David Cameron has rejected calls for proportional representation.
But actually those leading the call for it (and I am one of them) have not asked for PR as such; we’ve asked for a referendum on the issue.
Now David Cameron says he’s keen on referenda, but not apparently on issues as important as this. Why not David? What’s the problem with referenda on subjects you don’t like David? Are you really sure you’re seeking to devolve power, or just seeking a way to sweep far-right opinion into power.
Watch out for referenda on hanging, banning immigration, benefit cuts, big cuts in social services, the NHS and more. I’ll put a very big bet on the fact that referenda on all are going to happen. And Cameron will welcome them all. But please — no PR he’ll say.
Why?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why, Mr Murphy? That’s very simple.
First of all, Cameron is ideologically opposed to PR — as he is entitled to be.
Secondly, the present movement for a referendum isn’t genuine, and is motivated purely by cynical party political considerations. Most of the 53 signatories to the recent letter you publicised are the usual great-and-the-good of the Left — pop stars, actors, failed MPs, union leaders, student activists and self-appointed representatives of “civil society”.
When I say the Left, I do not of course mean the far Left who genuinely wish to see a seismic shift in British democracy. The people I refer to are the Labour-voting centre-left — in fact, some of them are clearly party activists. In other words, their support for the referendum stems not from any enthusiasm for PR per se, but from the desire to thwart the will of the British electorate, preventing Labour from a well-deserved fifteen or twenty years in opposition through the creation of an unending Labour/Lib Dem coalition.
Of course, it’s a high risk strategy. Whilst the Lib Dems are ideologically closer to Labour than the Tories, their record in local government has consistently proved that they are willing to make Faustian bargains with anyone in the pursuit of power. A successful referendum on PR would position them as the power brokers after almost every election, blackmailing both Labour and the Tories for their short-term demands of the day, and forming the government with whichever party proved the more spineless.
As for your comments regarding referenda on hanging and zero immigration, are you certain you’re not being a little facetious here for effect? The Council of Europe would never permit either policy, and Eurosceptic as some factions of the Tory party are, I can’t see complete isolation from our European neighbours becoming part of their manifesto.
It’s no coincidence this issue is raised at the same time as MPs’ expenses. Senior MPs generally have safe seats and can choose where to go if there is an unfavourable boundary change. More seats would change hands under PR. The average backbencher has no enthusiasm for change in either case. For the record, when I studied British Constition at school 42 years ago there was a scandal when MPs simply awarded themselves a pay rise. The public didn’t accept even then that if they want decent representatives they must pay the proper price. Plus ?ßa change.
Richard,
Beware of referenda, when you start giving popular rights, you could end up with financial privacy rules, like those in Switzerland, validated by the people and the Cantons !
Best
Bernard
Introducing PR will mean that there will be no such thing as a local MP to serve constituents, as every MP will be picked from a party list.
He’s never seen a bandwagon he didn’t like the look of – remember the whole green thing, before that the “no more punch and judy politics”…
The obvious reason why is that the current system allows both the Conservatives and Labour to form majority governments with a minority share of the vote, while the poor old Lib Dems, whose vote is much more evenly distributed across the country, lose out.
This despite the fact that the current system is biased against the Tories. They were only 2% behind Labour in terms of share of the vote in 2005, yet Labour got a majority of 66. Even if the Tories had had MORE votes than Labour, Labour would have probably won a majority. How is that fair?
We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a stitch-up. Dave Cameron just wants to make it a slightly different kind of stitch-up. Nick Clegg needs to be making a much louder noise about this issue than he is at the moment. (In fact Nick Clegg needs to be making a much louder noise, full stop).
I am in favour of PR but the referendum has to offer the right sort of referendum in the first place. But we are now used to putting 1,2,3… on our ballot papers in EU elections so it should not be too difficult.
No party lists please – wrong sort of PR.
This is weak even by your standards, Richard. There is no way we’ll be having referenda on hanging or banning immigration.
As for PR, it will bring in perpetual weak, ineffective government, with complete Parliamentary gridlock (witness Italy: 40-odd general elections since the war), deals done behind closed doors, disproprtionate influence to those with 5% of the vote, and manifestos completely worthless.
Answers:
1) PR does not mean lists – selections from lists are possible
2) It does not mean the end of constituencies – counties could form constituencies
3) All parties are coalitions now – look at New Labour
Richard
Re referenda: in general I do not approve
I see no reason why Cameron won’t use them for base (I mean abusive) reform
Why allow 5% to demand change and then rule out what they can demand change on?
Theresa May got it right when she described her own party as the Nasty Party
I believe her
Richard
What really surprises me is how the “first past the post” system cannot claim popular legitimacy yet is seen as the best system of election by Britons. Logically, if Tories (or Labour) represent only 32 (or 28% or 40% or whatever the figure will be) of the people of this nation, then they have no legitimacy in having more than 50% of the House of Commons seats. Doesn’t lack of legitimacy mean lack of accountability?
