Charles Tannock MEP: In defence of PR for European elections

Last week Daniel Kawczynski MP wrote for these pages about the "fundamental flaws" of proportional representation.  The 47th and final comment on Daniel's article was from Charles Tannock MEP, defending PR for European elections.  We thought it deserved wider notice and have republished it below.  It was a comment and is not, therefore, as polished as Mr Tannock would probably have produced if it had been formally submitted as an article... but his arguments are clear enough and worthy of consideration.

I can see the logic of FPTP for Westminster where you want clear majorities and stable government but I don't agree with Daniel that its equally desirable or applicable for Euro elections. Granted in 1999 I probably wouldnt have been elected in London on a single member Constituency so some might argue I will say the following for personal interest reasons.

I can now after 9 years in office see the advantages of the multimember regional list for the European Parliament. Not only does it allow an elector to write to his or her MEP of party choice but also a degree of choice in finding an MEP who sits on the relevant committee with specialist knowledge of the matter in question. In the EP most legislation is highly technical and doesn't always divide on party lines but on national ie UK plc lines and in the area of supranational legislation we have to build consensus across parliament so a spread of political views are necessary to gage public opinion. I very much doubt with the reducing number of total UK MEPs even if we had our own FPTP Constituency (with 10 Westminster constituencies within it) that we could ever be known personally to the million or so population this would entail. Furthermore when we were at our most unpopular the MEPs were a useful backup for local party structures in the large swathes of the country with no elected Tory representation at all.

I do not seek personal recognition in my Regional constituency and am happy to leave that glory to my Westminster colleagues and am keen instead to get on with the job in hand. Furthermore if I did have personal recognition with London's 5 million electors I might be deluged with correspondence without the resources to cope with it - which has anyway increased exponentially in the last decade as a result of the internet in which in "write to them" you plug in a postcode and all elected representives get sent the same email irrespective of whether its in our jurisdiction or not (I get housing, immigration, health etc enquiries better handled by the local councillor, MP or AM) but still have to issue a polite reply as they are all my Constituents (well there is some debate if those who aren't on the electoral register are Constituents but that's another debate).

There is also the other advantage the closed list for Europe brings that in theory we all stand or fall together and cannot compete with each other once the list is decided whereas a FPTP could mean adjacent Euro PPCs could break ranks and disagree and we have enough of division over Europe as it is.

Lastly I believe that under EU law PR is mandatory for Euroelections and once adopted cannot be returned to FPTP which is permissible only intially until a form of PR is settled on. I agree this is wrong but we signed up to this years ago.

I doubt David Cameron will regard this Euro PR issue a priority and besides the Conservative Party is well aware that ultimately parliamentarians are all basicaly elected on a party ticket (MPs are in my view on a closed party list of one and other than in exceptional cases rarely have a large personal vote above a couple of thousand votes) so an incoming Tory government by enjoying a degree of party control of the Euro list will probably happily live with the status quo.

Related link: Charles Tannock MEP on 'Why we need to take the European Parliament more seriously'

Comments

[Ken Stevens]

Isolated, insulated, diluted to lowest common denominator in a parliament detached from & irrelevant to the power-wielding non-elected executive.

VOTE (proportionately, of course)FOR YOUR MEP (whoever he/she/it might be) and make sod-all difference to democracy.

[Sally Roberts]

Charles you are an excellent example of an MEP who DOES "get on with the job in hand" in a most efficient and thoughtful way and I am very proud to have you as one of my local representatives. Good luck in May next year!

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

"I can see the logic of FPTP for Westminster where you want clear majorities and stable government"

Whilst I welcome Charles Tannock MEP's comments in support of PR (demonstrates that many Conservatives believe in PR) I cannot understand his logic (as stated above) that he believes in FPTP for Westminster.

North Korea has a stable government and a clear majority. I would hardly call it democratic.

Why do politicians fear the will of the people so much. Is it because they are control freaks who want to keep power for themselves?

