esme Posted February 25, 2010 Author Share Posted February 25, 2010 why not stand myself ?, I admit I am tempted just to see the look on my MP's face I do have a few personal reasons why I don't want to, but they aren't insurmountable just bl**dy inconvenient, let me have a think about it I was really hoping to motivate a few of the people who don't vote, 68% of the electorate didn't vote at the last general election they can't all be disqualified from standing, so why do I, a person who does vote, have to stand up for the people who don't vote? why can't they stand up for themselves ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 There are lots of reasons why they can't - family commitments, financial ones, health problems, lack of enough self-belief.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 25, 2010 Author Share Posted February 25, 2010 i.e. personal reasons that are not insurmountable just inconvenient in the most part family commitments never stopped the MP's that are in office, financial considerations can be taken care of as you yourself pointed out, however I can't really help with health problems or lack of self belief there must be some one better suited than me in the 68% who didn't vote, they are quite happy to tell people they aren't going to vote next time because no one represents them but they don't want to represent themselves so I have to overcome my personal reasons because they won't ? looks like I'm on a winner there doesn't it this is getting away from the point though which is that the people who don't vote or spoil ballots because they don't have anyone to represent their views have a solution, it's up to them to implement it, not me after all you need one candidate per constituency I can't do them all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Whilst I acknowledge that PR has been Lib Dem policy for a very long time, there are some members of the Labour Party who also campaign for electoral reform (me being one of them) and even in the Conservative Party. The recent pledge by the Prime Minister to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system shows that the number of folk within the Labour Party who are convinced of the need to change our ridiculous voting system is growing. Even Roy Hattersley appears to have now been persuaded of the merits of abandoning the first past the post voting system. Oh please, the Lib Dems are utterly committed to PR, Blair talked about PR and other constitutional reforms pre 1997 but dropped them as soon as he realised how big his majorities for the next few election under fptp were going to be. Labour, Brown included have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can absolutely not be trusted to carry out constitutional reform. What's the saying about "fool me once..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 it's a start but the MP has proposed the weakest possible form of reformation by choosing the alternative vote system it is not a true proportional representation system and is still susceptible to manipulation using techniques like gerrymandering I agree with you that the alternative vote isn't a system of proportional representation, and I'm personally disappointed that the governent isn't considering different options for voting under the proposed referendum. But it's a welcome start to overhauling the discredited first past the post system of voting. Gerrymandering refers to a system whereby the electoral boundaries are manipulated by the controlling political group in such a way that it benefits them. The electoral boundaries in the UK are reviewed regularly by an independent Electoral Boundary Commission. However, David Cameron has decided that if he is elected Prime Minister he will ensure that the number of MPs is reduced by 50. The Tories know full well that this will mainly be at the cost of Scottish representation in parliament. As the Tories only have 1 Scottish MP, this proposal would reduce the number of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP members of parliament, thus benefitting the Tories. Now, that's what I call gerrymandering! and to be perfectly frank the labour party have had over twelve years to introduce political reform yet the only time it gets discussed in parliament is in the run up to a general election too little too late, even if the bill were hurriedly cobbled together and fast tracked through the parliamentary process it wouldn't be an act before the election had to be held and what would happen to it after the election is over, my money would be that it will be quietly dropped while some other more imminent crisis is dealt with, there never being any shortage of handy crises requiring the governments immediate attention Blair dragged his feet over voting reform in my opinion. I feel he was pressured by the sheer number of Labour MPs elected in 1997 - who knew that voting reform would see a number of them losing their seats under a different system of voting. Remember, if the Conservatives form the government after the general election, then Cameron has already announced he will push through a bill annulling the proposed referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Blair dragged his feet over voting reform in my opinion. I feel he was pressured by the sheer number of Labour MPs elected in 1997 - who knew that voting reform would see a number of them losing their seats under a different system of voting. Remember, if the Conservatives form the government after the general election, then Cameron has already announced he will push through a bill annulling the proposed referendum. Dragged his feet! He actively opposed voting reform and having an elected Lords. The reason why is perfectly plain, he knew that either one would limit his ability to do whatever he wanted as he could with a large majority lobby fodder mps elected on only 40% of the vote. This pretence of suddenly supporting reform when on the brink of finally getting turfed out after a decade of enjoying substial majorities on a minority of the vote is fooling no-one so please don't insult us by pretending a vote for Labour is a vote for PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The