Labour slumps to historic defeat

[stevectaylor]

Voters in European polls deliver a damning verdict on Labour, as it is beaten by UKIP and sees the BNP gain its first MEPs.

More...

[DougieG]

Well, the Tories only gained one seat. UKIP gained one, Lib Dems gained one and the BNP gained two, with Labour losing 5. Hardly an incredible swing! Mind you, with Google Page Ranking that is quite a change. But it does show how Labour are not as bad as the media says - despite enormous problems, they still got over half of the number of votes that the Tories did. It's a shame that UKIP did so well too. Most anti-EU feeling is due to a simple contrariness to whatever Labour say nowadays, and also ignorance about the EU itself...

[Midas]

But with a turnout of just 43% and Labour only gaining 15.3% of that, in other words only just over 6.5% of the UK electorate voted for them, I can't somehow see how you can justify your comment "But it does show how Labour are not as bad as the media says"! It seems to me that the public see them as even worse.

[Balthazar]

a turnout of just 43%

Are you sure about that? I thought it was much lower.

[LA]

What people often ignore is that UKIP, BNP, and Conservatives made gains, even though the number of seats has been reduced by six.

[LA]

It's a shame that UKIP did so well too. Most anti-EU feeling is due to a simple contrariness to whatever Labour say nowadays, and also ignorance about the EU itself...

Really?
Firstly, I think it is great UKIP did well.
Secondly, when I ask most people about the EU they spot the "It is a corrupt dictatorship and a costly mistake". They mention nothing of Labour except they dislike the fact that they are pushing the Lisbon treaty through the backdoor.

A majority of British people want Britain to withdraw from the EU anyway, with results ranging from 55%-80%

[DTE]

Are you sure about that? I thought it was much lower.

Stats being thrown around on BBC News last night seemed to suggest turnout was around 33% (as an estimate). Certainly 43 seems high for the Euros.

[Midas]

Are you sure about that? I thought it was much lower.

I got that figure from the BBC website - BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Voters steer Europe to the right - but rereading it, it's not exactly clear whether they're UK or EU-wide statistics. If the UK figure is lower, Labour have done even worse as a percentage of the UK electorate.

[LA]

I got that figure from the BBC website - BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Voters steer Europe to the right - but rereading it, it's not exactly clear whether they're UK or EU-wide statistics. If the UK figure is lower, Labour have done even worse as a percentage of the UK electorate.

I think 43% was the EU wide average

[Expounder]

But with a turnout of just 43% and Labour only gaining 15.3% of that, in other words only just over 6.5% of the UK electorate voted for them, I can't somehow see how you can justify your comment "But it does show how Labour are not as bad as the media says"! It seems to me that the public see them as even worse.

Some labour voters voted for the minority parties most stayed at home. The most significant signs of this was in Wales. Tories were counting their chickens in Wales last night, come the election I wouldn't your breath.

There was no sign of a mass desertion from Labour to the Tories or the Lib Dems. After last night one can only conclude that Labour is in the dog house as far as labour voters are concerned. If they really hated Labour that much The Tory percentage would have been much higher, given they were voting in a European election and could have given Labour a much bloodier nose by voting Tory or Lib Dem without doing a lot of damage.

There is a mass of dormant votes out there that are keeping their powder dry and are still undecided.

[Marxist Nutter]

There was no sign of a mass desertion from Labour to the Tories or the Lib Dems. After last night one can only conclude that Labour is in the dog house as far as labour voters are concerned. If they really hated Labour that much The Tory percentage would have been much higher, given they were voting in a European election and could have given Labour a much bloodier nose by voting Tory or Lib Dem without doing a lot of damage.

.

I think it is flawed to assume that old Labour voters would ever vote Tory, even if they really wanted to punish Labour. The last thing many of us want to see is Cameron in charge.

[Expounder]

I think it is flawed to assume that old Labour voters would ever vote Tory, even if they really wanted to punish Labour. The last thing many of us want to see is Cameron in charge.

Sorry MN, I wasn't alluding to any one in particular I was just pointing out if Cameron wants to become PM he has to make in-roads into the Labour vote. Labour voters were tested last Thursday to declare their stance and indicate their GE voting intentions which they failed to do.

