PR ! More seats ! Why should we fund any more Goon politicians than we have to ! We have it right lets just deal with the two parties and give the third runner a few token seats. Its Common sense.
The kind of two-party system he described in 1987 is essentially the way our US two-party system works today; nobody has any intelligent ideas, nobody is willing to compromise, and no long-term goals can ever be met because all the Republocrats care about is winning in the short term. We actually seem to pride ourselves on having an electoral system that's about 80 years out of date...
@cyanmanta Actually it's even worse than that, because the role of money in US politics means a) you can effectively only run for the Senate and above if you have considerable independent wealth, b) you can only run for executive offices if you can raise a large amount of money from big money donors (corporations and special interest groups) and c) by consequence there is a heavy skew to the right-wing and strong resistance to change as anyone elected by the current system knows how to work it.
The LibDems were idiots not to push for PR. Although AV was far from perfect there is no failing it has that First Past the Post doesn't have. I think a stronger argument could have been used for the "Yes" campaign if we were voting on PR. Given that our governments are doomed to be coalitions for a long time yet, I hope Labour just bite the bullet and just pass PR from the parliament when they next get in. There are more left-wing parties than there are right-wing. They have much less to lose.
@cardwitch91 before you reform your voting system how about electing your upper house, other countries do, hell Sweden still has a House of Lords but because of the way the system was reformed it is now a private institution rather than a House of Assembly.
@irishgodfatherchris Didn't know about that. Hmm. that could be a really good alternative to the House of Lords. I don't think any "upper house", countries the size of Turkey can do with a unicameral parliament, and I'm sure Britain can too.
@Udany147 I think a Bicameral Parliament is best because it allows for the sharing of power and not just having one house forcing their will on everyone else, but just have an Upper House elected by STV from Multi-Member Electorates.
@cardwitch91 (As you can read in David Laws book) We did push for PR but the Tories wouldn't accept it; they'd rather have governed as a minority and called fresh elections. We assumed given AV was half of PR-STV, the system of PR the LibDems and Electoral Reform Society support, people would vote for it and it was better than nothing (PR-STV is AV in constituencies with multiple members, like Ireland and Scottish councils). We underestimated the audacious mendacity of the NO campaign.
@cardwitch91 PS - Labour will never support PR; it was surprising they were even willing to include AV in their manifesto (though that was promptly withdrawn during negotiations). The MPs in Labour heartlands (primarily Glasgow and the North East) owe their seats to the FPTP system which, if it didn't exist, would lead to the voters of all other parties ejecting them for being corrupt (as happened, even under FPTP in the Glasgow East by-election). Blair promised AV+ in 97 but was blocked by them
I've posted this on my Facebook profile as an appeal to all my friends to make sure their vote today counts. No, it's not a vote on proportional representation. AV is far from perfect. But it's a less IMperfect system than first-past-the-post, and a sure step forward. Nothing has changed for centuries, and the UK has only ever had one referendum; this makes today's vote monumentally important. AV gives you more choice - an undisputed fact - so I can't see why anyone would vote for less.
A shame that the vatican is even considered a city. It's like the stereotypical Mexican border, but for pedophiles. If a voter isn't smart enough to vote, that doesnt mean to make the system trivially simpler even if it's worse, it just means people need better educations. Cleese is fucking epic. I wish there were more people of his level, instead of morons like glenn beck.
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
@flixuk no but it does aid in it, we use it here in Australia to elect our Senate also in my state we use it elect the members of the Legislative Council (upper house)
The date you give for this PPB's broadcast is incorrect. On page 330 of Ivor Crewe and Anthony King's magisterial history of the SDP, "SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the SDP" (OUP 1995), they give the date as December 1985.
They wrote, also on page 330: "The SDP received 6,000 phone calls and 1,500 letters following the broadcast, and a private Gallup survey, commissioned by the SDP, reported that support for [PR] had risen sharply, especially among working-class voters and the young."
