Parliamentary Reform Protests Continue

[Ignitionnet]

There's another protest scheduled for this Saturday at Parliament Square, so if you're curious where BBKing will be that's probably where you'll find him

My one big issue with this is that a lot of these guys were the same people complaining about how the ConLib coalition wasn't what they voted for. Do you see the contradiction here? They want PR but complain that a coalition wasn't what they voted for.

Anyway it's their right to protest and they're hardly the first group to have members not entirely clear on what they are protesting. Will probably die out as time goes on.

[Osem]

They were probably so geared up for another campaign of protests about how the Lib Dems 'lost out on seats again despite having all those votes' that they haven't yet accepted that for a party that actually lost seats they've done a whole lot better out of this than could reasonably have been expected not that long ago...

[injuneer]

What's wrong with wanting a fairer voting system? Many people are sick to the back teeth with the traditional 2 party self interest & wrangling although won't do anything to change it. As far as I can tell they are not aligned to any party, this is the best opportunity for them to make people aware. Of course there's bound to be a number of disgruntled voters among them.


"Take Back Parliament brings together a coalition of different groups and organisations in the call for fair votes. They include POWER2010, Unlock Democracy. Electoral Reform Society and Vote for a Change.
Take Back Parliament is not aligned to any political party - instead it seeks a fair voting system so that all parties have representation in Parliament according to the number of votes they receive."

So can someone tell me the perfect voting system where everyone will feel represented then, of course not there isn't one and never will be sometimes you have to just accept what there is and get on with it.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

So can someone tell me the perfect voting system where everyone will feel represented then, of course not there isn't one and never will be sometimes you have to just accept what there is and get on with it.

Well, the Electoral Reform Society (campaigning for PR since 1884) believes that the "Single Transferable Vote" (STV) is the best of all the available voting systems.

Originally Posted by ERS

Single Transferable Vote

No electoral system is perfect. Some, however, are more perfect than others.
We believe that where candidates are being elected to multiple vacancies, STV offers voters the best and most effective choice.


What is STV?

STV uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so on, as necessary. Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.
If your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First-Past-the-Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.


Why STV?

STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected, meaning that under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party.

• Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) with STV. This means that most voters can identity a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability.
  
• STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern.
  
• Competition is generally a good thing. Competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different.
  
• There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats.
  
• When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are no good at picking up second-, third- and lower-preference votes.
  
• There is no need for tactical voting.
  
• There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies.

[Flyboy]

I think they will probably be protesting on Cameron's "Enablement Act."

If you are discussing the fixed-term parliament act, along with the 55% dissolution proposal, it was drawn up by a Lib-Dem, and agreed by the coalition, so calling it Cameron's "Enablement Act", is at best, disingenuous, and at worst, smearing.

btw, from the BBC

But former Lib Dem MP David Howarth, a legal academic who drew up the original Lib Dem plans for a fixed-term parliament, told the BBC the vote of confidence and dissolution of Parliament were "entirely different things" and said Mr Straw was "totally confused".
In other countries with fixed term parliaments, if a government lost a vote of confidence the parties would have to try to work out a new government within the fixed term, he said.
He said critics had got "entirely the wrong end of the stick" adding: "This dissolution vote, the 55% for a dissolution, is not the same as, for a vote of confidence."

A Downing Street spokeswoman said the old rule would still apply to no confidence votes - but should a government be defeated, it would not automatically trigger an election, a 55% vote would be required to dissolve parliament.
She said the details would all be debated and voted on in parliament and the former Labour government had put through the fixed term legislation in Scotland which requires a 66% vote to dissolve parliament.

So it was OK for Labour to propose and implement it in Scotland (at a higher threshold), but not for the ConLibDem's to do the same for the whole of the UK?

What's that funny smell - oh yes, it's the pungent reek of double-standards....

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If you are discussing the fixed-term parliament act, along with the 55% dissolution proposal, it was drawn up by a Lib-Dem, and agreed by the coalition, so calling it Cameron's "Enablement Act", is at best, disingenuous, and at worst, smearing.

btw, from the BBC
So it was OK for Labour to propose and implement it in Scotland (at a higher threshold), but not for the ConLibDem's to do the same for the whole of the UK?

What's that funny smell - oh yes, it's the pungent reek of double-standards....

Where did I say that I supported anything other than a direct majority? I am not really interested in who proposed (although I suppose you have a link to who did), the fact that it is being proposed at all, should be ringing alarm bells for everyone.

