Democracy - help me out here!

With PR, the party with the most votes will almost never gain an absolute majority. That means that there have to be discussions with another party/parties. Inevitably that means that any extremist policies will be watered down, as they were with the 2010 coalition. I will never understand why Nick Clegg & Co never shouted from the rooftops what they actually achieved. They were only a minor party, so it wasn't much, but they did get some of their ideas passed.

However, we can't really look at past performance. If we had a PR system, there would have been more LibDem MPs, because the number of MPs would more accurately have reflected the number of votes cast and people might not have thought they were wasting a vote.

A PR system would almost certainly result in UKIP/Brexit MPs. I know some people would throw their hands up in horror at that, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to see what they'd do if they were actually made to walk the talk rather than constantly moaning.

In the long run, we would end up with more centrist governments (which wouldn't please everybody), but might end up displeasing fewer people than the current system does. It would mean that politicians from different parties would be forced to talk to each other (as they already do on some committees) and more views would be taken into account.

I don't disagree with you on PR Varian. It was one of my reasons for joining the SDP all those years ago. But my wish to change our democracy does not make it anti-democratic. It is democratic now and, as long the changes are made democratically, it will be democratic in the future.

The Electoral Reform Society's report "Democracy Denied" shows just how undemocratic our First Past The Post electoral system actually is.

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/democracy-denied-as-report-reveals-how-voters-are-left-voiceless-across-england/

First Past the Post or Proportion Representation will inevitably leave somebody somewhere moaning their vote didn't count!

Proportional Representation means Coalition/Supply and Confidence Governments are possibly for ever and those who have been complaining about the Tories/DUP are weirdly promoting that should be how we are governed by calling for PR. .

Coalition/Supply and Confidence governments cannot only be ' acceptable ' if the political parties suit us as individuals!

Be careful what you wish for and what we get may take more shifting out of government than First Past the Post as backroom deals, tactical voting, political shenanigans will be even more the norm.

Not necessarily true that it would be a supply arrangement with an unpopular minority party. PR would almost certainly mean that people would vote differently in the first place.

PS. Nobody would need tactical voting with PR.

Yes they would to ensure the parties involved can form a coalition.

You only have to look at what tactical voting is for to understand it would still come into the same political shenanigans.

There is much I feel needs to move forward in our democracy. PR is one, and I have posted previously about needing an English Parliament/Assembly. In whatever way we decided the members of the current "Lords" were put in place it would then become the upper-house for each of the countries and Parliament for all the UK. Hopefully, as we want strength in those who are our MPs we would pay them more too.

I agree POGS, and it would make it impossible for the government nominally in power to get anything through Parliament because all the shifting alliances would conspire to thwart it.
Proportional Representation was rejected by 67% of the voters in 2011 but apparently that was not democratic enough for some.

I found this part of an article in today's times an interesting point about how we currently run things. It's from an interview with Rory Stewart.

“The job in government I loved most was being prisons minister,” he says (he also served as international development secretary before resigning when Mr Johnson became prime minister). “Because there I really felt I was able to make a difference, identify problems, come up with a plan. We chose ten prisons and I had all the prison governors up to stay in this house for two and a half days. I visited all the prisons repeatedly, shadowed prison officers on the wings, went through every prison again and again, getting the figures, and we did reduce violence in prisons, and drugs, much more quickly than I thought we could.”

He had promised to resign if he did not succeed but statistics published this week suggest that he would have stayed on. Violence and drug use have fallen since last year at some of England’s “most challenging” prisons, according to the Ministry of Justice. Assaults fell by 16 per cent and failed drug tests also dropped across the ten prisons that were given extra security funding.

There is, however, a “sting in the tale”, he says. “The way government works is very odd. I was just 80 per cent through my prison reforms when they moved me to be secretary of state for international development. [Before that] I was just finishing my Africa strategy as Africa minister when they reshuffled me to become prisons minister. I had five ministerial jobs in four years. What does this tell you about [David] Cameron or Theresa May or Boris, do they really believe in ministers, do they respect them, or is it a sort of pantomime in which ministers are playthings designed to placate different parts of the party?”

(Article first published in The Times on 24 August 2019 by Magnus Linklater.)
www.rorystewart.co.uk/times-interview/?fbclid=IwAR2Tsh7QZixjDr5WK4U9LAqUVNZs9d5H4imbhjep_9xSrIK_kq0BydCwqfQ

I agree POGS, and it would make it impossible for the government nominally in power to get anything through Parliament because all the shifting alliances would conspire to thwart it.

Could you please give an example of where that has happened in one of the 94 countries that currently have some form of PR eazybee?

GGMK3

Perhaps you could look at Germany / Austria /Italy for a starters.

PR is no more a safe form of government than First Past the Post, probably leads to more disruption.

We don't really have democracy in this country, we are a Monarchy after all. Anything else is illusory. That said there has been an effort to have a sort of mini democracy. We vote for a person who we trust to do what is best for us. Party politics torpedoes this, but that doesn't destroy things entirely. We can still get at our elected members who cannot entirely ignore you if they wish to continue their career. So what else can go wrong, something Mr Goebels was very aware of - propaganda. If over a ten fifteen year period you feed the population with a diet of half truths and lies then this can derail democracy. The result is great isn't it.

I know they sometimes take a while to get a government sorted but as we can't pass the government's Bills through parliament I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the time spent to get a government formed that could actually do some work?

I can see us going on with a hung parliament for some time because, just as in Germany, Austria, and Italy we now have a more educated (in total) electorate than we had when we began to enfranchise more of the population.

