Proportional representation - my version

[newspresenter]

In the EU, we have large regions than national constituencies and local council areas, so why not larger national areas?

I propose that there should be either 500 MP's (plus councillors) or 1000 MP's (no councillors), and no constituencies, then each party could be voted for country wide, and the share of MP's would be split between each party per percentage of votes.

For example, 500 MP's, Party A gets 10% of the vote, 50 MP's. Just 1% would get a party 5 MP's, thus those 200,000 odd voters would get representation.

Its becoming more of a case in our multicultural society, not who know's your area, but what type of party MP you'd prefer to be represented by.

[Don]

So, in your scheme, how and by whom are the MP's chosen? Not numbers, the actual people.

[Streetwalker]

My ideal representative would be someone who put forward a manifesto on behalf of the beliefs of prospective voters and then when elected carried out the said manifesto.

And we are given the choice of lying ,coniving ,cheating,freeloading polititions who dont give a damm about anyone but themeselves and how much money they can steal off the public untill they are rumbled.

Anyone who wants to be a politition should be immediatley bared from being one.Our leaders should be people who are asked to be,

[Don]

My ideal representative would be someone who put forward a manifesto on behalf of the beliefs of prospective voters and then when elected carried out the said manifesto.

And we are given the choice of lying ,coniving ,cheating,freeloading polititions who dont give a damm about anyone but themeselves and how much money they can steal off the public untill they are rumbled.

Anyone who wants to be a politition should be immediatley bared from being one.Our leaders should be people who are asked to be,

I had no idea you were a U.S. citizen

[Barry]

N.P. I agree with your post, but please, no more than 500 MPs.
We can't afford too many of the greedy money grabbing so-and-sos.
Multiply % by 5 and that's how many MPs you get. Parties with less than 0.2% of the vote don't get in.

My question is:
What if the idiots flood the country with 150 "silly" parties, what the heck is the ballot paper going to look like?

That said, I am TOTALLY in favour of TRUE proportional representation, not Alternative Voting system.

[newspresenter]

So, in your scheme, how and by whom are the MP's chosen? Not numbers, the actual people.

Yeah, people, they vote.

[newspresenter]

N.P. I agree with your post, but please, no more than 500 MPs.
We can't afford too many of the greedy money grabbing so-and-sos.
Multiply % by 5 and that's how many MPs you get. Parties with less than 0.2% of the vote don't get in.

My question is:
What if the idiots flood the country with 150 "silly" parties, what the heck is the ballot paper going to look like?

That said, I am TOTALLY in favour of TRUE proportional representation, not Alternative Voting system.

I said 500 MP's or 1000 MP's and NO councillors. If no councillors, we have regions and people vote for a party to run the council via an MP - no independents.

2% would gaurentee MP, but if there were a range of parties/independents on less than 2% left over, then you'd have to choose the highest % left available, so you could have an MP on less than 2% of the vote, which would mean the most amount of the public would gain representation.

You need 100 candidates to get on the national list, except for independents.

[DC]

So essentially what you're saying is, instead of voting for people in our local constituency, we'd just vote on a party at a national level?

[Streetwalker]

I had no idea you were a U.S. citizen

I am ?
Thats great news,another option for when the time comes

[Midas]

My question is:
What if the idiots flood the country with 150 "silly" parties, what the heck is the ballot paper going to look like?

That said, I am TOTALLY in favour of TRUE proportional representation, not Alternative Voting system.

Addressed to NP I know, however if a list system was used for elections, there could be a legal requirement that any parties standing must be able to demonstrate an ability to fund the number of MPs they might get, based on their likely percentage of the overall vote. Another alternative to reduce the number of silly parties around (there are over 400 registered political parties in the UK at the moment) would be that their fully paid up membership must be more than a given percentage of the electorate to enable them to field candidates in any election.

[newspresenter]

So essentially what you're saying is, instead of voting for people in our local constituency, we'd just vote on a party at a national level?

Yep, that way everyone can be represented.

[JAMC]

There is I think, in this day and age, no need for a nationally elected representative to be tied to a geographic constituency.

If you consider national government, there is a case that perhaps the votes should be cast against a party rather than a person, with the party leaders free to populate their allocated seats by whichever method they saw fit - you would hope on merit or ability.

[Jim Franklin]

No need for Prop Rep. It is a failed system that creates unstable politics and the nation suffers economically and internationally, look at Italy and other countries which use Google Page Ranking. More General Elections since WWII that most people have hot meals. Ridiculous, wasteful and not in the nation's interests.

What is needed is a better political system that puts power back into the hands of the people, makes MP's locally accountable and the top powers in the country answerable to the people and not some political party that has it's own agenda.

I would do this.

Any City with a population above 100,000 would have a single MP
Large Metropolitan areas would require more and the total, including one for each London Borough would be ~112 (32 in London and 80 for large towns and metropolitan districts)

Then I would divide the counties of England into 4 and each subsection would have an MP. This would give us 192 MP's.

Therefore the approximate total number of MP's would be reduced to about 304. A little play would be needed but there should be no need for more than 330 MP's in total.

On top of this I would drastically reform the Lords. All those sitting in the House should be elected by the people of a given county to represent them at an executive level. This means the country would have an upper house made up of 48 County Officials and then there would need to be 4 for London, 2 for Birmingham, 1 for Manchester, 1 for Liverpool and likely about 5 for other specific regions. This would give us an upper house of perhaps 60-65 Representative.

So it would stand like this.

Total Number of MP's 300-330
Total Number of Upper House Reps 60-65

Now each MP would have to have lived in the area they wish to represent for at least 5 years and they must be selected and elected by the people in this area alone.

Further, these MP's would undergo a by-election should more than 40% of the population wish a new vote for a new representative. Should more than 70% of the local population wish it, this MP should be dismissed and a new election called. This MP would be barred from standing.

Where an MP is the subject of a criminal enquiry (such as expenses), then they must legally stand-down once the Crown Prosecution Service decides it has enough to proceed and a Magistrate agrees.

The following posts can only be filled by a NATIONAL Election process.