PR means every vote has a value and politicians of all sides have to fight for EVERY vote. It does not favour the Left as some people falsley gain. It favours parties that attract the most support and therefore is most democratic.

I saw the other day on here an article hoping for a low turnout in Crewe in the belief that would favour the Conservatives.

Well, dear oh dear! will you listen to yourselves. We need to engage with people, not disengage.

I back PR for all elections! And yes Conservatives can and do win under PR!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

As always, a very thoughtful article from Dr. Tannock. Like Sally, I, too, am privileged that he's my rep in Europe.

[David Parker]

As Charles Tannock admits, whether we like it or not we are stuck with PR for the election of MEPs and, as with so many aspects of the EU, there is nothing we can do to change it.

The argument that, with such a large constituency, few people would know anything about the candidate, applies equally to our own parliamentary elections.
I very much doubt if more than one tenth of the population of Britain could name their sitting MP. However, those who do take sufficient interest to vote will want to know about a candidate's views, priorities and past record, so that they can vote for an individual, rather than a list.

Giving list preference to sitting MEPs, regardless of their past performance, makes a mockery of the word 'election' but does, of course, go hand in glove with the EU ethos of unaccountability.

As for Mr Tannock's comment about legislation in the EU Parliament (which does not actually legislate) being highly technical, well of course it is, and deliberately so; just like the Lisbon Con/Treaty, it would never do for MEPs, far less the ordinary people to be able to understand it!

[Daniel Kawczynski MP]

Charles is an excellent MEP and represents his area very well. The problem we have in the West Midlands is that people like Nina Gill MEP (Labour) never come to Shropshire and are totally unaccountable. I have never seen her in the local paper, never seen her at a public event in Shropshire. Never heard her on the local radio. She does not live in Shropshire, does not have an office in Shropshire. Not one constituent of mine knows who she is. And yet she votes on our behalf every day!! That is simply not acceptable. PR is destroying accountability between elected politicians and their electorate. If you are elected under First Past the Post and represent a specific community as I do, you are accountable to the people directly. You have an office in constituency and have regular surgeries, you live in the county you represent. People stop you in the street, in the supermarket, in the park, on the bus etc etc. They can get at you and hold you to account. I feel so strongly about accountability and we must fight to retain this vital part of our democracy. PR is a cancer eating away at this important part of our democracy.

[Prentiz]

To summarise Dr Tannock's arguments:

Constituencies under FPTP would be too big anyway, so why not make them even bigger under PR?

PR is great because his constituents can't pester his secretary with enquiries (presumably because they can't work out who represents them)

The closed list prevents any "competition" between MEP candidates.

Really, he couldn't have summarised the failings of the existing system more effectively. Under PR no-one is actually represented by their elected officials and their can be no holding them to account. We are forced to vote for whoever the party in question places at the top of their list, irrespective of their views or their performance.

Whereas every other level of elected politician sees contact with their constituents as an opportunity to gain votes, Dr Tannock appears to see it as an administrative inconvenience - a problem for his office staff. This is no surprise when he is elected by a system which means that no matter how effective an MEP he is, or how well his constituents respect him, it has only the most marginal bearing on whether he is re-elected.

I think the complacency of the idea that "the Conservative Party is well aware that ultimately parliamentarians are all basicaly elected on a party ticket" just goes to show how out of touch with actual elected politics this man is.

If anything, this article dramatically underlines why we must return to FPTP for the Euro-elections.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

@ Daniel Kawczynski MP

I am amazed you describe PR as a cancer. That is extreme to say the least. It is a system of representation used by many many democracies around the world. You should at least respect that and not label it as cancer.

Having checked your election result I can understand why you so vehemently support FPTP

Daniel Kawczynski Conservative 18,960 37.7
Michael Ion Labour 17,152 34.1
Richard Burt Lib Dem 11,487 22.8
Peter Lewis UKIP 1,349 2.7
Emma Bullard Green 1,138 2.3

Clearly the overwhelming majority of people didn't want you as their representative yet FPTP forces the electors of Shrewsbury to accept you.

