We'll never get the "best person for the job"

Jock — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:19:23 +0000

Of course with FPTP and the party candidate selection systems we don't get the "best person for the job" we get the person the winning party in any constituency puts up as their only candidate. At least a multi-member system with preferential voting would enable us to choose from those each party selected with perhaps different personal characteristics and leanings within a party's policy framework. Who knows, one could perhaps elect a Labour government but one made up of Labour candidates/MPs who don't support ID cards or some other major plank of policy.

Not that I suspect for one minute that the control freaks in New Labour would put up candidates who disagreed with majors parts of their authoritarian agenda!

Arguing that PR may be motivated by a desire to shore up a rump Labour government as the Times does is just wrong though - it's all about democracy stoopid!

Strong government

Tristan Mills — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:04:54 +0000

The 'received wisdom' however is that we need strong government. How else are we meant to function without those great statesmen and politicians to guide us and to manage the economy and society?

It was Jack Straw arguing against PR along those lines which converted me in one fell swoop to the idea. When you have people like that arguing for strong government so they can do what they like why don't more people run screaming?
Perhaps there's also some belief that politicians must be the best for the job if they've been elected (indeed, the number of times I've heard this argument is far too many).

The Times doesn't get PR

Jock — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:55:21 +0000

There used to be a rather insulting saying about PR systems that "if the Irish could understand it why shouldn't we". The Times' leader article today proves they still can't:

Vote of No Confidence -Times Online:

This is the nub of the issue. The current electoral system has the drawback of giving the largest single minority at Westminster an extremely large share of political power. Yet proportional representation would mean that much smaller minorities would wield undue influence, as without them it would not be possible to form a stable administration. Would this constitute progress?

It is not surprising, therefore, that the official Review of Voting Systems could not work up any enthusiasm for overhauling the current system. What is more intriguing is why the 110-page report has not seen the light of day until this morning. There has to be the suspicion that Labour, aware that at some point it might need the assistance of the Liberal Democrats to survive in office, is unwilling to offend its potential partners by publishing a document which is so damning of their pet project. Sustaining a dubious deal at a later date is surely the worst argument for PR.

Drawback? Drawback? It's a fecking democratic outrage, that's what it is! How can anyone vest so much power in an individual like a Blair, a Brown, a Cameron or, one day again, a Campbell on the mandate, at the last count, of just a quarter of the voting age population? It's almost as repugnant as that other scenario that sees a Chavez, Mugabe or Hussein elected on huge rigged votes. Come to think about it, even Mugabe is more sophisticated than that, allowing his opposition to win seats in parliament but reserving a presidential right to appoint as many more as will give him a decent majority (but then Blair had his peers I suppose, just to make sure). No, I take it back, Mugabe would just love the British system.

As to whether any particular form of PR would produce a situation in which "much smaller minorities would wield undue influence" that's so much tommy rot too. They cite Scotland's teething problems with PR, but it hasn't prevented a minority government being formed at Holyrood, and looking abroad, is Germany some unstable state? The Netherlands? Or that economic powerhouse of the EU, Ireland? Or any of the other big democracies that use fairer voting systems? Italy is corrupt from top to bottom it seems and Israel's very birth as a state almost made sure that certain minorities would hold undue influence.

Let's not forget that when "we" had the opportunity to sit down and draw up constitutions and electoral systems for two effectively new countries after the war, Japan and Germany, we didn't choose to foist our decrepit system on them, and look at how they have by and large shone since then.

But for me, the irony of this sort of whining from organs like the Times is that surely they would normally be crying out for less government. If PR delivers a legislature in which little can be done wouldn't that be a good thing, especially for lovers of the status quo? No more far reaching change wreaked by a minority party with a huge majority in the legislature and total control of the executive. A situation where all parties would need to agree in order to do anything significant - that's real democracy, surely.

For me, there is the tantalizing prospect, most of all, that we would see the bigger parties dissolve into their constituent parts - Cameron Tories and the Libertarian Right, Old and New Labour, Orange Liberals and Social Democrats and we would all get a chance to prioritize the traits we want in individual candidates. Of course I simply loathe Westminster and the overbearing presence it has in our lives, but for me, second only to dissolving Westminster and Whitehall altogether would be a system that makes it as hamstrung and impotent as possible, only able to do something when all our various persuasions of politicians actually agree on it.

Jock's Place - The Times doesn't get PR - Comments

We'll never get the "best person for the job"

Strong government

The Times doesn't get PR