On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:22:42 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Although most of the time the public seem happy that way. And not just in
the UK - voters in British Columbia have recently rejected a proposed move
from First Past The Post to mult-member STV, despite it being chosen by a
"citizen's jury" and some recent election results that would be a godsend
for British PR advocates.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations?

Yes but it would be wrong to blame just Blair for this. Enthusiasm for PR in
the Labour Party dried up a lot after the 1997 election (much as it did in
the Conservatives after 1979) and the Jenkins Commission + referendum was
rapidly regarded as an unfortunate inclusion in the manifesto to throw a
bone to Liberal Democrat voters.

Furthermore the system that the Commission proposed was "Alternative Vote
Plus", a ghastly hybrid Additional Member System that would involve:

* Most MPs elected in constituencies but on the Alternative Vote

* Lots of small regions with a handful of MPs elected on a top-up.

It tried to meet all the requirements but calculations suggests it doesn't
really:

* You can still get governments elected on a minority of the votes cast if
their support is sufficiently concentrated to sweep up the seats

* The small number of top-up seats mean they would largely serve to help the
second and third parties (and fourth in Wales and Scotland) make up a seat
deficit rather than providing representation for other parties (this effect
can be seen in the Welsh Assembly).

* There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single
chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big complaint
in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs
presenting themselves as the "local" representative, especially if they go
on to contest that constituency at the next election. A law was passed to
stop candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but it
still happens in Scotland and London.)

* All Additional Member Systems with multiple ballot papers can give some
voters more voting power than others (vote for one successful party for the
constituency and another for the list) and the likeliehood of overhangs (a
party gets more constituency seats than its list vote entitles it to)
magnifies this.

* Parties can also game the system by running separately on the
constituencies and lists (an Italian tactic called "decoy lists").

* "Safe seats" would still exist in constituencies and those politicians at
the head of their local list would be guaranteed election.

* A big name could lose their constituency but still be in the parliament -
this happen in Germany with Helmut Kohl in 1998.

As you can guess this system doesn't fill PR campaigners with a great deal
of enthusiasm and there are splits over any prospective referendum between
those who think any "PR" is better than the present system and those who
think adopting this particular system will not solve the cited problems and
make a preferred system *less* likely.


The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our
own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful
comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy)
and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for
the UK.

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately,
Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government.
His commission therefore lacked the necessary independence, and his
chairmanship brought with it Jenkins' legebdary lack of clarity of
thought. Never use ten words where a hundred will do, and never
overlook the opaque and complex "solutions" for something that is
clear, simple and works!

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
...
In ,
tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

Tell me , are british commuter cyclists just particularly incompetant
and/or stupid compared to european ones who've been living with bendy
buses
for years or are you all - what most people suspect is the case -
nothing but a bunch of tedious whingers?

Tell me, do the drivers of bendy-buses in other European cities complete
their overtaking manouevres before pulling in again, or do they just wait
for the front two-thirds of the vehicle to pass the cyclist before forcing
them into the kerb?

I think the words "of bendy buses" are redundant in your post.

And yes.

All the best,

pOB

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:49:34 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this.

I know you're right, but it does sound ironic, doesn't it? The
solution to democratic deficit is to have a Royal commission... what
could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:22:42 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Although most of the time the public seem happy that way. And not just
in the UK - voters in British Columbia have recently rejected a
proposed move from First Past The Post to mult-member STV, despite it
being chosen by a "citizen's jury" and some recent election results
that would be a godsend for British PR advocates.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the
recommendations?

Yes but it would be wrong to blame just Blair for this. Enthusiasm for
PR in the Labour Party dried up a lot after the 1997 election (much as
it did in the Conservatives after 1979) and the Jenkins Commission +
referendum was rapidly regarded as an unfortunate inclusion in the
manifesto to throw a bone to Liberal Democrat voters.

Furthermore the system that the Commission proposed was "Alternative
Vote Plus", a ghastly hybrid Additional Member System that would
involve:

* Most MPs elected in constituencies but on the Alternative Vote

* Lots of small regions with a handful of MPs elected on a top-up.

