here's a nice result everyone from the south east of england, total indictment i think of our stupid electoral system.
Labour: 18 seats with 24.2% of the votes
Lib Dem: 6 seats with 25.5% of votes.

P.R is a bad system...it helped Hitler get in the Reichstag and get a voice he otherwise would never have had. In addition it creates weaker governments...just look at Italy, i mean until Berlusconi was elected, the longest standing leader was for something like 2 or 3 yrs!

Enlighten me on this mystical "P.R." thing.

Couldn't agree more Gothic.

Its been most interesting up here to contrast this and previous Westminister elections with the PR single transferable vote system put in place for Devolution in the Holyrood elections. The Scottish system is so much more flexible and offers a much greater choice. Consequently last night was really frustrating!

The usual excuses of PR versus 'First past the Post' haven't worked as there is still local accountability and it gets better in that if you really can't stand the person who became your MSP you can always work with one of your areas List MSPs. In my area: Glasgow Govan (though it's now Glasgow South in Westminister) we have the Labour MSP Gordon Jackson as constituency MSP who has not been massively effective ( read useless... you could put a puppet on a string up for Labour in Govan and they'd still get elected and this guy combines his MSP role with being Scotland's highest paid legal attorney so just how much time does he dedicate to parliament?) and the SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon as the list MSP who is desperate to win the constituency seat (as it is perceived as more legitimate) and therefore always goes the extra mile for the people she regards as her constituents. She's done great things behind the scenes locally just a shame voter instincts are so entrenched here and unfortunately the press has always lampooned her as a nippy sweetie when she's actually a hard working dedicated individual who makes an excellent MSP.

Proportional representation..sometimes it varies between countries but basically your percentage of votes gets translated into a percentage of the seats in the parliament...hence labour would have like 36% of the seats in the House of Commons - 233 seats, so would have to form a coalition. i dont like the system as it gives seats to parties like the BNP, they would get a few i think.

Yes but it forces people to work with each other. Nothing puts me off party politics more than inane statements from Blair about 'forward with labour or going back to the tory years' It's soundbite superficial nonsense and the country winds up oscillating between the two

^ But it's only fair is so many people vote for that party.

if pr doesnt work then why do we have it in scottish, welsh and northern irish elections, european elections and london assembley elections? if it doesnt work why isnt scotland in pieces?

But in reality the parties never work that well with each other...our system works well and has given us an virtually unmatched political stabilty :D.

Maybe but our system has also given us the dubious pleasures of an overly centralised state that Blair has continued to build on and in doing so has paid lip service to parliamentary democracy.

No way, see my posts in the elections threads from yesterday for reasons why.

i dont like the system as it gives seats to parties like the BNP, they would get a few i think.

I can't stand this arguement. So what if it gives seats to minority parties - this is a (supposed) democracy. If the people of this country did want the BNP, then maybe they should have the BNP. I don't like them, and you don't like them, but if lots of other people like them, then maybe they should be represented. That's democracy - everyone has a voice.

:applause:

First past the post is a more democratic system for each region tho...the most popular party for that area gets in there. I wouldnt like to be lumbered with a BNP minister just because a small fraction across the country decided to vote them. The first past the post system is much better.

whats democratic about the results its throwing up in any region? the tories got 1 seat in scotland, the lib dems only 6 in the south east? give me some examples of it being democratic.

I can't stand this arguement. So what if it gives seats to minority parties - this is a (supposed) democracy. If the people of this country did want the BNP, then maybe they should have the BNP. I don't like them, and you don't like them, but if lots of other people like them, then maybe they should be represented. That's democracy - everyone has a voice.

If they are good enough that is what will happen under the present system, the fact that they don't win a seat shows that a majority of voters in that consituency don't want them.

One must remember a British General Election is a series of little votes to make one big one.

The percentage of votes per candidate is reflected in that constituency to who wins, things only get distorted when it is looked at in terms of a national vote which it is not.

The key to this system is that it brings power to a local level and not a national one.

:applause:

you get an even more democratic outcome when you have true a bicameral parliament where both its houses are elected on different voting systems.

Australian House of Representatives: Majoritarian (must have 50% + 1 of vote, done with preferences if you dont score 50% outright), favours the big parties, much like British Commons, stability in government etc.

