Morning:
3°c
The most powerful tool in our democracy is not the ballot box or the soap box. It's the packing box in the removal van in Downing Street. That's when you know your vote has led directly to the ousting of one government for another.
This is the great strength of the electoral system we have now: it's called first past the post and it means you can kick 'em out if you want to. That's why we need a general election as soon as possible.
This is real accountability, real democracy, real people power. So it is incredible that at a time when our entire political system is suffering a crisis of trust — when what we need more than anything is a radical redistribution of power from political elites to the man and woman on the street — members of the Cabinet are proposing to get rid of this system for one that is less accountable, less democratic and less open.
Proportional representation may sound like a fair and effective system but it's anything but. Let me explain. First it removes the link between one MP and one constituency. PR comes in many forms but more often than not you find yourself voting for a party rather than just one person.
Under our current system, when you put your pencil to the ballot paper you're putting your cross against someone's name — one person to represent your interests, to go to if you have a problem: one person whom you feel a direct link to. A move to faceless politics would sever this local link and damage voter engagement.
This Thursday in the European elections you won't be voting for an individual but for a political party in a massive sprawling regional constituency. PR has destroyed the link between voters and their MEP. The only people who have gained from this are the political parties who call the shots on drawing up the party lists.
The second problem with PR is that it gives smaller parties an unfair and disproportionate boost. This may sound good but what you'll find is that more often than not, PR turns politics into a beauty contest between various fringe parties — either peddling niche concerns or ugly extremist views.
This Thursday Britain votes in the European elections. If just eight per cent of the electorate votes for the BNP then as a result of the PR system that Labour forced on us, that party is guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament. Imagine the same thing happening in national government. Not only would the BNP get in — they would also wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers, for the simple fact that in coalition governments, it's the smaller parties that are the power brokers.
That feeds in to the third weakness of PR — so much of the evidence from abroad shows that it leads to weak, unstable governments. Between 1947 and 1993 Italy's parliament was voted in through a system of proportional representation. During that time the average government lasted just nine months. Why? Because when you force together a number of different parties, each with different outlooks, philosophies, priorities, you're bound to get indecision and division over decisive action and unity.
At a time when we're facing the greatest economic crisis in living memory, it's not in-fighting or compromise we need — it's clear leadership.
The fourth major problem with PR is that the coalition governments it inevitably creates inevitably descend into backroom deals that betray the will of the people. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers put together a government that suits them after rounds of horse-trading and bargaining for power.
I'd like to hear Alan Johnson and other champions of PR explain how that would deliver the transparency and trust our political system so desperately needs.
For all these reasons, PR is a step backwards. We need to move forwards, and it's clear the direction we should take. If we want an electoral system that is fairer, we need to ensure that each constituency has equal worth. At present some constituencies have twice as many voters as others, putting a premium on some votes. We can even this out by cutting the number of MPs and redrawing boundaries.
But as well as cutting the size of Parliament, we've got to reform it, too. Right now legislation that affects the lives of millions can sail through without proper debate. We need to make Parliament a real engine of accountability. That means reducing the power of the whips, ending the culture of sofa government, and making select committees more independent so they properly scrutinise our future laws.
But much more important than electoral reform or Parliamentary reform is reform of power itself — where it lies in our country. It's held in the wrong places by the wrong people, often making decisions at the wrong time. The EU, judges, advisers on the sofa of No10. Anyone apart from you.
Last week I set out our vision for a huge redistribution of power in this country. We're going to give parents the power to set up their own schools for their children. We're going to give neighbourhoods the power to come together and build the homes they need. We're going to give social enterprises the power to go into our communities and deal with some of our most entrenched social problems.
We're going to give councils the power to act as they see fit for their constituents rather than endlessly answering to Whitehall. We're going to completely reshape the landscape of power in this country. It's this power shift we need to restore hope and trust in our politics — not the unfair, undemocratic, ineffective mistake that is proportional representation.
Reader views (28)
I supported David Cameron until I heard that the referendum he promised on the European constitution/treaty will Not go ahead if the Irish give a yes vote...surely something wrong there,if the Irish vote No then we will have a referendum otherwise we won't.This has been kept very quiet.
- Graeme Gunner, Surrey
Mr Cameron please do not under estimate the British public, we voted for Labour as they offered change and have clearly delievered
Caroline, Foy, Herefordshire perfectly worded. Should we mention being over Taxed whilst speaking about tory policy?