It tried to meet all the requirements but calculations suggests it
doesn't really:

* You can still get governments elected on a minority of the votes
cast if their support is sufficiently concentrated to sweep up the
seats

* The small number of top-up seats mean they would largely serve to
help the second and third parties (and fourth in Wales and Scotland)
make up a seat deficit rather than providing representation for other
parties (this effect can be seen in the Welsh Assembly).

* There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single
chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big
complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list
MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the "local" representative,
especially if they go on to contest that constituency at the next
election. A law was passed to stop candidates standing in both
constituencies and lists in Wales but it still happens in Scotland
and London.)

A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness.

* All Additional Member Systems with multiple ballot papers can give
some voters more voting power than others (vote for one successful
party for the constituency and another for the list) and the
likeliehood of overhangs (a party gets more constituency seats than
its list vote entitles it to) magnifies this.

* Parties can also game the system by running separately on the
constituencies and lists (an Italian tactic called "decoy lists").

* "Safe seats" would still exist in constituencies and those
politicians at the head of their local list would be guaranteed
election.

* A big name could lose their constituency but still be in the
parliament - this happen in Germany with Helmut Kohl in 1998.

As you can guess this system doesn't fill PR campaigners with a great
deal of enthusiasm and there are splits over any prospective
referendum between those who think any "PR" is better than the present
system and those who think adopting this particular system will not
solve the cited problems and make a preferred system *less* likely.

The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our
own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful
comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy)
and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for
the UK.

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately,
Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government.
His commission therefore lacked the necessary independence, and his
chairmanship brought with it Jenkins' legebdary lack of clarity of
thought. Never use ten words where a hundred will do, and never
overlook the opaque and complex "solutions" for something that is
clear, simple and works!

A little over 30 years ago there was no debate on PR systems in this
country. STV was the only "British" system which worked in accordance with
the purely informal status of political parties in British political
traditions. Things have changed a lot since 1976. Lord Blake has a lot to
answer for.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

* There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single
chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big
complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list
MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the "local" representative,
especially if they go on to contest that constituency at the next
election. A law was passed to stop candidates standing in both
constituencies and lists in Wales but it still happens in Scotland
and London.)

A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness.

I seem to remember Labour trying to introduce it for Scotland as well but
failing, possibly because they were directly and openly targetting Alex
Salmond. They still haven't explained why various Labour candidates for the
London Assembly stood for both constituency and list (e.g. Nicky Gavron).

A little over 30 years ago there was no debate on PR systems in this
country. STV was the only "British" system which worked in accordance with
the purely informal status of political parties in British political
traditions. Things have changed a lot since 1976. Lord Blake has a lot to
answer for.

Was that when the Hansard Society did a report and recommended AMS?

Bruce wrote:

The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our
own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful
comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy)
and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for
the UK.

I believe the Jenkins Commission did look at other systems but the problem
is that their remit contained a number of criteria for any system
recommended. Fundamentally the debate on voting systems boils down to which
factors people prioritise over one another - strong stable government,
government that can be thrown out if the electorate desire it, numeric
proportionality and so forth - and it's difficult to find a system that
meets all the major ones. The British political culture is such that there
are sizeable third parties who are expected to drift from side to side or
maintain an independent position, whereas in, say, Germany the main third
parties are allied to one or other of the big parties (although recently the
emergence of The Left as an independent force is putting a spanner in the
works) whilst in Malta third parties just don't appear.

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately,
Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government.

Whether the Commission is government, Speaker's or Royal, it's likely to
come to go through much the same process - hearings that just allow the
voting system anoraks and ideologically committed to spout off whilst the
public show no interest, analysis of various other systems in use and a set
of criteria that rules out most of the alternatives before it's started.
Until you can get agreement on the basic principles of what takes priority,
it will just go round and round in circles.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:21:08 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Whether the Commission is government, Speaker's or Royal, it's likely to
come to go through much the same process - hearings that just allow the
voting system anoraks and ideologically committed to spout off whilst the
public show no interest, analysis of various other systems in use and a set
of criteria that rules out most of the alternatives before it's started.
Until you can get agreement on the basic principles of what takes priority,
it will just go round and round in circles.


