"The point I am making is there would be a change in the way we are governed. There would not be the clarity of who is in power." In other words: PR might mean that the coalitions that are the main political parties which we don't fully choose could be replaced by coalitions we more fully choose? As to 'clarity of who is in power', you mean like in a dictatorship? None of this takes away the scandal that with the lowest proportion of the popular vote ever -just over 30%- the current government has not only an absolute majority of seats but a big majority of them. That equates to an unelected dictatorship in effect. Then add to that the Labour promise of doing something about the electoral system back in 1997 ... WE should recall that we've been doing PR in the UK for a good while, just not for Westminster, the experiences of it have not been negative, nor are they negative in councils and city halls up and down the country where there are coalition local governments.
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Election 2005 | Falconer warns against switch to PR:
20 May 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment