Following the thoughts of Dick from another thread which read :  "If we had proper democracy, ie proportional representation, (PR) John may have gained more votes because more voters would have turned out, knowing that their vote would actually make a difference, " I thought that there might be some interesting views on this topic.

For my part I am uneasy about PR in that it does not 'compel' voters to decide for themselves who they want as government. Although it does allow voters a wider choice, in so doing it gives the politicians options for making deals that could not have been forseen in their respective manifestos. This means that, as in Italy for the past sixty years, the Government ends up comprised of politicians who are in office because of deals done during discussions held AFTER the election, and which have not appeared in manifestos or been put to the electorate.

In short, my argument against PR is that it allows voters to dodge the tricky decisions, and allows politicians to knock up whatever deal suits the situation in which they find themselves. Therefore, the voter gets maximum choice of input but no choice as to output.

My idea of democracy is that the voter makes his/her decision on the balance of argument, aspiration etc and does not leave that balancing decision for others to make in 'ex' smoke filled rooms.

I take your point Peter about the difficulties the political parties have when they operate in a  proper democratic system such as PR. But those difficulties are minuscule when compared with the grotesque injustices heaped on the ordinary citizens when they are ruled by an elective dictatorship such as in our own phony democracy. The less  time the elected party has to pass laws and meddle in the affairs of its citizens the better. When you observe the disgraceful financial fiddling committed by our present bunch of MPs it is enough to destroy the average punters faith in democracy. If politicians are in a secure and unassailable position in the House of Commons they will cheat the electorate and tell the most appalling lies. without the slightest fear of being reprimanded. If however their Parliament seats were at the mercy of the proportional representation system of government the future of those telling lies and cheating is much less secure than under our present system. Having observed politics from within and outside of the political establishment my own opinion of  most MPs is that they are more concerned about their mistresses and or toy boys than their commitment to serve the faithful electorate

Dick

Maybe proportional representation would be better if it was more targetted - I propose that people who pay more tax should get more say on how that tax is spent. Queue the flames.

Dick:

Having observed politics from within and outside of the political establishment my own opinion of  most MPs is that they are more concerned about their mistresses and or toy boys than their commitment to serve the faithful electorate

Too right! We are fortunate to live in a state of political fear, where it makes no practical difference who you vote for as the results will be startlingly similar. As you can easily sacrifice your principles to win a vote or two, who really cares? Part of the fun is the daily scandal about MPs trivial lives. I for one would be suspicious of any public figure who a) didnt have a list, tic or other train that would generally render them useless at public office, b) didnt at lease attempt to screw as much money as they could from the public purse, c) didnt at least attempt to screw as many young female (or male) junior members of staff, and d) didnt have lined up a cushy retirement job with one firm who they had denied receiving money from in the past. 

Vote for who you want. Or dont vote. Makes no real difference. 

we can never suit every one, the third uk party is a safty valve in the uk.

 the older i get the more i belive in leadership and what we are about is reguler movement of leadership.

any party going out leaves a mess for the next, but the mess changes with changes in circumstances,   events i am afraid.

 IT WAS CLEAR IN HOWDEN THAT THE EAST RIDING VOTED FOR DAVID CAMERON NOT DAVID DAVIS WHO IS WIDELY REGARDED AS A ?

 THE EAST YORKIES LIKE THE SOUND OF THINGS LIKE IF YOU ARE A FAT IDLE *** LOOK AT YOURSELF FIRST

 CAMERON COULD NOT HAVE GOT AWAY WITH THIS IN HIS EARLY PERIOD

 HE IS VIEWED WITH THE SAME SORT OF CARISMA AS BLAIR IN IS EARLY YEARS

WE ARE LOOKING AT NEW CONSERVATISM       thank god

I should just like to say that I hope John feels proud of himself for at least standing up against this absolute Charade.What Peter says about the defecits of PR are quite correct but I and I think most of the Electors are pretty fed up with this antiquated system that is hoisted as the Gemstone of Democracy.I am sure what ever system were in place there would be procrastinations such as mine for a better,fairer system but now I do believe this system of ours has in a lot of instances run its time.The World is a fast place now and just as Peter keeps telling us the power shift is going East.That does not mean that we through in the Towel that means we have to adapt and quickly.We are trying to use a Victorian system that is too slow to react to the needs of the Electorate and far to slow and stayed to react to the modern economic and Politcal world and this has been compounded by another rag tag bunch from Europe who except for the Dutch and some of the Scandinavians are under even worse systems than we have.The little light I see in the Tunnel [and many may ridicule this ] are the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.They I think were put in to appease the "Renegade Celts and Picts" but you boys over the Borders have now got autonomy over quite a bit of what you do and we can see over Education Fees,Health issues,Agricultural matters etc, this could be the way to split the Uk into Regions with Elected Chambers and get rid of of County and District Councils and keep the Parish Councils. If The Regions sent say two Members to Parliament and Parliament was then as it were a large Cabinet Committee bringing debate and Instruction from the Regions who would take debate and pass instruction back to the Parishes so that Democracy actually reached its roots and at the same time decisive action could be taken by the Executive at Westminster but they would be aware that should bad decessions be taken the scrutiny of the Nation could be unleashed on them.This  I feel would also rid us of this Paper Phoof Politican that has seemed to emerge that has never worked,experienced or seen life in its true quite harsh forms sometimes and who also is unaware of any form of Disipline be it Commercial,Medical,Scientific,Military ec,etc.