That was certainly true of the Jenkins Commission. But the mistake
was surely for the (New Labour) government to be allowed to commission
it then handicap it with over-specific terms of reference. Jenkins
had no option but to please Blair, whereas a Royal Commission would
have been independent and would have set its own agenda.

Also, the fact that Blair had commissioned Jenkins meant that he could
safely ignore the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. Blair
would have found it much more difficult to ignore the recommendations
of a Royal Commission.

The Jenkins Commission was a sop to the LibDems whom Blair had courted
with the promise of electoral reform if they supported a Labour
government after the 1997 election - Labour might not have secured a
large majority and the LibDems would have been crucial to getting
legislation through Parliament.

In the event, Blair got his majority and discarded the LibDems like a
used tissue. He still set up the Jenkins Commission as promised, but
there was never any chance of electoral reform coming out of it
because Blair no longer needed the support of any other party.

Anyone who believes that New Labour's current musing about electoral
reform is in any way genuine should consider what happened to the
conclusions and recommendations of the Jenkins Commission.

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

wrote:

* There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a
single chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and
chaos. (A big complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh
Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the
"local" representative, especially if they go on to contest that
constituency at the next election. A law was passed to stop
candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but
it still happens in Scotland and London.)

A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness.

I seem to remember Labour trying to introduce it for Scotland as
well but failing, possibly because they were directly and openly
targetting Alex Salmond. They still haven't explained why various
Labour candidates for the London Assembly stood for both
constituency and list (e.g. Nicky Gavron).

I have to say I don;t remember it in Scotland, maybe because the Welsh
legislation was put through Westminster rather than Cardiff.

A little over 30 years ago there was no debate on PR systems in this
country. STV was the only "British" system which worked in accordance
with the purely informal status of political parties in British
political traditions. Things have changed a lot since 1976. Lord
Blake has a lot to answer for.

Was that when the Hansard Society did a report and recommended AMS?

Thassaone.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

Bruce wrote:

The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our
own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful
comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy)
and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for
the UK.

I believe the Jenkins Commission did look at other systems but the
problem is that their remit contained a number of criteria for any
system recommended. Fundamentally the debate on voting systems
boils down to which factors people prioritise over one another -
strong stable government, government that can be thrown out if the
electorate desire it, numeric proportionality and so forth - and
it's difficult to find a system that meets all the major ones. The
British political culture is such that there are sizeable third
parties who are expected to drift from side to side or maintain an
independent position, whereas in, say, Germany the main third
parties are allied to one or other of the big parties (although
recently the emergence of The Left as an independent force is
putting a spanner in the works) whilst in Malta third parties just
don't appear.

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately,
Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour
government.

Whether the Commission is government, Speaker's or Royal, it's
likely to come to go through much the same process - hearings that
just allow the voting system anoraks and ideologically committed to
spout off whilst the public show no interest, analysis of various
other systems in use and a set of criteria that rules out most of
the alternatives before it's started. Until you can get agreement
on the basic principles of what takes priority, it will just go
round and round in circles.

The Jenkins report was pure politics.It was an attempt, which succeeded to
some extent, to co-opt Labour AV supporters to the PR cause. It worked on
my MP at the time, Anne Campbell, and maybe on some others but most
notably not on Peter Hain, an AV man since his Liberal days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness.

I seem to remember Labour trying to introduce it for Scotland as
well but failing, possibly because they were directly and openly
targetting Alex Salmond. They still haven't explained why various
Labour candidates for the London Assembly stood for both
constituency and list (e.g. Nicky Gavron).

I have to say I don;t remember it in Scotland, maybe because the Welsh
legislation was put through Westminster rather than Cardiff.

Wasn't the Scottish election also covered by Westminster legislation?
Certainly the issue came up a bit at PMQs with Scottish Labour MPs
expressing fake moral outrage that it was possible for this to happen. I
suspect the difference may have been the ability of other parties to make an
issue of this in Scotland compared to Wales.