Thursday, 10 June 2010

Proportional Representation-Why we need it

There is a view that someone like me an 18 year old person who is not from a middle class background, when to a school which the year above me achieved 19% A*-C pass grades and from a so called bad town would be interested in politics never mind PR. My question has always been well I live in this country and the government dictates what I can and can not do. It would be irresponsible for me not to have interest in what is going on. With the recent election it highlighted a crisis in politics. A hung part was achieved which showed that the majority of the public does not support labour or the conservatives and that there is a range of opinions. Even though this occurred under the current electoral system the Conservative party with 36% did not have to form a coalition but could could of opted for minority rule instead. What bothered me was that the conservative party joined a coalition with the Liberal Democrats not because of a shared ideology, but for them to maintain control of the executive and in turn parliament. This choice is not based upon the foundation of trying to help people but to have power. For me the way to make sure it's the people put first and not politicians is to change the electoral system form First-past-the- post to Proportional Representation.

PR was the reason why I even bothered to walk down to the polling station to cast a vote for the Liberal Democrats so it would be appropriate to explain why I came to the decision to vote for them. Over the year up to the election I grew increasingly stressed by the fact I did not agree with Labour and the Conservatives proposed policies and yet their was no opportunity to cast a meaningful vote to oppose them. I had the opportunity to hear Vince Cable and Ed Davy speak at my college. They convinced me that a change in the electoral system needed to be done.

We have had a strangled on politics with two parties who are arrogant in their actions, if we keep voting for the same thing then how can we ensure that we are being told the truth. For example you shop at a certain stall in the market called 'old reliable' we have plenty of fruit around us, but the owner only lets us buy oranges and apples and claims it is the best two fruits there is, however there is a problem in that. How can we know it's the best fruit being sold by the best trader at the best price if we can only buy from the same person? It is the same for political parties we are always going to get corruption if we never look further afield.

You can't vote for change by electing the same parties. Why can't we have a political system where we can have meaningful discussions happen between many parties. We have other European countries who has PR and yet they still exist there hasn't been a break down in politics in Germany,Switzerland,Portugal,Belgium, Austria and many others inside and outside the EU. In fact the wider spectrum of political views has meant that there is very little chance that extremists could take over that country. Our society isn't divided into two, so our political system should not be divided into two either.

I have heard too many times people voting for Labour or the Conservative party without ever considering anything else. The idea of voting is for people to have been informed about the different choices so that they can make an informed decision. This means that a voter must be able to to look at different options with each one having a credible chance of being elected. A true wasted vote should not be one that is based on a party chances of wining, but on the basis that a voter as made an ill informed choice.

The two most popular arguments against this is 1) strong government is needed 2) the likes of the BNP will have more say. To the first point strong government means that there is less fear of them being defeated on legislation with people being opposed to them. Why would anyone regardless of political affiliation not want a government which is more sensitive to the views of others. For those who say that there is already a good system of that only has to look at Labour wanting to introduce ID cards even though there was opposition from the public and opposing political parties.

To the second point we live in a democracy where everyone has their right to voice an opinion in which people may not agree with. Regardless of the fact that the BNP would get a better political platform what we truly should be concerned about is that fact that people vote for them in the first place.It has been the lack of representation that forces people to vote for extremist parties because those parties get heard because of their controversial views. Nick Griffin leader of the BNP made a good point on Question Time on immigration only being debated because of their party. It is a sad time when a person has to vote and support a party which wants to unravel the multicultural society we live in which has made our nation what it is to be heard.We as a country have shied away from the BNP and the EDL from being hesitant in using the English flag to crying out when they were on Question Time. What we need is to have open conversations with these groups and expose their stupidity that is how we combat racism.

I am just an average person who sees that people are concerned that their views are being ignored. PR doesn't solve the problems we have, but it can be apart of a bigger wider change. Let us stop being afraid of progress and actually care for democracy, so that we can maintain the fundamental purpose of our government of representing us.

13 comments:

  1. You make some good points 'Purple Heart' I too voted for the Lib-Dems at the last election for this one issue about PR. The left-right monopoly is outdated in the 21st century and results in a top-down ideology political dichotomy that is all too easily manipulated by political elite with the resources and means to do so.

    As the examples of Germany and India indicate coalition governments do indeed work and often result in more politically and economically stable governments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the majority of what you say.
    You say English flag at the end but i think you really mean the British flag - being Scottish, i don't like being ignored just because of what part of the country i am from.
    From my pov too many English say (out of ignorance, i know) Britain and England are the same thing - they are not. Britain does not stop at the English border.

    Sorry, but I'm British-Scottish and don't like being treated as if i'm not British by people in my own country.