I notice that there is a lot of discussion about differences between electoral systems in the comments on this video. If you aren't entirely clear on the differences between FPTP, AV, and the different kinds of PR then can I recommend Vernon Bogdanor's book "What is Proportional Representation"? It really explains everything very clearly. If you don't fancy a book try the fact sheets produced by the Electoral Reform Society.
@smackdownvsraw123 - France adopted PR at the end of World War II, discarding it in 1958. In 1986 it was used for parliament elections, but dropped it in 2004 in favour of a system where the two largest parties were put to the electorate again if neither had 50% or more. It's called the "Two-Round Run Off " system, which results in one winner.
PR in France was not very successful on either occasion.
@TacticusPrime If something does not have the support of a significant majority of people then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway, so frankly the more dissenting voices the better, I feel.
People represent parties because they come with a core of voters that will vote for whoever wears the right colour rosette. They agree with some of the principles, but in reality parties are small coalitions of people with similar, but differing views on many things.
@LJAR Political parties are based on broad agreement on philosophies of government/economics/sociology. They collapse when there values or positions don't fit enough of the voters. Like what happened to the Federalists and Whigs in America. They aren't permanent blocs of voters that people join to get elected.
In the current system, if a small strongly regional part were to develop (like Bloc Quebecois in Canada) they would have more influence than a party with more support but diffused.
@TacticusPrime You are right, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have more influence and power than the BNP or UKIP for example despite having fewer votes. THis is a problem with the FPTP system - which is by no means ideal.
However under PR you have the opposite problem that small groups tend to hold the balance of power at the expense of the main bloc of opinion among the electorate.
I am not saying i think FPTP is the best way of doing things, I just don't think that PR is a step forward.
@LJAR I'm mostly sure the BNP is the more racist equivalent of the SNP or PC but for England. Besides, the answer to extremists is to make them speak their beliefs out loud. If people really understand their message, then their support won't grow. And having to deal with decent people on a daily basis might moderate them.
The PR system explained here is not the pure PR system of Israel. It's a mixed system. I don't think the true extremists would be able to hijack it.
@LJAR Clesse in talking about AV rather than pure PR. but the model that people have done to see what past elections would have been like actually show it could have been worse than the current system. It isn't a bad system as such, I just don't think it will be miles better than what we have now.
I will probably vote for it when the referendum comes around, because I would like to see more coalitions like the current one in the UK.
@LJAR He's talking about STV, not AV. The key difference between the number of MPs returned for each constituency. STV tends to be much more proportional than AV, though.
That, and the only system where AV would have been a lot less proportional would have been in 1997. But that's because Major barely won in 1992; if AV was used in '92, then there would've almost certainly been coalition government.
@Josssssshhhhhhhhhh Erm, so you think that in 1987 it just so happened that in each and every constituency the most capable and representative candidate was white? I am no mathematician, but the odds of that are probably less than those of life emerging spontaneously in your morning tea tomorrow
It is interesting and worthwhile to not the current MESS in Australia as a result of disproportionate misrepresentation...government will be formed by backroom manipulation and deal-making, despite the data showing that almost 75% of voters preferred the 2 major parties, supposedly what disproprtionate misrepresentation was supposed to avoid...PR is a complete fraud!
I don't agree that it is wrong that there were no ethnic minority or female MPs, not for any racist or sexist reasons obviously, I just think that MPs should be elected on their merits. Surely just because you're a woman or because you're from an ethnic minority doesn't mean you couldn't be represented by a white man. I'm not trying to sound like some sort of supremacist or anything, it's just that I believe in democracy and not in possitive discrimination.
@DenkMusic Italy's politics is fucked because they have a President who owns the majority of the media. You need an independent press & broadcast media for real free, fair elections.
