« David Lipsey opens debate in the Lords | Main | Those sub-committee members in full »
May 27, 2005
Accept no imitations
Hi blog-fans!
It’s me, the real Paul Davies, back from a rather delightful little sojourn into the armpit of eastern Europe, Prague: capital of the Czech Republic and fitting cultural and architectural amalgam of all the countries that have kicked its pretty little pacifist behind about over the centuries.
It is also, thankfully, a place where no-one has even heard of Southampton FC, let alone could give a toss about such overblown matters like relegation. And with the beer being so cheap, such an attitude soon mercifully rubs off.
Czechs are generally too busy dying their hair or smoking to care about electoral reform. That, and they’re just a bit boring – leftover communist repression no doubt. Either way, I may be a little out of touch for a while, so bear with me.
Since my return, and having now caught up on the sleep that a week on a sofa a full two easyJet-hours from my bed just doesn’t provide, I did happen across the disturbing fact that the cabinet’s own live-in whale, the antidote to English sensibilities, John 'Ooh! I’m scared' Prescott is to chair governmental talks about electoral reform. Shome mistake shurely? This has to be a cruel joke, no? and one as devilish as Dante and as shamelessly fanciful as the Da Vinci Code at that? Apparently not. Its actuality is an affront to all that is good and holy, sorry, all that pretends to be good and holy, about democracy.
Tony Blair has ruled over this country for the best part of a decade without ever really declaring an awful lot, he is the greased piglet after all; but talk about nailing your colours to the mast – appointing perhaps the most vociferous opponent of reform in the party – and without doubt the one least likely to listen to reason – to head up discussion about it? Gloomy pictures of reform as a Sisyphusean boulder being pushed up an insurmountable hill are taking eerie shape in my mind.
I can see the meeting now – juvenile John surrounded by eminently more intelligent and well-spoken people that can't help but stir the obese one's inherent feelings of inferiority…
Group: So, the thing is, first-past-the-post is so grossly unfair that it's a bit cheeky to call even call it democratic anymore, hence, change is really rather necessary and needs to be looked at in great detail with a real eye to doing something about it...
John (interrupting): Bollocks to that, anoraks. I'm off t'pub with Strawy, and for the record, there’ll be no more talk of this PR crap while I'm around.
I dearly hope I'm wrong.
Posted by pauldavies on May 27, 2005
Comments
I see from a report in the Independent that a government spokesperson is again representing AV as somehow an acceptable replacement for FPTP in general elections. Here is the relevant para:-
'Speaking for the Government in a debate on the electoral system, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, a Constitutional Affairs minister, appeared to suggest she was in favour of replacing the current first-past-the-post system with the Alternative Vote system (AV).
"I have seen AV operating in Australia and I think personally it is a very interesting approach," she said. Lady Ashton said the AV system, which allows voters to mark their preferences of candidates rather than ticking a single box, was a system that "people can understand".'
And here is what the ICPR had to say about AV in Australia:-
'In Australia, smaller parties such as the Democratic Labour Party and the Democrats have never managed to win a seat under AV though in some cases they have more votes than the UK Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, AV would perpetuate the geographical imbalances of first-past the- post. Large sections of the country would remain electoral deserts for parties and most existing safe seats would remain that way. (Page 43 Chapter 6)'
Posted by: Joe Patterson at May 27, 2005 10:53 AM
The thing about AV is that people see the whole ranking candidates thing, and think: good idea, no more need for this tactical voting nonsense.
The fact that AV still retains so many other faults presumably means that the supporters of AV simply haven't really thought it through - but if AV came on to the agenda, people would be forced to look at it properly, and decide that it can be improved.
Because of this, talk of AV shouldn't be stymied at the start - it could quite easily stimulate the debate we all want.
Posted by: Paul Davies at May 27, 2005 11:17 AM
Paul
Indeed they have not thought it through. All the more reason it seems to me why MVC and above all the ERS should be constantly pointing out that AV FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS is potentially worse than FPTP. The way things are going it looks as if we're going to get AV by default.
There seems an enormous amount of confusion about what is meant by "reform" and "proportional representation" (to use the latter in its broadest sense to include STV in optimum multi-member constituences and of course Jenkins). Even the Independent in yesterday's article said that John Prescott had agreed that the London mayor should be elected by "proportional representation" - which of course is plain nonsense.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at May 27, 2005 12:31 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
