the motion. Get in the real world. Clegg has two choices - join the Tories and get a couple of seats in govt. or allow the Tories to form a minority govt. and support them in their economic policies. Forming a pact with Labour would be economic and political suicide for him, his party and most importantly for the country. A new election would have to be called (with no PR) and the Liberals and Labour would feal the wrath of the electorate for defying their will at this election.

Edited 10 May, 2010 by dune

[badgerx16]

I realise that Britain is on the brink of economic meltdown and that the public want a government to deal with this issue.

Well, the public have 'spoken', and look what they wanted ! The majority REJECTED DC, ( as well as rejecting GB, and even NC ).

 

( "You choose your leaders and place your trust

As their lies put you down and their promises rust

You'll see kidney machine replaced by rockets and guns

 

And the public wants what the public gets

..............................." )

The Jam - Going Underground

Edited 10 May, 2010 by badgerx16

[Joensuu]

Clegg may well get support from the desperate Mr Brown, but if he goes with Brown he'll be propping up a minority government that the public don't want and it'll be catastophe for the economy. And in any case he won't get PR because Labour won't be able whip suffient MP's to support the motion and those Labour MP's + the Tories would be enough to defeat the motion. Get in the real world. Clegg has two choices - join the Tories and get a couple of seats in govt. or allow the Tories to form a minority govt. and support them in their economic policies. Forming a pact with Labour would be economic and political suicide for him, his party and most importantly for the country.

 

Disagree. Whatever Clegg does will be fraught with risk. But joining the Tories will discredit him with his own voters and party. If you look at Lib Dem opinion polls, they are indicating a very high percentage of Lib Dems would be disgusted with any Tory deal. In short, going with the Tories would be the end of Cleggs effective leadership. I can see his party rebelling and voting against any Tory Queen's speech.

 

On the other hand, if he goes with Labour (but removes Brown), the Tory voters will be miffed, but the majority of Lib Dems, and the majority of the country will be much happier. Oh, and he would also get a realistic chance of putting PR to a public vote (albeit having to combat Ashcroft's undemocratic millions which would flood the country in an attempt to undermine democracy).

 

Clegg's hands are tied.

Edited 10 May, 2010 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

A new election would have to be called (with no PR) and the Liberals and Labour would feal the wrath of the electorate for defying their will at this election.

 

You would need to assume, that as a 'rainbow' coalition won't last long, that one of it's founding statements would be that they will put PR vote to the country, and once past call a new election (with PR) withing 12 weeks. In the meantime manage the economy in the best interests of the country.

 

If the public are told of the gameplan, then there won't be pressure on the coalition to hold, as it's already established it's own end date.

[dune]

On the other hand, if he goes with Labour (but removes Brown), the Tory voters will be miffed, but the majority of Lib Dems, and the majority of the country will be much happier. Oh, and he would also get a realistic chance of putting PR to a public vote (albeit having to combat Ashcroft's undemocratic millions which would flood the country in an attempt to undermine democracy).

 

Get real. The public don't want a Labour governement. The public (especially in England) want a Conservative govt. If the Liberals form a pact with Labour it'll be a minority govt and it'll be a disater in the economic storm and I tell you what the Lib Dem voters in the Lib-Con marginals (got any %ages as to what proportion of seats this is) will be furious and your party will be destroyed at a future election, and make no mistake the Lib-Lab coalition won't last last long before the public get the chance to vent their fury.

[badgerx16]

Get real. The public don't want a Labour governement. The public (especially in England) want a Conservative govt. .

The statistics disprove your argument. It's 60-40 against the Tories in England.

[dune]

Look to seats like Winchester and Eastleigh, they're Tory seats that have dipped their toes into the Liberal bath, but they are historically Conservative seats. The vast vast bulk of Lib Dem seats are like Winchester and Eastleigh and if Clegg dares to form a pact with Labour it'll be total wipeout in the south for your party when the Lib-lab pact collapses.

 

The Liberals had better start using their brains and get behind the Conservatives or they'lll be very sorry.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You would need to assume, that as a 'rainbow' coalition won't last long, that one of it's founding statements would be that they will put PR vote to the country, and once past call a new election (with PR) withing 12 weeks. In the meantime manage the economy in the best interests of the country.

 

If the public are told of the gameplan, then there won't be pressure on the coalition to hold, as it's already established it's own end date.

 

Lord Steele was making the point this morning that you can not hold a referendum without putting it through Parliament first. This "Rainbow Coallition" of yours has a very slim majority, as a result of all of them losing seats in the latest election. They will need every Labour MP to vote for PR and there are plenty who oppose it. It will then need to go through the Lords who could block it.