Australian Senate: Consociational (proportional representation, 12 senators per state, 2 per territory, candidate has to get 12% of vote to get a seat, if not won outright, done so with preferences from other parties), allows smaller parties to have a say, offers diversity in opinion - a true house of review.

voters have far more choice in their vote in each house, and they have the ability to be strategic in the way they elect a government: i.e give a party in the Reps a majority, but give their senate vote to another party so as to keep the checks and balances on the government of the day.

If they are good enough that is what will happen under the present system, the fact that they don't win a seat shows that a majority of voters in that consituency don't want them.

One must remember a British General Election is a series of little votes to make one big one.

The percentage of votes per candidate is reflected in that constituency to who wins, things only get distorted when it is looked at in terms of a national vote which it is not.

The key to this system is that it brings power to a local level and not a national one.

But it is a national vote in practice Zim. I know what you['re saying, and on a local level it's good, but these are our national general elections. It's not fair that if a party gets a steady 20% of votes in every single constituency that that party would not attain a single seat in the commons. My vote is worth nothing as I'm in a safe seat. Only about half a million people's votes mattered last night.

The BNP had 17% of the vote in Barking (apprioprately named)

Yeah Zim, your comments just shows up the benefits of the Scottish PR system! Local accountability plus a measure of fairness in the sense that your vote isn't wasted at the assembly level.

The Australian system does sound as though it could pay dividends here Tayser. Particularly for a second chamber for review of legislation.

But it is a national vote in practice Zim. I know what you['re saying, and on a local level it's good, but these are our national general elections. It's not fair that if a party gets a steady 20% of votes in every single constituency that that party would not attain a single seat in the commons. My vote is worth nothing as I'm in a safe seat. Only about half a million people's votes mattered last night.

Everyone's vote matters.

For example, what the Lib Dems achieved last night is huge. The consquences will not be seen untill the next election.

They pushed themselves into a clear second in many of Labour's safe seats People in the next election will vote for them as a means to get rid of Labour MPs, as a small swing to the Lib Dems will really reward them with a lot of Labour Seats.

To get into this position takes time and you need to build up support and infrastructure in a consituency, often winning council seats and proving to everyone you have the ability to get the job done. It also means talking to local people about their local issues, such as schools or their local hospital.
The Tories have forgotten this for the most part and the Lib Dems are very good at it.

Compare this to a National campaign which was as dull as dish water and completely remote. I said yesterday, Michael Howard did one of those speeches in front of a camera with lots of people behind him. Unfortunately in front of him apart from the camara, there was no one else and it really was that false.

under pr because it is a national vote we would only get more of that.

At least under the current system, if a party is to play the game well, it forces them to get of their arses, leave Westminster and start knocking on doors.

not all pr is a national vote. here's an example.
merge every five constituencies into one and then have local lists for these larger constituencies, then each of those five represents 20% of the vote for the area. in this part of the country the tories would have three mps, libs and labour one each. do that nationwide, its much fairer than what we have but keeps local constituencies, there are more systems than just a national list.

not all pr is a national vote. here's an example.
merge every five constituencies into one and then have local lists for these larger constituencies, then each of those five represents 20% of the vote for the area. in this part of the country the tories would have three mps, libs and labour one each. do that nationwide, its much fairer than what we have but keeps local constituencies, there are more systems than just a national list.

So you create a supersized constituency ala European Elections, which is equally remote, I saw no canidates in those elections, how could they possible knock on every door in a super sized consituency.

Again they become to remote.

But it is a national vote in practice Zim. I know what you['re saying, and on a local level it's good, but these are our national general elections. It's not fair that if a party gets a steady 20% of votes in every single constituency that that party would not attain a single seat in the commons. My vote is worth nothing as I'm in a safe seat. Only about half a million people's votes mattered last night.

But if they aren't popular enough to win an individual seat, why should they be given a say, in your example 80% of people inthat constituency didn't vote for that candidate.

Our system isn't perfect but it's worked alright for several hundred years...if it aint broke......

it is technically possible to win 49% of the vote without a seat and have the other two parties get 25% each and get all the seats between them.