A French style system of two rounds (with all its defects) at least allows for legitimacy to be anchored in at least a majority of voters through the second round. It does favour big parties though.
A PR system does favour smaller parties (hence the reason why Cameron is scared of it) but at least give a real representation of people’s opinions. If it means coalitions, then at least it means legitimacy and accountability.
To me, accountability and responsibility is what this country misses right now. Not just from the politicians, but from a systemic point of view. I am getting tuired of excuses such as “it’s the way we do things”, “everybody does it so why not me”, “it’s not my fault (as a consumer, as a mortgage holder, as a parent, as individual,), it’s yours (you the banker, you the politician, you the neighbour, you the foreigner living in this country)”.
I do believe that an electoral system whereby a dose of PR could be introduced would help in making the House more legitimate.
“Watch out for referenda on hanging, banning immigration, benefit cuts, big cuts in social services, the NHS and more. I’ll put a very big bet on the fact that referenda on all are going to happen.”
I’m happy to take that bet – that’s 5 specific issues all of which have to be voted on in the first term of a Cameron government. What do you class as a big bet – a grand?
During Labour’s supposed wilderness years, Thatcher never got even half of the votes for the Tories. Far from being a break on democracy, coalitions would ensure that sofa government couldn’t take place – okay there’d be horse-trading and log-rolling, but it’d be out in the open rather than the behind the scenes arm-twisting of the whips over a huge majority.
Cameron is opposed to PR because he’s not a democrat and because his hopes of personal advancement rest on gratifying the various Establishment forces, who are threatened by the growth of the BNP. Apart from feeling it would be rather spiffing if chaps like him remain at the top, without having to worry about life for those tiresome ordinary types, he knows and cares nothing about politics, and will be a 2 minute wonder, soon to be swept away.
Of course PR will bring its problems, like the current system; and these will have to be addressed if we are to develop and refine our blatantly undemocratic ‘democratic system.’ But we simply cannot continue with the dictatorship of the corrupt old parties, who’s self-appointed task is to prevent full and serious debate of any of the key-issues facing the country, so as to allow them to get on with feathering their nests.
First, the stupidity and incompetence of the financial sector has become apparent; now the same has emerged re-the political establishment; and of course all this trousering and dithering could only have taken place with the connivance of an incompetent media, who’s failings will soon be exposed. Hopefully, this will happen in time for the normally compliant, but now radicalised voters and tax-payers, to lock up the most serious offenders such as Flipper Darling, Biker Chick Blears, and Elliot More4me, pending criminal charges, and take the passports from the rest of them, while we assess the full situation. Brown’s treating us with contempt over Lisbon, would be a good starting point.
“Introducing PR will mean that there will be no such thing as a local MP to serve constituents, as every MP will be picked from a party list.”
– Go and put “Single Transferable Vote” into Wikipedia.
Richard, do you really reckon Cameron will go for a referendum on capital punishment?
Traditionally the Tories have been incredibly hostile to referenda, on the grounds that it’s not traditional for Britain to do referena, and because referenda give power to the oiks, whom the purpose of the Tory party is to control.
Paul
Cameron is proposing referenda on demand
He doesn’t therefore have to do the Right’s dirty work – they can do it themselves and he enables it
Hanging may or may not get onto the agenda
Closing local social services to selected groups in society is going to come up time and again
Cameron will face a problem: if he allows referenda many will be on unacceptable subjects of the sort I suggest. So does he ban them, or not, and if he bans them, what’s the point of referenda?
Best
Richard
@Paul
I do not regard STV as a system of proportional representation, because there is nothing proportional about a STV system. The final outcome relies on a ranking of voter preferences rather than a proportion of votes cast.
PR is a waste of time – it would lead to endless coalitions, mostly Lib/Lab, and a transfer of power to closed committee rooms.
The simple fact is that the Scots and Welsh are much more left wing than the English. Now the Scots and Welsh have their own parliaments, the English should have theirs and the Commons can be disbanded. Then the need for PR would go away as the English would always have a popular Tory government and the Welsh and Scots could vacillate between Nationalists and Socialists.
Tout le monde et gagner, non?
You need a constitutional framework in which referenda can take place. So, for example, it wouldn’t be possible to pass laws which discriminated against minorities.
@Paul
“PR is a waste of time – it would lead to endless coalitions, mostly Lib/Lab” rather makes the “Scots and Welsh are much more left wing than the English” a bit questionable.
I totally agree about an English parliament, we should move to a federal system – but what’s this about a popular Tory government? Would it be committed to the NHS? To keeping people in work?
I doubt it. The Tories are, like New Labour, servants of big business – and big business is more interested in its investments overseas than in us folks in England.
@Charlie Marks
You may well prove to be right IMO about a federal structure being the solution. But it’s so difficult to read the runes, given the chaos and the volatility we’re faced with.
