Brown's empty PR promise

luke

Im not convinced you have understood what he has said.

Hasnt he promised to legislate now for the referendum? And hasnt he said it will be AV?

If so, it's quite a bit more than a vague promise which can later be dropped.

Paul Lovett

Mr Brown promoised a referendum on the European Constitution, but when his friends scratched his back he walk away from his promise he will do exactly the same if re-elected on electoral reform.

Vulture

You took an awfully long time to say: 'this is a total non-starter and a transparent bribe by a desperate Bruin to get the Lib-dems to sustain him in office in the event of a hung Parliament'. Next!

Greenslime

Brown's definition of chutzpah:

A man who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court with the mitigation that he is an orphan...

Ian Walker

Sad to see the ERS have been backing Brown - you'd think they'd know better. I guess the prospect of a glimmer of change has blinded them to the reality of this.

It's just a bear-trap. The whole plan is to win a few Lib Dem tactical votes in the marginals, and to charge the Tories with "obstructing the change needed to reform politics."

If Cameron's smart, he could whole-heartedly support the Bill, which would scupper Brown, and reverse the platform by asking why they haven't implemented their '97 pledge. If there wasn't enough time for legislation in the Queen's Speech to get through, then there's certainly not enough time for this.

2trueblue

Wasn't there something about an EU referendum that we were promised by Brown/Liebore? Did it happen? Who sold us out on that one? Then there is the question of our rebate the Bliar gave away.

Brown/Liebore do not have a good record at fulfilling their promises, so why trust them now? If people swallow this one they deserve Liebore.

Dungeekin

I can think of an alternative FPTP system that will, I guarantee, have voters flocking back to the Polling booths in their droves:

http://dungeekin.blogspot.com/2010/02/alternative-voting-method-sees-surge-in.html

Dungeekin

Publius

Mr Brown. We were promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution. Have you forgotten? I haven't.

Now you're about to lose the election, so you have decided to resort to gerrymandering.

David Lindsay

The problem with the Alternative Vote, and which also applies to STV for multimember constituencies, is that people with lots of second or subsequent preferences but very few firsts are eliminated in the first round, even though rather a lot of people voted for them.

The priority, at least, should instead be to ensure that in the course of each Parliament, each party submit to a binding ballot of the whole constituency electorate its shortlist of two for Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, and submit to a binding ballot of the whole national electorate its shortlist of two for Leader. They should also submit to such a national ballot the 10 policies proposed by the most of each party’s branches, with each voter entitled to vote for up to two, and with the top seven guaranteed inclusion in the subsequent General Election manifesto.

Furthermore, we need a ballot line system, such that voters would be able to indicate that they were voting for a given candidate specifically as endorsed by a smaller party or other campaigning organisation, with the number of votes by ballot line recorded and published separately.

And we need to require all political funding to be by resolution of membership organisations, as well as parliamentarians’ staff to be appointed from lists maintained by such organisations in return for payment of at least half of those staff’s salaries, thereby requiring politicians and parliamentarians to have links to wider civil society.

Chris Rose

PR is an appalling idea. It would make MPs less accountable to their electors. It would lead to more backroom deals than there are already. It would lead to less democratic government.

Introducing PR would be retrogressive step at a time when we want more democracy, not less.

John Rentoul

The majority in 1997 was 179.

denis cooper

If we had some statesmen, rather than mere politicians, then they would set aside partisan concerns and consider how to reform the political system with just one aim in mind - how to improve the government of the country.

Not just the electoral system in isolation, but the outdated structure of Parliament and the problematic relationships between its three elements - including the Crown - and the domination of Parliament by the executive, and the tendency towards political ossification which inevitably results from the strangehold maintained by the cabals controlling three corrupt and degenerate political gangs determined to cling to entrenched positions which they no longer merit, and of course the extent to which they've willingly agreed that our national democracy should be weakened and ultimately destroyed by arranging for our domestic laws to be determined through backroom deals under international treaties, especially the EU treaties.

But as the present system is rubbish as a general rule it will only produce rubbish politicians, unless by accident it throws up somebody who could be regarded as a statesman.

John Findlater

"The urgent task for the next government is to address the real deficiencies in our system - expenses, over-powerful whips and party machines, lack of transparency - not fiddling with the seating plan."

I agree with this last paragraph and would add the following,
Politicians, Government Ministers, Heads of Quangoes and other senior public service people should face the same criminal prosecutions as those in the private sector for their incompetence, neglignce etc that leads to loss of life, damage and a large loss of public money.
If the head of a PLC can face jail for falsifying accounts, eg not giving a tue and honest account of the companies worth,, why not the head of a government or even a cabinet minister for their dishonesty and/or incompetence.
If the head of a PLC or any other company can face jail if an employee is killed or injured,,why not the head of a Quango, or Health Board, or head of social services where a child (Baby P) has needlessly lost its life.

For far too long we have seen, under governments of both parties, senior public service people going from one disaster to another with no punishment.
Indeed most get moved to another highly paid job and of course a nice fat pension at the end.
This has gone on too long and has to be stopped.

Senior public servants should,, if they make the same criminal errors as those in the private sector, face the same criminal penalties.
So, the next government should, as a priority, include all public servants in the same criminal legislation that governs the private sector.

Nicholas

There is that "chapel of rest" suit again. He even looks as if he has just elevated to that position through 90° from his coffin full of Kirkaldy earth. Stake, heart and making sure he doesn't rise again to haunt us spring to mind.

Cuffleyburgers

The lst thing we want is a more consensual parliament, it's bad enough already with sofa cabinet, whipping and a reasonable majority.

