« MVC media contacts | Main | Lords Questions on Speaker's Conference »
October 06, 2007
Don't marginalise those of us who don't live in marginals
Malcolm Clark, National Co-ordinator of Make Votes Count, responds to the ruling out of a November General Election:
“It is disappointing but no surprise that the tipping point for this election decision was the polling data from marginal seats; particularly that ICM poll of those 83 key seats. 83 out of 649 constituencies. So under 1 in 6. In other words over 5/6 of the electorate were ignored in this decision over the timing of an election .... as they would be by-and-large in any election campaign itself. No wonder many people often feel politicians and political parties aren't listening to them. The message seems to be 'they are not'; or at least not compared to voters in those key marginals. We urgently need a better electoral system that encourages parties to compete for votes in all constituencies, and gives voters a stronger stake in our political system, no matter where they live."
Posted by malcolmclark on October 06, 2007
Comments
Sorry that Jackie Ashley has joined this utterly phoney row about the election that never took place.(See her article in today's Guardian) When he saw the results from the marginals that had in effect been bought by a super-wealthy Tory Party donor he would have been barmy to risk an election. But of course it was inevitable that the Tories - even though relieved that after all an election would not take place - would continue to shout "bottled" (wherever that nauseous expression has been dragged up from) and the media are joyfullY following suit.
Everybody - including Brown - are ignoring the real issue. That is that we should be hanging onto an electoral system where the comparatively tiny number of voters in a small proportion of constituencies (the floating voters in marginal constituencies, in the present case largely BOUGHT BY THE TORIES and always inclined to listen to Murdoch) should be in a position to decide the outcome of a general election.
I haven't heard or read a single mention in the media about the clear absurdity of such a system. Nor have I have I heard any reference even to the existence of the cynically abandoned 1997 commitment to a referendum on changing to PR(but of course lots of comments about the "manifesto commitment" on the EU Treaty). Why this difference I wonder?
Brown should never have given any thought to a snap election. He should be instead making arrangements to at last honouring the 1997 New Labour COMMITMENT to hold a referendum on a change to PR. There is no doubt that if held such a referendum would come out in favour of the change.
Brown has repeatedly said that he is keen on Constitutional Reform. Without electoral reform this is largely meaningless. Furthermore if the Tories get back in we can say goodbye to any meaningful Constitutional Reform of any kind and certainlyto electoral reform. One more reason why Brown should not have considered risking his majority in a snap election, and should instead be preparing for the next election to be under PR. He would then not need to have meetings with Rupert Murdoch in order to decide what policies to adopt.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at October 8, 2007 03:28 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.