Lyonsdown, evidently you haven’t had to endure the Scottish electorates experience of the 80’s and 90’s when they did not vote for successive Thatcher and Major administrations but got them anyway despite the Conservatives having only a handful of Scottish MP’s! Hence devolution… Consequently we wound up with Trident, and the Poll Tax a year before England and Wales had to experience it (wags branded Scotland, ‘the testing ground’, and our demonstrations were ignored) etc etc all things the electorate did not want and had not voted for. A two decade disenfranchisement… This explains why there is only one Tory MP in Scotland.

Yeah but you've got your own back on us now, inflicting countless scottish MP's in our cabinet when we can't even vote on scottish issues now!!

But if they aren't popular enough to win an individual seat, why should they be given a say, in your example 80% of people inthat constituency didn't vote for that candidate.

Our system isn't perfect but it's worked alright for several hundred years...if it aint broke......

Well 80% of people didn't vote for Labour yesterday - yet they have a fairly large majority. Is that popular enough?

Basically this system only reqards concentrated areas of support. A party that is fairly popuilar all over the country will be punished in favour of those who are popular in specific areas.

A party could get 50% of the vote in 50% of places, and 0% in the other half of the country. they would be far far better off than the party that polls 25% all over the country. I just don't think that's right.

I can see why people like FPTP - but I don't. :)

it is technically possible to win 49% of the vote without a seat and have the other two parties get 25% each and get all the seats between them.


could you give an example of when this happened or is this just a theoretical example, if it is I could have a field day with theoretical examples of some of the cock ups PR could give us

Yeah Zim, your comments just shows up the benefits of the Scottish PR system! Local accountability plus a measure of fairness in the sense that your vote isn't wasted at the assembly level.

The Australian system does sound as though it could pay dividends here Tayser. Particularly for a second chamber for review of legislation.

I'm sorry gweilo, but any system that gives seats to the Scottish Socialists who are a red shirted variety of the BNP does not sound like a system I would like in England.

and Judging by the do gooder crap I hear coming out of the mouths of most Scottish parliamentarians in the Edinburgh parliament, I am not that exited by a system that puts them there.

i can give two examples since ww2 of the "winning" party getting less votes, the last time was in 1974. as blunther says, the electoral system benefits parties with concentrations of votes.

Actually Lyonsdown we have just had our boundaries redrawn to reflect the advent of the Scottish parliament. Consequently there are now the same number of MPs per head of population in Scotland as there are in England. But, I have to be honest I think the whole constitutional set up post devolution is a typical British fudge. It doesnae work and really Scottish MPs should not be voting on English only issues. There is an irresistible logic in English devolution though I imagine vested interests in all parties would not be keen to see it happen.

Zim, I agree with your sentiments vis a vis the majority of the numpties in the Scottish parliament (though the SSP do add some much needed colour ;) ). A political commentator at the start sneerlingly referred to it as North Lanarkshire council writ large and he was right, it has been disappointing. You only have to hear a cringe inducing debate in the place to appreciate it! But that is not the fault of the PR electoral system. Many of the people in it are former councilors and unfortunately that mentality has traveled with them. The reason most of them are there is that

a)it’s a loyalty pay off for years of hard underpaid grind in various councils.

b)Many are placeman who are there because Central office doesn’t want the boat to be rocked.

Consequently the talent has done what it has always done in Scotland for the best part of the last century and headed south. But if you had proper root and branch reform with English devolution, and a separate UK parliament rather than the cobbled together solution we have just now that might change things as that option would no longer be open…

What I can't believe is that people here presume that the people who vote for the BNP shouldn't have their voice heard. I hate their views, but it is undemocratic if there are people who want the BNP to represent them, then their views should be heard. Either you are a democrat or you are not. Otherwise you are saying 'go out and vote but only for candidates I aprrove of'.

Zim you have to admit, our system doesn't work and doesn't represent the wishes of the British people. I have to be the most politically active and aware person I know, but yet my vote doesn't count. Unless you vote for the winner my MP will not accurately represent my views at all.

People don't realise that there are any number of PR systems to choose from, there isn't one way of doing it. Northern Ireland has had PR for decades. YOu don't have to have a closed list system, it can be an open list, or the Australian system using the Alternative vote.