The more confrontation the better, ideally with uzis and RPG7s, that way we could also put to bed the problem of mps' expenses.

Philip Walker

One of the great benefits of any change in the system would, I think, have to be exactly the point that multi-party coalitions are more honest and open about their purpose than single-party coalitions, and give the voters more of a say. Whether that is the effect of any given change under consideration is another matter altogether.

Roger Daley

The charlatan is on Sky News and the Beeb at the mo...

I can't watch him blabbing and posturing. TV now off.

oldtimer

I would add the power of recall for electorates who discover they have elected a corrupt MP.

HairyNoddy

If the Lib Dems have any sense (and that's a big if) they will ignore Gordon Brown's cynical promises and focus on becoming the main party of opposition after the next election.

denis cooper

It's bloody laughable that the Tories object to PR on the grounds it would lead to "backroom deals".

Most of our policies and laws are now determined through "backroom deals" in the EU, but the Tories have no objections to that.

They took us into that anti-democratic system, and they're adamant that we must stay in it, and in fact their leader has made it clear that he would never ask Parliament to strike down any EU law no matter how damaging it might be.

Policies and laws determined by "backroom deals" between politicians from different parties in a coalition government - oh, that would be terrible, far less democratic.

Policies and laws determined by "backroom deals" between politicians and officials from different countries in the EU - oh, that's fine, and stuff democracy.

What a bunch of hypocrites. They don't want PR because they're afraid that they'd rarely get into office, even as part of a coalition, and that's all there is to it.

Fergus Pickering

No, David Lindsay, we don't need any of that. Even if I could understand it, which I can't be bothered doing, I KNOW it's not what we need. What we need is a TORY GOVERNMENT, and I pray to God (who is certainly a Tory) that we get one.

Dorothy Wilson

"The urgent task for the next government is to address the real deficiencies in our system - expenses, over-powerful whips and party machines, lack of transparency - not fiddling with the seating plan."

The urgent task for the next government is to get our economy back to robust health.

It is surely typical of Brown that after almost bankrupting the country, he comes up to a scheme to change the voting system in the hope that he might then be able to cling onto power.

He is fast moving from the incompetent to the sinister.

emil

The law of unintended consequences (and lessons never ever learnt under Labour).

They'll do a deal on PR to save their worthless skins but when the first BNP MP is elected watch them squirm and moan, and blame it on everyone else but themselves......

Michael Booth

McLoon has also promised to serve a full term if re-elected. Jesus wept - what have we DONE to deserve it?

kevin atkinson

The Westminster village hasnt got it. In the old days you might votre 1) Con 2) liberal 3) Labour but now lit slikely to be 1) Con 2) UKIP 3) BNP. See where that leaves the old parties.

Dirty Euro

The AV system is a great idea it means 50% of the public must support you.
It does not guarantee labour or lib dem coalitions, but it ensures extremists or antagonists cannot be elected by splitting the mainstream majority, and getting in when they are not wanted. So it is more democratic.
The public get what they really want and cannot be conned into getting extremists or antagonists they do not really want by their real choice being split.
Boris won the mayoral election in much the same system so do not claim this is a left wing stitch up. It just ensures that the people get what they really want. If the tories fear that then that says all we need to know about them.
The present system is unfair a government can win majorities on 35% of the vote where is the justice in that?

N J Mayes

So far the Scottish Parliament has been a good advert for electoral reform. 73 MSPs are elected by FPTP, with the remaining 56 under the additional member system, whereby votes for party lists are reallocated at the regional level to reflect each party's overall share of the vote. The result, at present, is a minority government that has to seek the support of opposition parties from one vote to the next and as such is under more scrutiny than most governments - not a stitched up coalition, and not a periodic swap of two excessively powerful executives.

Bill

What we need is a decent opposition that is articulate and effective.
We need people in Parliament that enthuse the nation. We have too many Blair Babes both male and female.
I have no wish to put preferences down for people I don't want

denis cooper

The fundamental flaw with AV is the same as that with simple FPTP - the winner takes all.

That's the case even if it's contrived that the winner must get past 50% of the votes cast by supplementing his first preference votes with second, third, fourth etc preference votes - he still takes all.

So under FPTP with just two candidates, the difference between them may be just a few votes, but the 50.01% of the voters who supported the winner will still get 100% of the political representation in Parliament while the 49.99% of the voters who supported the other candidate will get zero Parliamentary representation.

AV creates the illusion that the winning candidate had the support of more than 50% of those who voted, while failing to address the complete absence of political representation for minority views in the constituency - even if the support for one of the minority views is barely less than the support for the winning view.

Clearly it wouldn't be possible to give every political minority within the constituency its own proportionate voice in Parliament, but here's a rough and ready, and very simple, solution which would go a long way in that direction: stick with the present voting system whereby each elector in the constituency is allowed to cast a single vote for his preferred candidate, and as now award a seat in the Commons to the candidate who gets the most votes, but also award a seat in a reformed, fully elected, second chamber to the candidate who comes second.

There's a lot to be said for this FPTP-SPTP system, not least that the governing party with a Commons majority couldn't also command a majority in the second chamber - thus ensuring that there'll always be an effective opposition.

clay barham

Maybe it is time to start all over. The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com explains the approach of the 19th century Democrats vs the 20th century Democrats. The early Dems followed Jefferson and Madison, while the modern Dems follow Rousseau and Marx. It is obvious the early Dems kept a free and prosperous America, while the new guys have it following Europe and the rest of the Old World. claysamerica.com