A letter from one of our members to his MP

A LETTER FROM ONE OF OUR MEMBERS TO HIS MP

after a visit 22 July 2018

Hi!

Thanks for seeing me again on Friday – here is my summary of our meeting for you to consider.

I covered three main points:-

First. I asked you for an update on how you felt things were going . You seemed slightly surprised I keep asking this but it is the only way I have of knowing how aware you are of the disaster looming before us. You acknowledged there are difficulties but felt Mrs May would get there in the end. I pointed out how her proposals to the EU for “frictionless” trade would not be accepted as they still were trying to have our cake and eat it. I again point out how Efta/EEA resolves all the critical issues we face while still freeing us from the EU’s politics and would allow us to act independently on the world stage again.

Second. I asked you if in any dispute or negotiations it was essential to hear from both sides. After I gave you the example of a divorce you said of course it was.

So Third, I asked you what you knew if anything of the Notices to Stakeholders of which 68 have been issued . You replied that you didn’t know what they were. I then explained they were issued by the EU to alert and address the problems for businesses if they are to face a No Deal or Hard Brexit. I then gave you the latest publication from the EU, including COM (2018), its press release and seven point fact sheet to consider. You said you would read them . I believe it is essential that you do.

In parting you said that you could see no likelihood of an election before 2022 and that unlike Johnson or Davis you supported the PM and would not be resigning. Finally I urged you to contact that MP whom I mentioned, urging you to engage with him and influence Mrs. May towards an Efta/EEA style deal.

I would like to meet you again after the 18th October EU Summit and speak to you as soon as possible after this defining Brexit event.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Now people may agree or disagree with the points made here but nobody can feel happy that any MP could be so unaware of the conditions in the EU notices which are certain to affect his constituents’ businesses.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

30 comments

  1. StevenReply

    I wonder if this MP is a Tory and has a huge majority or not? My Tory MP has one of over 20,000 votes and the seat has never changed hands. I am not excusing this MP’s attitudes but if I had a seat in parliament whereby only an absolutely MASSIVE LANDSLIDE against my party (it would have to be BIGGER even than the 1997 defeat or the one that was worse ie 1906!) would possibly threaten my job I too might well be inclined to not bother myself with my constituent’s concerns or with a situation that could well turn into something akin to a national emergency.

    This all goes to show how vital it is for this country to discuss REAL electoral reform ie a system of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION at long last and decide if we want it or not (IE NOT another one on that joke of a system called the Alternative Vote which we had in 2011).

    http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk

    https://twitter.com/MakeVotesMatter

    https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk

  2. Alan SpencerReply

    I disagree Steven. Whatever the faults are with the present First Past the Post System, Proportional Re[presentation is not the answer. It opens the way the extremiost parties e.g. Italy; it results in deals being done behind closed doors and the electorate get a ‘Government’ which has to persue policies which have been rejected by them e.g. Germany; it takes weeks, if not months to form a working ‘Government’ – I belive in the case of Belgium it was without a Government for 18 months. We have seen elements of all this with our present coalition Government. Fortunately the last time we were in this position was the Lib-Lab Government of Wilson.
    Imagine if the electorate 40% Conservative, 40% Labour and 20% Lib Dem – under PR it would effectively be the Lib Dems who would form the Government – heaven forbid!
    Generally speaking with our present system we elect a Government which is in power withing 24 hours, able to impliment its mandate. We may not like that mandate but at least we have a Government.

