The first election of 1974 was held in February. It was all about who ruled the country.
Was it the elected government?
Or Authur Scargill and the NUM?
Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime minister called the election after a wave of strikes. He made it plain that the issue of who governed the country was the primary issue in the election.
But instead of getting the government with the highest popular vote, the country got the loser.
It got Harold Wilson.
Wilson's Labour Party won the most seats, even though they got a smaller share of the vote than the Tories. Because they got the most seats they were given the first opportunity to form a government
Wilson, on the day of the election called a surrender parley with Arthur Scargill and the TUC to ensure the security of his minority government.
He then went on to form the Lib-Lab pact, (a poor mans coalition).
The country was in crisis. It needed popular leadership.
It got a coalition of losers. Courtesy of First Past The Post.
Heath was not asked to form the government because the Tories had won fewer seats than the Labour party. Even though the Tories had a greater share of the popular vote. What a travesty.
Wilson, the grand appeaser, forced a false boom and then held another snap election in October 1974. This time he won legitimately though at terrible cost to the nations wealth.
The country got a supine Labour administration that sleep walked the country though devaluation and economic collapse when the country really should have got something a little more "popular" and dare I say, effective.
The country ended up on a rudderless pre-Thatcherite course to the Winter of Discontent. Internally riven by extremists and in the middle of the depths of the cold war the country was, as in 1929 and 1951, bankrupt. It remained that way for a long time.
The current First Past the Post system abjectly failed this country in 1926, 1951 and 1974. The intrinsic flaws in FPTP and particularly its sensitivity to swing seats mean it will fail again unless replaced.
FPTP has the potential to randomly foist either a coalition of losers or (much worse - as in 1951) promote a government with an absolute majority that clearly came second in the election.
FPTP must be replaced. To simply go along with the current system would be to fossilise our democracy and deny our children the right to a dynamic forward looking democracy.
There is only one way to vote in this referendum. Vote for fairness. Vote for AV.
Billothewisps posts by Topic
Showing posts with label coalition government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition government. Show all posts
Reasons For AV - 1951
Due to the flaws of the First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the 1951 General Election returned a Conservative Government with an absolute majority, even though they actually got a smaller share of the national vote than the Labour Party.
By any measure, such an event must be regarded as a catastrophe for democracy, and it was all down to the FPTP voting system.
Both the Tories and Labour increased their share of the vote but Labour clearly gained the largest share of the national vote. But the conservatives gained the most seats.
Not only did the Conservative gain the most seats, they gained an absolute majority.
No prizes for spotting the horrendous anti-democratic outcome of the 1951 election below. All thanks to FPTP.
In 1926 and in 1974 the country was also ill served by the FPTP voting system that promoted the losing party to be the leading party in a minority government. Essentially the system promoted a losers coalition.
The election of 1951 was much worse.
Here the full potential horror of FPTP was realised. The loser not only went on to form a government but also governed with an absolute majority. Essentially governing against the wishes of the electorate.
Never again should we risk the catastophe of 1951 and having a government that, by a fluke of the FPTP voting system was totally illegitimate.
What has happened in the past can happen again, unless we replace this flawed FPTP system.
By any measure, such an event must be regarded as a catastrophe for democracy, and it was all down to the FPTP voting system.
Both the Tories and Labour increased their share of the vote but Labour clearly gained the largest share of the national vote. But the conservatives gained the most seats.
Not only did the Conservative gain the most seats, they gained an absolute majority.
No prizes for spotting the horrendous anti-democratic outcome of the 1951 election below. All thanks to FPTP.
![]() |
Image -Wikipedia |
In 1926 and in 1974 the country was also ill served by the FPTP voting system that promoted the losing party to be the leading party in a minority government. Essentially the system promoted a losers coalition.
The election of 1951 was much worse.
Here the full potential horror of FPTP was realised. The loser not only went on to form a government but also governed with an absolute majority. Essentially governing against the wishes of the electorate.
Never again should we risk the catastophe of 1951 and having a government that, by a fluke of the FPTP voting system was totally illegitimate.
What has happened in the past can happen again, unless we replace this flawed FPTP system.
There is only one way to vote in this referendum. Vote for AV.
More on the 1951 election can be found on Wikipedia HERE
More on the 1951 election can be found on Wikipedia HERE
Reasons For AV - 1929
The 1929 General Election was a First-Past-The-Post election.
The national majority voted for Stanley Baldwin.
The national majority voted for Stanley Baldwin.
But they got Ramsay McDonald.
Here is the result. There are no prises for spotting the flaw in this election
Here is the result. There are no prises for spotting the flaw in this election
Baldwin was not given the opportunity to try and form a government, even though his party had the most votes.