It is time our system was changed. The Jenkins Commission came up with some very sensible proposals on reforming our system which would allow greater fairness but with stable government and with a consitutency link.

I have to be the most politically active and aware person I know, but yet my vote doesn't count. Unless you vote for the winner my MP will not accurately represent my views at all..

What rubbish...your vote counts just as much as anyone elses in your constituency. I don't agree with PR as it doesn't really reflect local issues. Any independents eg. george galloway wouldn't get a seat under it.

under which PR system are you referring to.

I've always wondered: do local MPs and national governments really have to be voted in together under one election?

voters have far more choice in their vote in each house, and they have the ability to be strategic in the way they elect a government: i.e give a party in the Reps a majority, but give their senate vote to another party so as to keep the checks and balances on the government of the day.


I think there's too much obsession with checks and balances. Gernerally I prefer the government to actually get things done.

could you give an example of when this happened or is this just a theoretical example, if it is I could have a field day with theoretical examples of some of the cock ups PR could give us

It's incredibly theoretical - basically in half the constituencies in the country Party A gets 51% of the vote and Party B gets 49% of the vote, and in the other constituencies Party C gets 51% and Party B 49%. But it's still correct :)

I've just spent the past year learning about why proportional representation is wrong. I wont support it until July!

What happens in July?

No PR for me. I elect someone to represent me local area in the house of commons. He lives in the next road along, he gos to the same shops and pubs. He listens to the voice of the people near by (in theory). PR inevitably means someone living miles away who may never set foot in my area.

I thought PR was deemed too complicated for average Joe Public and would put people off voting (especially those who are from the most marginilised sections of society).

Also why would a party who has successfully won an election under the present first past the post system want to change the electoral system when it has so clearly worked in their favour. Labour would be stupid to want to change it at present.

You see you all go on about PR will result in no constituency MP's, or them being remote, or there being unstable govts, yet you all treat PR as if it is one system, it is a whole bunch of them and there are systems that can address all of your concerns.

PR you end up often wit ha load of people no one would ever put as their first choice.

you mean like the 80% of the electorate that didn't vote for Tony Blair?

In most PRs Blair would most likely be made the leader of government anyway being leader of the largest party, and remember out of all the leaders he was the most selected.

Fine, but no party has majority support, and even very few MP's get over 50% of the vote.

It's incredibly theoretical - basically in half the constituencies in the country Party A gets 51% of the vote and Party B gets 49% of the vote, and in the other constituencies Party C gets 51% and Party B 49%. But it's still correct :)


it is correct but it woudl never happen. People underetsimate the public and their capicty to get what they want from the system. Especially when they see what the polls say before they vote.

the conservative did disproportinality bad in 97 and 20021 ( indeed their shar eof the vote wbarly chnaged this time) . The reason fo that was that people tactically voted.

It isnt as blacc and white as gothic makes out. You look at the figures and they say that only a minorty voted labour and only a slightly smaller minorty voted Tory. Yet its clear from the polls that the majority are happy to have Labotu ion government and a large majoirty are opposed tohaving a Toru government. I think the result is closer to the will of the people than the percentages suggest.

I quite like the idea of single tranferable vote but I think it can overly hurt comprise candidates is it doesnt ensure that the first choice must have the backign of the majority

If the government hadn't gerrymandered a lot of the boundaries so as to include a lot of labour voting areas the result might have been quite different in the last couple of elections.

They are utterly untrustworthy IMO and are determined to hang on to power whatever it takes, being it scrapping the Lords introducing postal voting when there is clearly no need and generally saying one thing and doing the other. Labour have lost any of the little respect I had for them since 97 by being so utterly ruthless about destroying our democracy. I only hope that a reduced majority makes them think long and hard about a lot of the policies they were pushing through parliament thanks to their massive majority.


Unfortunately I doubt they will.....

I would rather them than the gerrymandering Tories who accept bribes for parliamentary questions while moralising on people's private lives but at the same time sleeping with 16 year prostitutes who have a toe-sucking fetishes. I hope the fact they didn't get a bigger share of the vote than William Hague did means they will slowly fade away into right wing oblivion

Gosh, mention p.r. and people compare to Italy. Wouldn't Sweden, Denmark, NL, Belgium, Germany be closer to the UK? Religiously and ethnically rather similar??