I despair of the ‘Big 2’ parties(ha bloody ha) serving any useful purpose except possibly as shell companies to foster the emergence of decent new right and left of centre parties, with clear policy commitments, financially dependent on their membership, and utilising referenda. We need our politics back, after Blair’s abolition in favour his preferred ‘Britain’s Got Celebs’ format. And let’s get him locked up, next time he condescends to waft his oily way through our poor benighted country.
PS. I hope this dire situation isn’t making you lose sleep Charlie. Your post came through at 04 04. Treble Scotch and Dry works for me.
@grumpy jon
“And let’s get him locked up, next time he condescends to waft his oily way through our poor benighted country.” Surely we could do some kind of reality TV show, though. A sort of Big Brother, show. Behind Blairs?
I know this will be beyond the pale to many, but it’s not clear to me why bringing back hanging would be so awful: when you hear stories of people being kidnapped, tortured and burned to death in East Anglia you do wonder how society is served by keeping people in prison at great cost for 20 years. It’s also not clear why the people who oppose capital punishment seem to generally support the right to abortion. But logic seems to have gone out of the window these days.
I agree we must beware of populism, but the simple fact is that in my lifetime there hasn’t been a political party willing to discuss capital punishment or a sensible immigration policy (like one based upon that used in Australia for example). Although you may disagree, I think we have generally followed a very left wing approach to social matters (just as we have followed a right wing approach to comemrcial matters) without ever having been asked about it. The reason is probably obvious: with career politicians lacking any real world experience, social policy has become the plaything of academic sociologists and economics the preserve of successful capitalists, each of whom come at problems with a strong bias.
And I do think that lack of debate on topics generally does lead to the sort of disengagement that we are currently seeing.
Paul
Oh dear. I guess I asked for it.
Capital punishment is murder.
Abortion is something I would wish on no-one. Ever. But I do not accept a foetus is a separate human being. And sometimes difficult decisions have to be made in the interests of a mother’s well-being.
But I accept entirely that the casual attitude to abortion a very, bvery few women show is morally wrong.
These opinions are formed on the basis of real world opinion. My wife is a GP. She is faced with this issue in reality, frequently. And of course we discuss it, without names mentioned.
Richard
Richard,
But don’t you see a problem when you have an issue such as capital punishment that is widely practiced around the world, supported by a large number of the population, historically very widespread and yet the media and politicians will not allow any sort of debate on it: as your comment illustrates?
I am not sure whether I would support bringing back hanging: but I do think it merits a serious discussion given the perception that law and order has broken down.
And surely the lesson from history is that when debate is suppressed a vacuum arises that a populist can fill?
I simply make the point that we have created a society that very few people feel happy with but which reflects a “consensus” that has never actually been voted for.
But I would challenge your view that a very, very few woman show a casual attitude to abortion. I know of at least 2 women who have had multiple abortions for “career reasons”, which is something I find very hard to fit into any sort of moral framework.
Paul
1. You clearly have little notion of British constitutional by advocating an “English Parliament”. I would respectfully suggest that you look into devolution and the role the NI, Scottish and Welsh parliament have.
2. “PR lead to a left-wing government” (I paraphrase if you allow me). As by now you seem to be an expert on electoral and constitutional matter, it would be interesting to see which evidence you have for that? I mean outside the British Isles of course.
3. You put in the same post “it’s not clear to me why bringing back hanging would be so awful” and “we must beware of populism”. You have an acute sense of irony. And I cannot take you seriously when you say “I am not sure whether I would support bringing back hanging: but I do think it merits a serious discussion”.
4. “We have generally followed a very left wing approach to social matters”. Compared with what or whom? The French? The Italians? The German? Or the neo-Cons?
Hum,
1. You may not have noticed this, but there does seem a democratic deficit in allowing Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote on matters that affect England only. It is also clear that England is primarily a conservative country whereas Scotland and Labour are socialist countries. I refer you to the results of previous elections. That creates a democractic deficit.
2. Of course PR leads to a left-wing government. Any look at the figures shows that approx 40% of Britain are instinctively Conservatives, the same Labour, 15% Liberal and 5% the rest. OK, nationalists have a bigger effect but basically, it is likely that PR would mean the Liberals almost always holding the balance of power (or, in a nightmare scenario, the BNP). And that is not what anyone wants: hence another democractic deficit.
3. Your response sums up the problem. Capital punishment is a serious issue. Many people cannot see why someone like Ian Huntley or Ian Brady should be kept in prison, often on suicide watch at huge public expense. But you regard any debate on the matter as beneath you. And in doing so you open the door to populism. Again, a democratic deficit.
4. A left wing approach to social matters? Certainly compared to the French, Italians and Germans, all of whom are socially conservative. Not for our continental friends the dumbed down free for all that Britain has become. Much lower rates of teenage pregnancy, unmarried mothers, kids dropping our of school, the widespread ignorance of a nation’s history and culture, junk food, obesity, illiteracy, contempt for authority (though the banlieus have their problems).
Paul
So apart from a “Daily Mail” rant, you bring nothing to the discussion on referenda?