McDonald's minority government, initially supported by the Liberals, eventually collapsed.
Although McDonald desperately tried to do the best by the country, his 1929 victory was illegitimate. McDonald had no popular mandate.
McDonald's minority government, initially supported by the Liberals, eventually collapsed.
Although McDonald desperately tried to do the best by the country, his 1929 victory was illegitimate. McDonald had no popular mandate.
Remember McDonald's minority government was initially supported by the Liberals. This was a coalition. But it was a coalition of losers. The most popular party was not given the opportunity to try and form a government.
Although the Conservative Party had secured the highest share of the vote it did not win the most seats. It did not win the most seats because of the quirks and flaws of FPTP.
Although the Conservative Party had secured the highest share of the vote it did not win the most seats. It did not win the most seats because of the quirks and flaws of FPTP.
It is a misconception to suggest that coalitions are a peculiarity of AV. They can and do occur under FPTP, in fact exactly as we have now. But with FPTP it is more likely than with AV that the coalition will be formed from the losers rather then the party that got the most votes and a subsidiary.
The current FPTP System has failed this country and needs to be replaced. To simply go along with the current system would be to fossilise our democracy and deny our children the right to a dynamic forward looking democracy.
There is only one way to vote in this referendum. Vote for AV.
An Outbreak of Common Sense
Many of the Great Good and Extremely Well Fed are moaning about the lack of commitment that has been shown to the victims of the Pakistani floods.
So why is the level of support so low?
Why are we not providing significant support from either the government or from the general population?
Cast you mind back to the Tsunami of 2004. Initially, that catastophe also went unaddressed. At the start the government grudgingly donated a derisory amount of aid. The sum was actually soon outstripped by personal donations. The government under Gordon Browns direction tried to hold its position. But public outrage dictated otherwise.
Today, the the lack of public support for the Pakistani disaster is primarily due to the economic constraints upon the country at this time. This is ampified by the fact that Pakistan spends £2 billion a year on nuclear weapons, and has been actively seen as supporting those that are murdering British troops in Afganistan.
But in both the Tsunami disaster and the Pakistani floods the government has found itself in a position where it simply did not have any money left in the coffers. The reason for this is that most of the Foreign Aid budget has always been squandered on African gangsters and other odious members of the worlds corrupt elites. We have always heavily contributed to the UN Central Emergency Relief Fund. This fund is supposed to deal with crises like the Pakistani floods but it is arguably worse than useless.
At least now, the coalition government appears to (at last) have smelt the coffee and is axing some of the multitude of commitments that have previously soaked up the foreign aid budget like a sponge.
See Channel 4 here
Morover, (shock and horror) we will be targetting aid to help extract us from the mess of Afganistan. See Guardian Here
Maybe in future years we will not be buying Lear jets for the corrupt bully-boys who rule the third world. Perhaps we will have enough kept back so we can immediately respond to a calamity like the Pakistani floods.
Maybe if there is not a disaster in a particular year, then maybe, just maybe, we could spend it on our own poor and needy instead.
So why is the level of support so low?
Why are we not providing significant support from either the government or from the general population?
Cast you mind back to the Tsunami of 2004. Initially, that catastophe also went unaddressed. At the start the government grudgingly donated a derisory amount of aid. The sum was actually soon outstripped by personal donations. The government under Gordon Browns direction tried to hold its position. But public outrage dictated otherwise.
Today, the the lack of public support for the Pakistani disaster is primarily due to the economic constraints upon the country at this time. This is ampified by the fact that Pakistan spends £2 billion a year on nuclear weapons, and has been actively seen as supporting those that are murdering British troops in Afganistan.
But in both the Tsunami disaster and the Pakistani floods the government has found itself in a position where it simply did not have any money left in the coffers. The reason for this is that most of the Foreign Aid budget has always been squandered on African gangsters and other odious members of the worlds corrupt elites. We have always heavily contributed to the UN Central Emergency Relief Fund. This fund is supposed to deal with crises like the Pakistani floods but it is arguably worse than useless.
At least now, the coalition government appears to (at last) have smelt the coffee and is axing some of the multitude of commitments that have previously soaked up the foreign aid budget like a sponge.
See Channel 4 here
Morover, (shock and horror) we will be targetting aid to help extract us from the mess of Afganistan. See Guardian Here
Maybe in future years we will not be buying Lear jets for the corrupt bully-boys who rule the third world. Perhaps we will have enough kept back so we can immediately respond to a calamity like the Pakistani floods.
Maybe if there is not a disaster in a particular year, then maybe, just maybe, we could spend it on our own poor and needy instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)