• Prime Minister
• Chancellor
• Foreign Secretary
• Home Secretary
• Justice Minister
• Defence Minister
• Health Minister
• Education Minister

These are the roles that are most important, they impact all our lives daily and it is only right that the people select who the majority think will do the job most effectively and in the interests of the nations. The same rules would apply to these roles as that for an MP.

Further, laws should be introduced to make all votes in the Lower and Upper House secret via an electronic recording system. MP's MUST be free to vote in the way they know their electorate expect them too and not how some donkey in the party demands. All too often good laws fail due to stupid politics, and all too often bad laws come in for the same reason.

This way Party Politics can be removed from the system and perhaps we will start to get the country run in the way the people need at a national level.

[newspresenter]

not in the nation's interests.

But the nation isn't being represented.

What is needed is a better political system that puts power back into the hands of the people, makes MP's locally accountable and the top powers in the country answerable to the people and not some political party that has it's own agenda.

Wouldn't it be better if MP's were nationally accountable?

Any City with a population above 100,000 would have a single MP
Large Metropolitan areas would require more and the total, including one for each London Borough would be ~112 (32 in London and 80 for large towns and metropolitan districts)

So those that live in smaller populations would get a better deal.

Total Number of MP's 300-330

I wouldn't say no to that.

Now each MP would have to have lived in the area they wish to represent for at least 5 years and they must be selected and elected by the people in this area alone.

Will you change this rule if this isn't the case somewhere?

Further, these MP's would undergo a by-election should more than 40% of the population wish a new vote for a new representative. Should more than 70% of the local population wish it, this MP should be dismissed and a new election called. This MP would be barred from standing.

So more costs to the tax payer for a vote on whether there should be another vote...

Where an MP is the subject of a criminal enquiry (such as expenses), then they must legally stand-down once the Crown Prosecution Service decides it has enough to proceed and a Magistrate agrees.

Agreed.

The following posts can only be filled by a NATIONAL Election process.

• Prime Minister
• Chancellor
• Foreign Secretary
• Home Secretary
• Justice Minister
• Defence Minister
• Health Minister
• Education Minister

So yet more costs to the tax payer, for another vote. Pop idol will look more favourable with the public than ever before.

These are the roles that are most important, they impact all our lives daily and it is only right that the people select who the majority think will do the job most effectively and in the interests of the nations. The same rules would apply to these roles as that for an MP.

Yes, and we should also vote who plays upfront for England in the world cup....its a nonsense, those that hate the government will vote for the awful MP's and we'll end up worse off.

Further, laws should be introduced to make all votes in the Lower and Upper House secret via an electronic recording system. MP's MUST be free to vote in the way they know their electorate expect them too and not how some donkey in the party demands. All too often good laws fail due to stupid politics, and all too often bad laws come in for the same reason.

Ive always said the public should vote on laws, and on the punishment of those charged with a crime.

[Midas]

No need for Prop Rep. It is a failed system that creates unstable politics and the nation suffers economically and internationally, look at Italy and other countries which use Google Page Ranking. More General Elections since WWII that most people have hot meals. Ridiculous, wasteful and not in the nation's interests.

I totally disagree with you on this Jim. We've never had proportional representation here in the UK, and to compare any possible problems with those experienced in Italy, where both the actual voting mechanism and the whole way their parliament and government are run, not to mention their national character, are different to here, is just not valid. Given the correct variant, like a list system, it's a far superior and far more democratic a system than any other.

What is needed is a better political system that puts power back into the hands of the people, makes MP's locally accountable and the top powers in the country answerable to the people and not some political party that has it's own agenda.

Now here were most certainly are on the same wavelength!

I would do this.

Any City with a population above 100,000 would have a single MP
Large Metropolitan areas would require more and the total, including one for each London Borough would be ~112 (32 in London and 80 for large towns and metropolitan districts)

Then I would divide the counties of England into 4 and each subsection would have an MP. This would give us 192 MP's.

Therefore the approximate total number of MP's would be reduced to about 304. A little play would be needed but there should be no need for more than 330 MP's in total.

On top of this I would drastically reform the Lords. All those sitting in the House should be elected by the people of a given county to represent them at an executive level. This means the country would have an upper house made up of 48 County Officials and then there would need to be 4 for London, 2 for Birmingham, 1 for Manchester, 1 for Liverpool and likely about 5 for other specific regions. This would give us an upper house of perhaps 60-65 Representative.

So it would stand like this.

Total Number of MP's 300-330
Total Number of Upper House Reps 60-65

Now each MP would have to have lived in the area they wish to represent for at least 5 years and they must be selected and elected by the people in this area alone.

Further, these MP's would undergo a by-election should more than 40% of the population wish a new vote for a new representative. Should more than 70% of the local population wish it, this MP should be dismissed and a new election called. This MP would be barred from standing.

I can't see the point in rewriting what we have at the moment regarding constituency boundaries where the country is divided on an approximate population basis, and certainly not to reduce the number of MPs; if anything I think we need more so that they can be far more representative of the people in their constituency, which currently averages about 75,000 (13/14 local authority wards). I'm not going to go into details here, it's worthy of its own thread I think, but what I would certainly propose is to totally revise the local authority system to remove all political aspects to it so that it is purely an administrative structure which will echo, on a local and regional basis, the wishes of central government. Each MP would liaise between central and local government, the latter becoming a key part of a feedback mechanism, for ascertaining public views on many aspects of government.

On a separate issue, I don't see there's any need at all for an MP to be 'local'. We vote for a political party and its policies, not for someone who happens to live nearby, and apart from that, 'local matters' are only a tiny part of an MP's job, they're usually dealt with by local government. If we adopted the list system of proportional representation, MPs would need to relocate according to any given regional variation in voting, which would make local knowledge rather redundant anyway.

Where an MP is the subject of a criminal enquiry (such as expenses), then they must legally stand-down once the Crown Prosecution Service decides it has enough to proceed and a Magistrate agrees.

I agree with this, and if found guilty the MP should be barred from further involvement in politics.

The following posts can only be filled by a NATIONAL Election process.

