Britain finally gets a green "MP"

probe

Believe it or not, Britain has never had a green representative in it's "parliament". Until now.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/05/07/uks-green-party-celebrates-its-first-ever-mp/

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

Einhard

Why do you have MP and parliament in quotation marks?

Mike...

And what difference will she make apart from harping on about global warming and a few photo-shoots of her travelling to Westminster on a bike... Hopefully she doesn't get the same sort of power the idiots here got

probe

Einhard wrote: »

Why do you have MP and parliament in quotation marks?

There is no Constitution in Britain - ie a basic law voted on by the citizens of that country establishing a written legal basis for a parliament to allow the passage of laws in accordance with the democratic decision of the people of the country.

The British parliament is little different to an agricultural fair in Kerry - it is basically a custom in that locality.

Moving on to the voting "system" they employ, the Greens only got 1 MP when they should perhaps have six, based on the votes cast. To quote the FT:

"In a strictly proportional system, with 1 per cent of the vote at this election, they would have six MPs. Arguably, their vote is being suppressed because in most constituencies they stand no chance of winning, so under PR their vote could be even higher."

I'm not saying that Ireland is all pure and clean by way of contrast. Ireland has not adopted a codified legal system - unlike continental Europe, China, Russia, other Asia, and Latin America - and is still playing about with a "common law" system dating from Norman times - which is little more than a custom. A custom that costs the country dearly in legal expenses due to its imprecision and lack of black and white clarity.

Einhard

There is no Constitution in Britain - ie a basic law voted on by the citizens of that country establishing a written legal basis for a parliament to allow the passage of laws in accordance with the democratic decision of the people of the country.

I know what a Constitution is, and there is absolutely no basis to suggest that a parliament is illegitimate without such a document. Where on earrh did you get that idea from?

Moving on to the voting "system" they employ, the Greens only got 1 MP when they should perhaps have six, based on the votes cast. To quote the FT:

"In a strictly proportional system, with 1 per cent of the vote at this election, they would have six MPs. Arguably, their vote is being suppressed because in most constituencies they stand no chance of winning, so under PR their vote could be even higher."

You may have legitimate issues with the British voting system, but members of the house are nevertheless elected to parliament and thus are MPs. Your "clarifications" don't anser my original question.

And BTW, I'm quite happy Britain has its first Green MP.

probe

Einhard wrote: »

I know what a Constitution is, and there is absolutely no basis to suggest that a parliament is illegitimate without such a document. Where on earrh did you get that idea from?




You may have legitimate issues with the British voting system, but members of the house are nevertheless elected to parliament and thus are MPs. Your "clarifications" don't anser my original question.

And BTW, I'm quite happy Britain has its first Green MP.

It is no more illegitimate than the Killorglin puck fair – which may date back to pagan times. I was listening to BBC Radio 4 the other day (a British government controlled radio station, despite their use of “co.uk” rather than (the more honest) “bbc.gov.gb” in their internet URLs) and the guy was interviewing “commonwealth observers” of the British election process – including one observer from an African country. The observer found the postal voting system used in England bizarre given the lack of control over the “one man one vote” and related issues. The BBC interviewer quickly pulled the plug on the interview, when he didn’t like what he was hearing about the electoral process in his country!

If the boot was on the other foot, and the election was taking place in an African country, the BBC would be very quick to criticise the legitimacy of a parliament that allowed people to mail in ballot papers in advance and/or turn up at polling stations with no effective control to prevent the “vote early, vote often” merchants.

A country that doesn’t have a written constitution (approved by plebiscite) that controls the basics of how a parliament is elected, the limitations on the powers of deputies elected to the parliament, and other fundamental matters, doesn't have a legitimate parliament in my books. The very term “member” as in “MP” is also slightly offensive to me in so far as it creates the aura of an elite club established to “run the show” – rather than an assembly of deputies democratically elected by the populous to make decisions on their behalf. Needless to say I have similar reservations about the European Parliament and its “MEP”s.

I do concur with your sentiments on Britain getting its first Green “TD”, and may she be the first of many. The Greens might straighten the place out, if they managed to get over the hurdles put in their path by the machine of government that is badly in need of re-design from the bottom up.

djpbarry

I think discussion of the British electoral system is more suited to Politics.

ei.sdraob

They can borrow our Greens if they want

IrishTonyO

ei.sdraob wrote: »

They can borrow our Greens if they want

borrow?? Don't be so mean, they can KEEP them

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1989 I think - Roger Garland.

