Political Crossfire Forums

[antonio62]

Dose it need to be reformed? I think yes because Labour get about 36% of the vote and have a 66 seat majority in the House of Commons. How is that fair. We need a system of proportional representation which would also stop Scotland having such a disproportionate power in deciding who wins.

[Kal'thzar]

Scotland gets a disproportiante say in what happens because of Thatcher, and the years round then, when the Labour stronghold in the whole nation was Scotland, with fewer seats anywhere else.

Thus because the amount of Conservatives Mps in scotland is so much lower in comparison to the amount of Labour MPs, its seems worse than it is. (what i'm trying to say is, if roughly equal, according to national avegages of Labour to Conservatives were voted in it wouldn't seem that bad. Then again i also think you need to devolves some power to England. Build the devolved parliment somewhere in the north, then i can watch the north and the south split itself apart :p)

[Windy]

Of course it does, there are more Tory voters in Liverpool than the home counties and yet there are no Tory MPs in Liverpool.

I would favour some type of regional Top-up system so for example the people in the inner cities who vote Tory acutally get an MP to represent them and vice-visa for the countryside.

[Jajo]

antonio62 wrote: Dose it need to be reformed? I think yes because Labour get about 36% of the vote and have a 66 seat majority in the House of Commons. How is that fair. We need a system of proportional representation which would also stop Scotland having such a disproportionate power in deciding who wins.

It would not need reforming if we were to prevent the other home countries voting in the house on matters that are English in the same way the English MPs can not vote on domestic matters in Scotland.

I do not like the idea of full blown PR because it would mean that you would vote for a party not a candidate and as I dislike party politics anything that further helps it is a bad idea in my books. We would have to have a system (if it was implemented) like the one in Scotland where you get the first past the post in all the regions PR system which reflects the over all mood of the country. Despite saying that I am happy with the current system what I would have is a much fairer boundary system, which does not give the traditional labour voter an advantage as they are less likely to turn out (I did read that in the Spectator though, so I am not sure how true it is but they are not going to lie).

[thundertaker]

The Jenkins commission reccomended Alternative Vote Plus, a mixture of PR and FPTP which gives each constituency an MP elected directly by the people (and also takes into consideration people's second and third chocies), plus a 'top up' of MPs based on percentage share of their parties' vote.
However, the government has so far ignored it's reccomendations, as will the Tory party if it ever get's into power. The Lib Dems would be the main beneficiaries of AV+, and neither of the two major parties are willing to implement a system that will be detrimental to their interests which are best served by the current FPTP system......

[Pebble]

I'm more in favour of Mixed Member Proportionality, very similar to AV+ I believe. You have one vote for your local MP and one for the party you want. Then they top up.

I don't think a move towards full PR would be a good idea as it would remove the onus on local MPs, devolution of power in local matters is much better.

When the half the voters in this country do not count something has to be done...but as you say, who would be kind enough to shelve their advantage?

[Snow Patrol]

As has been mentioned by a number of people already, the goal would some kind of FPTP/PR mix as full PR is even worse than full FPTP. Also as i've said on previous occasions, i like the part AMS system used for the Scottish parliamentry election.

[JDnCoke]

Devolution. Central government at Westminster would have extranational powers, but perhaps regional, perhaps county level governments would have control and taxation, health, education and other public services; if they choose to have them. There would be an extremely low flat tax to pay for the State government, which would have no powers to interfere with regional matters.

The system would be similar to the Canton system in Switzerland, the regional goverments (cantons) would hold all powers not specifically delegated to the federation. Westminster would be a bicameral parliament as it is now, however both Houses will have equal powers and equal rights to produce legislation (for the purpose of simplicity I'm still going to call Britain's upper house the House of Lords, but they will be elected members, not fools with wigs on who talk shop).

The House of Lords (upper house) would have (depending on size of population of the region) 2 or more Councillors sent from a region. The Councillors serve for four years, and are not bound in their vote to instructions from the regional authorities. The mode of election is left to the regions. For example, the "Liverpool" region could elect using PR, London could use majority. In Switzerland the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden actually has a physically convened popular assembly (Landsgemeinde).