• Prime Minister
• Chancellor
• Foreign Secretary
• Home Secretary
• Justice Minister
• Defence Minister
• Health Minister
• Education Minister

These are the roles that are most important, they impact all our lives daily and it is only right that the people select who the majority think will do the job most effectively and in the interests of the nations. The same rules would apply to these roles as that for an MP.

I don't see this as being necessary, or appropriate. People within the government and civil service are in a far better position to assess the suitability of anyone who might be in any of these roles - if you're a shareholder in a public company for example, you wouldn't be expected to have to vote for who does what in the company - and given a good system of proportional representation being in place, with a removal of party politics from the policy implementation and legislative stages, these positions could be filled on a cross-party basis.

Further, laws should be introduced to make all votes in the Lower and Upper House secret via an electronic recording system. MP's MUST be free to vote in the way they know their electorate expect them too and not how some donkey in the party demands. All too often good laws fail due to stupid politics, and all too often bad laws come in for the same reason.

This way Party Politics can be removed from the system and perhaps we will start to get the country run in the way the people need at a national level.

Again we're on exactly the same wavelength with this. There's still a place for party politics in the debating chamber to ensure that the whole spectrum of the public's views can be represented, but once the debates have finished and voting takes place, it should be based on what's best for the country as a whole and not on what any individual party thinks it should be.

[Jim Franklin]

But the nation isn't being represented.

That is the point of changing the system, but Proportional Rep does not work in the way people want it to, and the list system is simply cumbersome and not workable.

Wouldn't it be better if MP's were nationally accountable?

They already are, but should they not also be accountable to those they "claim" to represent in their constituency??

So those that live in smaller populations would get a better deal.

No...In general I think it could be worked out that each MP would represent a similar number of people, but it is obvious once you get over 100,000 people in a town the make-up of the town changes and it needs better representation. The exact figure could be played with as this was just a baseline based on what already happens.

I wouldn't say no to that.

Aha..we agree on something!

Will you change this rule if this isn't the case somewhere?

No, an MP should be part of, know and understand the community they represent. An MP that does not live in the community does not know the community and likely does not understand them, consequently they cannot represent them properly.

So more costs to the tax payer for a vote on whether there should be another vote...

Technology exists today to allow this to be done online. Schools, council offices, libraries and other public buildings could have terminals installed so that people can vote securely and electronically. Obviously this would have to be secure, but the technology is there, but not the will to use it.

Agreed.

We agree again...Oh dear!

So yet more costs to the tax payer, for another vote. Pop idol will look more favourable with the public than ever before.

See my comment above about electronic voting. If people can vote securely without having to go to polling stations or there is no need to set polling stations up, then perhaps more can/will vote and the costs are then reduced once the system is set up.

Yes, and we should also vote who plays upfront for England in the world cup....its a nonsense, those that hate the government will vote for the awful MP's and we'll end up worse off.

Now you being obtuse. I don't know about you but I would like to have a say in who speaks for me and my family both inside and outside this nation.

Ive always said the public should vote on laws, and on the punishment of those charged with a crime.

Well if this was the case, the cost to the public purse would be staggering as we would be constantly voting.

[Jim Franklin]

I totally disagree with you on this Jim. We've never had proportional representation here in the UK, and to compare any possible problems with those experienced in Italy, where both the actual voting mechanism and the whole way their parliament and government are run, not to mention their national character, are different to here, is just not valid. Given the correct variant, like a list system, it's a far superior and far more democratic a system than any other.

We'll have to agree to differ on this. In my personal opinion, and that of the majority of the planet actually, Proportional Rep is seen as a flawed system. I agree that in theory it should work, but in practice it never does quite the way it should and is needed. .[/QUOTE]

Now here were most certainly are on the same wavelength! .

Aha...that is good, I thought you would from previous posts, but it's good to know.

I can't see the point in rewriting what we have at the moment regarding constituency boundaries where the country is divided on an approximate population basis, and certainly not to reduce the number of MPs; if anything I think we need more so that they can be far more representative of the people in their constituency, which currently averages about 75,000 (13/14 local authority wards). I'm not going to go into details here, it's worthy of its own thread I think, but what I would certainly propose is to totally revise the local authority system to remove all political aspects to it so that it is purely an administrative structure which will echo, on a local and regional basis, the wishes of central government. Each MP would liaise between central and local government, the latter becoming a key part of a feedback mechanism, for ascertaining public views on many aspects of government..

If we are to reduce the number of MP's then the constituency boundaries must be re-written as currently there are over 630 constituencies. Local Government needs to be addressed and made less "heavy" in it's role. The local MP should actually head the Government in the local area, but the councillors should still be elected by the people. Make local Government truly accountable to the people it works for. It must be remembered that the Councils, MP's and ultimately Government work for US the people and not we work to support them.

On a separate issue, I don't see there's any need at all for an MP to be 'local'. We vote for a political party and its policies, not for someone who happens to live nearby, and apart from that, 'local matters' are only a tiny part of an MP's job, they're usually dealt with by local government. If we adopted the list system of proportional representation, MPs would need to relocate according to any given regional variation in voting, which would make local knowledge rather redundant anyway..

That is partly what is wrong with the current system. If an MP lives in the area they represent, they understand it's problems, they understand it's people and hopefully understand what needs to be done to address the issues there. This would not stop MP's supporting nationally important ideas and policies, but make them more in tune with the local ones that impact the daily lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

I agree with this, and if found guilty the MP should be barred from further involvement in politics..

Glad we agree on that, and it is a given, any public official found guilty of a criminal offence whilst in office should be barred from ever reaching public office again.

I don't see this as being necessary, or appropriate. People within the government and civil service are in a far better position to assess the suitability of anyone who might be in any of these roles - if you're a shareholder in a public company for example, you wouldn't be expected to have to vote for who does what in the company - and given a good system of proportional representation being in place, with a removal of party politics from the policy implementation and legislative stages, these positions could be filled on a cross-party basis..

Sorry Midas, that is bull. The current crop, that is for the last 400 years, of people doing this job have been based solely on party loyalty and not on the ability to do the job. Of course a total numpty would not get such a job, but the Civil servant, who are UNELECTED, should not have sway over who holds such important and lofty offices. This should be decided by the people.

