Having a Laugh With PR
June 16th, 2009 | 
Author: 
First Past the Post or a form of Proportional Representation ? This came up following an article in yesterdays Independent on Constitutional Reforms and various readers wrote in extolling the virtues and necessity of an immediate introduction of PR which was quite amusing as it is the very last thing we need.
The principle of Democracy is that we the citizens give our power to elected representatives to run the Country for a period of time, maximum 5 years. Any Government could depart on a course of action we don’t like but as Ancient Athens demonstrated, total democracy is inefficient, you have to give any Government the power for a period of time after which, if you don’t like them, boot them out of Office.
How Many Parties ?
The next problem that arises lies in the political parties. Now whilst some seem to think PR a great solution, it would appear that both in the UK and the USA both of which are based upon the Adversarial system, there is only room for two political parties. If you doubt this, consider the position of the Libdems, all jolly nice people but have never made any significant inroads into Parliament, this currently I suspect is their high water mark in terms of MPs.
The Labour Party stole their “Radical Crown” a 100 years ago and they haven’t found a clear political message that differentiates them from the Conservatives or Labour ever since and unless aided by PR will never get close to Government in their own right – when they will suddenly think PR a bit restricting, no doubt.
So, what is the point of PR in any form ? Who will it benefit ?
The Objective is to Check the Executive
The real aim must be to check whichever party is currently in power but not surely based upon political manoeuvring for “party interests” as in say the Libdems holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament.
A far better way of achieving that aim would be through electing “Independent MPs who owed no allegiance to any party and took no party’s whip, 150 such would transform our democracy overnight. However, the public would not vote for so many because they will come un-vetted and without a ‘warranty’, they will always buy into one ‘brand’ or the other. Plus the hurdles an Independent would have to overcome to get to Westminster are horrendous.
Bottom line is that the PR or FPTP argument needs to be based upon whether there is room at the National Level for any more than one of two views or, should power be devolved to local levels where independent Councillors are more common. I also suspect that when this delayed general Election happens and Brown’s fingers can be dragged off the “Levers of Power”, the public will opt for a Party and a Parliament that can concentrate on sorting the economy out.
One reply was:
“Saying the Lib Dems don’t have a distinctive message is utterly wrong. They have been consistently the most progressive party for decades on many different issues, much more so than the often reactionary Labour party.
The point of PR is to have a government which reflects the will of the people, not FPTP, which distorts and thwarts it.”
Reply
We will disagree on this one because historically the two party system has served us well enough, if not perfectly, the Whigs and the Tories, the Liberals and the Tories, Labour and the Tories.
But really my main point is there appears to be room only for two parties. As for your saying that I am utterly wrong to say that the Libdems don’t have a distinctive message well to be honest the hard facts speak for themselves:
Whatever they are selling, too few people are interested in buying it, not 100 years ago and not today. Personally I am very surprised because given the state of the Labour Party, if I had been a gambling man, I would have put a big bet on this forthcoming General Election as their breakthrough year where they win big and forming the main Opposition. But not a lot of sign of that is there ?
The Next Election
Both main parties are coalitions within themselves and always have been but the move to the political centre was a reflection of economic circumstances that no longer apply. The desire will be for firm but fair government that concentrates on the economics and very little “ideology”. The electorate will instinctively vote for either a continuation of Labour (unlikely) or the Conservatives because that is the most efficient way to go, it may not be ideal but, it works for Mr and Mrs Average
Look at it this way, you may think Waitrose is very nice and detest Tesco but, the majority of customers vote with their money and go to Tesco. In fact, rather than PR, I think a far better initiative would be to include on every ballot paper NONE OF THE ABOVE – that would be real and measurable progress in any election.
Odd Ball Comment
“Can you therefore explain Switzerland in light of your argument? It is federal, has regular referenda and ministers are elected from the whole house, not appointed by any one person. In addition, there are half a dozen main parties, all working towards a common aim via consensus (except maybe the UDC).”
Reply:
Irrelevant argument on two basic grounds, population size plus the culture and history of Switzerland which, surprise here, is different from the United Kingdom or indeed any constituent part of it.
You cannot impose alien solutions on any country because the “solutions” must be at home and grown in the soil in which they are planted. PR in Northern Ireland is a “must” given the recent history and small population, it would be lunacy in England.
The consequences in England would be the BNP, extreme Muslim Parties and the like. Blair and Labour made this mistake over Devolution when they smugly thought it would cement a permanent Labour majority in both Wales and Scotland. It is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Switzerland indeed !
Posted in Politics
I am certainly no advocate of change for its own sake, but I would caution you that a casual dismissal of proportional representation is wrong.
If you look at the 2005 general election results for Scotland and 2007 Scottish election results on the BBC site, it gives you the number of votes cast and the number of MPs and MSPs returned in each. Compare the number of people who voted Conservative in each and the difference between the number of MPs and MSPs returned by Labour and the Conservatives. You will see from that that the Conservative support, which is fairly consistent, is largely unrepresented at Westminster, despite being much closer to the Labour total than the number of MPs suggests. You can only claim that is democracy at work if you completely disregard the purpose of a general election is to elect a government, not just local representation.
There are obviously limits to the benefits of proportional representation and far too many people point to the BNP’s recent victories as an obvious failing. That, however, is not a failing of an electoral system, it is a failing of the large and established parties to recognise they must work for any support and not take it for granted.
If you want the make-up of Westminster to reflect the will of the electorate, then proportional representation has much to commend it, not least that it should encourage more to believe their vote is worth casting. If you live in a safe seat, where the standing MP commands a consistent and substantial majority, is it worth voting against them? Normally it isn’t, so, normally, my vote is a waste of everyone’s time. As protest votes may well alter this next time around, perhaps my vote will count for something, but I doubt it. It will in the next Scottish election though.
Whilst MPs do spend a lot of their time dealing with local issues, it is their nationwide responsibilities that make proportional representation far more appropriate. Without it, any claim of a mandate from the people is even less appropriate.