Is the system of Government in the UK all wrong?

Question

Was watching the news the other day, Tony Blair made a comment about his successor will be looking forward to 'fighting' with the conservatives in the future. Isnt a lot of energy wasted by the parties being at loggerheads with each other in this way about many issues? Shouldnt we just have proportionate representation as this would produce a more balanced power base and be more representative. Is there no way to show support for Proportionate Representation? Is there not a lobby group for it? Why cant it be brought in?

Answer 1

The First Past the Post systems does cause confrontation, and I do support a PR system, as we have PR in Mayoral, Regional Assembly and European elections and even within clubs and societies that we belong to.

I think the best system for Westminster is the Single Transferable Vote, you vote for the candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate gets 50% on the first count, the candidate with the least votes is knocked out, and his/her 2nd choice votes re-distributed. This would continue until one candidate has over 50% of the total votes cast.

It means counting would take longer, so final results might not be known for days, but it would mean that more people actually support the governing party and it's close enough to first past the post to allow the pantomime politics to continue.

Answer 2

First of all the correct term is Proportional Representation. The problem with the current system, first pass the post, is that it does not correctly represent the populace. Constituency boundaries are designed so as to ensure that one party or the other stands the most chance of being elected. The vote of a Tory or a Labour supporter is wasted in those areas where one of the major parties cannot fail. It is only in the marginal constituencies that a vote really matters.

At the last election the Tories received more actual votes than Labour in England and were only reelected because of Scottish constituencies. This has to be wrong now that Scotland has its' own assembly for it means Scotland can vote on issues not affecting Scotland; to the detriment of English voters.

If a system were in place where every vote counts, that would be more representative, it would mean every vote cast counts and we would end up with a truly representative government.

Proportional Representation is the only democratic way.

Answer 3

The Two Party System in UK has some problems . Parties spent a lot of Time and Money to damage the reputation and prospects of the other Party .
The Plus though is the Stability Factor .
An Alternative is the Multi-Party System as in India and Israel and to some extent in Pakistan , Bangladesh and Sri Lanka . But these Systems also have problems in the form of Horse-Trading , Bargaining etc . And even in such systems , voters do not always have many suitable candidates . Another System is that followed in America: Presidential +Parliamentary System . That is good in many respects becoz President is directly elected by people and is supposed to act in a Neutral,BiPartisan manner , keeping in mind Public welfare .
But giving so much power to one Individual in some of these countries can be counter-productive.
Proportional Representation has been mooted in recent years and personally I feel this would reduce Fighting between Parties and make them work for Public wellness . But again , nothing is granted.
So every system has its Pros and Cons .

Answer 4

With the current system in England, parties are encouraged to watch each other closely, eg blow the whistle on corruption etc.

Under proportionate representation, because there is almost never a clear majority parties are encouraged to cooperate, and form (maybe shifting) alliances. Is it possible more politicians will be more likely to turn a blind eye to corruption in other parties under these conditions?

eg in Scotland where there is something closer to PR + a Labour / Lib Dem governing alliance
Presumably here in Scotland where the Labour leader gives jobs to Lib Dem MPs, those MPs are less likely to criticise him than their colleagues in England, who have no such prospects...

Of course these things are difficult to measure - how do you count th enumber of times someone said nothing?

I think the Lib Dems support PR - so voting for them is a way of voting for it

Answer 5

there is often been a topic with the justice equipment the place, in very comparable circumstances, one criminal gets a thoroughly diverse sentence then yet another. With the assumption of justice being effortless and specific that's of course a topic. There are genuinely cases the place the crime merits a extra physically powerful punishment which isn't met out by using the courts in the united kingdom and the U. S. does have lots harder sentencing coverage. whether, it sort of feels that the united kingdom is now getting harder introducing finished existence sentences and imprisoning people for public risk-free practices which potential many prisoners will have not any set launch date.

Answer 6

Proportionate representation will only make things complex. It will erode concept of liability and accountability. Overall affairs are running fine, don't confuse yourself with politicians roadshows.
They do it to serve their needs. Lets simpy say ' No system is wrong only the enforcers could be wrong' So if this sytem flops there is no guarantee other will work.

Thanks

Answer 7

No it is not wrong, it is possibly the best system. Look at The USA,
Brazil, well should say all of South America, read a little and you
will be praising the British.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

It's a right guddle in the Scottish Parliament. Fancy systems don't work.

Answer 10

Of course it's wrong..
Any system that is based on voting for people who want to be elected is flawed from the start.