The Prime Minister MUST be elected as a separate entity from the current system, the FPTP system is flawed, the idea that a Leader of a party can resign, thus stopping them being Prime Minister and some plonker can walk into the job without public input is a joke, that is not democracy, but Hypocrisy.

Again we're on exactly the same wavelength with this. There's still a place for party politics in the debating chamber to ensure that the whole spectrum of the public's views can be represented, but once the debates have finished and voting takes place, it should be based on what's best for the country as a whole and not on what any individual party thinks it should be.

I'll be honest, I am stuck with the party system. The current way it works is flawed and outdated. The adversarial system of party politics we have is a throw back to distant times and actually hampers good government. I am tired of hearing insults and stupid comments across the flaw when what we need is effective government. Some days it is like a school playground in the chamber. Initially I considered that the party system should be banned, but I think it is too entrenched to do that and also, if all votes are secret and electronic so MP's can vote freely, then it reduces the power of the whips and the overall party system back to where it should be.

We should not forget, that a good leader with a good argument will always sway good MP's into voting for a good policy/law regardless of party.

[Midas]

We'll have to agree to differ on this. In my personal opinion, and that of the majority of the planet actually, Proportional Rep is seen as a flawed system. I agree that in theory it should work, but in practice it never does quite the way it should and is needed.

I'm interested to know how you arrive at that assertion. Having looked at all the various alternatives, proportional representation would appear to offer the fairest and most democratic option, in particular if the list system whereby the electorate simply vote for their preferred political party, is adopted. Any complications above and beyond that are surely down to the way in which government and the civil service are administered, not to the way in which we elect MPs. As a very simplistic example: 30 million votes cast, 10 million for party A, 9 million for party B, 8 million for party C, 1 million for party D and 500,000 for each of parties E, F, G and H. 600 MPs split in direct proportion giving party A 200 MPs, party B 180 MPs, party C 160 MPs, party D 20 MPs and the remaining 4 parties, 10 MPs each. Simple, straightforward and in exact proportion to the views of the electorate.

If we are to reduce the number of MP's then the constituency boundaries must be re-written as currently there are over 630 constituencies. Local Government needs to be addressed and made less "heavy" in it's role. The local MP should actually head the Government in the local area, but the councillors should still be elected by the people. Make local Government truly accountable to the people it works for. It must be remembered that the Councils, MP's and ultimately Government work for US the people and not we work to support them.

I'm all for simplification in administration, it is way too heavy, however when you consider the workload of an MP in representing an average of 75,000 people, any further increase in the number of constituents would have serious deleterious consequences. If anything I'd go for an increase in the number of MPs in order to enable them to do what should be an exceedingly important job with greater efficiency. As an aside I'd also move them out of the antiquated and no longer fit for it's purpose House of Parliament.

That is partly what is wrong with the current system. If an MP lives in the area they represent, they understand it's problems, they understand it's people and hopefully understand what needs to be done to address the issues there. This would not stop MP's supporting nationally important ideas and policies, but make them more in tune with the local ones that impact the daily lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

Granted an MP represents people from whatever constituency he or she might happen to be, but their job is to represent those people at Westminster, not to deal with local matters. With very few exceptions all local matters are dealt with by local government. Since an MP can't be expected to know more than a tiny handful of his constituents anyway (even fewer if there are less MPs as you suggest) and has very little day to day contact with the local authority, I totally fail to see why they need to be local.

Sorry Midas, that is bull. The current crop, that is for the last 400 years, of people doing this job have been based solely on party loyalty and not on the ability to do the job. Of course a total numpty would not get such a job, but the Civil servant, who are UNELECTED, should not have sway over who holds such important and lofty offices. This should be decided by the people.

With respect, the vast majority of "the people" don't have a clue! They'd more than likely vote for the celebrity of the day rather than make any rational decisions on who was best for any given job. If you have a proportionately representative government and remove party politics for the policy implementation and legislative stages of policy making, party loyalty shouldn't enter the equation. As with any job, you need to select the best people for that job, and that is something which is best left to experts.

The Prime Minister MUST be elected as a separate entity from the current system, the FPTP system is flawed, the idea that a Leader of a party can resign, thus stopping them being Prime Minister and some plonker can walk into the job without public input is a joke, that is not democracy, but Hypocrisy.

Again we're in agreement, however again I don't believe the public should be involved in this; any elections should be from within the MPs themselves.

I'll be honest, I am stuck with the party system. The current way it works is flawed and outdated. The adversarial system of party politics we have is a throw back to distant times and actually hampers good government. I am tired of hearing insults and stupid comments across the flaw when what we need is effective government. Some days it is like a school playground in the chamber. Initially I considered that the party system should be banned, but I think it is too entrenched to do that and also, if all votes are secret and electronic so MP's can vote freely, then it reduces the power of the whips and the overall party system back to where it should be.

I know what you're saying, however the adversarial nature of politics must still be retained at the debating stage in order to fairly represent the views of the electorate. The one caveat I would impose is that the final outcome of any debate must have just one aim; to be in the best interests of the country and its people, not of any one political party. The removal of party politics from the policy implementation and legislative stages of law-making would ensure no bias was introduced.

[Jim Franklin]

I'm interested to know how you arrive at that assertion. Having looked at all the various alternatives, proportional representation would appear to offer the fairest and most democratic option, in particular if the list system whereby the electorate simply vote for their preferred political party, is adopted. Any complications above and beyond that are surely down to the way in which government and the civil service are administered, not to the way in which we elect MPs. As a very simplistic example: 30 million votes cast, 10 million for party A, 9 million for party B, 8 million for party C, 1 million for party D and 500,000 for each of parties E, F, G and H. 600 MPs split in direct proportion giving party A 200 MPs, party B 180 MPs, party C 160 MPs, party D 20 MPs and the remaining 4 parties, 10 MPs each. Simple, straightforward and in exact proportion to the views of the electorate.