This European election was badly skewed by the expenses scandal and the hysterical media campaign leading up to it in which the incumbents got most of the blame.The result didn't make a lot of sense when you think that the biggest offenders of misappropriating EU funds in the past were UKIP who increased their vote by Labour default.

It hasn't fundamentally changed the British influence in the EU voting position in the EU parliament, the Tories will form their own cabal of right wing parties, small fish in a big pond. I just wonder whether the BNP duo with apply to join the Tory group or whether they will link up the smaller right wing nut cases and form their own group.

They just as well may make the best of their tenure as I can't see them being re-elected next time round as there will hopefully be a more reasoned run up to the election next time. Any way they can make the most of the gravy train while they are there.

[Balthazar]

If I was a senior Tory strategist I'd be nervous right now. In 1996 NuLabour and Blair regularly scored over 50% in polls. A gap like the Grand Canyon opened up between Blair and Major. Yet the Tories now, a year (or less) from an election scored under 30% in the EU poll and didn't even hit the magic 40% in the locals.

You can see why Labour strategists say privately: "Hang on to Brown. OK, he's borderline Aspergers, no good on the Richard and Judy sofa, and the English find humourless, moralistic Scotsmen trying at the best of times, but a leadership fight now would (a) tell the public we're disunited and the British hate that and (b) there'll be green shoots of economic recovery in the Spring which Brown can take credit for."

I don't agree with that analysis but that's what party enforcers are saying, and it seems to be working. Oh, and Kinnock turned up last night to the PLP meeting and engaged in such prolonged Welsh-wind-baggery that everyone lost the will to live, let alone vote out Gordon.

[Midas]

If I was a senior Tory strategist I'd be nervous right now. In 1996 NuLabour and Blair regularly scored over 50% in polls. A gap like the Grand Canyon opened up between Blair and Major. Yet the Tories now, a year (or less) from an election scored under 30% in the EU poll and didn't even hit the magic 40% in the locals.

You can see why Labour strategists say privately: "Hang on to Brown. OK, he's borderline Aspergers, no good on the Richard and Judy sofa, and the English find humourless, moralistic Scotsmen trying at the best of times, but a leadership fight now would (a) tell the public we're disunited and the British hate that and (b) there'll be green shoots of economic recovery in the Spring which Brown can take credit for."

I don't agree with that analysis but that's what party enforcers are saying, and it seems to be working. Oh, and Kinnock turned up last night to the PLP meeting and engaged in such prolonged Welsh-wind-baggery that everyone lost the will to live, let alone vote out Gordon.

I would tend to agree with you. Labour's recent dismal showing generally, the economic crisis and the MP's expenses scandal have all seriously damaged the public perception of politics and offered a great opportunity for the minor parties to jump in and capture votes. Whilst this has very obviously affected Labour more than anyone, it's been reflected across the main parties, consequently although the Tories have made substantial gains, their percentage lead is nowhere near what I think it might otherwise have been.

But Labour is playing a very dangerous game in hanging on; they're hoping beyond hope that people will forget the expenses scandal and that the economy will pick up sufficiently for them to take credit for it. But have people got such short memories, and are they stupid enough to believe that any improvements will be down to Labour and not the global situation? I somehow doubt it. They're also risking that nothing else will crop up, either politically or economically between now and a general election.

[Expounder]

If I was a senior Tory strategist I'd be nervous right now. In 1996 NuLabour and Blair regularly scored over 50% in polls. A gap like the Grand Canyon opened up between Blair and Major. Yet the Tories now, a year (or less) from an election scored under 30% in the EU poll and didn't even hit the magic 40% in the locals.

You can see why Labour strategists say privately: "Hang on to Brown. OK, he's borderline Aspergers, no good on the Richard and Judy sofa, and the English find humourless, moralistic Scotsmen trying at the best of times, but a leadership fight now would (a) tell the public we're disunited and the British hate that and (b) there'll be green shoots of economic recovery in the Spring which Brown can take credit for."

I don't agree with that analysis but that's what party enforcers are saying, and it seems to be working. Oh, and Kinnock turned up last night to the PLP meeting and engaged in such prolonged Welsh-wind-baggery that everyone lost the will to live, let alone vote out Gordon.

The immediate crisis is over, the Telegraph did it's worst after paying a quoted £300.000 for a disc stolen and sold for financial gain to any one who would buy it, and published the wrong doings of MPs, assuming quite rightly that Labour would suffer the major fallout leading to an MP's revolt against Brown, with the infighting completely destroying the credibility of Parliamentary Labour leading to a General election in which the Tories would walk it without any perceivable policies through Labour's default.