Far from unstable countries. Just compare the money lost in the UK during strikes to the amount lost in these countries ... I feel that < huge simplification > punch and judy, high protein nutrition and the districts have led to an overtly competitive society with nasty side effects like binge drinking and GBH.

Installing p.r. was a Labour promise in 2001, wasn't it? Don't be afraid to have BM or BNP. Show them in parliament and they'll make complete fools of themselves.

So we'd be left with all left wing politicians...that's a really healthy democracy in action.

p.r. could lead to a variety:

the big coalition, Germany had one, ruling with a 70% proportional majority
or right now
Netherlands
the current 'right-wing' government consists of 2 (out of 3) parties from the previous 'purple' coalition, much opposed to by anyone who felt part of the fortuyn movement.
You would only have left-wing parties if your country is left-wing.

Imagine propRep:

On this day, LibDems would be the party to weigh offers from both Labour and Conservatives. The great breakthrough in NL in 1994 was the equivalents to those teaming up to keep the christian-democrats out. Left-wing LibDems (D66) won many seats and made 'right-wing' LibDems (VVD) join Labour (PvdA). Belgium kind of topped that with the Greens invited in and joining.

But the european economies are doing so well!!! LMAO

Despite Labour being in power we've miraculously done OK overthe last few years, regrettably I feel the sam isn't going to be the case in this term of parliament

Excuse me, do you really think you're better off than in these countries?

Does your boss pay your yearly 2 week holiday in a spa?
Do your shelterless eat daily bread and vegetables each day?
How many hours a week do you have to work to receive just as much as German employee who can't even go shopping on a Saturday?
You may think that's hilarious but think again .. same income .. not working those hours

The UK is heading in the right direction and overhere 'we' do notice that life's getting much better but I still wouldn't move! Right now though, I'd rather live in The UK than in France, but France's run by the conservatives.

My main objection re'main's: in Britain people are too obsessed to fight eachother and the effort wasted there is turned into productivity in the countries I mentioned, which aren't representative of 'Europe'. Take it as you please. Call me whatever you like. I'm being very generous here but can you tell?

How many people are unemployed in these countrise though?

It would be fair to compare to the 'old' Germany. Germany adopted a russian sattelite state, remember? The population of the former East Germany exceeds that of the Netherlands ...

Let's compare life expectancy, medals won at Olympic Games .. Income per hour. Food for the lower incomes. Even after 2 Labour electoral wins, Britain is not the place for losers, while most people are losers. Not just most people, almost all people are losers!

I'm not writing that The UK is crap. I'm typing you should come down from your high horses.

This stupid and very stubborn attitude fascinates me! Just imagine what adopting to a Nederlandse/Gelderse/Deutsche/Schweizerische mode could get you ..

If the government hadn't gerrymandered a lot of the boundaries so as to include a lot of labour voting areas the result might have been quite different in the last couple of elections.

They are utterly untrustworthy IMO and are determined to hang on to power whatever it takes, being it scrapping the Lords introducing postal voting when there is clearly no need and generally saying one thing and doing the other. Labour have lost any of the little respect I had for them since 97 by being so utterly ruthless about destroying our democracy. I only hope that a reduced majority makes them think long and hard about a lot of the policies they were pushing through parliament thanks to their massive majority.


Unfortunately I doubt they will.....my constitiuancy changed a while ago it was previously conservative now labour - in part due to the change in boundry.

The independent Electoral Commission does boundary changes not Tony Blair.

How come they all got revised to include traditionally labour voting areas then?

The last time the boundaries were changed was 7 or 8 years ago, they are due to be revised every 10 years. This has been the case forever. The exception has been Scotland which has had the number of MP's reduced.

If you honestly believe that we live in a country that gerrymanders to keep one or two MP's in office then you must believe we don't live in a democracy.

Go to the electoral commission website.

In fact what has happened is because they are only changed every 10 years there is a discrepancy in the north and the south. Not Labour and Conservative this also affects northern lib dem and conservative seats. There is population movement from the north to the south so because we are due a boundary change currently it takes less voters to elect an MP in the north than in the south.