That is the most unfair, crass and undemocratic system I think I have heard of. Who decides which constituencies get what MP? If the votes for Party A (10 million) are spread reasonably evenly throughout the country, and the same is true for the others, then there would be potentially no overall candidate chose in any constituency, and don't say this will never happen, it does all the time where Prop Rep is used. Then a constituency gets an MP imposed on them they don't know, don't care about, likely didn't vote for and the MP may not give a stuff about them because he/she lives a couple of hundred miles away.

This is the perfect example of WHY Prop Rep is a flawed and failed system of Government. It does not actually create greater democracy, in fact it waters down what you already have.

I'm all for simplification in administration, it is way too heavy, however when you consider the workload of an MP in representing an average of 75,000 people, any further increase in the number of constituents would have serious deleterious consequences. If anything I'd go for an increase in the number of MPs in order to enable them to do what should be an exceedingly important job with greater efficiency. As an aside I'd also move them out of the antiquated and no longer fit for it's purpose House of Parliament.

The workload of an MP is not what you might think, the former Conservative MP John Gorst is a family member (great Uncle) and I have known a couple over the years...The workload depends on the constituency. The lower the average income, the more work the MP has as it usually means more social problems. The only way to reduce the overall administration and costs of Immediate central Government is to reduce the number of MP's present.

Incidently, I totally agree, Battersea Power station should be totally flattened and a new dedicated and modern Government building put that can house both Upper and Lower houses. I would also make a 300 Room "hotel" on the site so that MP's do not need second homes, they stay there when attending the commons. Also visiting dignitaries can stay there. It would seriously reduce security and other costs in the long term.

Granted an MP represents people from whatever constituency he or she might happen to be, but their job is to represent those people at Westminster, not to deal with local matters. With very few exceptions all local matters are dealt with by local government. Since an MP can't be expected to know more than a tiny handful of his constituents anyway (even fewer if there are less MPs as you suggest) and has very little day to day contact with the local authority, I totally fail to see why they need to be local.

Midas...Sorry, MP's primary duty is to Represent the views and speak for the people of their constituency in the House. They can only really do this effectively if they understand their constituency, and to do that they need to be a part of it. However MP's also have the secondary responsibility to represent constituents at a local level to prevent Local Government from abusing powers etc. Of course there are laws now that deal with this, but I am sorry we need to get back to grass roots control.

here is a Quote from the Parliament itself.

MPs have responsibilities to three main groups: Primarily their constituents, but also Parliament and their political party. One MP is elected to the House of Commons by each of the UK’s 600+ constituencies. MPs’ duties in Parliament include participating in debates and voting on legislation and other matters. They may also be members of committees examining new laws or the work of government departments. Some have a role as a minister in government or a spokesperson in opposition.

MPs have a duty to help their constituents by advising on problems (particularly those that arise from the work of government departments), representing the concerns of their constituents in Parliament and acting as a figurehead for the local area.

MPs usually support their party by voting with its leadership in the House of Commons and acting as a representative for the party in their constituency.

I think sums it up.

With respect, the vast majority of "the people" don't have a clue! They'd more than likely vote for the celebrity of the day rather than make any rational decisions on who was best for any given job. If you have a proportionately representative government and remove party politics for the policy implementation and legislative stages of policy making, party loyalty shouldn't enter the equation. As with any job, you need to select the best people for that job, and that is something which is best left to experts.

That is a very insulting statement. Most people in this country do not have a clue because they are ignored, lied too and screwed over all the time, so they have lost faith in the Politic. By cleaning it up and re-engaging then the people can step up to the plate. If there are only a few people deciding who gets what job, then what the hell is the point of even having a democracy? Who says these people are experts, are they unbiased by political thought, of course not, you know why, they too are people. The people of this nation demand, need and deserve to take part in the decisions that shape this country, and the most effective and engaging way of achieving this without massively cumbersome Government is for people to decide who gets the top jobs, not a few .

Again we're in agreement, however again I don't believe the public should be involved in this; any elections should be from within the MPs themselves.

Hairy balls....Then we have no Democracy. This is one of only a few countries that do not choose the leader, that MUST change, you will not get me to alter that view. What you propose makes a mockery of what our service people are dieing for in conflicts around the world. We give this freedom to others, why can the British people not have the same, or are we less worthy?

I know what you're saying, however the adversarial nature of politics must still be retained at the debating stage in order to fairly represent the views of the electorate. The one caveat I would impose is that the final outcome of any debate must have just one aim; to be in the best interests of the country and its people, not of any one political party. The removal of party politics from the policy implementation and legislative stages of law-making would ensure no bias was introduced.

There will always be an element of an adversarial nature to any political system, that is healthy for good Governance, but the way we have it is pathetic, childish and wasteful of time and resources, thus is must be improved and changed where necessary.

[newspresenter]

That is the point of changing the system, but Proportional Rep does not work in the way people want it to, and the list system is simply cumbersome and not workable.

But atleast almost every single vote, or every vote, will count, thats as about as perfect as you can get.

They already are, but should they not also be accountable to those they "claim" to represent in their constituency??

They are, and they would be via my suggestion, because no party is going to want a failed MP working for them.

No...In general I think it could be worked out that each MP would represent a similar number of people

But wouldn't it make perfect sense if every single MP represented the exact same amount of people? 0.2% of the voters per MP.

No, an MP should be part of, know and understand the community they represent. An MP that does not live in the community does not know the community and likely does not understand them, consequently they cannot represent them properly.

But even if you live there, if you're a muslim you wont understand BNPers etc. if you're a Labour voter, then surely the only party you want representing you is a Labour MP? Are all voters of one party so different that that party's MP's couldn't understand their community?

Technology exists today to allow this to be done online. Schools, council offices, libraries and other public buildings could have terminals installed so that people can vote securely and electronically. Obviously this would have to be secure, but the technology is there, but not the will to use it.

Its too risky, and the government of whatever stance is untrustable to others.

Now you being obtuse. I don't know about you but I would like to have a say in who speaks for me and my family both inside and outside this nation.

No im not, who would you vote for, the worst MP or the best?

Well if this was the case, the cost to the public purse would be staggering as we would be constantly voting.

The financial cost of democracy is irrelevant. The public live in society, therefore we should vote what punishment they get.