Perhaps many of your constituents would prefer to discuss their problems with a Labour or Lib Dem politician rather than you!

You might find that if Lib Dem voters cast their votes tactically for Labour you could easily be ousted. Would you still consider FPTP fair if that happened?

You may just find the next election result produces a hung parliament under FPTP. What will you do then? Refuse to enter a coalition?

More and more elections in the country use a system of PR. I think your only problem is that the Conservative Party struggles to win.

You need more confidence in yourself and the Tory message.

One day you may realise that FPTP keeps tories out of government whereas PR can give tories power.

[John Leonard]

Tiffany Dangerfield:

I'm glad that you point out the finest advantage of FPTP.

Unlike PR. If an MP or a Party do not perform satisfactorily under FPTP they can be ousted relatively easily. There are no second chances for losers and non-entities.

One day you may realise that FPTP keeps tories out of government whereas PR can give tories power

There we have it, the true agenda behind PR. It has nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with grabbing power through whatever means possible. That's why the Libdems favour it!

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

John Leonard

You are so wrong

There are many systems of PR and you can have a constituency link too.

You say that you can kick out MPs easily. Don't make me laugh. Do you not know that in most constituencies they weigh the vote.

There are only around 100 or so marginal seats where the election is won or lost.

You could put a pig up for election and it would win in many areas.

Re your comment about the Lib Dems. You simply haven't a clue.

PR is supported by parties of left and right throughout the democratic world. It favours parties/groups that attract the most votes. It does not favour a particulatr party unlike FPTP

Oh and last time I checked the Lib Dems are NOT in power in Scotland or Wales.... so how do you explain that.

Finally I think it was Daniel Kawczynski MP who said FPTP produces strong and decisive governments.

So I suppose the headline in the newspapers will be Daniel Kawczynski MP thinks Gordon Browns government is strong and decisive.

Yes thats right FPTP gave us NuLabour

Nuff said!

[John Leonard]

In regard to Dr Tannocks Article:

Apologies to other posters for the detail and length of this post but I am tired of this sort of irrelevent specious drivel being written to try and justify an unnecessary voting system.

PR has one aim; to give those who cannot obtain power through competition the power they hunger for. It is a voting system that supports losers and non-entities. It undermines the concept of meritocracy.

To quote Dr Tannock at length.

I can see the logic of FPTP for Westminster where you want clear majorities and stable government but I don't agree with Daniel that its equally desirable or applicable for Euro elections.

It has always been my belief that Government should aspire to clear direction and leadership (through clear majorities) and stable government. If not what is the point of Government?

So if the purpose of the EU Parliament is not to have clear majorities and stable government, what is its purpose?

Granted in 1999 I probably wouldn’t have been elected in London on a single member Constituency so some might argue I will say the following for personal interest reasons.

Having read this and other articles he has authored I’m pretty sure he is right. He would not have been elected under a FPTP system.

As for the personal interest aspect, if this is an example of Dr Tannock defending something motivated through personal interest then all I can say is he's made a pretty poor defence of his interests. I would hate to see how poorly he does when there is no personal motivation.

I can now after 9 years in office see the advantages of the multimember regional list for the European Parliament. Not only does it allow an elector to write to his or her MEP of party choice but also a degree of choice in finding an MEP who sits on the relevant committee with specialist knowledge of the matter in question.

Whilst I am sure he has enjoyed his time aboard the Gravy Train, this is misleading. Firstly not all parties are represented by MEP’s so a minority will always be affected in the way he infers and secondly I always thought the idea was that elected representatives were supposed to represent ALL their constituents no matter whichever candidate they had voted for (within reason).

Allowing people to choose in the way he suggest, allows them to pick n’mix. In Woolworth’s this is fine. In politics it will only cause further conflict, confusion and disillusionment.

