At our local elections we (Bundnis 90 die Grünen) got 6 seats (out of 32) on the local town council based on having got about 20% of the vote - but none of us stood in front of the voters ! Standing in front of the voters means that you have enough money to pay for your own election campaign - which I personally don't, and would restrict political involvement only to those who can afford it. We have people we want to get into the local council,and who are able, but who will never be able to win a direct mandate and I see no problem with them having a good reserve list place to make sure that happens. I don't see where the problem is with this. The alternative under the English FPTP system is to parachute candidates into safe seats. The problem with our reserve list is that, obviously, this is an internal party affair which has nothing to do with the electorate. Our party regulation on this is that every second candidate on the list has to be female - which is nonsense if you don't have roughly equal numbers of women amongst your overall membership. The main problem with PR is that you know you are going to end up with a coalition at the end - which is as much as to say that no party will be able to fulfill it's election promises to the letter (so why bother with manifestoes if they are unachievable).
For several decades , over 90% of the voting electorate voted for either Con or Lab. On that basis, PR doesn't matter as the country more or less got what it voted for. There was some criticism when the popular vote winner didn't get a majority of seats - due to inconsistent boundary sizes - but not a great issue. Once 3rd 4th etc parties got a significant share, the problem of incorrect representation became significant. The Single Transferable Vote solves all the criticisms of PR, except it takes longer to count the votes. It also has the major benefit that everyone who votes knows that their vote will be important. The problem is that PR doesn't benefit either of the 2 main parties, so are unlikely to pursue it until one of them is desperate ! We are supposed to have a system where an MP represents thier constituents i.e. is not mandated to follow the party line, but that has become a joke under the whipping system. There are a few MP's who do not toe their party line , but unfortunately, most of them are headcases, and do a great disservice to the idea of MP's putting constituents first.
There is a problem here Bodbo - if eg. the Labour Party is paying for your election campaign and you are being elected on their manifesto then they have a right to expect your loyalty when it comes to voting in parliament. It would only be possible to put your constituents first if you were elected as an independent candidate, otherwise you are tied to your party manifesto. Having independent candidates sounds very nice on paper, but it restricts political activity only to those who can afford it, or who have sponsors. If you try to completely erode the role of parties then you end up with only sponsorship and the relationship between politics and big business would have been completed.
As demonstrated in the comments above finding a good electoral system is not simple. In some ways though once elected MPs, they can safely be ignored by the ones who form a government in the UK. Labour elects some people to positions within the party, but a shadow cabinet is put together by the elected leader. Tories are no different. A tiny number of members elect the person to lead the country when they are in power, which may or may not reflect the wishes of the population at large, and he or she can put together a group, and although they are supposed to refer to the elected chamber, take powers to sidestep it. It does seem now to have gone one step further. The Tory chair of one of the powerful committees has said, "I don’t believe it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the prime minister, and indeed who governs this country. I think it is for the Conservative party, if not the prime minister in fact, to make that decision, and to realise what is in the best interests so that we can move forward both as a party and a country." William Wragg is actually saying that one civil servant has it in her power to remove Johnson, something that could change the whole direction that the country takes. This is democracy stretched beyond any meaningful understanding of the word.
Very interesting discussion on PR, people. I’ve always kept a moderately open mind on it because it is so complex in reality and the potential distortions of the electorate’s broad intention is huge with all systems, including FPTP. Tatton and Martin Bell showed that even the most corrupt could be kicked out of the safest FPTP seat, and I do think that we should be able to have the power to remove particular individuals as necessary. But there is an overriding sense that so many have that their vote is worthless - Frank Dobson is the only MP my vote has helped elect. And I’ve voted in every election since 1987!
Even since moving to France I have always voted in UK elections because I still have interests there, and believe in the no vote, no tax concept. I waste my vote by not supporting my current MP, who is the one who led the charge to change the rules so that Owen Paterson could avoid sanctions. Her predecessor was someone I knew very well, always available to give of his time, and was very helpful to the councils in the area. Think back to when MPs really did believe in serving, not taking for their own benefit. He was first class, and not a sheep. Strangely enough I also knew well and had an MP who had crossed the floor from Labour to Tory. Reg Prentice had been driven out of his party by extremists in London, and found himself in rural Northants. Once again someone who took his role in serving seriously, and someone I was happy to support. I still believe that get a good MP and they will serve you well, but far too many have become frightened to do anything but follow party lines.
I have never been represented. I take the view that if I don't vote then I can't complain. I've made a point of voting in every single election I've been registered for.
If this doesn't get rid of Johnson, nothing will - boozy parties held in Downing St on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...d-downing-street-queen-country-mourned-death/
Surely people within the Tory party are making sure that stuff keeps coming out because they have had enough of him. The Telegraph must have come to the same conclusion.
A close friend of mine.... early 40s.... vaccinated and boosted... is currently in ICU with covid..... Lest we forget
The problem is who replaces him Priti Patel wouldn't go down too well Rishi Sunack and is too inexperienced and is potentially being identified as the stalking horse Jacob Reese-Mogg would be the perfect old school tory. and question time with him and Sur Kier Stammer would be entertaining, BUT Dominic Raab has probably scuppered his own ship There are extremist left wingers who believe that keeping him would guarantee a Labour victory at the next General Election but at what cost to us and the country Catch 22
So you don't think Liz Truss is a contender? Someone appears to be pushing her forward as a possibility.
Liz Truss is far less popular with the wider public than with Conservative activists. The latest survey of party members conducted by the Conservative Home website shows her as their favourite successor to Johnson, with Sunak second.