[Jim Franklin]

Newpresenter, have you really given your comments much thought, you contradict yourself on several points and your arguments are simply an age old problem that will always exist and your "system" will not improve things.

Making every vote count is fine in theory, but the type of Proportional Rep spoken about is only loved by the small parties and Independents because they KNOW they will never get to the big table because they simply do not have the policies in place to attract voters. If they did then they would not be a small fry anymore would they. A divided Government is an unstable Government, and whilst I am all for improving our system of Governance and voter input to make Government and MP's more accountable, I do see Prop Rep as a solution. It risks damaging the country.

[newspresenter]

Newpresenter, have you really given your comments much thought, you contradict yourself on several points and your arguments are simply an age old problem that will always exist and your "system" will not improve things

Yes. Several? Not?

Making every vote count is fine in theory, but the type of Proportional Rep spoken about is only loved by the small parties and Independents because they KNOW they will never get to the big table because they simply do not have the policies in place to attract voters.

hehe, i wonder why we have the current system, hmm Maybe every vote should count? You are infavour of eliminating voter apathy aren't you, or shall we kill-off the smaller parties, agghh what the heck, who cares about minorities these days...hold on, i thought equality was all the rage with the far left??

A divided Government is an unstable Government

So should we go back to a society when we didn't have a mass culture of different political opinions?

and whilst I am all for improving our system of Governance and voter input to make Government and MP's more accountable, I do see Prop Rep as a solution. It risks damaging the country.

Yeah but Evelyn Rothschild will still be worth £100,000,000,000,000, they'll still be the same amount of land to graze on, surrounded by drinking water, lovely jublee.

[Don]

Further, laws should be introduced to make all votes in the Lower and Upper House secret via an electronic recording system. MP's MUST be free to vote in the way they know their electorate expect them too and not how some donkey in the party demands. All too often good laws fail due to stupid politics, and all too often bad laws come in for the same reason.

Jim, forgive me for commenting, as I know this is way out of my lane. I want to say that your scheme sounds good to me, mainly because it approaches what we have here in the US. The only thing I would change for the concept, is the secret voting by the reps. If they vote in secret, how are the electorate to know that their rep voted as they expected them to? The honor system seems rarely to work with pols.

[Midas]

That is the most unfair, crass and undemocratic system I think I have heard of. Who decides which constituencies get what MP? If the votes for Party A (10 million) are spread reasonably evenly throughout the country, and the same is true for the others, then there would be potentially no overall candidate chose in any constituency, and don't say this will never happen, it does all the time where Prop Rep is used. Then a constituency gets an MP imposed on them they don't know, don't care about, likely didn't vote for and the MP may not give a stuff about them because he/she lives a couple of hundred miles away.

This is the perfect example of WHY Prop Rep is a flawed and failed system of Government. It does not actually create greater democracy, in fact it waters down what
you already have.

I'm beginning to wonder whether we're even coming at this from the same direction! Accepted that it's not perfect, but Proportional Representation in one of its variant forms, or a combination of the same, is by far the best means we have of ensuring that the numbers of MPs representing contesting political parties in government are as close to the proportion of people voting for them as we can get; that most certainly does not water down democracy, and given that we're still talking of a system of representative democracy, it's about as good as it gets. I've made no mention of geographical spread, I've made no mention of selection procedures and I've made no mention of allocation procedures, yet these are what you appear to be focusing on...... Talk about jumping ahead!

The workload of an MP is not what you might think, the former Conservative MP John Gorst is a family member (great Uncle) and I have known a couple over the years...The workload depends on the constituency. The lower the average income, the more work the MP has as it usually means more social problems. The only way to reduce the overall administration and costs of Immediate central Government is to reduce the number of MP's present.

Yes, of course an MP's workload varies according to a number of factors, including how good he is at his/her job, but to say that it's not a heavy workload is ridiculous and a complete distraction from what we're discussing. But since you mention it, according to official statistics most MPs work some 85 hours a week in session time and around 50 hours a week during recess. You want to add to that workload by cutting numbers?

Midas...Sorry, MP's primary duty is to Represent the views and speak for the people of their constituency in the House. They can only really do this effectively if they understand their constituency, and to do that they need to be a part of it. However MP's also have the secondary responsibility to represent constituents at a local level to prevent Local Government from abusing powers etc. Of course there are laws now that deal with this, but I am sorry we need to get back to grass roots control.

The primary duty of an MP should be to represent the political views of his/her political party in parliament, with a secondary duty to represent those people in his/her constituency who voted for that party, and a tertiary duty to represent all his/her constituents irrespective of who they voted for, in matters which affect the country as a whole. All these can be achieved perfectly well without knowing or even living in the constituency as long as there are regular 'meet the people' surgeries held and a good liaison is maintained with the local authority (who should deal with local matters, not the MP) to ensure a good flow of information between all concerned. Very, very few of the hundreds or thousands of matters discussed in parliament are to do with just the area an MP represents; why therefore is either where that MP lives or how well he knows the area of importance? It's not, it's an irrelevancy which gets in the way of being able to field the best candidates possible and it's a big bar to smaller parties who cannot possibly field candidates in more than a handful of constituencies.

here is a Quote from the Parliament itself.
I think sums it up.

Originally Posted by House of Commons Information Office
MPs have responsibilities to three main groups: Primarily their constituents, but also Parliament and their political party. One MP is elected to the House of Commons by each of the UK’s 600+ constituencies. MPs’ duties in Parliament include participating in debates and voting on legislation and other matters. They may also be members of committees examining new laws or the work of government departments. Some have a role as a minister in government or a spokesperson in opposition.

MPs have a duty to help their constituents by advising on problems (particularly those that arise from the work of government departments), representing the concerns of their constituents in Parliament and acting as a figurehead for the local area.

MPs usually support their party by voting with its leadership in the House of Commons and acting as a representative for the party in their constituency.