    • StevenReply

      I’m sorry but I disagree. First Past The Post is emphatically NOTHING to do with democracy. How can it be when I am stuck in a seat which NEVER changes hands and in which my vote is UTTERLY WORTHLESS? WHY THE HELL should I be EFFECTIVELY FORCED to move to the next door seat which is a marginal and to move away from the town I was born and brought-up in to get an EFFECTIVE VOTE? Basing an electoral system PURELY on an arbitary factor like geographic constituencies IS THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY! WHY THE HELL should my vote be worth MANY TIMES LESS than someone’s else cast in the constituency to my South? Is their vote cast with any better judgement? This is why so many people don’t bother to vote! In our system it is the LOGICAL AND RATIONAL thing to do. You CAN have geographic constituencies AND PR at the same time with some PR systems so the fabled ‘constituency link’ beloved of Labour and Tory MPs CAN be preserved (the only thing is that with these systems of PR they CAN’T use that constituency link as a means of preventing a truely democratic expression of the people’s will which is the REAL reason they go on and on about the ‘constituency link’ under FPTP)

      You can’t use the example of Belgium to denounce PR as it is composed of two communities/’nations’ which don’t speak the same language and which have separate political parties and indeed the structure of the Belgian state has been, in recent decades, changed in ways which reinforce those differences hence that record time it took to get a government. At any rate, Belgium is quite a well run country so does it really matter how long it takes a government to form ON VERY RARE occasions? It is surely better to take some time to find a good and effective government with decent policies that work for the MAJORITY of the country than compose a government quickly with rubbish ones that reinforce or create social divisions? You could, of course, abolish democratic elections entirely and then you would be guaranteed stable government under the rule of an absolute monarchy!

      Neither is is sensible to use Italy as our national character is entirely different to a LATIN people like Italians and anyway they have changed their electoral system many times over the last twenty or so years and their previous problems were really caused by the very pure PR system with a very low threshold to gain representation which they previously used.

      Germany has been more well-governed by their PR-composed governments during the post-war period than we have been ie they have an EXPORT-ORIENTATED economy with MANY GERMAN-OWNED companies producing quality manufactured goods that people in the rest of the world wish to buy. WHERE ARE OUR BRITISH-OWNED MANUFACTURING companies? We have got very few of them due to BOTH Tory and Labour FPTP-elected governments having no industrial policies worth the name, dismissing the worth of manufacturing out of hand (Lady Thatcher), other policies orientated towards bolstering the City of London at the expense of manufacturing industry etc.

      Also, FPTP gave us the Poll Tax which is likely to have never seen the light of day under PR and which had to be reversed just a year or so after taking effect, gave a massive boost to the separatist SNP in Scotland and gave us a violent riot in London. It also got us involved in a WAR BASED-UPON A LIE IN IRAQ WITH THE EFFECTIVE MURDER OF BRITISH SOLDIERS BY A BRITISH GOVERNMENT!

      Germany is mostly stable politically-speaking and has only had a bit of turbalance recently due to the fact they now have six parties in the Bundestag. They have a 5% of the national vote or 3 directly-elected constituency threshold which, at the moment, has been passed by six parties but perhaps at the next election only 4 will pass it like in 2013.

      Italy has recently elected some people who are strongly opposed to mass immigration but that is THEIR RIGHT in a TRUELY DEMOCRATIC society to do that if they wish and the electoral system MUST NOT be used to frustrate that. If you oppose a party you use argument against them NOT an electoral system unless you are profoundly undemocratic. ‘Extremism’ is in the eye of the beholder and one person’s ‘extremist’ is another’s agent for perceived radical and necessary change. Personally, I would call Mr Bliar an extremist for MURDERING BRITISH TROOPS ON A LIE which should have been obvious to any thinking person at the time and those STUPID Tory MPs who voted with him yet they were all elected by that wonderful ‘democratic’ system known as First Past The Post!

      • StevenReply

        People who are opposed to PR often say it will help to elect who they define as ‘extremists’. Well, in the first place a true democrat should use politics in the normal way to argue against the ‘extremist’ and NOT to resort to using a clearly unrepresentative electoral system like FPPT to do their lazy work and ‘ban’ them (whilst also denying moderate people of representation). ‘Extremism’ is in the eye of the beholder and one man’s ‘extremist” is another person’s way of getting perceived radical and necessary change. FPTP IS NOT IMMUNE to electing extremists either since TWO COMMUNISTS WERE ELECTED AS MPS IN THE EASTEND OF LONDON IN THE 1945 GENERAL ELECTION.

