Whose country is it anyway?

Wednesday, 10th June 2009

The Spectator calls for a general election

It is an exquisite irony that Gordon Brown, so determined to deny the British people the general election they obviously crave, has made the centrepiece of his (latest) relaunch an investigation into the Westminster voting system. Refusing to play the game, he launches a full-blown inquiry into its rules. It is the most insultingly scarlet of red herrings.

There appears to be a measure of support on the Labour side for the so-called ‘alternative vote’ procedure. Under this system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate secures more than half the votes cast, the one who has fewest first-preference votes has his or her votes re-allocated according to voters’ second preferences. This continues until one candidate has more than half.

Champions of the system claim that it is both ‘fair’ and preserves the constituency link. ‘AV’ was part of the solution proposed by the 1917 Speaker’s Conference on electoral law, and was endorsed by the House of Commons in 1930 (only to be wisely rejected by the Lords). The problem with the alternative vote, as Churchill observed, is that it allows an election to be decided by ‘the least important votes of the least important candidates’. In 1998, the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform also noted, correctly, that ‘so far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, [AV] is capable of substantially adding to it’. It has been estimated, for instance, that this system would have given Labour a majority of 213 rather than 179 in the 1997 election. Other than its tactical value to Mr Brown as a massive distraction — an intellectual fiddle to be played while Rome burns — it is hard to see what conceivable purpose there is in a grand debate on the ‘alternative vote’.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Jamal Akhbar

June 12th, 2009 12:28pm Report this comment

The purpose there in a grand debate on the ‘alternative vote’ is a continuation of the Mandelsonian "goodness" strategy: you must vote for us because we are doing things to make you healthier (and in the end we will become so good for you that democracy will become necessary).

D.G. Macleod

June 12th, 2009 2:46pm Report this comment

Be afraid: In 1997 in common with many Scots I voted for a Scottish Parliament. It was to address a 'democratic defecit' in running some of our domestic affairs. What we got was a hybrid monster You get two votes, the first is a first past the post constituency choice, the second a PR choice from a 'list' This was cynically devised by SCottish Labour to prevent the possbility of the Nationalists ever winning an outright majority. (The present administration is a minority one.) The theory was that on balance Labour would always be the biggest single party and never be out of coalition office for long. Leave constutional change to Brown for the UK at your peril. To be fair devolution was seen by the other parties as follows:
1.A stepping stone to independence by the nationalists
2.A job creation scheme by the Lib Dems
3. A lifeline for survival by the Tories.
Scotland swapped democratic defecit for over government. Be afraid

Graeme Stewart

June 12th, 2009 11:08pm Report this comment

This is just more mind-boggling doublethink from the Dear Leader. He says " we have crappy morally corrupt politicians therefore the system of choosing much be wrong" For me David Mitchell summed it up eloquently and simply on HIGNFY - "If you find the swimming pool full of piss, you don't say "swimming pools are bad, we must do away with them", you should say "We must stop pissing in the pool"."

Celeste

June 13th, 2009 3:05am Report this comment

Without further delay, Alan Johnson should become leader of Labour, and a general election should be called. The longer Gordon Brown clings to power, the more difficult he is making it to exit with dignity.

Baron von Wilhoven

June 16th, 2009 7:08am Report this comment

Your fears of a preferential system are unfounded. First-past-the-post does not deliver 'majority' rule either.

Australia has preferential voting in most states, with all states but one having two houses and Tasmania having a form of Hare-Clark in place.

'democracy' such as it is, exists there as well/badly as in the UK.

NZ has a list-and-party voting system too but you'd have to get a Kiwi to explain it more than that.

Doing away with the Lords was a Blair promise, so I thought, and it should be done asap, or, kick out all the current ones and have a proper election system, similar if you will to the Australian Senate.

The carpetbaggers could keep their titles but do change the elected ones from being 'Lord'... it is an offence to every sense of a true democrat.