There is no conspiracy.

How come they all got revised to include traditionally labour voting areas then?

That's simply not true, sorry but I agree with pricemazda, boundary changes in this country are done for legitimate reasons.

it is correct but it woudl never happen. People underetsimate the public and their capicty to get what they want from the system. Especially when they see what the polls say before they vote.

the conservative did disproportinality bad in 97 and 20021 ( indeed their shar eof the vote wbarly chnaged this time) . The reason fo that was that people tactically voted.

It isnt as blacc and white as gothic makes out. You look at the figures and they say that only a minorty voted labour and only a slightly smaller minorty voted Tory. Yet its clear from the polls that the majority are happy to have Labotu ion government and a large majoirty are opposed tohaving a Toru government. I think the result is closer to the will of the people than the percentages suggest.

I quite like the idea of single tranferable vote but I think it can overly hurt comprise candidates is it doesnt ensure that the first choice must have the backign of the majority

I agree with Rigadon. For example in truely marginal seets labour actively told people to vote libdems when they knew they wont do well. Where I voted last time (high in students as I was at university) the labour party told everyone to vote lib dems over the labour party dispite fielding a candidate.

I would suggest the house of comons to remain roughly as it is - no PR. Local representatives to debate in the house and raise local issues.

I would propose the second house be comprised using a PR system.


i did a calculation on the voting figures working out the number of seats if a complete national pr system was in place. It's not entirely accurate as of course not all parties have candidates everywhere - but it gives an indication of what a PR system "could" give us.

Party .. .. pr seats. .change from current method
Labour .......228.......-128
Conservative .209........12
Lib Dem ......143........81
UKIP .........15.........15
SNP ..........10.........4
Green ........6..........6
Others .......6..........5
DUP ..........6.........-3
BNP ..........5..........5
Plaid Cymru ..4..........1
Sinn Fein ....4.........-1
UUP ..........3..........2
SDLP .........3..........0
Respect ......2..........1
Scottish Soc .1..........1
Scottish Grn .1..........1

I would suggest the house of comons to remain roughly as it is - no PR. Local representatives to debate in the house and raise local issues.

I would propose the second house be comprised using a PR system.


i did a calculation on the voting figures working out the number of seats if a complete national pr system was in place. It's not entirely accurate as of course not all parties have candidates everywhere - but it gives an indication of what a PR system "could" give us.

Party .. .. pr seats. .change from current method
Labour .......228.......-128
Conservative .209........12
Lib Dem ......143........81
UKIP .........15.........15
SNP ..........10.........4
Green ........6..........6
Others .......6..........5
DUP ..........6.........-3
BNP ..........5..........5
Plaid Cymru ..4..........1
Sinn Fein ....4.........-1
UUP ..........3..........2
SDLP .........3..........0
Respect ......2..........1
Scottish Soc .1..........1
Scottish Grn .1..........1



yup the BNP will gain influence :( Though, hey thats democracy for ya. If people vote for them, then.... :runaway:

5 seats in a parliament is hardly 'influence'. its an utter indictment of our system that 3.2% of the vote is the difference in 150 seats between the two largest parties.

i saw an interesting poll saying "who would you vote for if we had pr" and the lib dems were actually on 39%! thats how many people want to vote for them, obviously a lot of people think theyd be a 'wasted vote' so dont bother.

Our system works perfectly well. I would be majorly pissed off if I had Tories forced on me just because the people in the South East are tossers. They voted for Tories so let them suffer it. We voted Labour so don't try inflicting the Tories and Vampire Man on us. Yes, the end result this time around was a way off the result we'd have had from proportional representation. Why? Because it's too long since the boundaries were redrawn. The constituencies are supposed to be drawn up in such a way that each constituency has roughly the same number of people. Labour held back the redrawing of these lines because the numbers favoured them. THIS is what needs changing, the rules regarding redrawing of boundaries (incidentally they are due to be redrawn soon so Labour will need a larger percentage of the vote to win next time). PR allows people to have a Government inflicted upon them by people in other areas. Our existing system, if used properly, allows votes to be weighted to take into account regional trends.

i saw an interesting poll saying "who would you vote for if we had pr" and the lib dems were actually on 39%! thats how many people want to vote for them, obviously a lot of people think theyd be a 'wasted vote' so dont bother.