only way to have a true democracy is to elect MPs by lottery, have them funded like jury service is and instantly recallable by a proportion of their constituency to defend their actions at a general meeting, if they misbehave or act in opposition to the wishes of their constituents. The outcome of that meeting a new lottery, if a simple majority vote for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstar999 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I would stand if I thought I could do as esme suggests, and NOT lose my £500 - and show how the system can be beaten by using the system as esme said .... OR - I would definitely support the person who did it. ESME - over to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Oh please, the Lib Dems are utterly committed to PR, Blair talked about PR and other constitutional reforms pre 1997 but dropped them as soon as he realised how big his majorities for the next few election under fptp were going to be. See my previous post in reply to esme. Labour, Brown included have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can absolutely not be trusted to carry out constitutional reform.... You couldn't be more wrong plekhanov. You overlook that Labour has introduced the greatest number of constitutional reforms of any government. Labour legislated for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Labour legislated that voters could choose a mayoral system of running their local council, as now happens for the London Assembly, and in Mansfield, Doncaster, Newham and elsewhere. Labour legislated for a revived Northern Ireland Assembly, based on a power sharing agreement, and elected by proportional representation (i.e., the single transferrable vote). Labour legislated to reform the House of Lords, reducing the number of hereditary peers. I'll be the first to admit that there is still more work to be done on electoral and constitutional reform. But I also feel that you are being manifestly unfair in claiming that "Labour have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can absolutely not be trusted to carry out constitutional reform". The constitutional reforms already carried out under Labour clearly demonstrate the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 25, 2010 Author Share Posted February 25, 2010 ... Gerrymandering refers to a system whereby the electoral boundaries are manipulated by the controlling political group in such a way that it benefits them. The electoral boundaries in the UK are reviewed regularly by an independent Electoral Boundary Commission... yes I know which is why I said like gerrymandering but I am perfectly sure that the members of the EBC are themselves beyond reproach and cannot be influenced by third parties, just like our MP's are beyond reproach and cannot be influenced by third parties However, David Cameron has decided that if he is elected Prime Minister he will ensure that the number of MPs is reduced by 50. The Tories know full well that this will mainly be at the cost of Scottish representation in parliament. As the Tories only have 1 Scottish MP, this proposal would reduce the number of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP members of parliament, thus benefitting the Tories. Now, that's what I call gerrymandering! Blair dragged his feet over voting reform in my opinion. I feel he was pressured by the sheer number of Labour MPs elected in 1997 - who knew that voting reform would see a number of them losing their seats under a different system of voting. Remember, if the Conservatives form the government after the general election, then Cameron has already announced he will push through a bill annulling the proposed referendum. so ? when did this become a vote conservative thread needing you to point out their failings ? please stay on topic my suggestion was that the people who find themselves unrepresented by the current political offerings and therefore find themselves moved to abstain or spoil their ballot in protest, a markedly ineffectual protest you must agree, should attempt to prevent the formation of a new government by repeatedly forcing a general election by standing as candidates themselves and resigning when they win, this merry go round to continue until every party agrees to introduce full proportional representation and the right to recall MP's PR and the right to recall being sufficient to make parliament accountable to the electorate in my opinion rather than the current case where they say jump and we don't even ask how high there may be other better and simpler ideas which would achieve this aim, I'd love to hear them but for the moment these are the best I've got the only problem really is how do we trust the politicians to keep their word after the merry go round is over, they could simply ignore it as a promise made under duress, they could pass it and then repeal it or amend existing legislation spread over a few acts the combination of which effectively remove PR and recall the issue here redrobbo is one of trust, those who don't vote have lost faith with the system because they perceive that politicians have lied to them in the past are lying to them now and will continue to lie to them in the future and that nothing they do will change this so they don't take part in the process I haven't mentioned any parties here because the problem is with politicians and politics you can score points off the conservatives all you like, I don't care, they aren't the issue, neither is the labour party, the lib dems or any of the others the problem is all of them together, they can do what they like for five years and the electorate can't do anything about it if it doesn't like it it's not an attack on any particular party it's a demand that politics should represent the views of the electorate and not any one political party regardless of how many seats they have in the house I have suggested a way whereby those who feel disenfranchised can deal with them all together and do something about the things it doesn't like, some 68% of the electorate apparently felt this way at the last general election all they have to do is stand up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.