Furthermore, how does PR specifically benefit having representatives with specialist knowledge? Surely this is directly related to the nature of the Parliament not the voting system.

If the number of representatives is the same it matters zip whether they are elected by PR or FPTP. This is an utterly specious consideration.

In the EP most legislation is highly technical and doesn't always divide on party lines but on national ie UK plc lines and in the area of supranational legislation we have to build consensus across parliament so a spread of political views are necessary to gage public opinion.

Again what specifically has this to do with PR or FPTP? Any contemporary Parliament has to deal with a high level of technical detail. After all this is the ‘technological age’. What counts is the skills, experience and number of representatives, not the way they are elected. Once again this is an utterly specious argument.

Furthermore, Dr Tannock seems to be arguing that enforced consensus or consensus by necessity (which PR assists) is a good thing. In my view, it certainly is not. It tends to result in solutions that are compromised, diluted, ineffective and result in inaction (dithering) and are of little benefit to the electorate(remember the Lib-Lab pact and its outcome).

I very much doubt with the reducing number of total UK MEPs even if we had our own FPTP Constituency (with 10 Westminster constituencies within it) that we could ever be known personally to the million or so population this would entail.

There are 74 UK Parliamentary Constituencies, 9 MEP’s of 5 political colours and a population of around 7.5 million in London. Assuming Dr Tannock is talking about a reduction in representation of two MEPs as a result of some EU dictat of expedience, yet again, what has this got to do with the voting system persay? Yet again this is specious.

In fact instead of wasting his time on this article, Dr Tannock should be furiously challenging that the EU is reducing the democratic representation of the people of London and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Furthermore, the average current constituency for an UK MEP is already approximately 850,000 constituents (and on the above figures London is little different). Does Dr Tannock seriously think that, given the already excessive size of his constituency, an extra 150,000 constituents makes any difference?

If he fought for democracy and resisted the reduction in representatives then the decrease in representation would not occur. Again this issue has nothing to do with PR.

Furthermore, when we were at our most unpopular the MEPs were a useful backup for local party structures in the large swathes of the country with no elected Tory representation at all.

Perhaps, but given the of lack of quality of your argument here, it would seem more a disadvantage than an advantage. It could also, in part, explain why vaste swathes of the country had no Conservative representation, in the first place.

I do not seek personal recognition in my Regional constituency and am happy to leave that glory to my Westminster colleagues and am keen instead to get on with the job in hand. Furthermore if I did have personal recognition with London's 5 million electors I might be deluged with correspondence without the resources to cope with it - which has anyway increased exponentially in the last decade as a result of the internet in which in "write to them" you plug in a postcode and all elected representives get sent the same email irrespective of whether its in our jurisdiction or not (I get housing, immigration, health etc enquiries better handled by the local councillor, MP or AM) but still have to issue a polite reply as they are all my Constituents

So it’s clear that the electorate are confused by there being too many layers of Government. Surely then it is time for simplify, reform and better organise the differing levels of Government and look at measures to improve the electorate's understanding of our political system rather than using this issue as a lame excuse to avoid additional responsibility and accountability.

A simple first step would be to scrap the EU Parliament level of government (after all the vast majority have little idea what it is there for) and repatriate all relevant powers to the UK Parliament. That would resolve the problem for MEPs immediately.

Again this has nothing to do with PR and, in any case, without any reform, the answer for Dr Tannock and those of his ilk if they find it hard to cope is simple.

‘If you don’t like the heat - get out of the kitchen.

(well there is some debate if those who aren't on the electoral register are Constituents but that's another debate).

Hmmmm so there is a debate whether children should be represented is there? Don't even go there!

There is also the other advantage the closed list for Europe brings that in theory we all stand or fall together and cannot compete with each other once the list is decided whereas a FPTP could mean adjacent Euro PPCs could break ranks and disagree and we have enough of division over Europe as it is.

