I had been thinking about immigration but the recent election has put that on the back burner for a while. We've been to the polls, given our verdict and still we are waiting for the result. Oh, we know the numbers but we've no idea who will be 'leading' us because none of the parties achieved an overall majority. Consider...the Conservatives got 306 seats with a total 10.7 million votes. Labour got 258 seats with a total of 8.6 million votes and yet although the Liberal Democrats got 6.8 million votes that only entitled them to 57 seats. It's absurd! Whether you voted Lib Dem or not it's easy to see why they want the system changed. Certainly the people who voted for them could be forgiven for thinking they are second class citizens, all votes are equal but some are more equal than others - pardon the mis-quote.
I've been trying to think of a better solution but it seems that everything I can come up with has already been thought of and is being used in another country and whatever system is used they all fail in some way. So we'll have to accept that we're not going to have a completely fair system - until some genius comes up with one. The main thing is to keep the country running with as little disruption as possible. Until we change it, please can we abide by the current 'first past the post' system and let the Conservatives get on with it? If they fail, we vote another party in when we next go to the polls but stop all these cloak and dagger manoeuverings. They are unsettling and unhelpful.
On the subject of alternatives...I've been surfing the net and I must say the system outlined in a comment on one of my previous posts appeals most, with a little amendment perhaps. How about...everyone votes, if there's an overall majority go with it, if there isn't then everyone votes again, this time with only the two parties with the largest number of voters in the running. Whoever gets the most on the second run gets to form a government BUT the seats remain allocated in accordance with the first vote - the second vote simply confirms who the country would prefer in overall charge.
Actually, I quite like the idea of parties not having an overall majority, perhaps it will make them think more about what they're doing. It's just the uncertainty of what's going to happen that I dislike.
There are already plenty of blogs around discussing the issue but...any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comment - just a question. What is the point of Mr. Brown resigning? Isn't that going to mean even less direction? I've always liked a three party system - it seems to present a balance. This must be a fluke.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it...
ReplyDeleteMr Brown is hugely unpopular and was unpopular even when he was Chancellor; he wasn't even elected, he 'inherited' the post from Blair. His unpopularity and poor leadership is part of the reason Labour have lost so many seats. Because of this there is no way the Lib Dems could accept a coalition with him left in Number 10 as prime minister - as he would be as leader of the largest coalition party. His resignation gives Labour a better chance at a coalition and remaining in power. However, a Lab/Lib Dem coalition still wouldn't produce more seats than the Tories, they would have to rope in at least two other of the minor parties. That would be a cumbersome government to say the least with all the differnt agendas. I think that's about it.
Thank you. Newscasts here in the states have been very quick to point out WHAT happened (with instant replay)but no one I've seen so far has given me a good reason WHY. It's like watching a silent movie - you know SOMETHING is happening, but with no context they look a wee bit odd ...
ReplyDeleteI saw today that one of M. Thacher's bunch (Cameron, I believe) is gonna be the new PM. Excuse me for the comparison, but I'm in process of directing RICHARD III now, and the opening line seems apt - "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of ..."