Yes, true enough, but the word used is 'represent'; since when was that word synonymous with 'live in' or 'know well'? It's also a somewhat biased statement because it's designed to perpetuate our current system. In fact it's often the case that someone can represent another person better without knowing all the distracting minutiae surrounding their daily lives; barristers do it highly effectively hundreds of times a day in court on the basis of a proper brief. In the political equivalent that brief should come from the local authority to whom anyone with an issue should approach first, who do know the local area and specific issues. I for one would far rather have an efficient and effective MP who lives a couple of hundred miles from me than some local toss-pot who just muddles along and is accepted 'because he's local'.

That is a very insulting statement. Most people in this country do not have a clue because they are ignored, lied too and screwed over all the time, so they have lost faith in the Politic. By cleaning it up and re-engaging then the people can step up to the plate. If there are only a few people deciding who gets what job, then what the hell is the point of even having a democracy? Who says these people are experts, are they unbiased by political thought, of course not, you know why, they too are people. The people of this nation demand, need and deserve to take part in the decisions that shape this country, and the most effective and engaging way of achieving this without massively cumbersome Government is for people to decide who gets the top jobs, not a few.

Which is exactly where proportional representation plays such as significant role! It's only by first showing that party politics and the overall seizure of power by just one party can be taken out of the equation, to be replaced by a system which is truly in accord with the current overall political mix of the population, that people will even begin to regain an interest in and have faith in the political process. But regardless of that it's just not practical, or right, that the average person in the street should have responsibility for the appointment of some of the most important positions in administrating the country. If you were a shareholder in say ICI, would you know where to begin to assess whether John Smith or Bill Brown or Fred Jones were 'better' candidates for appointment as export sales director of specialist organic products for agrochemical industries in the Far East? Of course you wouldn't, you'd leave that up to people who were experts in their field. The appointment of people within the government and its departments is no different, unless you want Jordan as Head of Women's Affairs or David Beckham as Minister of Sport! You need professional people for professional jobs, and a decision on the suitability of those people cannot be decided by lay people.

Hairy balls....Then we have no Democracy. This is one of only a few countries that do not choose the leader, that MUST change, you will not get me to alter that view. What you propose makes a mockery of what our service people are dieing for in conflicts around the world. We give this freedom to others, why can the British people not have the same, or are we less worthy?

Why do you think that Mrs and Mrs Average would know better than the political fraternity which of their colleagues would make a better leader? And what on earth has that got to do with troops dieing? If we had decent representation and a decent system of democracy where people's views on policy matters were taken into account, those troops would never have been sent in the first place. The two have little bearing on each other.

There will always be an element of an adversarial nature to any political system, that is healthy for good Governance, but the way we have it is pathetic, childish and wasteful of time and resources, thus is must be improved and changed where necessary.

I agree, and a good system of proportional representation which reflects the political view of the country is by far the best way to achieve that.

[Jim Franklin]

Midas, I do understand where your coming from and I do see the point you make, but I still do not agree with some of your comments.

I cannot accept that Proportional Representation will give us a more stable, accountable and thus better democracy, and the reason is that it has failed in this regard in every country in the world where it has been used. You need to remember that almost all proportional representation systems institute minimum voting thresholds which restrict full democratic representation. In most countries, minimum voting threshold is set between 5 and 10% which usually results in the representation of only 3 to 5 parties . This is actually instigated to prevent there being a ridiculous number of parties and some of the more "radical", "weird" or "batty" parties from getting seats...or do you use legal ways to ban or constrain these "fringe" parties, in which case you have constrained democracy again!

Also, would you advocate the use of a "closed list system" or an "open list system" for your Prop Rep?

Whichever way you look at it you end up with a half arsed compromise that does not actually achieve what the public require. Israel, Finland and Turkey operate this type of system (Party list) and they have a lot of problems as a result, especially in Turkey where they use a "closed list system". This allows the party to decide which candidate gets elected and which seat they get...

Lets be honest, if implemented correctly and the way it was intended by Marks and Engle (or at least the way it appeared to be what they meant anyway) Communism should be the most fair democracy going where all the people take part in the big debates and help to decide what laws are passed and what ones get kicked into touch etc etc...however I think we can all agree that Humans well and truly messed that notion up in the biggest fraud in human political history.

I am sure that there will come a day when we do not need Politics in the way we have it now. Electronic vote systems will (or could) be introduced one day that will let people actually vote on laws etc that currently Government do..

Then we come to the big issue...UNDERSTANDING OF THE REAL ISSUES. The biggest problem we have here in the UK, and I am sure in all other nations too, Politicians seem to only skim over information on subjects and do not seem to want to give the public facts on a given subject...I think there are several reasons for this..

• They don't want the truth out there as it is counter to their argument
• They actually don't understand it all or know the facts themselves
• They think the public are stupid, ignorant, niave and thus will not understand the facts
• Bloody lazy and complacent

With regards to the public understanding of the Politician's ability to do the job....is that not was elections are about in the first place, each Politician explains to the public what they will do and how they will do it. The public then decide whether they think that is what they want or not and vote accordingly. I know it does not quite work that way here at the moment but...

If a Politician is going for one the top jobs I noted before, then it is up to those who want the job to convince the public that they will do the job better than anyone else because they will implement policies the public want. I do not see what is so different with this concept to any other way we vote.

If the law was changed that meant that all the Policies that a Politician stated they would do in their campaign were entered into writing and the Politician sign it, then that is a contract with the electorate, and they could be held accountable. Then the civil servants, and if necessary a judge, could decide if a policy was not implemented was this because of factors outside the control of the Politician and thus not doable through no fault of their own, or did they renege on the promise...if the latter they are held accountable.

If I do not do the Job my employer demands within my contract, then I get terminated unless outside factors prevent me from doing it...why should they have it any different...do we, as a nation, not deserve better from these people?

[Jim Franklin]

Jim, forgive me for commenting, as I know this is way out of my lane. I want to say that your scheme sounds good to me, mainly because it approaches what we have here in the US. The only thing I would change for the concept, is the secret voting by the reps. If they vote in secret, how are the electorate to know that their rep voted as they expected them to? The honor system seems rarely to work with pols.