This is fine if you support a (borg-like)'collective' ethos. However, I thought Dr Tannock was a Conservative MEP. I also believe that freedom, choice and individuality are cornerstones of conservative ethos. Perhaps one needs to ask how 'conservative' Dr Tannock really is?

Lastly I believe that under EU law PR is mandatory for Euroelections and once adopted cannot be returned to FPTP which is permissible only intially until a form of PR is settled on. I agree this is wrong but we signed up to this years ago.

On this I agree, but can only conclude Dr Tannock is such a 'wilting violet' that he will not stand up against what he believes is wrong. If it’s wrong, fight to change it! It is sad to see that DR Tannock seems to lamely accept it and lacks the gumption or integrity to do so.

All this indicates is how powerless the UK is in the face of EU autocracy.

Furthermore, surely using something he believes is wrong to justify something he believes is right only gives a clearer perspective of his motivation and character.

I doubt David Cameron will regard this Euro PR issue a priority and besides the Conservative Party is well aware that ultimately parliamentarians are all basically elected on a party ticket (MPs are in my view on a closed party list of one and other than in exceptional cases rarely have a large personal vote above a couple of thousand voted) so an incoming Tory government by enjoying a degree of party control of the Euro list will probably happily live with the status quo.

The party is committed to repatriating powers from the EU and to introducing referendums for all further transfers of power. Many will judge David Cameron, in no small part, on how closely he adheres to this and how much he delivers.

By repatriating powers the influence of the EU Parliament (the little that it has) and the EU in general is diminshed.

By doing so, by default, it will also diminish the damaging effects of the lack of democracy within the EU (and in that I include PR voting systems) which has tainted the sovereignty, democracy and independence of this country.

In conclusion Dr Tannock, I welcome your platform because it only proves how pointless the EU Parliament is and how confused and misguided those who support it are.

This article provides excellent justification for scrapping PR (for Dr Tannock cannot articulate any substantive justification for not doing so) and the EU Parliament (because obviously its problems and associated cost outweigh any benefit)!

[Dave B]

With party list PR you have no way to 'throw the blighters out'. If you think a Conservative MEP is not acting in your/the country's interest you cannot chose to vote conservative and not for that individual.

If you had multi-member seats where you voted for individuals (two or three perhaps), you would have the option of voting for those MEPs you valued, and not those you didn't. The current party list system sucks.

[John Leonard]

Tiffany Dangerfield:

I do enjoy reading propaganda.

You are so wrong

There are many systems of PR and you can have a constituency link too.

FPTP isn't broke so why fix it?

Why over complicate something that already causes enough confusion for no real democratic benefit?

You say that you can kick out MPs easily. Don't make me laugh. Do you not know that in most constituencies they weigh the vote.

No of course in 1997 only a few MP's lost their seats (there was actually a net change of 171). So at least 171 (out of 650 or so) lost their seats.

There are only around 100 or so marginal seats where the election is won or lost.

Well seeing as current projections suggest that the number of seats that might change hands at the next election is more than double that I perceive this particular contention to be false.

You could put a pig up for election and it would win in many areas.

I do think you are being rather insulting to vast majority of elected representatives.

However, I would ask the same of PR. How can PR stop a 'pig' being elected?

All PR is, is a different way of sharing out the number elected representatives between the parties so that the losers get a larger share of the cake. It is not a selection criteria for candidates. So how does PR stop a pig being elected?

Again a totally specious argument.

Re your comment about the Lib Dems. You simply haven't a clue.

The Libdems have been and will be the primary beneficiaries of PR is most cases as it stands unless there is a sea change (their vote collapses) in the political outlook of the country. They have the most to gain so they shout the loudest.

PR is supported by parties of left and right throughout the democratic world. It favours parties/groups that attract the most votes.

People around the world once believed the world was flat. That didn't make it right and just because many have used the gimmick of PR to quell democratic disquiet doesn't make it right either.

