Campaigning backbench MP Alex Sobel and Darren Hughes of the Electoral Reform Society talk to the Byline Times Podcast about the need to make Parliament more accurately reflect our votes.
It's not true that the UK "overwhelmingly rejected Proportional Representation in a referendum 2011"--because the UK was not given a PR system to vote for: although, wanted by the LibDems, this had been a condition of forming a coalition government with the Tories.
Instead Cameron acted in bad faith by fudging the issue: offering the UK public a referendum on the "Alternative Vote" system--which is not PR.
AV had been rejected in a 1998 report by the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform, because "so far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, [AV] is capable of substantially adding to it".
AV was also described by Roy Jenkins as "disturbingly unpredictable" and "unacceptably unfair".
And I remember AV as being very badly explained in the 2011 referendum advice: enough to put anyone off voting for it--as probably intended.
It was the Jenkins Commission which instead came up with a recommended AV+ or "Supplementary Vote" system that Andy Burnham is now proposing.
It was not Proportional Representation, that we had a vote on, it was on some Clegg mash up called the Alternative voting Method. It was sold to us as a halfway house towards fair elections! Who knows why people voted against it, but I think there was total dismay that we, the electorate, were not being offered a proportional representation. People might have rejected it because it was shit. Clegg blew it for all of us and put back any chance of reform, on the back burner for the foreseeable future. What a dick that man was.
Thanks Jane. One of the difficulties with the debate is that ‘PR’ is used as a catch-all term for electoral reform. Andy Burnham, for example, has reignited the debate around this but his proposal for a ‘supplementary vote’ isn’t quite the same as proportional representation. Appreciate your feedback.
I agree, andy Burnham won’t win unless he is going to bring radical change. I also agree that proportional representation needs carefully defining as you are right, there a few different versions to choose from and I expect none of them are perfect. Having lived in scotland for thirty years, I grew used to putting a number next to as many candidates as I wanted, in order of preference. It seems to work well in scotland.
Nothing less than radical, is going to cut it in this country. We need so many reforms, beyond a new voting system. I say we need to move our parliament to the north and get them out of their colonial palaces and going to work in the real world. We need them to lead by example and move into a carbon neutral building, with new rules for politicians and smaller salaries. We have too many people using politics as a means to get rich, by having vested interests that go undeclared. One of the biggest problems we face is that we have no enforcement or proper regulators for arguably the biggest criminals of them all. They deliberately starve regulators of cash and purpose.(That is the people who contribute to the rogue group, that are not paying their tax.)
We lose approximately £122 billion every year in uncollected taxes. Nobody ever questions what the City of London police actually do with their working day. Financial crime apparently. To which my response is, ‘yes! You actually mean they buy a steady supply of cocaine on behalf of the politicians and bankers/ city gamblers, who make such good decisions, whilst consuming it, do they not? !!
It's not true that the UK "overwhelmingly rejected Proportional Representation in a referendum 2011"--because the UK was not given a PR system to vote for: although, wanted by the LibDems, this had been a condition of forming a coalition government with the Tories.
Instead Cameron acted in bad faith by fudging the issue: offering the UK public a referendum on the "Alternative Vote" system--which is not PR.
AV had been rejected in a 1998 report by the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform, because "so far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, [AV] is capable of substantially adding to it".
AV was also described by Roy Jenkins as "disturbingly unpredictable" and "unacceptably unfair".
And I remember AV as being very badly explained in the 2011 referendum advice: enough to put anyone off voting for it--as probably intended.
It was the Jenkins Commission which instead came up with a recommended AV+ or "Supplementary Vote" system that Andy Burnham is now proposing.
It was not Proportional Representation, that we had a vote on, it was on some Clegg mash up called the Alternative voting Method. It was sold to us as a halfway house towards fair elections! Who knows why people voted against it, but I think there was total dismay that we, the electorate, were not being offered a proportional representation. People might have rejected it because it was shit. Clegg blew it for all of us and put back any chance of reform, on the back burner for the foreseeable future. What a dick that man was.
Thanks Jane. One of the difficulties with the debate is that ‘PR’ is used as a catch-all term for electoral reform. Andy Burnham, for example, has reignited the debate around this but his proposal for a ‘supplementary vote’ isn’t quite the same as proportional representation. Appreciate your feedback.
I agree, andy Burnham won’t win unless he is going to bring radical change. I also agree that proportional representation needs carefully defining as you are right, there a few different versions to choose from and I expect none of them are perfect. Having lived in scotland for thirty years, I grew used to putting a number next to as many candidates as I wanted, in order of preference. It seems to work well in scotland.
Nothing less than radical, is going to cut it in this country. We need so many reforms, beyond a new voting system. I say we need to move our parliament to the north and get them out of their colonial palaces and going to work in the real world. We need them to lead by example and move into a carbon neutral building, with new rules for politicians and smaller salaries. We have too many people using politics as a means to get rich, by having vested interests that go undeclared. One of the biggest problems we face is that we have no enforcement or proper regulators for arguably the biggest criminals of them all. They deliberately starve regulators of cash and purpose.(That is the people who contribute to the rogue group, that are not paying their tax.)
We lose approximately £122 billion every year in uncollected taxes. Nobody ever questions what the City of London police actually do with their working day. Financial crime apparently. To which my response is, ‘yes! You actually mean they buy a steady supply of cocaine on behalf of the politicians and bankers/ city gamblers, who make such good decisions, whilst consuming it, do they not? !!
Ive gone off piste with that comment. Sorry!