I do not care about what the parties think, put all the systems to a referendum and let the people decide. If the parties want to support a particular system, fine, but the decision should be ours!
the BNP can never be prejudiced in an official capacity so we are safe, but the fact is if the BNP got a small number of seats they would be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to those seats. I realize hitler was also democratically elected, but right now that isn't a pressing issue is it, the issue is that our votes don't do enough to represent our views, there would be more liberals in power than BNP members, and more people would vote for who they really want to
@HoobtheNoob oh but they can, the point is you vote to elect your MP, if 1% of each place votes BNP they don't get anything, because only 1% voted for them to represent them, but if you add them all up then they get elected? why? who do they represent? the BNP got 500,000 votes, the DUP and Sinn Fein got 150,000 each, so who should be in the house of commons? the DUP and SF because they were voted in by the people of NI? or the BNP because more people live in England?
As well as 20 UKIP's so 12 BNPs and 20 UKIPs that were not voted in as MPs would be able to out vote every Northern Irish and Welsh party combined as well as the Scottish parties, The Green Party would also have more MPs then any of the Northern Irish or Plaid Cymru just because more people live in those areas they are running in, is that a better situation? if I vote Lib Dem and get a BNP MP, or DUP or Sinn Fein and get UKIP or the Green party running everything I would not be a happy bunny!
@az824 or lets say their are 4 parties, England North, England South, Wales and Scotland and each area votes for their own party and the government is formed of 4 MPs representing their area, thats fair, thats how we do it, not everyone votes for their area and England South win everything because more people live there then in the others, thats PR
@az824 a minority party is by definition, a minority party, I dont think you understand the point, if their are 30 people voting to elect each MP and their are 3 MP areas and the results are:
area 1 A party 15, B 10, C 5,
area 2 A 11, B 10, C 9
and area 3 A 0 B 10, C 20
then A get 2 seats and C get 1, thats how it works, just because more people voted for C in area 3 then in the others doesn't mean they should get power over 1 and 2
The people vote for who they most want to be their MP to represent them, that's what you vote for, in this way it works, if we had PR in this election you realise the BNP would have 12 seats in the house of commons, read that again, the BNP were out-voted in every area, yet 12 of them would be in the house of commons, more then all of Northern Ireland's parties put together,
Indeed, his argument falls flat on its face when you think theyre probably one of the only truly oppressive regimes that have come in through those means, compared with the multitude of others which did not.
It's great that someone like Cleese did this and showed it clearly and concise. But I still disagree. AV (or IRV voting) is a superior system (although it does take aspect of PR etc etc. and fairer overall, to dismiss FPTP just because it's in ignored it's good points.
Just look at the last few days in the UK with a hung parliament, back room deals, unclear and discrete politics and that will be EVERY election. Just because FPTP doesn't work doesn't mean PR is right.
I'm for clear open politics no back room dealing (which I believe both FPTP and PR give more of). IRV or AV forced the politicians to us because they know that they cannot rely on people to vote for them out of principle alone.
Also in the last election the BNP would have one 12 seats in PR (see wikipedia), i'm still yet to see how I would ensure that my area wouldn't get a BNP MP even though they were defeated quite heavily in my area.
Not much change since the 80's is there? I am holding out so much hope from this hung parliment.....they must know that we are all unhappy with them....surely???? Come on MP's....restore our faith!
@LJAR One person, one vote. That's the most localized you'll ever get. Each person's vote should go to support the party that he/she favors, and not be discounted because of his/her particular location. The idea that the current system provides a constituency link is preposterous. How well does the Tory MP listen to those who voted for the other guy?
Politics need less personality bullshit and more party platform reasonableness, not the other way around.
Or how much does the labour MP listen to his conservative constituents?
Voting for a party is the least local that you can get. If I can only vote for a party, the party then chooses who gets my vote. They can choose someone who doesn't even share my views. That isn't hard since none of the available political parties in Britain represents my views completely.
On the other hand if I was able to vote for any candidate I wanted to I could pick someone who shared my views.
@LJAR Look, one man or woman is not going to affect the balance of the House of Commons. The whips keep the party line more or less disciplined. Just because he might be personally against buying more Tridents, that doesn't mean he'll vote against it if the party is voting that way. So you might as well vote for the party whose policies you mostly agree with.
