"Choice" and first past the post

[Prince Rhyus]

I was at a seminar today and one of the speakers said that because there are so many "safe" seats, neither Tory nor Labour have to have policies that work for those people. Hence why both parties are going after the centre ground and are effectively putting forward policies that are in the interests of people that are neither loyal to a party but only make up at the maximum, 800,000 voters.

When Labour went far left in the early 80s they were seen by the far left to be sticking to socialist principles but it didn't get them elected. Hague, IDS and Howard steered off to the right and it did them no favours, hence why Cameron is moving back to the centre ground.

Does this make the voters responsible for creating the stick that beats their own backs by sticking loyally to one party or does it show that there is something wrong with our voting system? How do we maintain the MP-constituency link in a reformed system?

 

[audiotech]

When Labour went far left in the early 80s

That would be the time when this *far-left* Labour was beginning it's witch-hunt against Militant then?

 

[Prince Rhyus]

That would be the time when this *far-left* Labour was beginning it's witch-hunt against Militant then?

No, just before then. Wasn't it Kinnock who turned in Militant after the 83 election?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No, just before then. Wasn't it Kinnock who turned in Militant after the 83 election?

So that would be when Michael Foot as Labour leader denounced Peter Tatchell in the house of commons as the Labour candidate in Bermondsey because he called for civil disobedience against the tories ... and the Labour NEC refused membership to Tariq Ali on the grounds he was 'far left' then?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

In 1983 for a few precious minutes the Labour party produced a radical left manifesto through its National Conference. Not long afterwards the shadow cabinet ministers progressively denounced all of the policies in the manifesto because of the negative press it received. The voters not surprisingly did not vote Labour. Some of those like me on the left did so, I am sure, but many would have just given up in despair at the antics of the shadow cabinet. Floating voters would have just not bothered.

The Tories romped home on a nationalist, nostalgic, and war campaign supported by the gutter press. Labour had already failed to oppose the Falklands War - even sadly, Michael Foot, one-time lefty who was too intellectual for the age of television.

 

[JHE]

Does this make the voters responsible for creating the stick that beats their own backs by sticking loyally to one party or does it show that there is something wrong with our voting system?

There is clearly a great deal wrong with 'FPTP'. A decent system of PR is much more democratic.

However, do not assume that under a decent system of PR politicians would necessarily stop playing to win over the middle ground. They might well continue to do so, both in their electioneering and in their post-election deal-making.

How do we maintain the MP-constituency link in a reformed system?

Broadly speaking, there are two ways. (i) You can continue to have the same sort of constituency link for some MPs (or councillors etc) and also have 'top-up' MPs (or whatever) for a wider area to ensure party proportionality. (ii) You can have multi-member constituencies. If you go for the second option, you either have much bigger constituencies or many more MPs.

 

[articul8]

I was at a seminar today and one of the speakers said that because there are so many "safe" seats, neither Tory nor Labour have to have policies that work for those people. Hence why both parties are going after the centre ground and are effectively putting forward policies that are in the interests of people that are neither loyal to a party but only make up at the maximum, 800,000 voters.

Can you remember who the speaker was? I wholeheartedly agree. It's not that the floating voters wouldn't be targeted under PR, it's just that the parties would also be rewarded if they successfully campaigned for votes in formerly 'safe' areas.

As for the constituency link - it's over-rated IMV. It means that individual constituents who feel their views aren't likely to be taken up by their MP (eg. if you were concerned about animal rights but had a pro-fox hunting Tory MP - your in a situation where your only representative is not going to work for you).

Under STV in N.Ireland Aseembly elections, you'd typically have 5-6 MLA's per electoral ward, which means that the seats can be divided up more fairly according to the share of the vote.

 

[Haller]

As for the constituency link - it's over-rated IMV. It means that individual constituents who feel their views aren't likely to be taken up by their MP (eg. if you were concerned about animal rights but had a pro-fox hunting Tory MP - your in a situation where your only representative is not going to work for you).

I don't see the constituency link as being concerned primarily with policy in this manner. Isn't it more to do with having someone to call upon as an advocate in times of trouble, a place of last resort?

 

[articul8]

But say for instance the emergency is concerned with asylum, and you happen to have a hard-right Tory MP.

Wouldn't fill you with confidence that you had a defender of last resort.

 

[treelover]

i think PR is now a must to reclaim the limited democracy this country has enjoyed, at least then smaller parties such as the greens and maybe new 'left' formations will have some chance. It also takes the arrogance out of party politics/politicians a bit and leads to some humane policies/takes the edge of the neo-liberal offensive, eg, free care for the elderly, no tutitions fees in scotland, etc.

 

[articul8]

Some useful websites:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk

 

[TAE]

... does it show that there is something wrong with our voting system?

Yes, I think it does.

However, do not assume that under a decent system of PR politicians would necessarily stop playing to win over the middle ground. They might well continue to do so, both in their electioneering and in their post-election deal-making.

This is true, but it would make it easier for other smaller parties (like the greens) to get seats.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

In 1983 for a few precious minutes the Labour party produced a radical left manifesto through its National Conference. Not long afterwards the shadow cabinet ministers progressively denounced all of the policies in the manifesto because of the negative press it received. The voters not surprisingly did not vote Labour. Some of those like me on the left did so, I am sure, but many would have just given up in despair at the antics of the shadow cabinet. Floating voters would have just not bothered.

The Tories romped home on a nationalist, nostalgic, and war campaign supported by the gutter press. Labour had already failed to oppose the Falklands War - even sadly, Michael Foot, one-time lefty who was too intellectual for the age of television.

Myths of the Twentieth Century #1: The Tories were triumphant in 1983, gaining votes because of the Falklands war.

Fact: The Tory vote in 1983 went down compared to 1979 by nearly 700,000 votes and by 1.5 percentage points. The humiliation of Labour and the large number of seats won by the Tories was because of a catastrophic split in the Labour vote, where between one quarter and one third of Labour voters decamped to the newly formed SDP/Liberal Alliance.

 

[TAE]

The humiliation of Labour and the large number of seats won by the Tories was because of a catastrophic split in the Labour vote, where between one quarter and one third of Labour voters decamped to the newly formed SDP/Liberal Alliance.

Another excelent argument for PR.