  Anyway thats todays rant over now to play Cricket against my old Doctor Pal and his cronies who will pour their fears of the cost of food on me after taking another £100,000 plus in Salary  !!!

PR sounds great in theory and may lead you to belive it is more  democratic and I suppose to some extent it is, we have a form of PR in New Zealand, we have 2 votes one for our MP and another party vote, any party that gains 5% or more of the party vote can have  MPs in parliment even though they may not have been elected in a constituency, what happens in parliment is that the minority parties hold the balance of power leading to them having a disproportinate say in policy, in our case we have the Green Party as the King maker, do you want a similar situation in the UK Dick

Stewart

 I think you have just demonstrated the correctness of my argument. I would, as you surmise, of course, be unhappy about the Greens having the balance of power or any power at all, just as I hate the idea of the reds in the this country not just holding the balance of power but holding all the power for the full time of the parliament,no matter how incompetent or badly behaved  they are. But equally the balance of power could just as easily be held in the UK by a sensible right wing anti EU party like UKIP,which would suit me down to the ground sir !

Dick

Dick,

I am amused by your pauline conversion to proportional representation. I am speculating here, but am I right that you were not a big fan of it in Margaret Thatcher's day? A voting system is only unfair when it doesn't give you the result that you want.

Dick

To have a minority party from the extremes of either the left or right holding the balance of power cannot be an ideal situation, if they are voted for by the majority that is another matter, but to have a party with 5% of the vote able to push through policies that are unpopular with the electorate cannot be good. The first place to start on the road to a more democratic system should be a move towards an elected second house and elected head of State instead of them being in place due to an accident of birth.

 Stewart

 P.S. I think up the rams has made a fair assesment of your views on PR

Stewart:

The first place to start on the road to a more democratic system should be a move towards an elected second house and elected head of State instead of them being in place due to an accident of birth.

If memory serves me well, there are now only 90 Peers in the House of Lords by dint of birth, and the question of an elected head of state does not seem to me to sit easily with arguments about PR. I do however, agree that minority interests should not be able to drive policies not agreed by the majority but, neither should minority interests be ignored or cast aside by the majority.

As a country folk minority, we have ourselves lived through eleven years of having our views and way of life ignored and, some would say, positively discriminated against by a governing party which claimed to represent a majority. On the other hand there is no doubt that the majority of people in this country would like to see, with some caveats, the return of the death penalty. Yet a minority prevent an expression of that will.

It can be shown therefore, that our present system, on some issues, does not allow the expression of the majority view nor the minority view. This is a major flaw but this flaw is not exclusive to the 'first past the post system' and, it is my view that this 'flaw,' is also apparent in PR systems.

However, I do wonder if the disciplines inherent in the F.P.Post system are more effective in preventing the worst kinds of excess at the fringes of law-making. PR, on the other hand, with its much weakened party whipping system is likely to result in more fudges and less decisive political action.

Both PR and  first past the post have their negative side with PR you tend to have more compromise but can have the parties on the extreme fringes having too much power, first past the post leans towards a stronger government, the downside is that  a change of party  can see huge swings in policy.

 If your present system on some issues does not allow the majority view and at times listens to the minorty then it must be working, at times it may not agree with your minority view or even your majority view but to only listen to one part of society even if they are the majority would soon lead to mob rule.

Just how has the present government ignored your views and way of life, farming has gone through a difficult period many businessess do, is that the fault of the party in power? With the exception of the hunting ban just what has Labour done wrong regarding the countryside and agriculture?

I mentioned an unelected head of State and unelected second house in my earier posting as PR was put forward to be more democratic that could be argued either way but I see little point in looking for a more democratic way of voting when you are governed and ruled purely due to a parlicular lineage.

Stewart:

With the exception of the hunting ban just what has Labour done wrong regarding the countryside and agriculture?

Foot and mouth labs, the RPA, TB, EU policy, Rural Development money and modulation, red diesel tax, renewable energy policy, flood defences, car tax, road fuel tax, inspections and thousands of other mistakes and deliberate decisions designed to damage the countryside.

Anyone got more?

Losing Important Data of Millions of people 

Stewart:

I see little point in looking for a more democratic way of voting when you are governed and ruled purely due to a parlicular lineage.

Stewart, In the quotation above, you do not appear to gave given sufficient weight to the titular nature of our Head of State nor to the fact mentioned earlier in the thread that there are 90 only hereditary peers out of a total of 900 members, most of whom have been 'chosen' by those men of impeccable and arbitary nature. T Blair and G Brown.

As to what has the Labour Party done to agriculture in addition to the Hunting Ban? How about the impact on agriculture and farm workers, and the rest of the nation by their raids on:

• Pension Funds
• Windfall taxes on oil companies
• Windfall taxes on banks
• Sale of our 'Reserves' after announcing t