 

The "rainbow coalition" members can not afford another election in 12 weeks as they're all skint.

 

There is no way a new voting system can be cobbled together and agreed in 12 weeks.

[dune]

Lord Steele was making the point this morning that you can not hold a referendum without putting it through Parliament first. This "Rainbow Coallition" of yours has a very slim majority, as a result of all of them losing seats in the latest election. They will need every Labour MP to vote for PR and there are plenty who oppose it. It will then need to go through the Lords who could block it.

 

The "rainbow coalition" members can not afford another election in 12 weeks as they're all skint.

 

There is no way a new voting system can be cobbled together and agreed in 12 weeks.

 

I don't see why the Liberals can't understand what we're saying. They're not in the real world if they think they can get PR through a Lib-Lab pact, they're not in the real world if they think they can form a lib-lab pact that won't collapse, they're not in the real world if they think the public won't give them a bloody nose in a subsequent election for siding with the party that lost.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The statistics disprove your argument. It's 60-40 against the Tories in England.

 

More people voted for the Torys in England than anyone else. They were the most popular party in England.

[badgerx16]

I don't see why the Liberals can't understand what we're saying. They're not in the real world if they think they can get PR through a Lib-Lab pact, they're not in the real world if they think they can form a lib-lab pact that won't collapse, they're not in the real world if they think the public won't give them a bloody nose in a subsequent election for siding with the party that lost.

The Lib-Lab pact, "Rainbow Alliance", or whatever you call it is a complete non-starter, stillborn, and should be buried quietly and swiftly ignored. ( There, does that help you ? ).

However, the Tories DO NOT HAVE A MANDATE ( have you got that yet ? ). It would appear that the right wing of the blue donkey party, together with the left wing of the red donkey party, are actually the ones who are out of touch with the electorate, and wish to cling to the status quo as it gives them the best chance of obtaining disproportionate power, and hence enhanced gorging rights on the gravy train.

Unless we revert to the way things worked in the strictly 2 party system of the 18th & early 19th centuries, politics in Britain has one hell of a lot of growing up to do. Why can't Westminster operate more in the fashion that the devolved legilatures do ?

[badgerx16]

More people voted for the Torys in England than anyone else. They were the most popular party in England.

True, but that just means they are slightly less unpopular than the others.

[Joensuu]

Get real. The public don't want a Labour governement. The public (especially in England) want a Conservative govt.

 

Get real. This election had Tory win all over it. The fact Cameron has failed can only mean one thing. The public don't want a Conservative government, but would prefer it to having Brown as PM. If the Labour party had gone to the electorate with virtually any other leader they would probably have gained the majority of the votes and seats.

 

Had the public wanted a conservative government, they would have voted one in (and not opted for the hung 'none of the above' option).

 

If the Liberals form a pact with Labour it'll be a minority govt and it'll be a disater in the economic storm and I tell you what the Lib Dem voters in the Lib-Con marginals (got any %ages as to what proportion of seats this is) will be furious and your party will be destroyed at a future election, and make no mistake the Lib-Lab coalition won't last last long before the public get the chance to vent their fury. [/QUote]

 

If Clegg gets PR through it won't matter what the marginal Lib-Con voters think. The Lib Dems share of the vote might half to 11% and they'd still have more seats in parliament. Quite simply, ensuring PR is more important than any believable amount of unpopularity forming a Lib-Lab coalition might bring. Let the swing voters vent their fury.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Get real. This election had Tory win all over it. The fact Cameron has failed can only mean one thing. The public don't want a Conservative government, but would prefer it to having Brown as PM. If the Labour party had gone to the electorate with virtually any other leader they would probably have gained the majority of the votes and seats.

 

.

 

They got the same vote as Labour in '05, but because the system is biased in Labour's favour, that resulted in a 64 seat Labour majority.

 

Labour lost close to 100 seats, got wiped out in most of the South and yet the Tory's lost

[Joensuu]

Lord Steele was making the point this morning that you can not hold a referendum without putting it through Parliament first. This "Rainbow Coallition" of yours has a very slim majority, as a result of all of them losing seats in the latest election. They will need every Labour MP to vote for PR and there are plenty who oppose it. It will then need to go through the Lords who could block it.

 

The "rainbow coalition" members can not afford another election in 12 weeks as they're all skint.

 

There is no way a new voting system can be cobbled together and agreed in 12 weeks.