Just look at the mess it has caused for the US Democractic party in their current presidential primary! What a great advert for PR that has been!

It does not favour a particular party unlike FPTP.

FPTP does not favour any party nor does any voting system generically. Electoral boundaries, turnout and demographic changes are what cause any perceived inequalities.

Oh and last time I checked the Lib Dems are NOT in power in Scotland or Wales.... so how do you explain that.

No and they have not been in sole power anywhere in the UK for nearly 100 years. However, PR would double the number of representatives they (as the 3rd party) would likely have in Parliament.

That said, they have been junior partners under Labour at least twice that I can think of. The first time resulted in the Thatcher Years and the second resulted in the SNP taking power in Scotland. Neither of these Libdem interventions is particularly crowned with glory. God forbid if these 3rd placers had more power.

Finally I think it was Daniel Kawczynski MP who said FPTP produces strong and decisive governments.

So I suppose the headline in the newspapers will be Daniel Kawczynski MP thinks Gordon Browns government is strong and decisive.

Gordon Brown wasn't elected. So it has no relevence to a debate about voting systems.

Tony Blair's Government was elected 3 times and whilst I disagree with much of what they did they were strong and decisive under Blair in electoral terms.

In any case in electoral (& voting) terms Labour still have a strong majority (66) consequently in that it is still true. FPTP can't be blamed for the lack of character the current Government demonstrates just as PR would not change that character.

Yes thats right FPTP gave us NuLabour

And before it FPTP gave us Margaret Thatcher!

Swings and roundabouts....

Nuff said!

You mean 'nuffink substantive said'!

[Andrew Lilico]

An error in a number of the comments above is the assumption that European Parliament elections should be intended to provide us with *any* sort of government, whether strong and stable or otherwise. That isn't the goal of European Elections. And this is a reason why the usual key arguments for FPTP (which I very much support) are markedly less applicable to the European Parliament.

Personally, as I've noted before, I would prefer that we didn't elect our MEPs at all, since doing so gives the illusion of democracy to the European Parliament. Given that we are electing them, I see little objection to FPTP (which is always a good system), but also little material objection to PR. I just can't get exciting about it either way in this case.

What I can get excited about, though, is opposing the concept that arguments about what delivers strong and stable government has any (appropriate) relevance to the European Parliament. It does not.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

John Leonard:

My first reaction was "yawn", you sure know how to cure insomnia.

Firstly, you have NOT made any case for FPTP. Your view of PR is simply odd and am not sure why i wasted 10mins of my life reading it.

"FPTP isn't broke so why fix it?"

Clearly many people think it is broke so it needs to be fixed! You think it isn't broke because you believe you will gain an advantage by using FPTP. If tactical voting continues Conservatives will never win under FPTP. Do you think its fair that the Conservatives need to be about 8% ahead of labour to win by one!

"Why over complicate something that already causes enough confusion for no real democratic benefit?"

So you think British people are to thick to deal with PR... seems many other countries manage and with very high turnouts. It's interesting that Zimbabwe uses FPTP

"No of course in 1997 only a few MP's lost their seats (there was actually a net change of 171). So at least 171 (out of 650 or so) lost their seats."

Errrmm it was a long time since i did maths, but you are accepting that even in Labours election landslide the overwhelming majority didn't change hands...around 480 stayed the same! Infact at the 2001 election the tories made just one net gain!

"Well seeing as current projections suggest that the number of seats that might change hands at the next election is more than double that I perceive this particular contention to be false."

Don't count your chickens before they have hatched. I remeber a poll years ago which predicted the SDP would win 600 seats!

"I do think you are being rather insulting to vast majority of elected representatives. "

Insulting to elected reps...don't make me laugh...Derek Conway and the Wintertons are insulting to the electorate. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

"However, I would ask the same of PR. How can PR stop a 'pig' being elected?"