- Jessica, London
If David Cameron believes in a FPTP election model he should resign as leader of the Conservatives.
Using FPTP David Davis should be the Conservative leader.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/conleader05.htm
- Tancred, Edinburgh
I am stunned by David Cameron's arrogance. How DARE he dictate to us how we should vote. I would rather hear his solutions to the current crisis. I would ask him what he is going to do about the mass immigration of the last 40 years that has made England the most densely populated in Britain?
- Caroline, Foy, Herefordshire
Spot on DC.
- Robert, Birmingham
PR is the best thing for this realm. Make the elected MP's consider each subject rather than walking around like lemmings doing as the whips office tell them.
Anyone that claims we have a democracy is an idiot. If we want real far-reaching philosophy how about online voting twice a year with each party allowed nominating one question, now that would be a 21st centaury democratic organisation, but lets think back to yes minister, that’s right it is those behind the scenes that fear the public more than MP's, those that unelected officials who really run this country and the fees office that messed up and yet they remain running this nation into the ground how democratic!!!
Mr Cameron has no intention of changing anything and fears the BNP because they offer change and a shake up to the boys club.
For the record I hate the bnp but do not fear them as much as the current elected jokers we have
- Ge, Cornwall
If the good people of Britain vote for the BNP party then we should respect our democracy and the freedoms we have in Britain. To change laws to prevent parties being nominated is no better than communism. Shame on David Cameroon and any else that spurt this shameful pc horse manure.
- Dirk Diggler, Soho, London
Cameron has served up a fat tub of self serving tosh here. If there had been PR in our parliamentary political system before now, we would not have suffered as badly from Brown and this incompetent Labour Government. What other party would be propping them up now? It would be a case of Brown out and democracy at work. All Cameron can do is impotently call for an election that he is and more importantly, we are not going to get in a hurry.
What difference would a few BNP MPs actually make? Not much, they would not be in Government. Centre parties would have had to learn to work together instead of lying to each other and the public. In fact if the BNP had achieved electoral success at the last General Election. The concerns of the public regarding the massive inflow of immigrants into what was already the most heavily populated country in Europe, would have been taken more seriously.
As for the European elections on Thursday, why should I vote Conservative when the only choice is eurosceptism and the prospect of future MEPs sitting in the Euro Parliament alongside right wing fringe parties. I believe in Europe but demand political reform from within not negativity. If voting for Cameron's party is not going to give me want, I, as a free thinking Tory supporter, may as well protest with my vote. Though with a proper PR system in this country, there may emerge, or breakaway, a pro Europe centre right party that will fill the current void. Now that is what I call democracy.
- Harry H, London UK
However self-serving this article may be, the BNP is a morally deficient organisation that seeks to injure (financially, socially and otherwise) innocent people. Nick Griffin is a sociopath. Any man who can possibly say, "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat…I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria,” must have, as the popular psychological terminology has it, a major screw loose.
Don't let him anywhere near government or power. He is real trouble.
- Iskander, University of London
PR confines democracy to the trash bin. Under PR it is only the Political Class that can appoint an MP, it is not called a Political List for nothing.
When the Political Class allows you to vote under PR, they allow you to choose which party should have what proportion of the seats. After you have voted for this party or that party the Political Class will tell you which of their membership will represent you. Even that is not quite right; your MP will not represent your views in Parliament, but those of the leader that appointed them - i.e. they vote as they are told or they are out. What the People can’t do is vote an individual MP out they are never allowed to.
You can only have democracy when the People get to decide who the candidates are that stand in for elections in their constituency. After all Democracy is government for the People by the People.
The Political Class may tell you that voting for a member of their club is democracy. Whichever way you look at it can never be democracy it is just another form of Feudal Control of one class over another. Only when the People get to choose their candidates, then vote for the one the majority approves of, do you get a Parliament where the People are represented.
Then the People get the government they deserve.
- Ian, Reading, England
David up until the Julie Kirkbride affair I suspect most were prepared to give you a opportunity now we see the spin that saw us kick your party out many years ago. You are having a laugh if you think we have a democracy in this country a vote every 5 years for a person who is whipped into voting as the government tells them too.
Nobody fears the BMP, think Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" that’s why the british hate these endless mocking of the BMP
Some of us like the freedom of speach eventhough this basic right in this country is forever being confiscated. Many are happy to pretend we have a democracy and love our country whilst the people we elect seek to give the power away to Europe and tax us until we have nothing to eat.
