Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Electoral reform : Yes or No?
- Thread starter larus
- Start date
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Always find it interesting to listern to Hm Govt (red or blue) bang on about free and fair elections when ever they are involved in peace keeping and site P/R as the way forward ! Why not try it here ?
As an aside from the poll, I would be very interested to see what would happen to the LibDem vote once some form of PR had been acquired.
In recent elections the LibDems have benefitted from votes on this single issue. As an example, Billy Bragg, Armando Ianucci and Will Self have all stated that they have voted LibDem largely to force the issue of electoral reform onto the agenda. They have also received votes that have been granted to them tactically in order to achieve an outcome that the present system does not allow for.
Let us assume that the LibDems acquire some form of electoral reform. I could easily foresee their vote share tumbling. Firstly, tactical voting would cease to be such a necessity. Secondly, votes would be lost to single issue reformers.
There was much speculation as to why the LibDem vote tumbled in the final week of the campaign. I suspect that this was simply because their manifesto was scrutinised as never before. It would appear that many people who suggested to pollsters that they would vote LibDem thought otherwise once their policies were studied closely (i.e. the vote declined once the "protest" angle was discarded).
I am making no comment on the desirability or otherwise of both PR or the LibDems. I'm merely making an observation that I think is interesting.
In recent elections the LibDems have benefitted from votes on this single issue. As an example, Billy Bragg, Armando Ianucci and Will Self have all stated that they have voted LibDem largely to force the issue of electoral reform onto the agenda. They have also received votes that have been granted to them tactically in order to achieve an outcome that the present system does not allow for.
Let us assume that the LibDems acquire some form of electoral reform. I could easily foresee their vote share tumbling. Firstly, tactical voting would cease to be such a necessity. Secondly, votes would be lost to single issue reformers.
There was much speculation as to why the LibDem vote tumbled in the final week of the campaign. I suspect that this was simply because their manifesto was scrutinised as never before. It would appear that many people who suggested to pollsters that they would vote LibDem thought otherwise once their policies were studied closely (i.e. the vote declined once the "protest" angle was discarded).
I am making no comment on the desirability or otherwise of both PR or the LibDems. I'm merely making an observation that I think is interesting.
West Hoathly Seagull
Honorary Ruffian
I think the real disgrace from this election is, never mind the result, that large numbers of people were unable to vote. Something has clearly gone wrong in the Returning Officers' work. The turnout only rose to 65%. When Major got in in 1992, the turnout was 75% and in 1997 71 or 72% and none of those problems occurred. Perhaps Ed would like to comment on what happened, with his local government background. I wonder if it was the fact that so many district councils were voting on the same day. District councils are responsible for registering voters and running general elections in their area. I was telling in Battersea, and Wandsworth Council seemed to get it right in their area. Why couldn't the others?
As for PR, I don't think that it is a given that the Liberal Democrats would necessarily do that well under it. In the European election last year, they were down to something like 15%, and they were hammered in the GLA elections in London. Also, they are not united on economic policy. Clegg, David Laws, Vince Cable (though he sounded like a first rate socialist during the election campaign), and Steve Webb belong to something called the Orange Book group, whereas Baker, Simon Hughes and others are in the Beveridge group. The former favour free market economics (Michael Gove, the Tory Education spokesman, has said he could easily work with David Laws), whereas the latter favour government intervention. Also, some Tories could easily defect to UKIP, who would probably get considerable numbers of MPs under PR. What is my view? Well, if there had been a large increase in the Liberal Democrat vote, then clearly there would have been a very strong case for PR. As it was, the Lib Dems barely increased their vote and actually fell back against the Tories in most of England. What is clear to me is that the Labour Party has no mandate to stay in government, but if the other two parties, especially the Tories, are rigid and refuse to compromise, they will get what they deserve. Apparently 86% of their membership want to go it alone. I must be in the 14%, as that is clearly not in the interest of the country at the moment.
As for PR, I don't think that it is a given that the Liberal Democrats would necessarily do that well under it. In the European election last year, they were down to something like 15%, and they were hammered in the GLA elections in London. Also, they are not united on economic policy. Clegg, David Laws, Vince Cable (though he sounded like a first rate socialist during the election campaign), and Steve Webb belong to something called the Orange Book group, whereas Baker, Simon Hughes and others are in the Beveridge group. The former favour free market economics (Michael Gove, the Tory Education spokesman, has said he could easily work with David Laws), whereas the latter favour government intervention. Also, some Tories could easily defect to UKIP, who would probably get considerable numbers of MPs under PR. What is my view? Well, if there had been a large increase in the Liberal Democrat vote, then clearly there would have been a very strong case for PR. As it was, the Lib Dems barely increased their vote and actually fell back against the Tories in most of England. What is clear to me is that the Labour Party has no mandate to stay in government, but if the other two parties, especially the Tories, are rigid and refuse to compromise, they will get what they deserve. Apparently 86% of their membership want to go it alone. I must be in the 14%, as that is clearly not in the interest of the country at the moment.
We have to go compulsory voting first...