« Eno fans rejoice | Main | The Tories' Scottish dilemma »
December 19, 2007
View from the boundary
A fascinating discussion is underway over on ConservativeHome on the impact of boundary sizes, differential turnout and the like. A lot of number-crunching, some good points, some slightly more dubious ones and some contributions which show just how ignorant and ideologically driven (brainwashed by the cult of FPTP) a number of people are.
The electoral reform movement is going to be doing some myth-busting exercises in the new year, to try and impart a little bit of reality and commonsense into the debate. If you can't wait, see here and here. But to see the scale of what we are up against, step forward William Nortonm who writes in one of his this previous piece and this one on the ConservativeHome site:
"Like some great stomach the juices of PR will dissolve each of us into our component parts ready for digestion."
We welcome lively and open debate. And there are some good thinkers and people up for a reasoned, intelligent debate within the Conservative party - the likes of Ken Clarke, Andrew Tyrie, Oliver Heald, Douglas Carswell and (though not a parliamentarian) Ferdy Mount. So more of them and less of the mindless bile please.
Posted by malcolmclark on December 19, 2007
Comments
i have just been to a briefing with Jack Straw in leicester earlier this month where one of his answers to a question on PR was that supporters of it often think they are morally superior. Well that maybe so but this answer trivialises what is an important issue. Quite often i feel this issue can be boiled down to: they think "i dont want to be a turkey voting for xmas". However, there is no evidence to suggest that changing the voting system would seriously impact on say Labours chances of winning an election in the future or individual members of parliament having a good chance of being re-elected. There would be pluses for Labour or the Tories - greater legitimacy for one.
Two other issues are intimately tied into this party funding and national unity which is due to lack of representation in the regions? and home nations for some of the major parties (eg tories in scotland, wales and the north and Labour in the south and west etc.)
it seems to me that one way forward would be to try a form of STV for local elections if the lessons learn in Scotland are positive ones. We have lots to learn from the examples of voting reform in the home nations and at European. Elections. People need to get used to the idea of a different system which is a bit more complicated than putting one cross in a box.
In Leicester in recent years the type of voting system for local elections as quite frankly produced some bizarre changes in the council chamber (due to crude multi member wards and a very low turnout) and crude horse trading and a large minority of dissenters in one party.
i think that PR would work well in a city like leicester becasue of its diverse multi cultural nature.
It is a complex issue and i am not sure how an individual like myself can have a good influence on implementing change. i have thought dont get bogged down in technical issues of the type of PR. i am not currently active in any political party - everything is subservient to a centralised party machine in the major parties and policy decided often by the executive members.
I am for PR not just becasue its fairer but because we have evidence over many years of its success recorded in producing stable goverment and economic success in other countries.
tony walker in leicester
Posted by: tony walker at December 21, 2007 08:41 AM
Reports in the Times yesterday that Hazel Blears wants to encourage petitioning as a way of improving local democracy.
How about STV Hazel? (as in Scotland)
Posted by: Andrew Kitching at December 28, 2007 07:22 AM
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.
