Any chance of some responses to the text of what follows?
Polly Toynbee is exercised by Gordon Brown's latest offerings. I see that her Proportional Representation monomania has been dragged into this. At least its equally evil twin, State funding of political parties, has yet to be. State funding must entail some degree of State control, which can often be necessary and beneficial. But, for political parties, it would be lethal. Only parties that met the organisational and political requirements of some committee of Notting Hill and Primrose Hill diners would be able to afford to contest elections. No wonder Polly Toynbee and the BBC are so keen on the idea.
And the same is true of PR. For one thing, I simply cannot see how it would work in rural areas, either for Parliament or, even more so, for local government. Councillors, in particular, would do absolutely nothing except drive around their vast, unwieldy wards, arriving late for everything yet always leaving early in order to arrive late for the next engagement.
Instead, in the course of every Parliament without fail, the two candidates with the most nominations from a party's branches for Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (at constituency level) or for Leader (at national level), including branches of affiliated organisations where Labour or any of its successors is concerned, should be subjected to a binding ballot of every registered voter in the constituency or the country, as the case may be.
The sort of people favoured by central machines would struggle to get on the ballot at all, and certainly wouldn't be selected. And the same is true of each party's several lunatic fringes (including the single and indivisible one currently running both Labour and the Tories, and about to take over the Lib Dems as well). But they could always then put up under their own steam and see how far they got.
And either this, or PR, or indeed any change whatever to where MPs come from, would kill off the Lib Dems practically overnight. The above system would have historically industrial areas choose totally unreconstructed Social Democrats who were who were indistinguishable from the local right-wing Labour Establishment (and might well have been in it at one time), while agricultural areas would choose totally unreconstructed Liberals who were not only indistinguishable from, but multiply related to, the local "Faith, Flag, Family and Farming" Tory Establishment.
Finally, there should also be public participation in policy formulation. In the course of each Parliament, the 10 policies most popular with each party's branches should be put out to a ballot of the whole electorate, with each of us entitled to vote for up to two, and with the top seven guaranteed inclusion in the next General Election manifesto.
Put all of this together, and it would answer any perceived need for PR, thus safeguarding the vital constituency link into the bargain.
well you did fill most of the comments in yourself! Cant blame folk for joining in.
ReplyDeleteSee what I've just written there on that one. And people complain that the North East isn't taken seriously...
ReplyDeleteIt really makes me angry, actually. I get emails from inside the Westminster Village and all over the place about you people, making all the predictable references to Andy Capp, and Oz from Auf Weideshein Pet, and what have you.
Now, can people PLEASE stay on topic?
"Any chance of some responses to the text of what follows?"
ReplyDeleteNo. That would involve reading it. Life's too short.
One of the most importnat contributions to this debate in years, a sign of just how good the blogosphere can be, and you can;t be bothered to read it! You don't deserve the vote.
ReplyDeleteAnd you certainly don't deserve someone of David's calibre. I don't know why he wastes his time with the thick Labour peasantry, the thick Tory toffocracy or the thick Lib Dem pseudo-bourgeoisie.
"One of the most importnat contributions to this debate in years", says a man who believes that the right to vote should be based on desert. Idiot.
ReplyDeleteWe're back on topic now, however little Martin or Anonymous might have intended us to be. So let's stay that way. Over to you, dear readers.
ReplyDeleteYour system seems to be a combination of alternative vote and an open primary. I agree with you about the party machines, but wonder what would replace them, because people network; and I totally agree about PR in a big country. Small countries are different--there's no one-size fits all electoral system surely? really really interesting blog
ReplyDeleteThanks, Martin.
ReplyDeleteYes, my system is very close to an open primary, although the original nominations would be from within, if you like, the party machines.
However, those machines would be as they operate at local, rather than central, level, something that they would have to start doing again. As new parties emerge to replace the practically defunct old ones, this will be a significant incentive to people to join them and to become active, just as the present situation is a significant incentive to drop out of activism or to leave altogether.
I'm not in favour of AV, and yes, I strongly agree that there is no one-size-fits-all electoral system applicable to every country.
This post is just brilliant! In fact, they all are.
ReplyDeleteSo, David, what do you think of an elected second chamber?