        FPTP can HELP to breed the conditions in which extremism can thrive when it wastes so many votes thus helping politicians ignore certain issues until it blows up in their faces.

        • StevenReply

          The present situation in which we are MEANT to have a ‘strong and stable’ government elected by First Past The Post but which we have, instead, a Tory/DUP supply and confidence arrangement (supported by just 43% of the country and having to rely-upon a small REGIONAL party like the DUP the vast majority of UK voting residents CAN’T vote for even if they wished) to) with the Tory component and its MPS at open warfare with each other over how to proceed with Brexit also, I feel, rather undermines the argument that First Past The Post always elects ‘strong and stable majority single-party governments’ Also we have had THREE general elections recently with two HUNG parliaments and one with a very small and barely workable majority in 2015. John Major’s single-party majority government from 1992 to 1997 wasn’t exactly stable either ie at one point Mr Major had to threaten his party with a general election in order to impose some form of disciple upon his unruly MPs.

  3. george thomasReply

    the problem that the EU/Brexit debate creates for our political system is that it is a one-off issue that does not divide politicians along the usual party lines and so MPs are caught between the standard demand for loyalty and their personal view on a very important constitutional issue.

    I voted Brexit because I think that the most valuable thing we have created in this country, and it took many years of often painful and not always successful struggle, was democracy and the principle that government must be open and accountable to the people with the people retaining ultimate control through their right to change government decision makers when they so choose. A central principle being therefore that no government can tie the hands of future governments and thus the people can change their minds etc. As Tony Benn said in 1972 “when you distance government from the people you undermine democracy”. Add to that the fact that the EU government insi8tutions would not pass the most basic audit of what is required to form a reliable, stable long term democratic government and I would suggest that it is safer for our grandchildren that we get out of it than stay in it.

    Our government seems only interested in short term trade issues when, painful as the changes may be, it is our constitution that really matters. The European experience of the last century surely proves that the greatest danger to the freedom and civil liberties of any people comes from their losing control of their own government. and what real democratic control do “the people” (what or which People?) have over Brussels and, over time, as they move to Ever Closer Union, how much less in the future?

  4. StevenReply

    First Past The Post SYSTAMATICALLY (ie as a DESIGN FEATURE and NOT as an occasional accident) chucks A HUGE 60% PLUS OF ALL VOTES CAST into the nearest waste paper basket and thus denies people of representation which is, surely, one of the prime purposes of any real democratic electoral system? Of course, ALL electoral systems (even Germany’s very proportional one of Mixed-Member PR with a 5% of the national vote threashold or 3 directly-elected seats) will ‘waste’ some votes but WASTAGE OF 60% PLUS OF ALL VOTES CAST CAN’T EVER BE JUSTIFIED.

    • StevenReply

      Further to my comments in my first reply about some of the policies FPTP-elected governments have been able to do and get away with, I would argue our membership of first the ‘Common Market’ and the EU should be counted amongst them. Edward Heath was on a virtual one-man mission to push us into the Common Market in 1973 and he was determined to get us into it by hook or by crook. even to the extent of purposefully lying to the country about the sovereignty implications of the policy. Would he have continued this mission if he also had to worry about losing many votes and seats to a pro-sovereignty party to the Conservative Party’s ‘Right’ in 1970 and would the Tory Party have continued to push us ever further into it with the signing of the Single European Act 1986 and the Maastrict Treaty in the early 1990’s? Perhaps, he and they would have done but I think that if we had had PR they might well have, at least, paused for thought.

