Gordo

There's something very wrong with the apparently democratic system in this country when a narrow % led (and the lowest % of any modern government) still has a strong majority in the house of commons.

Votes (roughly) vs seats in the house:

Labour 36.3% 353 seats (57.0%)
Conservative 33.2% 195 seats (31.5%)
Lib Dem 22.6% 59 seats (9.5%)
Other 7.9% 12 seats (1.9%)


Isn't it time for the vote transfer (proportional representation) to be re-visited?

The number of seats based on % votes should be:

Labour 36.3% 225 seats
Conservative 33.2% 206 seats
Lib Dem 22.6% 140 seats
Other 7.9% 49 seats

Which rather puts the REAL party positions into persepctive.

Does anyone know what the result would have been if Labour hadn't re-drawn the boundaries in their favour last time?


Gordo

OllyK

There are positive and negative points to proportional representation, a tendency for more hung parliaments and co-allitions. While they may work in some countries, they don't always do so and you often end up with lots of squabbling and little benefit.

Personally I'd like to see all MP be independant, there to serve their consituency and not follow some party line. Apart from the truely blinkered such as PSL I don't think anybody would agree with 100% of any party's policies. The trouble is, once you have placed your cross in the box, there is not much you can do to make your voice heard and point out the polices you don't like. I appreciate that some politicians do spend quite a bit of time on home turf, but that seems to be to persuade people that they should accept the party line rather than listening to what they people who voted for them actually want.

Drunken Bungle Whore

Doesnt' seem all that fair really to get 36% of the vote but 57% of the seats.....

Gordo

and certainly doesn't feel right when listening to the 'clear mandate from the people' noises coming out of Labour when most people voted for other parties.

There are pros and cons to the current system, but it should be reviewed in the spirit of fairness. Doesn't feel like a democracy to me as it currently stands.

G

Shark Man

Lots of blue on this map......







(source - BBC )

Note: MUST have "images" enabled in your user CP option to view correctly

unclebuck

Mr Blair is the only Labour leader to have won three elections in a row but his margin of victory is less than half what it was in the Labour landslides of 1997 and 2001 - and he has the lowest share of the vote for a ruling party in modern times.

Mr Blair, the BBC predicts will see his majority cut from 167 in 2001 to 66

Drunken Bungle Whore

Was interesting to hear that Labour have a predicted 66 seat majority - but 58 of their own MPs are considered 'rebels' - could make for some fun and games.....

unclebuck

Labour get 36.3% of the votes, for 353 seats. Conservatives get 33.2% of the votes, but only 196 seats. How can a 3% difference equate to nearly 160 constituencies, and an overwhelming majority in parliament?

Surely the system needs to be revised.

Freak

total joke

as with pretty much everything elese in this country now

pslewis

The Tories were happy with the way it worked ......

.... I see, now that the Tories can't win they want to change the rules, typical!

Pete

Brendan Hughes

As I can't be bothered to look around the Beeb site, can anyone say if this has ever NOT been the case? I'd have thought this is the way politics works since post-war - the biggest minority gets to be government.

OllyK

For general elections FPTP is the the norm in the UK and has been for a long time. PR is used is some of the regional assemblies and such like.

Brendan Hughes

I wasn't talking about FPTP, just the fact that it was an absolute minority who vote for the winners, never an absolute majority. The cry of "They can't be winners, they only got 40%" is very common.

OllyK

Ahhh - seems 47% is about the best since the war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...ml/default.stm

Gordo

Lewis

I was highlighting the clear inequity in the current structure.

For info, Labour criticised it under the Tories and then shifted the boundaries/spread of MPs to favour the concentration of Labour voters.

Such a stark difference in the results surely deserves adult discussion rather than political sniping?

Gordo

GC8

The system cant change though can it? We have a parliamentary system of local representation (where the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected as the constituencys representitive); the party with a clear majority after election is invited by the monarch to form a government. Because you are voting for your representitive, as your voice in government, rather than for the party that forms the government. Talk of PR is in complete ignorance of the facts; the Labour party suggested electoral reform in 1997 ONLY to attract borderline Liberal voters; even if they could change the system I doubt that they would now.....

Simon

Gordo

We don't have local proportional representation, it's winner takes all in each constituency.

Why can't the system change?

G

GC8

Because, I believe, our system of government is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which cant be repealed by parliament.

Freak

A bit like not being able to impose fines without conviction........... also in the bill of rights