very good point Alex and one that is often overlooked.

Give this man a blog.

Well there’s always the MMVC one, via my name on this comment… Sadly restricted somewhat re: what I can talk about…

Anyway, this is a Saturday, and thus a reform-free day. The sun is shining, so I advise you all very strongly, go for a run, get some exercise, and have a beautiful day

Also remember, Labour could split in half between ‘new’ and ‘old’, as could the Tories between pro and anti Europe, and the Lib Dems could splinter altogether! The Lib Dems are a curious mix of views and protest votes. Any change to the electoral system will not lead to permanent Lab-Lib Dem majorities as these parties most likely will not exist in their present form.

More likely we will have a socialist/social democratic/green potential coalition of parties on one side and a Conservative/Ukip/Nationalist coalition on the other, as has happened in most other countries that have more proportional systems. This will of course take a few elections to bed down. Here lies the danger of a backlash, if economic or political uncertainty is headlined as will be a likely tactic of a hostile media backed by corporate interests.

With Labour losing its economic competence tag with the coming recession and the Tories suffering demographic death as their older supporters die off, a hung parliament is very likely, maybe even two hung parliaments in a row could happen.

With this will come an inevitable change in the electoral system. Labour are however gambling with our future by not making the change now, because if the Tories do manage to sneak back into power, they have already signalled their plans to save FPTP by reducing the number of MPs to 500. By doing this they increase their chance of winning urban seats by adding rural areas to these constituencies.

If this happens things could reach the level of gerrymandering of the US, where winning parties draw the boundaries themselves to suit their own needs. Using the media, gerrymandering, supressing voter registration and out an out vote rigging the Republicans and Democrats have successfully kept out minor parties for years. It is going to take a miracle to save the US from this corruption, but one lives in hope! Thankfully we can still save ourselves over here from this fate.

I would back any system in preference to FPTP. I do have strong reservations about changing too quickly to a pure PR system as too drastic a change would take too long for voters to adjust and might allow big business to encourage a backlash. Like in NZ we can be sure that big business will mount a massive campaign against any change from FPTP. This is why we must be focussed and flexible when we decide what system we want to replace FPTP.

Give this man a blog.

I’m a cynical c— who hates all the parties, I’m just curious as to how the country would look if things were a bit fairer.

The tory article was just a think-piece, which may or may not reflect my own view on the matter – I’m still to work out exactly what that is.

My own calls for revolution are being formed, but I got accidently sidetracked into writing a panegyric on the chap Machiavelli, so that’ll have to wait.

Peter – yes. Looking just at 2005, there’s no case based on self-interest for Tories (outside those toiling away thanklessly in Scotland and urban England) to support PR.

Phil – I wasn’t suggesting what Labour ought to do. John’s basically said what I was going to: merely that a new system opens up a new dynamic. Anything could happen. For starters, Labour would probably move a little left, as there would be no need for constant median-voter chasing.

Serf –
I am against PR on the basis that it creates consensus politics, rather than the confrontational style we have in the UK.

Hasn’t happened in New Zealand with the shift to PR. Isn’t the case in any country with strong bipolarity and PR: Spain, Malta, etc. No reason to expect it would here.

It is my belief that a political system where deals are made and the very nature of the beast is compromise serves the public very badly.

As opposed to one that panders to the petty whims of the median voter and obsessive triangulation?

What we need are strong governments

There’s no evidence coalition governments aren’t strong, that’s just myth-making. In fact, looking at Britain, when we most needed our government to be strong (40-45), did we go for a coalition or not?

The public doesn’t know what it is getting.

As opposed to knowing what it’s getting and voting against it in every election since the War?

I agree on the constitutional court, but not much else…

they may have been a bit of artistic licence involved… all in the name of discussion an that…

Excellent news: people with strong convictions have been responsible for pretty much all of the Bad Stuff ever to have happened. Far better to have cynical liars in charge.

Phil – I think the point is that if the Lib Dems became a socially-liberal economically-libertarian party, then they’d be just as likely to team up with the Tories as with NuLab.