      Let’s therefore have a REAL debate about PR and have a referendum on it and if we choose to have it and it doesn’t work out then at least we can say we tried to make it worK and can revert back to FPTP if we want to ( although it is noteworthy that there isn’t a country that has changed back to FPTP after having used PR)

  5. StevenReply

    To those who continue to say, we have already had a vote on PR, I say the fact is WE HAVEN’T. The British people were graciously given a so-called ‘opportunity’ to ‘change’ FPTP to the ALTERNATIVE VOTE by our illustrious masters in the Tory Party in 2011 but THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE A SYSTEM OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT ONLY ELECTS MPS IN SINGLE-MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES JUST LIKE FIRST PAST THE POST DOES.

    Infact, FPTP AND AV COME FROM THE SAME FAMILY OF MAJORITARIAN VOTING SYSTEMS!

    The reason why the Tories gave us that ‘choice’ was because they knew that AV is NOT PR, would have changed very little even if it had been adopted, is a very flawed system like FPTP is and it is one of the very few alternative systems that can actually lose against FPTP in a referendum

    It was a CON which is no doubt the reason why the referendum had an appalling turnout of LESS THAN 50% thus ensuring that our supposed vote for the retention of FPTP isn’t one of a particularly good democratic mandate.

  6. StevenReply

    The referendum on AV in 2011 was, arguably due to the low turnout, only a mandate for the retention of a very flawed First Past The Post against a system which also has many flaws ie AV ie a bit like either dying through having a massive heart attack or expiring by way of terminal cancer. IT WAS NOT A VOTE AGAINST PR BECAUSE A PR SYSTEM WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT THUS IT CAN’T BE REGARDED AS A VOTE AGAINST PR.

  7. Phil JonesReply

    EEA via EFTA is definitely not the answer for the UK. Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are EFTA members, and all but Switzerland also in the EEA. The UK is presently in the EEA by being a Member State (read: province) of the EU, but that ends when UK leaves the EU. The UK would need to join the EFTA for it to become again part of the EEA.

    Being in the EEA means that the UK remains in the Single Market, i.e. the Four Freedoms exist for movement of people, goods, services and capital. What the EEA represents is a way for nations that can’t get their populations to accept full EU Member State status to appease those populations by saying “We’re not a Member State” while all the while in effect being in reality a Member State. Really no difference between nations in the EEA that are Member States and those that aren’t Member States. This is not what we voted for in the Referendum. The choice was clear: Do you wish for the UK to remain in the EU, or do you wish for the UK to leave the EU? A digital black-versus-white crystal-clear choice. The difference between Remain and Leave was perfectly clear to the huge majority of persons voting that day. But no sooner was the result announced than along came the Remainers and leftie media introducing the term ‘Hard Brexit’ and its sister, ‘Soft Brexit’, to muddy the waters, ‘Hard Brexit’ meaning ‘Brexit’ and ‘Soft Brexit’ meaning ‘No Brexit’. And anyone suggesting that the UK joins the EEA via the EFTA is simply arguing for No Brexit. Very clear.

    Switzerland is an EFTA member but did not take the further step of becoming part of the EEA. At present the Swiss people are very upset about the EU free movement that Switzerland has to accept in return for bilateral trade agreements with the EU. They want a referendum on the issue but the Swiss Gov’t is in the pocket of Big Business and won’t grant such referendum. What you have worldwide is Big Business versus the nation-state. Big Business wants no borders so that it can get the cheapest labour via free movement, and it wants no differences in currency or language. It’s being played out in Europe but also other places around the world. The people of the UK made their decision on 23 June 2016 as to which way they wanted the UK to proceed — and the nation-state won and Big Business lost. But Mrs. May, traitor and betrayer that she is, has been working tirelessly toward the opposite result. But even she has acknowledged that EFTA and possible EEA via EFTA are not on the table. So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we have no more of the interminable arguments here for EEA/EFTA for the UK. If they continue, then the word ‘Leave’ should be removed from the name of this forum since proceeding via EEA/EFTA is NOT the UK leaving the EU..