If you want true reform allow MPs to represent the people who elect them not party whips.
- Gary, brentwood
I don't doubt that the article is self-serving but it is also a useful summary of the dangers of the PR system.
I am unimpressed by the list of countries where PR has supposedly worked. What has Switzerland given us, other than the cuckoo-clock, and what has Sweden given us, other than Abba ?
- Harry L, London
The last person before Berlusconi to scrap PR in Italy was Benito Mussolini - who saw it as far too democratic. Cameron has a nice ally there.
Cameron is defending a system which gives MP a monopoly on representation - a "like them or lump them" system which means that many voters - often a majority - only have a representative from a party they didn't vote for, and who frequently they feel are completely unaccountable.
If smaller parties are getting support it is not just because of the PR system, but because people are disgusted at Westminster parties and politicians which have been so resistant to change.
- Michael Calderbank, London, UK
Look David Cameron, you are totally out of touch. I used to vote Tory before Labour got in. Never, ever, again. Two hundred years of UNDEMOCRATIC two-party 'ping-pong' politics has now brought Great Britain to its' knees and we all still want to know why YOU claimed for 'wysteria removal' on your personal expenses. Forget the BNP, I am going with UKIP. The Tories and Labour are finished...
- Mike, Suffolk, UK
Cameron has destoyed the Conservative party by turning it into a watered down version of Labour. Now he is whining about PR because it doesn't suit him?
- Janice Livings, Watford
"If just eight per cent of the electorate votes for the BNP then as a result of the PR system that Labour forced on us, that party is guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament. Imagine the same thing happening in national government. Not only would the BNP get in..."
Two things: I'm no lover of Labour, but they didn't force the Euro PR system on us, EU club rules required they make the change.
And, no lover of the BNP either, but if they get 8% of the vote, why shouldn't they get 8% of the representation (goes for the Commies too)?
I won't be voting for either of these longtail extremists, I don't like either, but to eliminate them by jury-rigging the electoral system is, well, a pretty extremist move in itself. In essence Cameron is saying "since the BNP is so horrible it's best if we re-allocate their votes between those of us who fit our own view of how voters should vote." And that used to be called fascism.
- Tv, Hounslow, UK
Fewer than a quarter of eligible voters last elected Tony Blair, and yet our voting system gave him massive majorities in Parliament with which to force through his will on issues like the going to war in Iraq.
Clearly David Cameron is now close enough to power that he just wants more of the same.
Up and down the country there a millions of people who stand no chance of their vote counting at the next General Election, just like the Labour supporters here in Wiltshire.
David Cameron should support democratic power for every voter not just marginal voters in marginal seats.
- Duncan Hames, Chippenham, Wiltshire
Proportional representation (PR) has failed as a system in countries that use it. Many others have had the intelligence to reject it as they know that it results in minority parties being massively over represented, enabling them to push through policies that go against the majority of public opinion.
I dont agree with everything Cameron says but on this he is right. Labour only want PR because it will help them keep their grubby little hands on the power they crave so much.
A Labour - Lib Dem - Green coalition is what would happen under a PR system - you think we have problems with crime and immigration now, imagine what it would be like then, when we have 1 million new citizens forced on us when they Lib Dems and Greens force through an amnesty for illegal immigrants -no thanks!
You may not like the Tories, that is your right, but the reality is, they are the only party capable and willing to effectively tackle the problems of crime and immigration in this country. Even I, a Labour supporter for many years has to concede that fact.
- John, Manchester UK
The same old irrelevant lies from David Cameron. PR is used in The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Ireland and many other countries, and they manage to have stable and democratic government. But he never says this. He just wants to grab absolute power with 40% of the vote or less, just like Labour before him. Cameron just doesn't get it: the current system has failed.
- Robert C, London UK
Sweden, Germany, Australia, New Zealand (to name but a few) all use some form of PR. Of course this doesn’t necessarily make it a perfect system, but it does show that it is a working viable system.
PR does have some inherent problems, one or two of which Mr Cameron has outlined, but it is not as reprehensible as Mr Cameron has suggested.