Every vote should count. If 4 parties split 25% each, then that's how the seats should go.
@TacticusPrime So that is another reason not to have PR. Under PR the whips have even more power. If your seat in parliament depends on being selected for the party list then you are even more a slave of the party's whips and less a servant/representative of the voters.
There are other ways of getting a more equitable distribution of seats without closing the public voice out of the debate even more than it is now.
The more independent critical voices the better, PR silences them.
@LJAR Actually no. "Independent" voices are exactly what is wrong with the US Senate. Nothing can get done because jackasses take the process hostage to score some bling for their particular state.
Decisions should be reached based on what is good for the country, not what's good for one person's particular corner of Yorkshire. PR would promote nationalism over sectarianism.
It's not "slavery" to the party to agree with its principles. That's why you joined in the first place.
@TacticusPrime Or how much does the labour MP listen to his conservative constituents?
Voting for a party is the least local that you can get. If I can only vote for a party, the party then chooses who gets my vote. They can choose someone who doesn't even share my views. That isn't hard since none of the available political parties in Britain represents my views completely.
On the other hand if I was able to vote for any candidate I wanted to I could pick someone who shared my views.
Perhaps the BBC could run this, just to help the rest of the country understand the process, as the news broadcasters seem to get in a muddle explaining it!
@Richyhello yes richy, yes it will. did you watch the video? the parties will actually have to compromise and work together with each other rather than britain swinging from left to right at the whim of the majority party.
A libdem voter's ballot paper will look like this: 1 - liberal 2 - labour 3 - conservative A labour voter's ballot paper will look like this: 1 - labour 2 - liberal 3 - conservative A conservative vote will look like this: 1 - conservative 2 - liberal 3- labour The 2nd place votes the liberals will get whenever they don't get a 1st place vote will leave them and labour CONSTANTLY in power. It will remain a 2 party system, just with the conservatives getting shafted in place of the libs
all the labour supporters hate the conservatives so will vote libdem and all the conservatives hate labour so will vote libdem. libdems can win not on the back of good policies, but because 2 parties hate each other. So it doesn't reflect voter wishes. the vast majority of voters will be dissapointed when their 1st choice party doesn't get in, and the party with all the 2nd place votes does! It shouldn't work like this! The tories would never get into power again with this... 2 party system agen
@GoldenbanjoDJ Sounds Great! They'll have to change their ways and then we'll vote for them if they have good policies. No let's be serious. NB you have completely missed the point by totally disenfranchising other parties( Naughty Tory, showing your colours there); Greens, Independents, Ukip, BNP, & Monster raving Loonies etc so your figures don't add up. School Report:- F for Maths.
And the constituencies which only have the 3 'main' parties? there are plenty of constituencies in the north east where I live where all that was available was lib dems, labour, conservatives and BNP.
Indeed, the one good thing about this is that the smaller parties like UKIP (my party - I'm not a tory but would vote for them where there isn't a UKIP) could make some headway, but they don't have the money to throw into big campaigns.
You seem to be making the case that the system should be rejected because it deprives one party of power. You seem to forget that the system is about empowering the voter, not the political parties.
PR is fairer to the voter, even if it is tougher on the politicians.
Not to mention that under PR, even if your party doesn't come in first place, you will still have a local sympathetic ear in parliament.
This, once again, empowers the voter. I don't see anything wrong with this.
What a gem! And it certainly is slightly aggravating that the UK hasn't taken on PR yet. Even to this day. Guess we'll be seeing reds and blues in battle for some time.
From the eighties, and this country hasn't learn t, all the same excuses aswell, find or create your own demonstration in your area and fight for fair votes mps wont, until we shout it at them.....take back parliament(google it)....