If I had to go for a pause at the beginning or nothing achieved I know which one I prefer.

We don't really have democracy in this country, we are a Monarchy after all. Anything else is illusory. (Sat 24-Aug-19 17:15:06)

I don't think that is true. It sounds like it might make a good headline in a red-top Frinders, but the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy. Yes we have a constitutional monarchy and the Queen (currently) is the head of state but the legislature is Parliament.

First past the post system has much to commend it, but being democratic is not upon that list. Nor is the way that the system of government has evolved.

If we wish to claim that the system is to be democratic then we need to give our parliamentary groups real power over the ministers and PMs who they claim legitimacy from. At the same time MPs and their party groups need to be separated more from the lay parties' to avoid the risks of small cliques like momentum excercising a corrupting influence over Parliament.

But first of all each one of us needs to accept that our MPs, councillors, EMPs are there to represent all of their constituents' interests and that does not imply that they do exactly what we individuals want , they have the power of discretion and contience and it is time that the whips and government also accepted it.

So much to agree with absthame. Have you any thoughts about how you would/could separate the lay movements from the party and MPs. It's an interesting proposition.

Didn't the Labour Party have to decide whether it would but union members into parliament or start a separate party? I don't know much of the history of the LP but perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Your last paragraph speaks more of politics and journalism than democracy to me. You sum up everything I have been led to believe about the democratic position of our MPs. Sadly, when politicking both the newspapers and the politicians know they can sell a lie.

GGMK3

"but as we can't pass the government's Bills through parliament"
-

What do you mean?

Are you saying NO Bills have passed through Parliament , from when to where time wise, e. g 2016 - 2019?

No, I wasn't saying that POGS.

POGS, How can you claim that PR hasn't delivered a safe form of government in Germany over the last 70 years? It's actually delivered a very safe and consistent form of government, which means policies haven't see-sawed from left to right.

eazybee, Germany has had a coalition government for all except a short time during the "Grand Coalition" since the Federal Republic was established. Are you seriously suggesting that the government hasn't been able to get anything through the Bundestag? The electorate has matured and accepts compromise as a way forward, which might partly explain why Germany is the powerhouse it is.

The US also describes itself as a democracy and has FPTP. However, its systems mean that the government really does have problems getting laws passed. Think about the problems Obama had with healthcare.

POGS, I feel as though I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. Tactical voting wouldn't be needed with PR.

GracesGranMARK3 thanks for your reaction.

In the past, under the labour party constitution, the parliamentary party's independence was protected from interference from the party itself.

You are right that trades unions had a great deal of influence, however that was limited within the constitution which was designed to give the membership control of the organisation and the appointment of candidates. However there was no mechanism for the removal of MPs etc unless they broke party rules or had the whip withdrawn.

Under that constitution which originated just after the first World war, Corbyn would and should have been ejected from the party for continually rejecting and breaking the party's rules.

The failure of the party to impose proper discipline in the critical periods was mainly down to the Blair leadership team who wanted to avoid the appearance of a witchhunt and instead they opened a Pandora's box that contained a mass of Revolutionary Marxist Leninist, including Corbyn and the cabal that surrounds him.

My personal view is that Corbyn and those that surrounds him are a greater risk to our nation than Brexit or even than a rabid Tory government, which I believe that Johnson is in the process of facilitating. I pray every day that our peoples will exercise their will, through parliament and stop this bloody mess.

I'm sorry for dressing more than intended and shall reflect further before responding to the rest of your points

Thank you for the historical perspective absthame.

It would take me quite a leap to believe that any other government could be worse than this one in the hands of the New Tories and I haven't yet heard any policies from the LP that worry me other than feeling they are old fashioned. I shall keep watching as I find them interesting - but then everything is, if anything, too interesting at the moment?

Most politicians enter politics wanting to make things better. However it is not possible to make changes by oneself, it requires a number of people to work in concert. To be able to do this across a range of policies requires us to join a substantial group, a political party.

No political party's total range of views, matches exactly any individuals' views, so they join the party of best fit. However party rules dictate that all support all of the party's views. So the politician is forced if they are to achieve even a small part of their desires to enable many things that they disagree with and may even despise. Their self-esteem and their esteem in the eyes of the public for most rapidly diminishes.

The press piles on the agony, often not caring about the long-term harm that they do, after all why should the owner of a newspaper who left his native home to take up residence in a land thousands of miles from his native shores and then acquires control of 80% of the newspapers in another land thousands of miles from both his native shores and his new home; why would such a person give a fig about the health of the last nation, its democracy or the wellbeing of its people, as long as they can maximise the profits to enrich themselves and their family. It gets worse ofcourse when such a person ensures that the publications they control all support only one political party or grouping. The effect is to corrupt the democratic system. Such a person or organisation is as dangerous to democracy as is the Corbyn cabal

So what is the answer?

I believe that no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information

I equally believe that no person should be permitted to serve more than 3 terms in elected office, this will reduce the risk of corruption or being absorbed into the establishment.

I believe that it should be illegal for an organisation or person to lobby for profit, their own or that of the ones that they represent

MPs should be provided with an adequate salary and that the only office facilities and staffing permitted are those provided by Parliament, something that they currently barely undertake and is the route of our current distrust of MPs. No outside source should be permitted to providemembers with staff or facilities.

MPs, while serving should not be permitted to earn monies outside their parliamentary salary

Ministers including the PM should not receive any payment beyond their pay as an MP, this would stop governments buying votes