While the Telegraph did the commons an unintended service in exposing a failed system of the control of Parliamentary expenses, it failed in it's primary objective to bring down the Labour government and in fact has in a bizarre way has helped it to strengthen it's bid for an election success or at least saved it from total implosion.

As a result Gordon Brown is now on probation and under scrutiny by Labour MPs, and if things don't improve under his Leadership and and right wing policies dropped and policies improving the lot of ordinary people introduced he knows he can be removed at the most convenient time for Labour leading up to the next GE. Even his own supporters would recognise there would be no point of going into an election campaign with a lame duck leader when there is some else who could rally Labour voter's support.
.

The economy will also play a large part in any decision for a change, if things are improving in the new year, the action Brown took in saving the banking system from total collapse and spending our way out will have proved him right and would have at least go some way in rehabilitating him in the eyes of the electorate. Whether this would be enough for him to remain leader it would be up to PL Labour party to decide. If necessary he can now be replaced without too much damage.

The problem, as I have said in other posts, was, and is, the Brown factor. He is a bad Google Page Ranking communicator and a commons debater he lacks everything that is needed in a leader to get a message across to the public and I don't think he will ever improve his ability to do so. This is why the public perception of him is so bad.

My personal opinion is that Labour should wait until an opportune time to get him to stand down and replace him with Allen Johnson who is a more able communicator and a more popular figure as the face of Labour.

The Tory euphoria over the European elections is a false dawn for Cameron when the chips were down he didn't carry the country as memories of ruinous past Tory policies are still remembered.

The Telegraph did it's worst and failed and in fact has reinvigorated the Labour party

[DougieG]

I would tend to agree with you. Labour's recent dismal showing generally, the economic crisis and the MP's expenses scandal have all seriously damaged the public perception of politics and offered a great opportunity for the minor parties to jump in and capture votes. Whilst this has very obviously affected Labour more than anyone, it's been reflected across the main parties, consequently although the Tories have made substantial gains, their percentage lead is nowhere near what I think it might otherwise have been.

But Labour is playing a very dangerous game in hanging on; they're hoping beyond hope that people will forget the expenses scandal and that the economy will pick up sufficiently for them to take credit for it. But have people got such short memories, and are they stupid enough to believe that any improvements will be down to Labour and not the global situation? I somehow doubt it. They're also risking that nothing else will crop up, either politically or economically between now and a general election.

Labour WILL NOT win the next election, I don't think, no matter what they do. They could have Obama come over to lead them and make Vince Cable their chancellor and people still wouldn't vote for them in sufficient numbers. But if the economy picks up again, it will show that Brown has at least not killed it. After all, if the recovery is not down to Brown, then it is reasonable to assume that the crash was not either. The bankers were possibly responsible for both. Or maybe it is a combination. But still, if Labour recover to some extent (note that involves Brown actually sorting out sleaze as well - unlikely but possible) then the Tories may not win by an enormous margin, or there may even be a hung parliament.

[Balthazar]

He is a bad Google Page Ranking communicator and a commons debater he lacks everything that is needed in a leader to get a message across to the public and I don't think he will ever improve his ability to do so. This is why the public perception of him is so bad.

I like Brown. He's odd, eccentric, shy, a monomaniac, possibly an undiagnosed autistic. He's a sort of political train spotter, good at policy wonking, committee work, and the dark arts of stabbing colleagues in the back. It reflects well on him that he can't hack the Richard and Judy nonsense. Grinning Blair on the sofa was toe-curling, Cameron just needs a slap.

But..... you're spot on. It's no good having a semi-Aspergers in the TV lights. The public won't wear it. Just look at how Blair dealt with Major:

YouTube - Tony Blair vs. John Major 1995/1997

That's how to shatter a Tory front bench. Brown couldn't do that in a million years, and it really matters.

[Expounder]

Labour WILL NOT win the next election, I don't think, no matter what they do. They could have Obama come over to lead them and make Vince Cable their chancellor and people still wouldn't vote for them in sufficient numbers. But if the economy picks up again, it will show that Brown has at least not killed it. After all, if the recovery is not down to Brown, then it is reasonable to assume that the crash was not either. The bankers were possibly responsible for both. Or maybe it is a combination. But still, if Labour recover to some extent (note that involves Brown actually sorting out sleaze as well - unlikely but possible) then the Tories may not win by an enormous margin, or there may even be a hung parliament.

