National and local elections...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on April 9, 2010 at 9:57

Harringay has improved a lot since I moved here twelve years ago, but I put that down to community pressure.

Tottenham is one of the safest seats in the country with Mr Lammy nearly 58% of the vote:
BBC General Election Link We also have a very poor turn out rate.

My vote, under the two-horse system means absolutely nothing and I am not being represented. I want my vote to be important, to be representative and to make a difference. We have been promised an electoral shake up since 1997, shock horror other than a change of a few boundaries, nothing has happened.

Why is the London Mayoral election, European elections and even the NI proportion of the General Election proportional representation, but not the generals? Well it benefits, the Tories and Labour because they know that it is only 4/8/12/16 years until they are in power again; an old school club, a fixed system and behind the scene hand shakes not to change it means that unless there is a huge change in the system people will tactically vote rather than vote for who they feel represents them.

A proportional system may mean more coalitions and representatives from minor or fringe parties and even vile right wing parties but you cannot spout democracy if you are not willing to give it to the people and make the house of commons truly representable of the people in this country

80% of the countries seats are safe with their current ‘representatives’, and only a handful of constituencies have any real say. Will we see the countries worst turnout and will it fall below 60%, if it does the government, opposition and wider political representation have them selves to blame

Along with many others in this country for the first time and until I am truly represented my democratic choice will be to spoil my paper. I have voted at every general election since I was eighteen, but for a change I want my views to be counted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on April 9, 2010 at 11:49

Agree. The conundrum is that the party that has the most ability to reform the electoral system, to something more democratic in the long run, is the very party that's won national power via the First Past The Post system.

And what incentive do they then have to change a system that's delivered for them? None! They [insert: Labour or Conservative] forget the long period in the past when they were out of power. During that powerless-period, the other party implemented some crazy policies which required time effort and money to reverse. And will do again.

That's the expensive, wasteful pendulum that we're attached to. Take a look at Peter Snow's clever, fascinating Swingometer for the 2005 elections. It's all too realistic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on April 9, 2010 at 13:06

Mark, even the Arctic may no longer be the safest place for eternal optimists, but make sure you clean up after them damn huskies, right.


The surest truth about 'safe seats', national or local, is that they're anything but safe for the electorate.
They also bamboozle the sitting MP, Councillor or dominant party into a false expectation of entitlement based on nothing more substantial than our inertia or eternal optimism. This is very bad for the MP's, Councillor's or party's sense of reality. We must help them. Every 4/5 years we get a minor chance to put a small dent in their false expectation - to strike a little blow towards making their safe seat a little less safe for them and a little safer for us.

Self-esteem is rather like the thyroid gland. It can be hypo- or hyper- , neither of which promotes healthy function. I have begun to get a little worried about our Tottenham Member's health. I think we need to prescribe a prolonged rest period - an initial prescription of 5 years would be good for him and his party.

Similarly, but from different underlying causes, I detect in our Labour Ward's serving councillor a sense of entitlement associated perhaps with memory function, aggravated by a poorly-functioning electorate over two decades. Symptoms, as in her most recent medical profile, include a tendency to concentrate somewhat obsessively on recent foreground details or remote background, an apparent enthusiasm to echo the questioner's immediate interests - while drawing a more than discreet veil over her middle Haringey years.
Again, a prolonged rest period is probably our safest remedy.

All in all an ABLA, however blunt, may be the only scalpel left in our surgical kit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on April 9, 2010 at 20:53

The Member for Tottenham might enjoy more confidence if his campaign issue (opposing betting shop proliferation) had credibility. He knows that there is real concern about this matter and his campaign will doubtless garner publicity. I believe he is sincere in his description of the problem. However the measures he proposes, while superfically attractive, are feeble and will make no difference, even if he were to win support from his colleagues who voted for the government Gambling Act.

The Tottenham MP is in a tricky position because it was his own party & government that wrote and passed the Act. This mandated the Demand Test (which has led directly to betting shop saturation) and imposed an obligation on local authories to aim to permit new applications for gambling premises licences. Will these provisions stay or will they be removed?

Because Mr Lammy is in a Safe Seat, he has less need to come up with measures that will address this problem seriously. After the election we can expect little on this question. The gambling "industry" is keen to chat with David. But they will have no sleepness nights over the proposed ability for councils to comment on betting shop 'clustering'. Their barristers would laugh all the way to the bank!

• ▶ Reply