From the Daily Telegraph
Conservative MPs are urging the Government to change the rules so that parties cannot govern with a low ballot turnout.
They accused politicians of “being out of touch with the people” and said it was being “deeply unrepresentative”. The Conservative government was formed despite only a 65% turnout of the public taking place. Of that, the government was formed despite only 36% per cent of people voted for the Conservatives - which means that the party was only backed by 23% of the electorate.
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “These unrepresentative and damaging governments strengthen the case for electoral reform, so a minority can’t hold onto power. It can't be right that a bunch of chinless morons can run the country into the ground, when just 23% of the electorate support them."
Aidan Burley MP, a founder of the Electoral Reform Commission which is pressing ministers to curb politicians influence in Whitehall, said the electoral system should be changed. “The current two party setup is selfish, shameless and spineless and the first past the post system should be phased out." he said.
Priti Patel, the Tory MP, added: “Any ballot in which fewer than a quarter of those eligible to vote choose the party of government should be ruled invalid. Our electoral system is only kept in place by those who are once again putting their own interests before that of our county.”
Conor Burns MP, who led the rebellion over Lords reforms, added: “The idea that these chinless wonders can hold the public to ransom on a vote of 23 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”
Matthew Hancock MP, an unofficial adviser to Chancellor George Osborne, added: “The majority of the public did not vote for this outrageous government. Shameless party leaders who want to run government should not be allowed to stand for parliament when only a minority of the public voted for them".
Money For Nothing
18 minutes ago
11 comments:
Might be an idea. to say if less that 75% of people vote they don't get an MP.
Especially in view of the fact that they want to place low turnout restrictions on trade unions. sauce for the goose . . .
For a 65% general turnout only the 65% of the constituencies with the highest turnout should return the elected candidate. The low 35% of constituencies should pick a constituent at random for their MP.
Snigger.
Ireland Hates Bastiat.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-19/ireland-bulldozes-ghost-estate-in-life-after-real-estate-bubble
It would be a good idea if elections had to be re-run with different candidates if below a certain percentage of the electorate voted for the winning candidate.
Intergenerational warfare
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-20/twin-lost-decades-housing-and-stocks
"... which means that the party was only backed by 23% of the electorate."
That's more than Tony Blair's lot received I seem to recall ;-)
I doubt it would make the slightest difference who ran the country or how many of them. There is no money and not likely to be any. Any sensible manager would be cutting costs at headquarters by now. But sensible is what we ain't got!
IIn other news, the TPA are criticising the high pay of some Trade Union leaders, which would have fitted in nicely with this story.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2011/10/trade-union-fatcats-report-raised-pmqs.html
Mark,
IIn other news, the TPA are criticising the high pay of some Trade Union leaders, which would have fitted in nicely with this story.
What does union pay have to do with the TPA? I don't want government paying union reps or spending money on things like the "modernisation fund", I think they're generally bad for businesses, but if people want to form a union and pay their dues, that's their business.
Post a Comment