Hello Dougie, it's not over till the fat lady sings..........never say never
in spite of the elecion results I think a cloud has been lifted I woke up this morning feeling happier than I have for a long time .

[Midas]

But still, if Labour recover to some extent (note that involves Brown actually sorting out sleaze as well - unlikely but possible) then the Tories may not win by an enormous margin, or there may even be a hung parliament.

In many ways a hung parliament, whilst bad for the parties concerned, might well present the best option for the country as a whole. In theory at least it would allow the politicians to get on with trying to sort out our national problems, not just their own individual messes. I say 'in theory' since as we all know, politicians are apt to ignore everything except that which is most dear to their own hearts, and that's preserving a/ themselves and b/ their own ideology.

[Marxist Nutter]

Even if the Tories win the next GE. They are incompetent, out of touch with reality and will make such a mess of things (as they always have) that they will be lucky to last one term. I just hope Labour will have sorted their act out by then either that or one of the samller parties would be able to take charge.

[LA]

To be realistic, if the Conservatives do win the next election, they will have such a small majority that it would be unbelievably difficult for them. If I remember rightly, a BBC political analyst said they need a swing as strong as Tony Blair's landslide victory.

In regards to MN, Labour are clearly out of touch.

[JAMC]

Brown's only value to the Labour party now is to go down with the ship, and spare his replacement the humiliation of an electoral thrashing. Alan Johnson has, in my opinion played a very cool hand with one eye on the long game.

[JAMC]

In regards to MN, Labour are clearly out of touch.

Agreed. The party abandoned their traditional base in the 80's, and the middle-classes that Blair won over have been very gradually returning to the tories/lib-dems for a decade.

The party is now left in a position of having very little natural support, combined with a deeply unpopular leader, in the middle of a once-in-a-generation recession.

I can only assume that a heavy defeat is waiting.

[James]

Some labour voters voted for the minority parties most stayed at home.

The very fact they havn't voted means they cant be called Labour voters any longer else they would have shown their support during the election. Although this may not be reciprocated in a general election, the fact they didn't vote for Labour shows that they are looking elsewhere.

[LA]

Agreed. The party abandoned their traditional base in the 80's, and the middle-classes that Blair won over have been very gradually returning to the tories/lib-dems for a decade.

The party is now left in a position of having very little natural support, combined with a deeply unpopular leader, in the middle of a once-in-a-generation recession.

I can only assume that a heavy defeat is waiting.

I have never been a fan of Labour. However at least Labour Leaders like Atlee were just that. They were Labour Leaders.

I hope a heavy defeat is waiting, however, realistically the Conservatives will not get a large majority at the next election. I think Cameron will be lucky to get a majority of 12.

To have a secure majority of around 40, we need a huge swing the size of Blair's - which is the biggest since Atlee.

[JAMC]

I have never been a fan of Labour. However at least Labour Leaders like Atlee were just that. They were Labour Leaders.

I hope a heavy defeat is waiting, however, realistically the Conservatives will not get a large majority at the next election. I think Cameron will be lucky to get a majority of 12.

To have a secure majority of around 40, we need a huge swing the size of Blair's - which is the biggest since Atlee.

So you reckon a hung parliament?

[LA]

So you reckon a hung parliament?

Quite Possibly.

If we get a coalition Government, I hope it is a Conservative - Liberal coalition - Though I bet the Liberal Democrats wouldn't agree to it, even though it would be their only chance to get any influence in Government.

Other than that it will either be a minority, or a very small majority of say 2-10.

[JAMC]

Quite Possibly.

If we get a coalition Government, I hope it is a Conservative - Liberal coalition - Though I bet the Liberal Democrats wouldn't agree to it, even though it would be their only chance to get any influence in Government.

Other than that it will either be a minority, or a very small majority of say 2-10.

I think we may see a Lib-Con coalition, if the tories can swallow Google Page Ranking.

[LA]

I think we may see a Lib-Con coalition, if the tories can swallow Google Page Ranking.

I hope not

[Midas]

I hope not

You hope not what? That there'll be a Liberal/Conservative coalition or that the Conservatives might consider Google Page Ranking?