  8. StevenReply

    Indeed, it was a binary issue ie in or out. I think it is noteworthy that these terms of ‘soft’ Brexit versus ‘hard’ Brexit were to all intents and purposes unknown BEFORE the referendum’s result was announced. They are, undoubtedly, being used by Remainers to muddy the waters. Mr Cameron warned before the vote that voting leave meant leaving the single market and he was entirely correct to do so even if, in his case, he was plainly trying to use it to frighten enough people into voting remain. Leave means precisely that ie leaving the EU and all of its various mechanisms behind us including the single market, the customs union, free movement of labour, MEPS, Brussels Commissioners. Basically, leave means having our ‘opt-outs’ extended to the entire shebang!

    I only agree with TWO of the four fundamental freedoms of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU ie free movement of goods and services NOT freedom of movement and freedom of capital movements thus I can’t support membership of the EU.

    Membership of a free trade area SHOULDN’T involve having to accept blatantly political conditions such as freedom of movement for workers otherwise trade is not genuinely free! Japan wouldn’t accept this and neither should we.

  9. Adam HileyReply

    the 3 old parties are from a 20th century that no longer exists who are stuck in a bygone era who think We have an alleged special relationship with the World’s No1 Bully or the German French protection racket jumped up trade bloc called the EU We can continue to vote for these charlatans or We can get rid of them I would rather get rid of them and elect new blood, don’t get Me started on that Royal Family

  10. ThomasReply

    The people who voted for Brexit did not do so to start a revolution – overthrowing the monarchy, breaking off all diplomatic relations with our allies, ridding the Houses of Parliament of the Lords and all MPs and parties who we dislike, drastically revolutionizing our electoral system, or shutting down all communication with the outside world. This is the 21st century United Kingdom, not 17th century France.

    I sympathize with Steven though. I cannot believe that Theresa May got the largest amount of votes for decades, even more than Tony Blair, and yet is forced to run a minority government. Maybe we can learn from PR, even if we don’t necessarily adopt it. I wouldn’t call Germany stable, though. Angela Merkel is even weaker than Theresa at the moment, and if she collapses, we might see the AfD rise in to government.

  11. StevenReply

    If we leave the EU completely as we could then give consideration to a return of the death penalty. I see that one Remainiac on a Twitter account I sometimes peruse makes the correct point we abolished it in 1964 ie before our membership of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU but he then spoils that by failing to understand that even if we (through parliament or a referendum wanted it again) we COULDN’T bring it back due to our EU membership which bans it. Remainers simply can’t understand that one of the reasons people voted to leave the EU was because we didn’t want to continue to cede our national sovereignty to an external pan-European authority and therefore didn’t want our possible political choices to be constrained in this way.

  12. StevenReply

    The AFD wouldn’t be in government even if they increased their share of the vote markedly since they are starting from a low base but if they had sufficient backing from the German people they SHOULD be in government. The point, for what it is worth, is that an electoral system SHOULDN’T ‘ban’ parties from having representatives in parliament if people vote for them as ours quite clearly does just because certain parties may upset a few people’s (mainly in the media)’s overly sensitive globalist and liberal-left natures.

    NO British government has TRUELY EARN’T a right to be in government ON THEIR OWN since 1935 in Britain thanks to the crummy and clearly anti-democratic electoral system of First Past The Post as we have
    a system that ‘gifts’ artificial majorities to single parties from minority voting shares (sometimes even to the extent of landsides) such as in 1983with Mrs Thatcher or with Tony Bliar in 1997 because the electoral system SYSTAMATICALLY misrepresents the will of the people.

    This, needless to say, DOESN’T happen in the far more democratic country of Germany.

    As for the instability argument, we are seeing YET FURTHER SIGNS of that today with Teresa May shoving aside her very recently-appointed Brexit Secretary just a few weeks after having appointed him after the previous one resigned. I wonder how long Dominic Raab will last?