 

Good points. But it really is the only way the Liberals can force the introduction of a fairer voting system. There are many Labour MPs in favour (only the most extreme 'Labout till I die' MPs would publically dare to vote against needed reform). The DUP, and some of the more liberal Tories are also in favour of introducing PR. Also if the public has voted in a referendum, it would a brave party to then block the legislation.

 

If they get PR, then the "rainbow" parties don't need to even care about spending anything on the next election. If they each loose all of their swing voters they will increase their number of seats. Job done.

 

12 weeks is admittedly optimistic. Ideally if the big parties were fair, the country could wait longer while the reform was planned and introduced. Unfortunately the big parties continue to put retaining power above democracy.

[Joensuu]

I don't see why the Liberals can't understand what we're saying. They're not in the real world if they think they can get PR through a Lib-Lab pact, they're not in the real world if they think they can form a lib-lab pact that won't collapse, they're not in the real world if they think the public won't give them a bloody nose in a subsequent election for siding with the party that lost.

 

PR might, just might, be possible via a Lib-Lab pact. It won't be easy, but its certainly worth taking the chance, because if it's successful it will give our country a taste of democracy.

 

Yes, the coalition will collapse, and yes the swing voters might try to give the Lib/Lab/SNP/PC/SDLP parties a bloody nose. But if they have introduced PR it really won't draw blood.

[Joensuu]

They got the same vote as Labour in '05, but because the system is biased in Labour's favour, that resulted in a 64 seat Labour majority.

 

Labour lost close to 100 seats, got wiped out in most of the South and yet the Tory's lost

 

Agreed. The electoral system is broken. Lets force the big parties to accept the democratic change that they are so reluctant to give us.

[dune]

If Clegg gets PR through it won't matter what the marginal Lib-Con voters think. The Lib Dems share of the vote might half to 11% and they'd still have more seats in parliament. Quite simply, ensuring PR is more important than any believable amount of unpopularity forming a Lib-Lab coalition might bring. Let the swing voters vent their fury.

 

PR is not the big issue. It might be to you and it might be to other minority parties, but it's not the big issue to the electorate. If it was such a big issue and the public had really wanted a hung patliament the Liberal vote would not have collapsed. On polling day the Liberal vote went up by 1% when all polls said you'd be getting an 8% rise. Your party made no tangible ground in this election despite Cleggmania.

 

You really need to get PR out of your heads because it's not going to happen. Labour can't deliver it and the Conservatives won't deliver it.

Edited 10 May, 2010 by dune

[dune]

PR might, just might, be possible via a Lib-Lab pact. It won't be easy, but its certainly worth taking the chance, because if it's successful it will give our country a taste of democracy.

 

Yes, the coalition will collapse, and yes the swing voters might try to give the Lib/Lab/SNP/PC/SDLP parties a bloody nose. But if they have introduced PR it really won't draw blood.

 

Arrrrrrgh, get it into your head that Labour cannot deliver PR because the Tories + The DUP + more than enough Labour MP's would throw the motion out. It's impossible to get PR through a Lib-Lab pact.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wish people would stop using the general term PR. What type of PR do they want?

 

Do they want pure PR where the % of the vote is equal to the seats you get. In this case it'll see the end of constituency based MP's, with MP's selected from Party lists. You could not kick out Jackie Smith, or Neil Hamilton, there would be no more Portillo moments.Also certain areas of the Country will be under represented, the west country or Scottish Highlands could be forgotton about, as they're votes wont matter. Parties can concentrate their policies to the high population urban areas and big cities.

 

If you want to maintain constituency based MP's then there will always be an element of unfairness in the system. I have an open mind and can be persuaded of a change to the system, however I believe we must have the option of kicking out local MP's and have the option of local independants standing on local issues (I forget his name,but there was an MP elected fighting against closure of his local hospital), we mess with hundreds of years of a constituency based system at our peril.

[OLYMPIC]

Now i was just listening to the BBC news and some expert on there said that even if the Conservatives or Labour agreed to have a referendum on PR it would take about 3-4 years to get to the stage of a public vote.

Also if it went to a public vote would you have to have safeguards in place just in case there was a very low turn out to vote on it,i mean you could not justify changing the electoral system if only a few % of the public bothered to vote on it.

If it did take as suggested 3-4 years to get to the stage of a vote i don't think it would matter because whoever gets the Lib Dem support will do all they can to improve their party standing so they can have a General election and be shot of the Libs.

[Joensuu]

PR is not the big issue. It might be to you and it might be to other minority parties, but it's not the big issue to the electorate. If it was such a big issue and the public had really wanted a hung patliament the Liberal vote would not have collapsed. On polling day the Liberal vote went up by 1% when all polls said you'd be getting an 8% rise. Your party made no tangible ground in this election despite Cleggmania.

