h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My hatred of the Tories is entirely personal, and largely historical. Realistically, on a policy basis, there is nothing to mark any difference between the Tories and New Labour.

As to electoral reform, there's a thread on that bogus argument around here somewhere.

So it wouldn't have mattered if the Tories had won the election? The point I am making I suppose is that things can actually be worse than they are now.

The situation where I live is somewhat different though because we have no longer have a first past the post system, nor a two party monopoly (which was undermined by electoral reform ). It's much easier to see political solutions now than when it was just Labour and National swapping places every decade.


Not sure what you mean by 'the bogus argument'. So you mean that it's not possible to have electoral reform in the UK, or that electoral reform won't make any difference?

"So you mean..." should be "Do you mean..."

I rather think that it *would* make a difference.

New Labour are as far to the right as it is possible for them to be given the makeup of their MPs, no policy shift to the right is likely. However I am not holding my breath about a shift to the left either .

This simply cannot be said for the Tories, it is entirely possible that a Tory government could swing to the right and pursue a radical right wing agenda. And for thoses of us who are not particularly well off, or who work in public services or rely on them then things could get much worse.

In terms of the policies outlined by both parties during the election, and since by the Lib/Dems, there is no practical difference between the three parties in terms of policy implimentation. All three are determinedly monetarist in outlook (in so far as the government has any control over the economy anyway).

All three are unprepared to put a sensible argument about immigration. All three are unprepared to put up a sensible argument about the war on terror, Iraq or any number of other areas.

British politicians have the electorate they deserve, and frankly they are quite happy with it, as less than a million now decide who forms the government, which is much more cost effective than having to actually poll the whole country. The handwringing and moaning about low turnout is entitrely bogus.

I don't think this country will ever get PR - certainly not in my lifetime. If the Lib/Dems did ever manage to get any influence out of first past the post, you can bet electoral reform will be the last thing on their minds. First past the post suits the others far too well, especially now that they have proof of what happens with PR in the European elections ie there share of the vote drops considerably.

Kea, re the Compulsory voting thing - nah, just ranting.

THe trouble with PR is that you've got a bugger of a time picking a system which will actually be proportional and fair.

prat


>>I don't think this country will ever get PR - certainly not in my lifetime. If the Lib/Dems did ever manage to get any influence out of first past the post, you can bet electoral reform will be the last thing on their minds. <<

Both Labour and the Nats vehemently opposed electoral reform here, and the introduction of MMP. I'm not totally sure about this but I think the chain of events went something like this:

1. Lobbying for electoral reform led to a non-binding referrendum

2. The referrendum showed that a majority of NZers (who voted, and it was a high turnout) wanted electoral reform.

3. A second referrendum was held to choose which system we would change to.

4. Somewhere in there I think an electoral commission was set up by the government of the day, which investigated which systems were an option for NZ.

Essentially there was ALOT of really good work done by the lobbyists over a long period of time. So that by the time it got to be debated in public alot issues had been well thought through.

So, in our case, support/opposition from the existing 2 party monopoly was irrelevant (although a very expensive TV campaign from the Business Roundtable backfired and pushed the pro vote up considerably ).

I'd be interested to know what British legislation already exists around referenda, and how it's been used already.


>>First past the post suits the others far too well, especially now that they have proof of what happens with PR in the European elections ie there share of the vote drops considerably.<<

If you have more parties obviously vote share drops.

there has been a lot of discussion about electoral reform
Labour even set up the Plant inquiry to look into it when in opposition
it came out in favour and was quietly forgotten about when New Labour won a large majority in 1997
I suspect Blues Shark is unduely pessimistic about the issue
when I first became involved in politics in the early 80s electoral reform was a fringe issue along with banning foxhunting
now support for it is much more widespread and if we had a hung parliament when Labour was dependent on LD support (like the Lib-Lab Pact of the 70s) I'm sure the LDs would make electoral reform the price for their support

I'm sure the LDs would make electoral reform the price for their support

Oh yeah - and Labour would have paid ???? Lets see - 45 minutes, weapons of mass destruction, no intention of tuition fees - legislating to prevent it. If the LD's believed it then theyed be stupider than belief.

The electoral reform I'd like to see brought about would be honesty. Lets have Prime Ministers impeached for dis-honesty, any party promising legislation then failing to enact it should have there leader taken into court and charged.

the situation would be slightly different if Labour was a minority government
certainly Labour wouldn't have chosen the timing of the election if it had been dependent on LD support last term

I think that honesty in politicians is unlikely as long as there is the expectation that they have to be always right and aren't allowed to make mistales.