@Obltzs mate calm down, no need for the cussing. But large constituencies means smaller population centres, such as villages or hamlets which would have some influence in elections will have even less as they get swallowed into a big constituency
Unfortunately, PR will always be against the interests of the party currently in power, since to be 'in power', a party must have over 50% of the seats. Since its hard to imagine a party having over 50% of the seats and so would invaraibly lose seats (unless it somehow has an even bigger proportion of the vote). In short, we'll never get it (unless a party seriously comitted to it, e.g. the Lib Dems, gets in. What are the chances of that?)
PR has been described as an entrapment of blackmail, paralysis, corruption, pet projects, powerplay and illusion, with center parties elevated into irremovable deities, like the German FDP, in power for ever. This irremovability is called "more democratic" by some,
Fortunately, an extra vote on ballot papers for "Do you want a Coalition" could be added. PR becomes an option, not a fixture.
@owenblacker I stand corrected - thank you. (Still like the top though.)
I wonder what he'd make of this current fiasco as the Lib Dems seem to edge further and further away from PR - where the rhetoric is morphing from 'electoral reform' to the more evasive 'political reform'. Hope they don't lose their bottle.
It's incredibly sad that this is still completely relevant and 100% true in 20-fucking-10. Our electoral system is a joke.
I live in an ultra-safe Conservative seat, it's elected conservative MPs since 1945, it fucking sucks to know that your vote is completely worthless and I'd love to see the system change.
I'm the same in Canada my province had only 1 non conservative last election all conservative the year before yet the province voted like 50 some percent conservative
I can't believe that the same thing I hate about government right now was ALREADY being opposed BEFORE I WAS BORN!!! This country is in the dark ages and I can wait to move abroad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
PR would make it easier for the nazis to get in and have power. The rest of Europe might well have PR but that's probably why the rest of Europe has embraced fascism and Britain hasnt. This may be an invisible slippery slop my friends, but lets wait and see Me, Im undecided.
@Strafio - Will do. Cheers my friend. I'm glad that there are people in the world who care enough to share and explore ideas that are for the greater good of the people. Many thanks.
Well and humoursly explained and apt apart from namedropping the vatican to impress shows its dated lol (And I don't think they have adopted PR even now).
@crazyclive i disagree, i don't think its that clear cut. I was in 1987, religion had much more undeserved respect in those days while priests were secretly committing crimes against innocents. And although Cleese was recognised as a satarist, this was not a monty python sketch. I think it is more of a sell, political spin , to get catholics and religous people in general on the side of PR. If you were a catholic and you knew the pope was considering PR would you say yes or no to PR?
@intermender No, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. He said it as it was intended to be: one of many *jokes* he used to help lighten up what was an epic 10-minute PPB on no less a subject than proportional representation. (Have you considered why the political parties don't bother with 10-minute PPBs anymore?) If you can't tell the difference between facts and jokes, then I feel very, very sorry for you.
@crazyclive Well, if that is true can you give me an online reference? Otherwise, your comment isn't really convincing even when you lace it with patronising pity. All i have now is your own word that you are clever at spotting satire and jokes and so i should trust you.
Blimey, that's a blast from the past! I had forgotten all about David Owen, and this brought it all back - my time at university, Thatcher in power etc. This message is even more important and relevant now, in the light of Thursday's bizarrely-skewed seats/votes graphs, which look pretty similar to the ones shown here.
@martinbowmusic You're onto something there. The only difference is that Cleese plays the role of the bumptious, jumped-up Englishman entirely for laughs, whereas Clegg does it for real without noticing himself.
Under the current system, there's ONE MP responsible for your constituency. If there are 4 or 5, you're setting yourselves up for a giant circle of finger-pointing of shirking responsibility and accountability.
@togglepants2 MPs bring your concerns and issues to the government, they don't run or make decisions about local issues, that's what you vote councils for. There would be no finger pointing because MPs don't have any power in your contituency.
@Experiment47 Not true - the Boundary Commissions are responsible for changes in Constituency Boundaries. Technically they only make recommendations for changes too, & it is up to the Secretary of State to implement them - he/she may reject them if not to their liking.