Well if the pig gets votes under PR then they deserve representation. The trouble is with FPTP we can't get the pigs snouts out of the westminster trough as they have safe seats!!

"The Libdems have been and will be the primary beneficiaries of PR is most cases as it stands unless there is a sea change (their vote collapses) in the political outlook of the country. They have the most to gain so they shout the loudest."

Well any party that is at the moment under represented is bound to gain more seats. Hey but thats called democracy. You may find North Korea more condusive to your arguments.

"People around the world once believed the world was flat. That didn't make it right and just because many have used the gimmick of PR to quell democratic disquiet doesn't make it right either."

Well that really is specious. Perhaps you could name all the countries queuing up to adopt FPTP

"Just look at the mess it has caused for the US Democractic party in their current presidential primary! What a great advert for PR that has been!"

Actually it has made the Democratic race intereting.... all votes count you see and both candidates have to make their case to all states. John Mccain has already been selected and most states have not had a chance to listen to Republicans debate and vote for their choice. And you think thats better... you really are bizarre.

"FPTP does not favour any party nor does any voting system generically. Electoral boundaries, turnout and demographic changes are what cause any perceived inequalities."

Oh it does...it favours a two party system , if there are multi parties involved it creates barmy results. Look no further than Daniel's own result. A party could in theory get elected with 10% of the vote and gain 100% executive power under FPTP. Infact Nulabour only won about 20% of the electorate yet has 60% of the MPs ...explain how that is fair!

"No and they have not been in sole power anywhere in the UK for nearly 100 years. However, PR would double the number of representatives they (as the 3rd party) would likely have in Parliament."

And what does that have to do with the price of fish. I can really see how u dislike democracy

"That said, they have been junior partners under Labour at least twice that I can think of. The first time resulted in the Thatcher Years and the second resulted in the SNP taking power in Scotland. Neither of these Libdem interventions is particularly crowned with glory. God forbid if these 3rd placers had more power."

Again what has this got to do with the price of fish?

"Gordon Brown wasn't elected. So it has no relevence to a debate about voting systems."

Oh yes he was elected. By the people of kilkaldy...we have a parliamentary system not a presideential one. what about John Major, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas Home, Macmillan Eden etc???

"Yes thats right FPTP gave us NuLabour"

"And before it FPTP gave us Margaret Thatcher!"

And inbetween John Major ROFL

Swings and roundabouts.... too true

[Ash Faulkner]

Well, I oppose PR for any system that is parliamentary, that is, for any political system in which the executive is part of the legislature. In such circumstances, you aren't just electing representatives, you're electing a government, and hence the need for stability and the capacity to fulfill manifesto commitments.

For a congressional system, where the executive and the legislature are separate, I don't oppose PR because you aren't choosing a government, you're just choosing a representative. PR is the most numerically representative system - the problem is Parliament is not just a talking shop, it's a government too.

So I see no problem with PR for Europe, given as the Parliament isn't actually a parliament at all, it's a congress. But like Andrew, I'd like to strip it of any facade of democracy. Indeed, I'd like to abolish it altogether; only states need representative assemblies. The European Parliament, by its very existence, is one of the most dangerously federal institutions in the whole of the EU.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Ash Faulkner

So you thing its right that a party with only 20% support from the electorate can hold 100% executive power...how is that democratic?

Does every other european country have it wrong and we alone are right? I think not.

Why are you people so afraid of the voters choice?

North Korea has a stable government...is that what you are advocating?

[Prentiz]

If tactical voting continues Conservatives will never win under FPTP

Err - Boris? Would have won on both FPTP and PR... Or Local Government elections, where we now control more council and have more councillors than any other party under FPTP?

Well if the pig gets votes under PR then they deserve representation. The trouble is with FPTP we can't get the pigs snouts out of the westminster trough as they have safe seats!!

Neil Hamilton. Under PR politicians only need to keep the party sweet to be re-elected. Under FPTP they need to keep some real people happy too. The seats are safer under PR.