    I think all 4 "home nations" of Britain need to stand together otherwise we'll crumble and we'll become a joke. I think it can only happen under a different system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I meant the English flag as people are more afraid to use that when not to do with sports than the British flag. I was not ignoring anywhere of the UK to say I am focused on England is unfair because I have criticized governments of paying attention to the south and not other areas especially when Scotland in the elections voted against the conservative party and yet the Tories claim that they had got a mandate from the people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the English are afraid to use it because people in the UK will see them as wanting independence and causing the break up of the union. We should all be proud of our individual countries and their achievements. In order to do that we need a radical change of how our country is governed as you have rightly said Westminster has shown that it can not manage Scotland and the North of England effectively.

    The result of this election has forced me to consider using part of my vote to vote SNP in the next election to get a referendum on independence because Westminster have to me proved through countless Labour and Conservative governments that they can't manage us (they'll bribe us (the Barnett formula) just to keep us in the union. The Calman Commission does not go far enough but i will vote for independence unless Westminster steps up to the plate. I just can't see that happening. It would break my heart to vote against the union but i will do so unless Westminster can step up to the plate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think it will stop this centralising the conservative cuts will effect the North and Wales the most as they depend more on the public sector and there isn't enough jobs in the private sector to take on that effect. Boris Johnson has been campaigning for the government not to cut money in London as the rest of the country depends on it he says. I have no problem with the union being broken up if people want it then they should get what they want. I agree there needs to be a change in how areas are governed with wales and England getting their own parliament and an independent body voted in by the people who control how much each is spent in each region so its separate from the government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To add to what I said I think the UK should become a federal state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree that UK should be a federal state but i'm not willing to sit back and let the UK fall apart which will happen i think unless we become a federal government. I wouldn't stop at the 4 Nations though, i think there is a North/South divide in both Scotland and England. North Scotland is very much liberal, South Scotland very much Labour, North England very much Labour, South England very much Cosnervative other than inner city London. Cornwall i think want their own parliament or way of governing.

    I'm willing to vote against the union because i think its the only way to make Westminster sit up and listen the only downside is i don't want to break the union. I just want Westminster to listen and act on the fact that this is not how we want to be governed.

    I also think we need to directly elect our PM. I'd rather have a Labour government but Cameron as PM. I also don't like my Labour candidate but can't get rid of her.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We need a true campaign I don't think there is one in the UK about a federal state.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Although a recent cliché now... "I agree with you Nic" when he makes the point about there being a distinction between being "British" and being "English" since although the latter is often mistakenly taken to be a synonym for the former it is really only a proper subset of the former and "British" has a far more richer and diverse culture and history than the latter. However, as posts by both Nic and Jason reveals, this "richness" is not being appropriately represented democratically, and, as a direct result British politics is continually being dominated by "English" and agendas -- which invariably means also the South of England interests and agendas. This, for me, is a further reason why PR is vital in the UK in order to ensure "British" and not (South) "English" interests are the only ones that really get represented, culturally, politically, democratically, and ultimately, economically in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tony, the weird thing is that it is being represented (sort of) democratically. We have roughly 9% of the population i believe and roughly 9% of the seats in parliament - the true reflection of Scots votes however you can debate but i think no matter what we do if we go on the principle of 1 vote = 1 vote then the South of England interests and agendas will always dominate by the mere fact that the majority live there due to the fact there are generally more jobs down there because of the mismanagement i feel done by Westminster.

    I graduate next year and i feel even in these tough economic times - it is more likely for me to get a job and sustain a job by moving to South Britain i.e. Midlands and South England. Meaning that if i were to get married and have kids the population goes up there whilst nowhere else because the greater job opportunities and in fact greater opportunities overall are in South England. Now i don't think that is fair.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If were are talking about the mismanagement of the attraction of the north and more people wanting to live in the south goes back hundreds of years. I agree with Tony we need to work on the cultural aspect of the UK however I think we need to work on being European immediately more and I think with that we can stop be self centered. Jobs are going to be scarce even in the south I plan to emigrate after university because I don't see things changing any time. soon

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great blog, plenty of food for thought there, but I am still undecided. I will say however, that although I have always been thoroughly Labour, I actually agreed with a lot of the Lib-Dems' policies this time. So perhaps PR would be a better way forward.
    Adding to this though, I am excited about the new Labour Movement which I truly believe is going to change and strengthen the Labour Party better than ever before and produce some revolutionary politics.
    Will read more on the subject tomorrow and comment further.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Liza how on earth did you get to promoting Labour on my blog? Off with your head.

    ReplyDelete