    • StevenReply

      If , and it is very big if, the AFD ever got 50% of the German people’s votes in a general election, it SHOULD be in government ON ITS OWN as that would mean their PR system had faithfully reflected the will of the German people in a general election. At least, in Germany, they don’t get SINGLE-PARTY governments with the capacity to destroy German industry and do other stupid things ON MINORITY VOTE SHARES as British governments have been able to do here.

      Germany’s electoral system isn’t perfect (no electoral system in the world is) but it is certainly a good basis for a sane one. One of its few faults lies in the fact they have to endorse the choice of candidates of a party on the party list PR element of the system rather than be able to choose candidates. They could change that so that that part of the system isn’t reliant upon ‘closed’ lists but are made into flexible ‘open’ ones so that the voters can either endorse the party list or choose an individual candidate.

  13. StevenReply

    Having an effective vote in a general election or at a local election iS NOT A PRIVALEGE to be dispensed by our lords and masters in the snobby CONServative Party which hates the plebs and oiks of this land or by the equally undemocratic Labour Party whenever they feel they may be inclined to give it to us it is a HUMAN RIGHT and it is HIGH TIME they understood this. If they continue to refuse all reasonable requests to look at the issue and treat it with at least a modicum of commonsense then civil disobedience or, (sadly) violence will have to be entertained to make them listen. After all, women today would still not be able to vote if the Tory Party had its way and so the Suffragettes had to use desperate measures

  14. ThomasReply

    I would be very concerned with an AfD government. Their manifesto is reasonable enough, but individual members have made appalling comments in the past (shooting all illegal immigrants, treating Churchill as a war criminal, etc.)

    As for Thatcher, it is a fact that the majority of people, in whatever voting system you use, voted for her.

    You are right about sovereignty. I would like to see future referendums on a number of subjects – the death penalty, levels of immigration, abortion, and all the rest of it. It won’t happen in the current Parliament though.

    • StevenReply

      Frauke Petry was misunderstood and her remarks were taken out of context by the obviously biased likes of the BBC. Some figures have made none too pleasant remarks though, I agree. Mrs Thatcher was NEVER voted for by a MAJORITY of the British people. Her party only obtained 44% of the national vote in 1979 – a clear minority and even in the landslide year of 1983 she had LESS votes amounting to something like 43% with the landside being created by FPTP and a marked split in the opposition’s vote between Labour and the Liberal/SDP Alliance. She isn’t alone in that though as NO British government has had 50% or more of the national vote since 1935 when the national government (mainly Tory) EARN’T a majority rather than let the electoral system ‘gift’ the majority for them. Mrs Thatcher only won in her own constituency by a majority vote.

      • StevenReply

        Sorry, my mistake. The ONLY government since 1945 with a majority of REAL ELECTORAL SUPPORT behind it was the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government of 2010-2015 which had a decent majority of seats in parliament and in stark contrast to today’s government was ‘strong and stable’.

  15. StevenReply

    NEITHER Labour nor the Conservative Party has ANY RIGHT to force upon the British people the First Past The Post electoral system. NO-ONE is saying they have to change their view of PR systems and they can continue to push their obviously self-centered, inherently selfish and self-serving view of PR if they wish. What SHOULD happen is that they put their views of PR TO A REAL TEST in a referendum so that we can either endorse them or not.

  16. StevenReply

    As having a vote with EQUAL WEIGHT to another person’s (just like in once in 40 odd year referendums irony of ironies!) is a HUMAN RIGHT, I think it is morally justified to use civil disobedience and yes (sadly) violence against the authorities of this blighted land this shouldn’t be condemmed out of hand. Let’s face some brutal facts here, the British political Establishment HAS NEVER given the British people political rights with real meaning to them such as a woman’s right to vote without ordinary people standing up to them. Labour and Tory are so fascist on this question and so downright steadfast in their complete refusal to even coutenance having a referendum (you would think PR campaigners want to force Labour and Tory to legilsate without a referendum for for all their whinging!) then ALL means to obtain this right should be considered.