Try reading the BBC link in my post, then perhaps you will become better informed....

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Try reading the BBC link in my post, then perhaps you will become better informed....

Ooops, yes sorry, missed than one.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Where did I say that I supported anything other than a direct majority? I am not really interested in who proposed (although I suppose you have a link to who did), the fact that it is being proposed at all, should be ringing alarm bells for everyone.

http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/325531.html

Again it hasn't changed the goal posts for a vote of no confidence, which continues to run on a simple majority, these are entirely new goal posts.

---------- Post added at 15:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I think they will probably be protesting on Cameron's "Enablement Act."

But Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit think tank, told the BBC he understood the 55% threshold was intended to prevent the government from calling an early election without the consent of both coalition partners - effectively protecting the Lib Dems.

---------- Post added at 15:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

The BBC really need to correct themselves, this story is simply wrong.

Very good explanation (imho) on Iain Dale's Diary

55% is NOT the figure required to bring the government down. The government will lose power if it loses a vote of confidence by 50% +1.

The 55% relates to whether parliament can be dissolved before the end of the fixed term. The government and parliament are not the same thing. In a fixed term parliament, the fall of the government does not mean the end of the parliament. If an alternative grouping of MPs can command the necessary 50% +1 votes to survive a vote of confidence then they can form a new government from members of the existing parliament.

The 55% rule is not designed to keep the government in power - quite the opposite. It is designed to stop the government dissolving parliament, for reasons of electoral advantage, before the parliament reaches the end of its fixed term. At present the Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve parliament at a time of his own choosing, without the need to obtain the approval of parliament or even of his own Cabinet. Under the proposed new system he could not do so and would have to get a 55% majority in parliament. It is thus a transfer of power from one person - the Prime Minister - to the whole of parliament. As such it is MORE democratic, not less.

[Ignitionnet]

Now if only the BBC would get that through their heads instead of parroting the Labour line. Beeb - they don't hold your purse strings anymore, appreciate you as an organisation have something of a socialist slant (and wonder how the BBC staffer who was standing for Labour in the council elections did) but sheesh.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The BBC really need to correct themselves, this story is simply wrong.

I've just officially complained about that story via the BBC Website.


This whole fuss about the 55% rule is nonsense, & many stories & comments about it appear to be inaccurate and - in my opinion - highly misleading.

I admit that the proposal could perhaps have been explained more fully in the Coalition Agreement, but the fact of the matter is that it did *not* mention Confidence and did specifically mention Dissolution. For people to be claiming that this change would enable Cameron to stay in power even if the coalition fell & the resultant Tory Minority Government lost the Confidence of the House is extremely ridiculous.

It is also rather pathetic that certain people in Labour are trotting out how this is allegedly undemocratic & hands more power to the Tories, when it is THE SAME THING LABOUR DID FOR THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.

A fixed-term Parliament must have stability, & must not have the PM's power to dissolve it at will hanging over it like the Sword of Damocles.

This change takes the dissolution power from the PM and gives it to Parliament.

And despite what many seem to claim, it would not prevent a Tory Minority Government from being ousted following the collapse of the Coalition: Although the combined anti-Tory vote (53%) would not be sufficient to dissolve Parliament (55%), it would still be more than enough to pass a Motion of No-Confidence (simple majority of 50% + 1 MP), which would cause Cameron to have to resign & his Government to fall, given that you can only be PM if you can "Command the Confidence of the House".

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

So can someone tell me the perfect voting system where everyone will feel represented then, of course not there isn't one and never will be sometimes you have to just accept what there is and get on with it.

Whatever the fairest system of voting in a democracy is, one thing is certain it isn't FPTP, any politician whatever their political persuasion would be very hard pressed to defend it in a country whereby the votes are roughly shared between three parties.
Under this system its unlikely that any one party will ever exceed more than 40% to 43% of the vote, if they are very lucky, so if we don't change this we will continue electing parties voted for by the minority of voters.
The reason some Labour and Tory MP's don't want to lose FPTP is because its currently skewed in their favour, not because it is the fairest of voting systems its blatant self interest on their parts.
Personally I believe we should have a completely independent electoral commission which oversees our system and if they believe that change is needed it should be put to the electorate in a referendum...MP's and political parties should have absolutely no say in the election system.
I hope that in time this subject will become as hot as expenses did last year and that we reach a tipping point whereby MP's willingly hand this power over.