The House of Commons (lower house) would be exactly the same as the current system, with the AV+ system. This way, we can have more choice, more competition and above all more democracy. It won't be the current system of elect for 4-5 years on a pack of lies and watch the Sons of b*****s do jack s**t to what the promised.

[thundertaker]

The Lords should NOT be elected. They are a revising chamber, their role is to scrutinise government legislation and send it back if it has shortcomings. We need experts from all walks of life to go into that role, not another chamber full of baby-kissing politicians more concerned about looking popular than serving the interests of the nation......

[Jajo]

I agree the House of Lords does not need to be elected it should revise and Bill that is passed its way from the Commons, all the people appointed should be paid the same as an MP and be seen as if they were another type of civil servant. All people appointed should be experts in a field an assigned to a department pertaining to that expertise. The only problem I have with this model is what could be done if the goverment does not want to listen to the Lords should the Lords be able to block legislation? or should it be hard to pass something without the Lords agreement? or should the Commons have final say? in which case all we would have created is a talking shop.

As for regional devolution I disagree, we should have devolution to the source, in the case of Education the school and in Heath the hospitals. If we are devolving to local authorities I do not see what good that would bring us for al we would be doing is substituting one government that needs to comprise due to variation for another. An example I can give is that a school that is full of mainly middle class students is going to have to approach education in a different way to one which is full of people taken the more deprived areas of the country, such differing schools would exist inside local boundaries and we would still have the same problems we have with national government.

[the_doctor]

antonio62 wrote: Dose it need to be reformed? I think yes because Labour get about 36% of the vote and have a 66 seat majority in the House of Commons. How is that fair. We need a system of proportional representation which would also stop Scotland having such a disproportionate power in deciding who wins.

I think neither Labour or the Conservatives are interested PR because they are more likely to lose seats to the Liberal Democrats and the British political system could move into a more 3 horse race rather than 2.

[Pebble]

the_doctor wrote: antonio62 wrote: Dose it need to be reformed? I think yes because Labour get about 36% of the vote and have a 66 seat majority in the House of Commons. How is that fair. We need a system of proportional representation which would also stop Scotland having such a disproportionate power in deciding who wins.

I think neither Labour or the Conservatives are interested PR because they are more likely to lose seats to the Liberal Democrats and the British political system could move into a more 3 horse race rather than 2.

That's it in a nutshell.

Neither of those two will consider reform until it's forced down their throats on the matter. Neither would willingly give up power.

[Jajo]

Pebble wrote: the_doctor wrote: antonio62 wrote: Dose it need to be reformed? I think yes because Labour get about 36% of the vote and have a 66 seat majority in the House of Commons. How is that fair. We need a system of proportional representation which would also stop Scotland having such a disproportionate power in deciding who wins.

I think neither Labour or the Conservatives are interested PR because they are more likely to lose seats to the Liberal Democrats and the British political system could move into a more 3 horse race rather than 2.

That's it in a nutshell.

Neither of those two will consider reform until it's forced down their throats on the matter. Neither would willingly give up power.
This is a very cynical way of putting it, I could be a prospective liberal voter (it would depend on the person who was running and what sort of liberal they were) and i do not support it in anyway. You seem to be just as bad in supporting it just because it would give the Liberals a better chance, how is that better than the supposed view of the other two parties?

[bob.appleyard]

From my own perspective:

Advantages of the current system:

* Some degree of stability (whether that is a good thing or not)
* MPs subject to a specific part of the country

Disadvantages:

* Large parts of the country are disenfranchised (leading to frankly bizarre election results at times)
* the upper chamber remains wholly undemocratic

There are also issues surrounding party/person, which other have alluded to. My own suggestion would be something along the lines of making the lower house PR and the upper house elected roughly along the lines which the lower house is now. That will never happen, of course.