  17. ThomasReply

    Sorry, let me rephrase that. It is a fact that Margaret Thatcher consistently won the largest proportion of the vote in the general elections. Even if we had used PR, we still would have ended up with a Thatcher government. All the other parties won smaller proportions. The elections truly were landslides in that they were unusually high shares of the vote.

    I cannot believe that you support violence against the authorities. As well as being morally wrong, violence creates real instablity in a country. Look at history; the French and Russian revolutions are stark examples of the destruction it brings. It decimates families, blights the economy, and almost always brings a dictator to power. Using violence to reinstate democracy would, ironically, sound the death knell for it. Those people using violence to install to new regime would never represent the entire population. Look at the Roman Republic; it was originally a strong democracy, but it was eroded over time by people using violence to change leadership. The use of the sword to propel a new candidate to power reduced democratic process to a mere formality, and the ordinary person became far more disillusioned than he was before. It became a vicious cycle, and eventually brought about the end of one of the greatest empires the world had ever known. Having frequent referendums might be a human right, but using violence certainly is not.

    • StevenReply

      I am sorry you condemm my call for a possible resort to violence. I would only use it as a last resort if civil disobedience fails and reasonable requests also do but I can’t see how I will ever obtain a fair vote at elections without that being a possiblity since both Tory and Labour POINT-BLANK REFUSE to coutenance a referendum on changing our electoral system to PR and they also refuse totally to leglislate for it themselves. When peaceful and reasonable requests to change the system are continually shot down then, sadly, violence is going to be the inevitable result.

      As a mater of policy, I would be wary of holding referendums as they too often generate more heat than light but holding them on constitutional questions and having a fair vote in general elections and local elections is one of them that can be justified.

  18. StevenReply

    Mrs Thatcher’s party neither in 1979, 1983 or 1987 obtained a vote share of 50% of the national vote or above. This is an historical fact which is undeniable. Yes, the Tories got more votes than anyone else but they shouldn’t have had a majority single-party government and shouldn’t have had the electoral system ‘gift’ them an artificial majority. Mrs Thatcher’s government’s standing with the electorate in 1983 actually DECREASED in real vote terms with her party’s share of the vote GOING DOWN by about 1% on 1979. The landside was NOT EARNT but gifted by the huge split in the opposition’s vote and the workings of the patently unfair FPTP electoral system.

    FPTP also gave Mr Bliar a massive and unhealthy landslide in 1997 because of the huge amount of anti-Tory tactical voting. This was also a ‘gifted’ and artifical majority obtained by winning just 43% of the national vote – a clear minority – yet Bliar’s Labour ended-up with over 65% of the seats in the House of Commons – an artificial boost to that party given by the unfair FPTP system which doesn’t accurately translate real votes in real ballot boxes into seats in the House of Commons.

  19. StevenReply

    Idealy, any party shouldn’t be in government on their own without obtaining 50% or more of the national vote but I would accept a government forming a single-party administration with 45% or more so very near a majority. Anything below that figure should be unacceptable. Bliar’s government in 2005 obtained office on their own with just 35% of the vote and with a decent majority. ALL true democrats in this country should have found that unacceptable.

  20. ThomasReply

    I find that comment about our MPs very offensive. Though I disagree with them on many issues, they are serving this country, and I think the idea that they should be murdered horrific and is the polar opposite of democracy. This is a dangerous path to walk down; the last fascists that tried to murder an MP (Rosie Cooper) are currently imprisoned.

    I am confused; you promote using violence against the authorities but are wary of holding frequent referendums because they generate too much heat?

    Margaret Thatcher gained an unusually high number of votes for any party, and that is a fact. There can be no doubt she was more popular than average politicians, and rightly won every election. If I understand your proposals rightly, governments with less than 45% of the vote should go into coalition. If this was carried out, the Government would be very unstable. Historically, coalition governments never last long and we would see a new era of Italy-style politics. In the light of that, the current system works much better.

Leave a comment