I saw another interesting poll which said "who would you vote for disregarding Iraq?". Labour won with a larger majority than they got in 2001. The vast majority of Lib Dem votes were protest votes against Iraq or tuition fees.

As if Labour are going to change the present Sstem when it has so effictively seen them back in to power despite a low voter percentage.

Labour would be stupid to want change at the moment.

very true earlybird, but they did happen. dent says it all, what incentive does the party in power have of introducing p.r ever? theyd just put themselves out of power.

"The dismal piece of history made on 5 May is that Tony Blair was re-elected with a meagre 36 per cent of the vote, making Labour the most unpopular party to form a majority government since the 1832 Reform Act."

Blair has always had a mission to realign british politics to the centre left. He had planned to give Paddy Ashdown a cabinet position in 97. He wants to stop the tories from ever having a grip on power again and undoing the labour parties work as they did to the post-war consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if Blair starts to move towards making PR acceptable to us.

so why didnt he give paddy ashdown a cabinet position? read the excellent book 'servants of the people'.

Because he got a much bigger majority than he though he would get. Also Brown, Prescott and Jack Straw are known to be quite hostile to PR.

even though blair promised to ashdown that the lib dems would get cabinet positions. he then kept telling ashdown this through from 97 to 99 when relationship between the lib dems and labour broke down as the lib dems were sick of being lied to. he also promised to stick to the findings of the jenkins report and did not.

It was a manifesto commitment twice to hold aq referendum on PR.

exactly, and they havent. they said they would commission a report into pr by jenkins and then impliment the findings. the report was to find out the options for p.r to put in the referendum.

Our system works perfectly well. I would be majorly pissed off if I had Tories forced on me just because the people in the South East are tossers. They voted for Tories so let them suffer it. We voted Labour so don't try inflicting the Tories and Vampire Man on us.

Well, 45.0% of people in the SE and 31.9% of Londoners are tossers vs 28.7% in the NW.

Since when has Labour stuck to anything in a manifesto.

What other than tuition fees have they not stuck to?

What other than tuition fees have they not stuck to?

they had a commitment to build the Manchester Tram system, four years later, the same commitment but no extension, just a cancellation.

Is it in the Manifesto?

banning fox hunting was another thing they havent done, fox hunting is still legal, its only illegal if you deliberately kill the fox. to do it accidentally is ok

Thats being a bit pedantic. They did repeatedly reintroduce the bill to get it past the house of lords and did in the end use the parliament act to get the bill through parliament.

And how else do you define hunting then gothic?

well its legal to chase a fox with dogs. just not kill it. it should be illegal to chase it. last weekend 84 hunts 'accidentally' killed at least one fox each.

Is it in the Manifesto?


this was from this years manifesto: “We support light-rail improvements where they represent value for money and are part of the best integrated transport solution.

“To that end, we are working with cities across the country and have committed £520 million to Manchester for Metrolink.”

I haven't got the time to dig out the old manifesto, but give me a day or two and I will list what they said four years ago on it.

Well, how else do you legally define hunting with dogs? What do you do if your dog chases a rabbit? Using a tighter definition that could be illegal.

People were trying to say that banning hunting would rely on the goodwill on people accepting the law otherwise it wouldn't really stand up.

But it is up to the police to enforce the law, so the fault lies with them not Tony Blair.

well its legal to chase a fox with dogs. just not kill it. it should be illegal to chase it. last weekend 84 hunts 'accidentally' killed at least one fox each.

you are always going on about freedom gothicform, as long as you agree with what the people are doing, as soon as it's something you dislike, you turn in to David Blunkett :laugh:

Well done to the huntsmen for proving how useless that law is.

I also have some great stats, which I will put up tomorrow on what the pro hunt lobby got up to during the election, they definately had an impact.

I suppose Zim the government would say that they did commit that money to it, but the costs of metrolink went way above that 250 million.

However my point is people now literally attack the government over everything and anything. When you actually look at it they have pretty much done what they said they would do.

