Tim

Proportional Representation

I must admit I am not convinced by proportional representation, amongst other things I cannot quite see how it could be achieved without breaking the link between MPs and the localities they represent. At the moment, we vote for people, not parties.

However, both Labour (Blaenau Gwent, Erith and Thamesmead) and the Conservatives (South West Norfolk) seem determined to impose candidates on centrally managed lists on constituencies. This means that often we end up being “represented” by zombies – walking dead who can be relied to always follow the central party line as they stagger through the lobbies.

I think we need to decide what it is to be, either:

1. We have full blown proportional representation where the parties have a list of candidates and seats are allocated on the basis of the parties percentage of overall votes cast. MPs would be lobby fodder with no further duty to make any pretence of representing a particular area so we could reduce their number hugely.
2. For example, if we set a minimum percentage threshold for parties to earn a seat at, say, 10%, based on votes cast at the 2005 general election, we might have:Labour 35 MPs

   Conservatives 32 MPs

   Liberal Democrats 22 MPs

   There would be NO member representing the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein etc, nor would they ever be likely to be. Even if the threshold were set at 1% only UKIP (2.2%), the SNP (1.5%) and the Greens (1%) would gain any seats at all. However this is sliced and diced, I think we would end up worse off than we are now, but at least we could save the money we are wasting on all the zombies.

3. We stick with MPs representing geographical constituencies , but change the rules so that MPs have to demonstrate strong and long term ties to the areas they represent, for example, they should have grown up there, been born there, or have lived there for a large number of years. This would end the practice of parachuting in brown-nosers (Ed Balls), SW1 cocktail party schmoozers and their friends and family (Georgia Gould) and apparatchiks (Natascha Engel).

The latter is the alternative I favour, I think it would contribute much more to real diversity of representation than PR lists ever could. I want to be represented by a person, not by a party.

Votes At 16

Last time it was votes at 18, now it is votes at 16. Susan Nash of the NUS says “Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats support a reform to the voting age, recognising this change would inspire and empower thousands of young people who are currently shut out of the political system.” Sorry Susan, but I think it is more likely that they think that younger people are more likely to vote for their parties and that the change will work to their benefit.

They don’t intend to lower the age of majority, they just want to exploit young people for their own ends. Otherwise, they would be campaigning to simultaneously lower to 16:

1. the age for driving all classes of vehicles.
2. the age for buying and drinking alcohol and tobacco.
3. the age at which binding legal contracts can be entered into, credit cards etc.
4. the age at which convicted criminals go to adult jails.

If you are an adult, you are an adult. You should get all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, not just the right to vote.

I think what we really need is a new legal status, which acknowledges that young people from the age of probably around 12 are not really children any more, but are not yet adults.

We need to ensure that young people are protected from exploitation by the unscrupulous, credit card companies, alcohol manufacturers and politicians, but that as they grow to full majority at, say, eighteen they need progressively growing freedoms and control over their lives as well as growing responsibility and accountability for their own actions.