The article is a blatant attempt to shore up a system, which in a few months time will massively benefit the Conservative party. In fact Mr Cameron is so shameless that he even uses his article to advocate minor changes to FPTP, which will directly benefit the Conservatives such as redrawing the boundaries. Undoubtedly, electoral boundaries need to be looked at but to say this is “fairer” than PR is utterly ridiculous and makes Mr Cameron (or whoever wrote this piece for him) appear incredibly silly.
I also admire Mr Cameron’s outing of Mr Johnson as a devout PR follower, a cynical move to try and smear Mr Johnson, who is one of the only Labour figures that the public still admires.
PR isn’t perfect, but let’s face it; it’s a damn site better than the archaic FPTP system, which will likely produce a massive Conservative majority faced with no significant opposition.
- Carlo Marx, London
It is all very well for Cameron to say
"when you put your pencil to the ballot paper you're putting your cross against someone's name — one person to represent your interests, to go to if you have a problem: one person whom you feel a direct link to."
the problem is you only have a direct link to them if you voted for them. In the 2005 Election turnout in Dave's seat was 69.5%- he got 49.5% of the vote. So of all the people who could have voted for him he got a third of the vote. So a third of his electorate might feel they have a link with him but twice as many people don't have link.
At least under PR every vote counts.
- Will, London
This article betrays the fear Cameron has that Labour and the Lib Dems may put their heads together and actually come up with some fresh ideas. This is the most exciting time in politics for years; party leaders are involved in a radicalism bidding war. How Cameron can bleat about his radical reforms whilst supporting the utterly undemocratic first-past-the-post system, quite simply, beggars belief.
There is appetite for change in this country - fuelled both by the Obama message and also by the current wave of anger and cynicism towards politics. First-past-the-post is an outdated system whereby a party with less than 40% of the popular vote (still less of the electorate!) end up with over 60% of the seats. Elections are decided by a few swing seats. This is not democratic, this is prehistoric.
At last this has become an issue high up on the agenda; long may the debate continue, as it's THE single most pressing issue in British politics today.
- Eoghan O'Neill, London
nick and david you have said it all ,I hope these comments are repeated elsewhere for people to read
- Jack, south hornchurch
This article is full of half truths. The AV+ that Alan Johnson is proposing isn't really that proportional, though it does have an element of it. It is more akin to the AMS system which operates at Holyrood, which is a generally successful system, and has seen a period of stable government, be that Lab-LD or SNP - like it has in Germany.
Cameron's decision to to take one (in my opinion bad) system of PR as indicative of all other forms is wrong. misguiding and also not telling the whole truth. Party List is vastly different from the Single Transferable Vote, which many British electoral reform supporters endorse. It is used in Ireland - yet Ireland has fewer political parties represented in their lower house than Britain does. It is also not a hotbed of extremist sentiment. And France, which does not have a proportional system for their presidential elections, had Le Pen reach the second ballot in 2002.
As Roy Jenkins said, parties themselves are coalitions. The Conservatives (for example) are divided between many different strands, and negotiation is required on the part of government ministers. It happens across party, too - as it did with the Education Act in 2006, where the government obtained Tory support for their Act.
This article was just an excuse for Cameron to defend a discredited system which allows the Government to take majority power on 35% of the votes cast. That is as undemocratic as possible, without even beginning to mention safe seats.
- Thomas, Plymouth
" Let me explain " is one of your favourite sayings Mr Cameron ,you will not get out of this one by trying to show up other parties weak spots,Democracy is the key word here.
You and your friends should shell out and pay back your ill gotten gains.
- David., Chertsey.UK.
In the latest ICM poll Labour is 3 percentage points below the Lib Dems, but they can expect to get more than twice as many seats as them.
If 25% of the population would vote Liberal Democrat, this would only return 11% of MPs, whereas Labour's predicted 22% share of the vote but would result in 28% of the seats in the House of Commons.
How exactly is this fair?
- Bram Houtenbos, London
If you look at the last set of council elections in Barking & Dagenham, the BNP got 12 councillors and the Tories only 2. The Tory Party got 18.6% of the total votes cast. The election was held under the first past the post system. So it wasn't very fair for you Mr Cameron was it?
- Nick, London
I detest the BNP and all it stands for, however PR is more than just the BNP. Hopefully PR will mean that never again will one party have anything other than a modest majority, or even have to act in concert with other parties.
The bigger the majority, the liklier complacency and corruption by the government.
Cameron, and those who oppose PR, do so because they support elected dictatorships.
- David, London UK