I could go on - but I suspect you may be someone can't change their mind, and won't change the subject, as another FPTP politician put it...

[Ash Faulkner]

"So you thing its right that a party with only 20% support from the electorate can hold 100% executive power...how is that democratic?"

Huh? Which party has 20% support?

"Does every other european country have it wrong and we alone are right? I think not."

Why is that impossible? Just because "every other European country [has] it" that does not make it right. What an odd view of morality that is.

In any case, I don't deny there are advantages to PR. Fundamentally this becomes a debate about whether Parliament should represent, or whether it should govern. Obviously it is accountable because the government can be removed and replaced, and nobody here has proposed changing that. This is therefore a debate about balancing representation and government; I'd rather have an efficient but less representative government than a representative but inefficient one, provided the opportunity was still there to remove it.

"Why are you people so afraid of the voters choice?"

Nobody is afraid of voters' choice. Nobody is arguing against PR because it is too representative; everybody is arguing against it because it is too unstable. If we were afraid of voters' choice we'd advocate the abolition of democracy altogether. In any case, you seem to trumpet yourself as some sort of arch-democrat; do you not accept that there are times when politicians have to take unpopular short term decisions for the long term good? As Edmund Burke once said, "your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement too; and he betrays rather than serves you if he surrenders it to your opinion."

"North Korea has a stable government...is that what you are advocating?"

...what a silly statement. What constitutional mechanism is there to remove the North Korean government peacefully?

[Ken Stevens]

Tiffany Dangerfield | May 13, 19:50
"Does every other european country have it wrong and we alone are right? "

I seems that France tried PR and abandoned it:

http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/elect_nat.asp
"... First-past-the-post voting was introduced by General de Gaulle as an antidote to the instability which had plagued the governments of the Fourth Republic and which had been largely due to proportional representation. The proportional system was brought back for the 1986 general election by the Socialist government - which was seeking better representation for small political groups - but the first-past-the-post system was reinstated for the 1988 elections and has been retained ever since...."

[Edward Keene]

I am surprised Charles Tannock does not note the point that the use of PR in one or more levels of government will, by association and use, become more credible for implementation at other levels - just look at how PR has spread through the UK constitution in the last 10 years! In this respect, I must agree with the description of PR as a cancer.

Ideally, all elections would be carried out on a unitary national principle of OMOV in single-member seats at all levels of government (with the exception of parishes).

[Charles Tannock MEP]

In reply to John Leonard whose main complaint seems to be our continued EU membership rather than PR for Euroelections I would point out that the European Parliament does not form a government, unlike the House of Commons, and the Commissioners come from many different political families. Of course I represent all my constituents what I said is some of them prefer to write to an MEP of their party of choice or with specialist knowledge- more likely by definition in a large multimember constituency. Consensus in a supranational legislature is important because you are having to legislate fro 27 different legal systems and having UK MEPs under PR in differing poloitical groups can sometimes usefully help explain our national sensitivities though I have to admit the British Greens fight a global rather than UK agenda and the Labour MEPs often a pan European socialist one rather than defending UK plc interests. Mr Leonard also did not understand my commenst that in London unlike other UK regions there is a huge mismatch between number of registered electors and true population because of legitimately settled non voting Japanese, US, Korean etc communities, refugees, non registered newly arrived eastern europeans etc The total UK seats now of 72 in 2009 is allocated on census population data but these are internally redistributed by regions acording to the numbers on electoral rolls so London loses out.
Lastly I agree with the posts that differing electoral systems are confusing and if PR proves popular and I have no opinion polling data on this it might be contagious to general elections too but so far the UK seems to manage with multiple coexisting systems fairly well!

[Jason O'Mahony]

Funny how the Tories don't use FPTP in leadership elections. A party leader needs majority support, but a PM doesn't?

[Andrew Lilico]

Jason@13:26

Your question is based upon a false premise. UK Prime Ministers are not elected as such.