Kristopherus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Roger Garland in 1992. And we're still regretting it :D:D

Kristopherus

djpbarry wrote: »

1989 I think - Roger Garland.

I stand corrected. You are right. He lost his seat in 1992. Great to think the rest of them will lose their seats in 2012, the 20th anniversary of Garland's loss :D:D

oppenheimer1

I have reservations replying to a thread that questions the legitimacy of the Houses of Parliament. The reason there hasn't been a green before is largely due to the FPTP voting system added to the fact that the UK Greens are rather wacky, much moreso than the Irish Greens.

It wasn't me!

Nothing remotely illegitimate about the British Parliament, its supremacy stemming from the early eighteenth century. Proportional representation isn't the only form of electoral democracy either. Plenty of scope for problems within written constitution as well. Look at Dev's baby in its original, unamended form, for an example of an extremely agenda-driven basis for government.

Probes PA

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nothing remotely illegitimate about the British Parliament, its supremacy stemming from the early eighteenth century. Proportional representation isn't the only form of electoral democracy either. Plenty of scope for problems within written constitution as well. Look at Dev's baby in its original, unamended form, for an example of an extremely agenda-driven basis for government.

“Supremacy” being the keyword. The function of government is to administer a state in accordance with the democratic wishes of the electorate. “Supremacy” smells of some form of antiquated regal dominance by a monarch type entity. Out of date long before the internet age.

It wasn't me!

Probes PA wrote: »

“Supremacy” being the keyword. The function of government is to administer a state in accordance with the democratic wishes of the electorate. “Supremacy” smells of some form of antiquated regal dominance by a monarch type entity. Out of date long before the internet age.

Yeah, supremacy in this case was referring to authority of parliament as against that of the monarch, so you've completely misinterpreted what I said. Governments always have a mixture of policies, not all of which will be favourable to the electorate, on balance, but they're still elected on the basis of the net worth of those policies. For argument's sake, if a prospective government has a policy of restructuring the benefits and welfare scheme (I'm merely creating a hypothesis - I do not personally have any views as to whether this should be part of a programme for government) in order to stimulate economic growth and the people elect them based on that, but they also have a policy of taking funding from unpopular places, say primary level education, then the people have still elected that government, and the government may well press on with their unpopular policy, though the people elected them for the other reason. You weigh the good and the bad sides of the policies, then vote based on the net result.

Probes PA

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, supremacy in this case was referring to authority of parliament as against that of the monarch, so you've completely misinterpreted what I said.

Weasel words :-)

It wasn't me!

Probes PA wrote: »

Weasel words :-)

Excuse me? No substantive reply? I'm not the one who completely misunderstood my first post.

Fratton Fred

Britain does have a constitution, it started with the Magna Carta 900years ago and has been developing ever since.

FPTP may not be the most democratic system in the world, but explain to me how Ciaran Cuffe. Who got 695 less votes than Richard Boyd Barrat and came 6th in a 4 seat constituency, is minister for planning and RBB is still a Joe Soap?

The transferable vote system is a joke.

Fratton Fred

As for the Greens getting a seat, it is no coincidence that it was in Britain, where old hippies go when the grass finally rots their brains.

Flamed Diving

Fred, if the public votes to amend this constitution, then the PM must carry this out?

Rebelheart

Kristopherus wrote: »

I stand corrected. You are right. He lost his seat in 1992. Great to think the rest of them will lose their seats in 2012, the 20th anniversary of Garland's loss :D:D

In fairness, Éamon Ryan is impressing many people.

bijapos

As well as this the Greens did very well in elections in Germany yesterday, getting 12.1%, up from 6.2% 5 years ago. Voting was in North-Rhein Westphalia, Germanys most populous state.

bijapos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As for the Greens getting a seat, it is no coincidence that it was in Britain, where old hippies go when the grass finally rots their brains.

Ahhhh, is that where they go? Great informative post that. You should get on to Kay Burley at Sky News, she hates Greens with a passion too. But there again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRAUpph1UM :pac:

Marshy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FPTP may not be the most democratic system in the world, but explain to me how Ciaran Cuffe. Who got 695 less votes than Richard Boyd Barrat and came 6th in a 4 seat constituency, is minister for planning and RBB is still a Joe Soap?

The transferable vote system is a joke.