People have unrealistic expectations of government, and fail to understand how policy is formed and implemented. Think even in our own lives not everything we set out to achieve is achieved even with the best of intentions.

What other than tuition fees have they not stuck to?
I'll give you a feww pledges they made and see if you think they did them.


*We will relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat.

* We will tackle the unacceptable level of anti-social behaviour and crime on our streets. Our 'zero tolerance' approach will ensure that petty criminality among young offenders is seriously addressed.

* The appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that, over time, party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers.

*Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses.

* We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.

* "We will aim to simplify and speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects of vital national interest."

* "We will cut unnecessary red tape [for small businesses]"

*We will end waiting for cancer surgery, thereby helping thousands of women waiting for breast cancer treatment



There are a few from 1997 that may be judged not to have been met. To be honest Labour do quite long manifestos and it get's boring reading.

*Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses.

hahahaha. i guess that doesnt include letting the cabinet see the legal advice on the iraq war before they vote for it.

* "We will aim to simplify and speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects of vital national interest."

hahahaha. presumably by decreasing the amount of time planning permission lasts for so developers expose themselves to more risk. one thing they havent done is simplified it, just reduced how long planning permission is granted from 5 to 3 years. what they really mean is "forget politically damaging public inquiries when we want to build an airport/motorway/nuclear power station through a national park".

hahahaha. i guess that doesnt include letting the cabinet see the legal advice on the iraq war before they vote for it.

.


They were given the most up to dat advice and given access to the attorney general and were able to ask him any question they liked.

There is a lot to be quesitoned about the manner in which the coutnry went to war but the treatment of the attorney general's advice is not one of them. Its a complete non issue and Ive not meet anyone who writes legal advice who onsiders there to have been any deceit. Whether the attorney general's advise was correct is another issue and there are a lot of people who don't think it was.

"We will aim to simplify and speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects of vital national interest."

Yeah ha ha ha indeed... If this leak to the Herald last week is anything to go by this is what New Labour (and their Lib dem partners) mean by that in Scotland having already leaked to the press last year that third party rights of appeal will get knocked back as not being in the national interest. Something to look forward to down south?:

Ministers plot ‘power grab’ over planning

ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Scottish Political Correspondent May 03 2005

Exclusive

MINISTERS want unprecedented powers which will make it virtually impossible for objectors to block developments such as nuclear power stations, motorways or airport expansions.

Under a streamlined new planning process, public inquiries into such projects in Scotland will be neutered or even scrapped if the schemes are designated of national strategic importance, The Herald has learned.

The proposals have shocked environmentalists, who have described them as a "power grab by ministers" and "a developers' charter".

The Herald has seen the confidential paper which Malcolm Chisholm, the communities minister, put to cabinet three weeks ago and which will form the basis of a white paper next month.

Described as a "once-in-a lifetime chance to effect radical reform of the planning system", it will give the Scottish Executive complete control over strategic projects and new powers to compel local authorities to follow national policies.

Crucially, once cabinet designates a development as being of national strategic importance, it will no longer be possible to challenge such plans at a public inquiry on the grounds of need.

At a stroke, that removes the kind of objections which em-barrassed ministers over the M74 project or which would be central to any case against nuclear generation in the future.

Once controversial projects such as large windfarms, housing or industrial estates have been designated as part of the National Planning Framework (NPF), there would be no stopping them. Public inquiries would be able to look only at detail or location, and not the basic requirement for the development.
The paper is explicit: "The NPF would gain its legitimacy from approval by cabinet and scrutiny by parliament.

"There would not be a role for a lengthy, exhaustive formal public consultation, nor for a planning inquiry led by reporters . . . The inclusion of a project in the NPF, however, will limit the scope for it to be challenged on the grounds of need . . . simplifying the inquiry by limiting the issues to those such as location and detailed consideration of associated environmental effects."

Now imagine that at Heathrow or wherever the next London airport gets sited... :bash:

wow, i guessed succcessfully what they planned from their committment. they can run over the planning process as much as they like, but theyd better have learned a thing or two from the tories in the mid 90s. as a former road protestor i can tell you now if they start building those things again the movement will very quickly swing into action and the security and policing budget alone will make that new motorway completely unfeasible from a financial point of view.