Under a PR system, Iraq II would not have happened

[RHOQ]

So while I agree with your analysis in theory (and certainly think it would kill the Blair government now), I don't think that PR would have changed the decision to go to war. It would reign in what Blair is doing now (in fact I reckon it would probably have forced him out of office by now), but I don't think that anything would have changed on the war front if PR had been used (and I assume introduced) at the last general election.

I agree it wouldn't have had that effect if hypothetically introduced at the last election. But lets suppose UK had always been under PR. And then lets take two important events in the Iraq story.

-The private meeting meeting of Blair and Bush where the decision to go for Iraq was atleast provisonally made by our PM.

-The parliamentary vote to endorse the war.

On the first, you're right, it would not have been "impossible" for Blair to make that decision. Under PR he would perhaps have been more aware of the political risks of such a decision, (even with a large majority), but he would have reasoned that there was a legitimate route to war (through the UN), and he had at that stage no reason to believe that such a war would be unpopular.

On the second, IMO Government would have been at risk of collapse. Proportionality would have narrowed the difference between the parties in the first instance. This would then have put the electoral discipline outlined in post 12 in to play.

By the time of the parliamentary vote it was becoming clear that Iraq II would be an unpopular war. It is reasonable to suppose that a greater number of Labour MPs (more than 122 who voted against) would have considered the electoral risk of their Government's policy.

Two options would have been open to them.

Back the Government and hope for best at an election, which under PR doesn't protect majorities as under FPTP.

Or bring down the Government and form a coalition with parties opposed to the policy.

This is the structural effect of PR. Better representation becomes better accountability. Where a Government's survival depends not just on a five yearly ballot box tick, but on their continual capacity to justify policy in accordance with the pubic interest. They failed to do so with Iraq II. There might have been consequences under PR.

 

[kyser_soze]

But lets suppose UK had always been under PR.

Sorry mate, that's a total strawman argument - by supposing it's 'always' been under PR you're rewriting history, and in answer I'd just say 'Tony Blair was never elected and the situation never arose'

On the second, IMO Government would have been at risk of collapse. Proportionality would have narrowed the difference between the parties in the first instance. This would then have put the electoral discipline outlined in post 12 in to play.

Again, you're making far too many assumptions about things like the makeup of parliament, voter interest/antipathy toward the war etc etc.

I agree with you about the effect PR could have in an alternate world - but to say categorically that Iraq II wouldn't have happened if it existed is a strawman and nothing more.

 

[RHOQ]

Sorry mate, that's a total strawman argument - by supposing it's 'always' been under PR you're rewriting history, and in answer I'd just say 'Tony Blair was never elected and the situation never arose'

Again, you're making far too many assumptions about things like the makeup of parliament, voter interest/antipathy toward the war etc etc.

I agree with you about the effect PR could have in an alternate world - but to say categorically that Iraq II wouldn't have happened if it existed is a strawman and nothing more.

This is a supposal designed to make you think about the credibility of our political system and the possible validity of doing things differently in future. If you think the political system is credible after Iraq II then tick away at your ballot box and talk about "schools and hospitals" and keep quiet about foreign policy.

Or if you think I'm making invalid assumptions, convince me.

 

[kyser_soze]

You seem to have completely ignored my last line about PR - however, before going too far down the 'FPTP is shite' route and how MPs ignore the will of the people etc I draw your attention to the Death Penalty arguments - when it was stopped the majority in the UK still wanted it, and if PR is as efficacious at expressing the will of the people/making politicians more accountable etc then that law would never have been passed - you're taking a single (admittedly rather large) example of where the system looses credibility in isolation - you need to compare the whole spectrum of policy rather than just look at one element of it.

At present I don't think the political systems of most European countries, and the US, are especially 'credible', and you have the situation in say, Australia, which does have PR you still have a conservative govt in power (cons...as in not progressive) which supports Bush blah-di-blah...so you have an example there of a country which has PR and is still involved, so on that basis I still maintain that your contention is wrong.

 

[RHOQ]

On that basis I still maintain that your contention is wrong.

Ok, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're right, there's some risk of populism under PR. Pim Fortane in the Netherlands is one example. But this is somewhat mitigated by the tendancy towards consensus Government under PR.

I'm disagreeing because it seems to me that PR is a system that can hold a Government with a sizable majority to account during the lifetime of a parliament.

This is important for events like wars which emerge out of the blue, independently of the policy platforms of political parties at elections. Normally, you don't ask the question "Does Government have an electoral mandate for war?", because in most cases the context abrogates this type of inquiry. There's a perceived danger, and argumentation is valid.

But when a Government's war policy is seen to be irrational in relation to the danger it faces and fails to persuade people of validity of its arguments (polls suggest this was the majority view for most of the time), there is no "destruct" button under FTTP, but potentially there is under PR.

This is why, as you say earlier, PR is "shite for Governments", because, to use a phrase, it "keeps them honest" between elections. The governing party, unless it has a small majority, has almost complete freedom of action between elections under FTTP.

Now you might say, "well if the Government fucks up you can always boot them out at the next election". I would argue that there's a qualitative diffference between a political structure that keeps Governments honest at the time at which they pursue a policy, and a system which gives people the option to register disapproval after the fact, when its too late, after alot is invested in moving on the agenda and putting things in perspective etc etc, by which time its actually rational not to give fuck.

 

[Fruitloop]

On this topic (vaguely) everyone who hasn't read the power survey should do so, as it addresses a lot of these issues around representation and the like.

I'm not sure that support for the death penalty is as high as we're sometimes led to believe - it only stands at 64% amongst the death-loving yanquis if life without parole is also presented as an option, and I reckon the figure would surely be lower here (surely?!?)

 

[poster342002]

The public 'care' about foreign policy, the environment, the developing world, etc. when nothing's at stake, but when it's time to vote, it's the economy, Education, the NHS - really it's that simple, or rather the public are that simple, and self-interested.

The stupid thing is, even all those things weren't great either. It's another false dichotmy.

"Never mind Iraq - aren't we FABULOUS on the NHS and bread-and-butter issues" Err - no, you're NOT, actually.