Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
New Shadow Cabinet
It is good to see David Lammy, taking his place again in the new Shadow Cabinet. He has been very vocal of late but usually on issues of great important to local people.
It is even better that he is a great supporter of Proportional Representation. Hopefully he & other local MPs, Bambos Charalambous, Tulip Siddiq etc., will be able to persuade their colleagues to also support it.
Many of them are undecided on the issue including Labour’s new leader. A position which seems to typify Labour and its policies throughout.
Maybe, just maybe, Labour will come to realise that adopting P.R. is their best, possibly their only, chance of becoming the governing party again.
Local people would do well to ponder on this.However genuine the current governments commitment was to "levelling-up" many may think that areas such as Tottenham may well be better served by a government more in tune with its problems.
Keith Hubbard
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Simon on
-
The adoption of PR would certainly be fairer as there have been any occasions where the total population has voted in one direction but our electoral system has delivered an opposite result.
-
Permalink Reply by K. E. Hubbard on
-
It should also go some way in answering the problem of the MPs wanting one thing often against their constituents wishes.
With a wider variety of candidates the Parliamentary representation would be broader. It should be possible to vote for a candidate with whom you may agree on one or two major issues but disagree on many others as there would also be representation by a candidate who may represent you on other issues.
Society is to complex to only have the choice of two parties who often cannot even agree amongst themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Ruggles on
-
As a retired Trade Union Member
Today's Labour Party does not represent todays workers or Working Class
Especially the likes of David Lammy who continually plays the race card
Yes Tottenham is a very mixed race part of the Borough
But Not all are poor or living on the bread line
And much of the crime is down to people who believe that they can carry out crimes And claim its their Right to have money without doing a days work for it
Biggest joke is Trade Union members paying political levy for a Party they will Never elect
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2 on
-
We've got a Labour Council Bob. Next thing you know, they'll be painting rainbows all over the roads.
-
-
Well aware. But on a very low electoral Vote
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Pujol on
-
about the PR, there was a referendum for an alternative vote in 2011 and it was vastly rejected (68% against it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Why do you think this was? it was certainly an improvement.it was a crushing defeat. why would you think there could be another one?
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
This was the forty pieces of silver from the Tories so that the Lib Dems would support a coalition government with unpalatable policies such as tuition fees. Unfortunately Cameron out-manouvered Nick Clegg by proposing a type of PR that even some proponents of PR could not support; many PR supporters voted against it.
The AV system which was proposed by Cameron was used only by Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. (Other systems such as transferable, AV+ , the two-round system used in France or the PR-STV used in Ireland and Northern Ireland were not put forward ).
The question put was...
"At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?" Many had no idea what the AV system entailed or how it would work.
Campaign positions were The Labour Party -no official position, Conservatives- Vote No and retain First Past the Post system, Lib Dems (plus Greens, SNP, Plaid,SDLP, Sinn Fein), vote Yes for AV.
As you say 68% against with many hoping that it would be revisited in the future with a different system proposed.
-
-
I totally agree that the Tories totally out-manouvered the LibDems on that.
In terms of information about how the AV works, I think it wasn't too complicated to explain. difficult to say but surely there was more information for it than in other referendums (Scottish indy or brexit, for example).still imperfect, but would not that be better than what it is now?
-
-
AV is not usually considered to be a viable form of PR. There are several types that are more representative & in some cases can deliver the "Constituency Link" which is often the reason (excuse?) for some MPs rejecting it.
What was interesting about the referendum on PR was that the percentage of people voting for it matched the numbers who did not vote for the two main parties at that time.
This was before the Greens, UKIP, SNP, Brexit etc were really significant or even existed.
Then about a third of the electorate did not vote Labour or Conservative & were therefore ignored.
It struck me at the time how fast the discussions reverted just to the interests of the main two parties. The wishes of the 32% being ignored & dismissed as irrelevant pretty quickly.
It would be interesting to see how many of those politicians & particularly media people of that time still see things that way.
Some may well have changed their tune given that for many events may have gone against them.
-
Permalink Reply by Neil on
-
The present voting system is very popular and has just provided us with a strong and stable government which is gaining high approval ratings. Boris, the leader, has received some of the highest approval ratings from voters for any prime minister.
Your PR has a record of producing hung and weak parliaments where the many different parties elected cannot agree to form a coalition or who to lead them. Italy is a notorious example.
After the shocking delay in delivering Brexit caused by the small majority held by the last government, most voters want a government with a secure majority. The present system delivers this. It also re elects Conservatives governments because most voters like what they have been able to achieve under the present voting system.
The Lib Dems are the only major party supporting PR and very few voters vote for them.
-
-
Neil makes some good points about the Referendum but is perhaps doubtful on some other comments.
The fact that we now have a (for the moment) strong & stable Government is largely down to the lamentable performance of the opposition. To the point where there was little alternative. Also the peculiar effects of the Brexit saga where the Country arguably was held to ransom.
In fact we have not had a strong & stable government for at least ten years, other than under the coalition.
This proves the need for P.R.
Arguably the only governments elected by popular vote were the two Labour Govts. after 1945 & even then they were put out of office by a party with less votes.
Also it might be fair to say that M. Thatcher's Govt. had a genuine popularity at periods during the mid '80s but that claim could be contentious, particularly around here!
Contrary to Neil's claim that the current system is popular, time & time again recently all polls have shown that a change is required.
The only problem is that whilst it has been frequently mentioned in the media both by journalists & interviewees nobody has followed it up.
Despite some 150 MPs (before the election) supporting it no serious public figure or better still no national media outlet has made it the subject of a campaign.
The assertion that only the Lib/Dems support P.R is false, the third largest party in Parliament, the ScotsNats are enthusiastic supporters even though it would not be to their advantage.
In fact the majority of Labour members support it (including the Hornsey & Wood Green Party) and all the smaller parties.
There are even those who agree with in the Tory party but one suspects they are keeping a bit quiet at the moment.
In years past when the two dominant parties were the only real alternatives the FPTP system many may have considered it adequate but that is no longer the case.
UKIP & The Greens got around six & a half million votes during each of the 2015 & 2017 elections. They got one MP between them.
Whatever your views on these parties this is a disgrace. If you disagree with them you cannot argue if they are not there.
To effectively disenfranchise those voters as well as the other minorities (Lib/Dems etc.) is a very quick way to promote civil unrest & send people to the extremes.
This country has more branches of XR than any other largely because every other democratic country bar two has a form of PR & therefore Green MPs being heard.
On the other hand PR might have solved the Brexit issue quicker as there could well have been a broader representation of views better reflecting the countries actual wishes.
The world has become too complicated & diverse for just two rather dogmatic parties to deal with.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
An excellent summary. Thank you
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