Well RBB would have a much smaller chance of getting elected if it was FTPT (as Cuffe would). He may have got more first preference votes but he was still way short of the quota.

PR can come up with some funny results, most notably Cyprian Brady at the last election, but overall it a spreads votes fairly I think.

Also, I think most people would be quite relieved RBB isn't anywhere near a ministry...:p

Euro_Kraut

bijapos wrote: »

As well as this the Greens did very well in elections in Germany yesterday, getting 12.1%, up from 6.2% 5 years ago. Voting was in North-Rhein Westphalia, Germanys most populous state.

On top of that they are polling at around 22% in Berlin at the moment.

Nationally they are polling between 13-16%, making them the third party by a clear distance.

If the Irish Greens were not part of the most unpopular Govt of a generation they would probably be polling around the 10% mark here too. Unfortunately they suffer from guilt by association.

Euro_Kraut

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain does have a constitution, it started with the Magna Carta 900years ago and has been developing ever since.

FPTP may not be the most democratic system in the world, but explain to me how Ciaran Cuffe. Who got 695 less votes than Richard Boyd Barrat and came 6th in a 4 seat constituency, is minister for planning and RBB is still a Joe Soap?

The transferable vote system is a joke.

The reason he is a minister and Boyd Barrrent isn't is because he got elected. Weather is be by 20,000 votes or 695 it doesn't matter. Just like the way Rodney Connor is not and MP on Westminster because he lost by 4 votes in Fermanagh. Much in the way Al Gore was never President because he lost by 500 votes.

Your example does not prove the PR-STV is 'a joke'. All you have done is shown that some times, as in every every voting system, winning margins are tight.

Marshy

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

If the Irish Greens were not part of the most unpopular Govt of a generation they would probably be polling around the 10% mark here too. Unfortunately they suffer from guilt by association.

They were actually polling quite well at 6% I think in the most recent one, last Sunday iirc. Was surprised it was that high.

Euro_Kraut

Marshy wrote: »

They were actually polling quite well at 6% I think in the most recent one, last Sunday iirc. Was surprised it was that high.

Yeah surprised me too. There were times over the last 18 months when they were down to 3%. The last few months have been better for them. They got rid of O'Dea and got an extra junior minister. I think showing a bit of muscle does them no harm.

We will have to see a few more opinion polls showing them at 5% or higher before it can be deemed a stabilization, but its a good start.

Fratton Fred

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The reason he is a minister and Boyd Barrrent isn't is because he got elected. Weather is be by 20,000 votes or 695 it doesn't matter. Just like the way Rodney Connor is not and MP on Westminster because he lost by 4 votes in Fermanagh. Much in the way Al Gore was never President because he lost by 500 votes.

No, Ciaran Cuffe came 6th on first preference votes, but when all the FG & FF voters threw away their third vote rather than vote for the "enemy" Mr Cuffe ended up with a seat. He is now minister for planning because the Greens prostituted themselves in mich the same way the LibDems are about to.

Much is being made of the fact that the Lib Dems would have more seats if PR were brought in, but would they?

With PR you don't count all the votes and allocate seats accordingly. You also have to count all the tactical voting that went on. You then have the question of the smaller parties and independents.

I fully agree that FPTP needs to be changed, but there is a lot to it and I certainly would not want to see the Irish system introduced.

Marshy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Much is being made of the fact that the Lib Dems would have more seats if PR were brought in, but would they?

They would have a lot more seats. This time around the LDs got 23% of the popular vote but only 9% of the seats.

With our system for example, seat numbers have much greater correlation with the popular vote. Take the Labour party here, similar to the LDs, who had 10.1% first preference in 2007. They ended up with around 12% of Dáil seats.

Fratton Fred

Marshy wrote: »

They would have a lot more seats. This time around the LDs got 23% of the popular vote but only 9% of the seats.

With our system for example, seat numbers have much greater correlation with the popular vote. Take the Labour party here, similar to the LDs, who had 10.1% first preference in 2007. They ended up with around 12% of Dáil seats.

What % of first preference vote did the greens get?

Is Ireland's system PR, or a FPTP system with a transferable vote?

Marshy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What % of first preference vote did the greens get?

Is Ireland's system PR, or a FPTP system with a transferable vote?

Greens got 4.7% first preference vote and 3.6% of seats.

Yeah we have PR-STV (Single Transferable Vote). FPTP generally uses single-seat constituencies and there is no transfers.