I take your point Don, and it is a very valid one. The difficulty is that if the vote was open, then the party and it's machinery can bring undue pressure to bear on the Reps. By making the voting system closed then the party is not in a position to know who voted what way, and so there is not pressure to tow the party line. It is a double edged sword I would certainly agree, but I think the benefits of making it secret fair outway the negatives.

Also, if they used a Politicians finger print to enable the vote, it would make it secure, and also this could be recorded in a database which could be scrutinized by experts if a Court Order allowed it (In case of claims of vote rigging etc)

I know that any such system would need a lot of thought an implementation before enacted into the real world, security is only one aspect, but I do feel this would be a better way of doing it.

[Midas]

Midas, I do understand where your coming from and I do see the point you make, but I still do not agree with some of your comments.

I cannot accept that Proportional Representation will give us a more stable, accountable and thus better democracy, and the reason is that it has failed in this regard in every country in the world where it has been used. You need to remember that almost all proportional representation systems institute minimum voting thresholds which restrict full democratic representation. In most countries, minimum voting threshold is set between 5 and 10% which usually results in the representation of only 3 to 5 parties . This is actually instigated to prevent there being a ridiculous number of parties and some of the more "radical", "weird" or "batty" parties from getting seats...or do you use legal ways to ban or constrain these "fringe" parties, in which case you have constrained democracy again!

OK, but other than a couple of generalised comments about it not working in Italy, which could be due to any number of different reasons, you haven't actually said why you don't believe it to be a better and more democratic system, when that statement flies in the face of the way in which proportional representation does exactly what it says and the fact that it's the predominant voting system in many countries. In fact in Western Europe alone, one form or other is used in 21 out of 28 countries. As for tiny parties, many of which are, as you say, radical, weird and batty, I think there is a strong case for saying "either put up or shut up" by setting either financial or membership level entry requirements before they can field candidates. That's not anti-democratic, that's simply saying "these are the requirements, meet them and you can go ahead".

Also, would you advocate the use of a "closed list system" or an "open list system" for your Prop Rep?

My personal preference is for a closed list system so that people simply vote for the party of their choice, however I would ensure that the selection process of MPs was fully open and transparent and published and that where possible MPs were kept in or near their homes - not because I believe local MPs are any better or any more preferable, but simply because it's easier and simpler to keep people where they are.

Whichever way you look at it you end up with a half arsed compromise that does not actually achieve what the public require. Israel, Finland and Turkey operate this type of system (Party list) and they have a lot of problems as a result, especially in Turkey where they use a "closed list system". This allows the party to decide which candidate gets elected and which seat they get...

Many of the problems you allude to are not caused by proportional representation itself though, they result from locally implemented quirks in their political system. But tell me, what is wrong with a party deciding what candidates get to represent which constituency, particularly bearing in mind that I've already said I think it's better, for simple logistical reasons, to have candidates in their existing home territories where possible?

Lets be honest, if implemented correctly and the way it was intended by Marks and Engle (or at least the way it appeared to be what they meant anyway) Communism should be the most fair democracy going where all the people take part in the big debates and help to decide what laws are passed and what ones get kicked into touch etc etc...however I think we can all agree that Humans well and truly messed that notion up in the biggest fraud in human political history.

I do disagree with you on that because as a derivative of Marxism, communism ignores human nature and the way that mankind is both selfish and acquisitive, and that it's our innate nature to only work cooperatively when it's in our own best interests to do so. Marxist and communist regimes can only achieve those goals by forcing people to change their nature, which is why they've all had a limited lifespan and have ultimately reverted to a far more open market system where risk and effort equal personal reward.

I am sure that there will come a day when we do not need Politics in the way we have it now. Electronic vote systems will (or could) be introduced one day that will let people actually vote on laws etc that currently Government do..

That would be a huge step forward, especially when coupled with balanced public debates on many issues of public and national importance. But we'll still need some form of hierarchical structure to manage the day to day running of the country and the implementation of policies, akin the the civil service/local authority structure we have at present.

Then we come to the big issue...UNDERSTANDING OF THE REAL ISSUES. The biggest problem we have here in the UK, and I am sure in all other nations too, Politicians seem to only skim over information on subjects and do not seem to want to give the public facts on a given subject...I think there are several reasons for this..

• They don't want the truth out there as it is counter to their argument
• They actually don't understand it all or know the facts themselves
• They think the public are stupid, ignorant, niave and thus will not understand the facts
• Bloody lazy and complacent

With regards to the public understanding of the Politician's ability to do the job....is that not was elections are about in the first place, each Politician explains to the public what they will do and how they will do it. The public then decide whether they think that is what they want or not and vote accordingly. I know it does not quite work that way here at the moment but...

That's very true indeed, and at the heart of it we come down to one thing; the self-interest of party politics. Despite many denials, party politics is not about finding the best way to run the country but to ensure the survival in power of that individual political party. A good system of proportional representation where we can be assured there'll be no overall majority, and that the legislative and implementation stages of law and policy are free of party politicking, will go a huge way to solving this issue.

If a Politician is going for one the top jobs I noted before, then it is up to those who want the job to convince the public that they will do the job better than anyone else because they will implement policies the public want. I do not see what is so different with this concept to any other way we vote.

It's too open to people who have more personality than ability to stand for election. You wouldn't dream of appointing someone to a senior job in a company based solely on their public performance would you, you'd employ a professional to look deep inside them to assess their suitability for the job. Why should it be any different in the political sphere?

If the law was changed that meant that all the Policies that a Politician stated they would do in their campaign were entered into writing and the Politician sign it, then that is a contract with the electorate, and they could be held accountable. Then the civil servants, and if necessary a judge, could decide if a policy was not implemented was this because of factors outside the control of the Politician and thus not doable through no fault of their own, or did they renege on the promise...if the latter they are held accountable.

If I do not do the Job my employer demands within my contract, then I get terminated unless outside factors prevent me from doing it...why should they have it any different...do we, as a nation, not deserve better from these people?

In principle, yes, I agree, but as you point out, I don't think you can be too categorical about it as changing national and international circumstances do sometimes necessitate the reversal of plans and promises. Those apart, there is really no reason why MPs and other officials, elected or not, shouldn't be subject to exactly the same contractual obligations as any employee.