[LA]

You hope not what? That there'll be a Liberal/Conservative coalition or that the Conservatives might consider Google Page Ranking?

well I hope it is just a Conservative Government with a good majority, of course, however, even if we were to end up with the Liberals, I am not really a fan of Google Page Ranking.

The reasoning being that Google Page Ranking can give some very strange results and there is actually no need for a change. When people were asked this on the BBC, people merely responded with "the fault is with the politicians not the system".

[DTE]

Gordon is going to have a tough time selling Google Page Ranking to the public. Despite the advantages, it will look like a desperate PM trying to change the electorial process to offer him a chance of winning, regardless of any truth to that. He's already destroyed the banks, is currently having a go at destroying the Labour party, if he manages to destroy our hopes for proper representation in our country as well, thats quite the legacy.

[Midas]

Gordon is going to have a tough time selling Google Page Ranking to the public. Despite the advantages, it will look like a desperate PM trying to change the electorial process to offer him a chance of winning, regardless of any truth to that. He's already destroyed the banks, is currently having a go at destroying the Labour party, if he manages to destroy our hopes for proper representation in our country as well, thats quite the legacy.

I would agree! Especially if he's considering using the alternative vote system, which I personally don't like and which is still not proportional; all it does in essence is ensure that any winning party always gets a majority of votes. The saving grace is that whatever Brown decides to do, he can't get it in place before an election is due.

The reasoning being that Google Page Ranking can give some very strange results and there is actually no need for a change. When people were asked this on the BBC, people merely responded with "the fault is with the politicians not the system".

I would agree that if there's a low turnout of the electorate as there was during these last elections, Google Page Ranking can give a distortion in favour of the minority parties - hence the BNP getting 2 EU seats despite a lower numerical vote than at the last elections. However if we're to have a proper electoral reform rather than just the tinkering round the edges which politicians are so fond of, I think it must be coupled with compulsory voting; that's the only way that we'll see a true and accurate reflection of public opinion in our parliamentary makeup.

[Opinionated]

Gordon is going to have a tough time selling Google Page Ranking to the public. Despite the advantages, it will look like a desperate PM trying to change the electorial process to offer him a chance of winning, regardless of any truth to that.

Yes could be a problem unless all the public relations experts actually manage to push Mandelson aside and actually do some work! However must say those of us who have argued for Google Page Ranking should really be embracing him for this despite any agenda behind it!

He's already destroyed the banks, is currently having a go at destroying the Labour party, if he manages to destroy our hopes for proper representation in our country as well, thats quite the legacy.

poor Gordon not fair to blame him for banks and he could still leave a half decent legacy on the Labour party (especially if he can do a half decent job of democratising HOL)

I think it must be coupled with compulsory voting; that's the only way that we'll see a true and accurate reflection of public opinion in our parliamentary makeup.

spoken like true Australian!

[Midas]

spoken like true Australian!

But of course Although the fact that there is compulsory voting there, it's not the major reason I support it, that's far more pragmatic in that it's by far the fairest way of doing things, and no-one can later point a finger at any group of people for not voting and having their say.

[Opinionated]

But of course Although the fact that there is compulsory voting there, it's not the major reason I support it, that's far more pragmatic in that it's by far the fairest way of doing things, and no-one can later point a finger at any group of people for not voting and having their say.

That of course is true, but I just feel conflicted as staying at home used to be seen as a legitimate protest (and therefore arguably an important tenet of democracy), but since times have changed what with universal suffrage and voter apathy then I have no strong objection to making it a legal requirement, as long as fine wasn't set too high!

[Midas]

That of course is true, but I just feel conflicted as staying at home used to be seen as a legitimate protest (and therefore arguably an important tenet of democracy), but since times have changed what with universal suffrage and voter apathy then I have no strong objection to making it a legal requirement, as long as fine wasn't set too high!

Perhaps I should have added "as long as there is a 'none of the above' or similar option available". That should, in theory at least, obviate the type of excuse for not voting that you mention.

[Expounder]

I notice that all of you Tories are a bit subdued, now you're talking a hung Parliament instead of a Labour rout. A week is sure a long time in politics.

[Midas]

I notice that all of you Tories are a bit subdued, now you're talking a hung Parliament instead of a Labour rout. A week is sure a long time in politics.