 

You really need to get PR out of your heads because it's not going to happen. Labour can't deliver it and the Conservatives won't deliver it.

 

Largest number of Liberal votes and the highest % of liberal votes in over 80 years, and you think the inaccurate pre-election polls are important?

 

Whether it succeeds or not, this is the best chance in generations for the country to get a fair democratic system.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Whether it succeeds or not, this is the best chance in generations for the country to get a fair democratic system.

 

Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me.

[dune]

The biggest problem with PR is that it will mean the end of majority governments and the aftermath of every election will be just like the here and now.

[Joensuu]

I wish people would stop using the general term PR. What type of PR do they want?

 

Do they want pure PR where the % of the vote is equal to the seats you get. In this case it'll see the end of constituency based MP's, with MP's selected from Party lists. You could not kick out Jackie Smith, or Neil Hamilton, there would be no more Portillo moments.Also certain areas of the Country will be under represented, the west country or Scottish Highlands could be forgotton about, as they're votes wont matter. Parties can concentrate their policies to the high population urban areas and big cities.

 

If you want to maintain constituency based MP's then there will always be an element of unfairness in the system. I have an open mind and can be persuaded of a change to the system, however I believe we must have the option of kicking out local MP's and have the option of local independants standing on local issues (I forget his name,but there was an MP elected fighting against closure of his local hospital), we mess with hundreds of years of a constituency based system at our peril.

 

Personally, national STV, with a democratic method (preferably public vote) of determining party lists. Consitutencies don't have many advantages. If your local MP opposes an issue you hold dearly, you can't find representation in the Commons; if there were no consituencies you could look towards any MP to support your local cause. Contary to belief, removing consituencies could actually increase the ability for politicians to address local issues.

[Joensuu]

The biggest problem with PR is that it will mean the end of majority governments and the aftermath of every election will be just like the here and now.

 

Works fine across the majority of Europe. Why not here?

[dune]

Largest number of Liberal votes and the highest % of liberal votes in over 80 years, and you think the inaccurate pre-election polls are important?

 

Whether it succeeds or not, this is the best chance in generations for the country to get a fair democratic system.

 

If you want strong majority governments then the current system is the best. It can be tweaked, and i'm sure David Cameron is willing for some changes to be made. I support UKIP and PR would deliver us seats, but i'm not selfish like the Liberals and I recognise that having strong majority governments is best for Britain.

[Joensuu]

Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me.

 

One where the number of representatives elected is in proportion to the number of votes cast. I.e. fair.

[dune]

Works fine across the majority of Europe. Why not here?

 

What about Belgium? Hasn't their coalition just collapsed? I just don't want it because I believe that strong majority governments are best.

[buctootim]

Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me.

 

As you know, there are lots of fairer and more democratic systems, without breaking the constituency link. If the Tories, Labour and LDs had all got an equal 33.3% of the votes Labour would have had far more seats than the Tories and both would have had far more than the LDs. Just because no system is perfect doesnt mean you stick with the worst option.

[Lord Duckhunter]

As you know, there are lots of fairer and more democratic systems, without breaking the constituency link. If the Tories, Labour and LDs had all got an equal 33.3% of the votes Labour would have had far more seats than the Tories and both would have had far more than the LDs. Just because no system is perfect doesnt mean you stick with the worst option.

You still haven't answered the question, please explain your "fair" system.

[dune]

As you know, there are lots of fairer and more democratic systems, without breaking the constituency link. If the Tories, Labour and LDs had all got an equal 33.3% of the votes Labour would have had far more seats than the Tories and both would have had far more than the LDs. Just because no system is perfect doesnt mean you stick with the worst option.

 

What is the likelihood that Proportional Representation would deliver a majority government In Briatin?

[Lord Duckhunter]

One where the number of representatives elected is in proportion to the number of votes cast. I.e. fair.

 

So you will do away with the constituency based system?

[Joensuu]

If you want strong majority governments then the current system is the best. It can be tweaked, and i'm sure David Cameron is willing for some changed to be made. I support UKIP and PR would deliver us seats, but i'm not selfish like the Liberals and I recognise that having strong majority governments is best for Britain.

 

 

'Strong majority' government tend to mean that every time the governments change all of the diputed policies are reversed. If you need concesus to get a law passed, you essentially need to pass a law the majority find acceptable. As such, while more extremists are in PR parliaments, only the most balanced of laws tend to be passed. For example, under PR we would have been far less likely to have entered Iraq.

 

I'd rather have a rational, considered, balanced, representative government, than a 'strong' one.