Oh, I wouldn't read too much into that Exp! Just a bit of diversionary tactics

[LA]

I would agree that if there's a low turnout of the electorate as there was during these last elections, Google Page Ranking can give a distortion in favour of the minority parties - hence the BNP getting 2 EU seats despite a lower numerical vote than at the last elections. However if we're to have a proper electoral reform rather than just the tinkering round the edges which politicians are so fond of, I think it must be coupled with compulsory voting; that's the only way that we'll see a true and accurate reflection of public opinion in our parliamentary makeup.

If we were to have compulsory voting, we would have to have postal voting available for everyone. However, even if the conditions of postal voting and compulsory voting were met, I would still be sceptical.

[JAMC]

I think it must be coupled with compulsory voting

Devil's Advocate: Do we really want to know the opinions of people who simply can't be bothered to get down the polling station?

[DTE]

Devil's Advocate: Do we really want to know the opinions of people who simply can't be bothered to get down the polling station?

Maybe its just a natural distrust of our political system and those that operate therein, but compulsory voting would be open to considerable corruption. Buying peoples votes maybe or deliberately targeting non-voters and offering things (or 'insentivising' to use newsspeak) that are in no way plausible. We've seen already smallers parties and independents appealing to those who don't normally vote by promising things that are impossible. The current system is fine, I don't see why the state should tell people they have to vote.

[Midas]

Devil's Advocate: Do we really want to know the opinions of people who simply can't be bothered to get down the polling station?

Yes, I think we do. A great many non-voters do so because they're pissed off with the whole political scene, and having to vote, especially where there's a nota option, is one way of enabling them to express that dissatisfaction. It also introduces more balance nationally; if everyone has their say at least we know for certain what the true political balance is, not just what it might have been if everyone had bothered.

[LA]

So our view is:

- Proportional System (Open Party List?)
- Compulsory Voting
- None of the Above option
- Postal Voting

[Opinionated]

So our view is:

- Proportional System (Open Party List?)
- Compulsory Voting
- None of the Above option
- Postal Voting

Well hell is cold place! We agree, although I have to say STV is my preferred system.

[Midas]

Well hell is cold place! We agree, although I have to say STV is my preferred system.

Why's that? Doesn't it lead to the situation that people's votes can be used to elect someone that they didn't vote for and possibly mightn't want?

[SussexWithLove]

I do not know how people can believe in God and also believe in a democratic society. It is not as if there is a vote to determine whether you deserve to go to hell or not, the dictator in the sky decides.

Keeping with the topic... Labour are all about smoke and mirrors. Nothing is real. The economy was built on a lie. The illegal wars in the Middle East were sold on a lie. Now we have seen past the smoke and mirrors and reality is a sight for sore disillusioned eyes.

The sooner they are out the better.

[Midas]

Keeping with the topic... Labour are all about smoke and mirrors. Nothing is real. The economy was built of a lie. The illegal wars in the Middle East were sold on a lie. Now we have seen past the smoke and mirrors and reality is a sight for sore disillusioned eyes.

The sooner they are out the better.

Something we do agree on Sussex, but the big question, which whatever happens over the next 12 months, is with what and how!

Despite all the current political turmoil and the voting patterns shown in both the council and EU elections, I have my doubts as to whether there'll be any clear victor emerging. There are too many thoroughly disenchanted people who won't vote at all, and whilst in the past the Tories would probably have been the ones to largely benefit from this, but not this time, although I'd be surprised if they didn't win. I suspect it'll be the minor parties who'll steal a considerable number of votes from ex-labour supporters, resulting in another parliamentary term where the winner will be fairly marginal, leading in turn to a further round of politicking in order to try to win future votes, rather than in trying to right the wrongs of the country, complicated by the mess that good 'ol Gordon was left us in.

[Opinionated]

Why's that? Doesn't it lead to the situation that people's votes can be used to elect someone that they didn't vote for and possibly mightn't want?

STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is done by their elected representatives.
It keeps MPs linked to the people who voted for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.
Parliament would reflect the views of the voters.
Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This I think is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.
It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.
It is simple for voters to use.
There is no need for tactical voting . Voters can cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.
Enough reason?

[Midas]

Enough reason?

Yes Although I would still prefer to see a modified closed list system, however any form of true Google Page Ranking would be better than the current first past the post system.......