@eTechne Yes I meant the Boundary Commission not Electoral Commission. But anyway, while the Secretary of State does have power to modify the changes, in practice (s)he does not, to avoid any allegations of gerrymandering. The final recommendations then have to be passed through parliament, where other parties can vote against it. The most recent changes passed with no "nays".
Under the current system, there's ONE MP responsible for your constituency. If there are 4 or 5, you're setting yourselves up for a giant circle of finger-pointing of shirking responsibility and accountability.
Hi Guys. Here's the truth. The Single transferable vote - STV - or open list proportional representation - PR - is the best electoral system as it comprises voting in preference for people. In other words you vote for the top three candidates for the constituency, and if your number one choice doesn't meet the threshold for the seat (votes/(seats+1)) +1 when all the votes are tallied, then it goes to your second choice and so on. This ensures full representation.
The only reason the crazy voting system in the UK hasn't been changed is because the major parties would lose out the most. Vote Lib Dem and support their struggle for electoral reform to make the UK parliament fully representative. End charade politics for good. I think the people of this great nation deserve to have their views heard.
I'm high. But I think the point is more than valid?
First of all, I truly won't be voting for the SDP. Second of all, what happened to the New Zealanders early that month? You can't just cut of the tape like that... and she was a bit of alright.
This makes so much sense... I kinda wish we (US) would do it.
When I was really young, and was first told about Democracy, I actually thought our system of gov't worked like a PR system (cuz in my little head, with little prior influence, PR made the most sense!)
@TheHenryCatman They will get MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), I presume.
Or a chance to vote on the referendum for MMP. Cos we did around that time (late 80s I think). Well, THEY (grown-ups) did. I was at school still, but I remember the changeover from FPP.
Aside: Awesome! McNaught on the nostalgic frontline. Who would have though that a return to the Beeb could eclipse the glitz of the NZ broadcasting dream?
PR ! More seats ! Why should we fund any more Goon politicians than we have to ! We have it right lets just deal with the two parties and give the third runner a few token seats. Its Common sense.
thecomanche1 1 month ago
Comment removed
thecomanche1 1 month ago
its depressing that this was 30 years ago...
marris42 2 months ago
@marris42 Actually more like 25 years ago
yoctocb 1 month ago
The kind of two-party system he described in 1987 is essentially the way our US two-party system works today; nobody has any intelligent ideas, nobody is willing to compromise, and no long-term goals can ever be met because all the Republocrats care about is winning in the short term. We actually seem to pride ourselves on having an electoral system that's about 80 years out of date...
cyanmanta 4 months ago
@cyanmanta Actually it's even worse than that, because the role of money in US politics means a) you can effectively only run for the Senate and above if you have considerable independent wealth, b) you can only run for executive offices if you can raise a large amount of money from big money donors (corporations and special interest groups) and c) by consequence there is a heavy skew to the right-wing and strong resistance to change as anyone elected by the current system knows how to work it.
Faboba 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch this YouTube ( Where are YOU Going to after death?! )
(See why corruption Aslam Yusuf Estes )
(See why Aslam Abdul Raheem assigned )
(Jesus Christ in Islam)
(why she became muslim)
(Christian Professor converts to Islam )
(European Scientist converts to Islam)
(A Compilation of Converts to Islam )
(Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran)
(compilation of converts to islam New Muslims from different places)
MRafh979 5 months ago
The LibDems were idiots not to push for PR. Although AV was far from perfect there is no failing it has that First Past the Post doesn't have. I think a stronger argument could have been used for the "Yes" campaign if we were voting on PR. Given that our governments are doomed to be coalitions for a long time yet, I hope Labour just bite the bullet and just pass PR from the parliament when they next get in. There are more left-wing parties than there are right-wing. They have much less to lose.
cardwitch91 6 months ago
@cardwitch91 before you reform your voting system how about electing your upper house, other countries do, hell Sweden still has a House of Lords but because of the way the system was reformed it is now a private institution rather than a House of Assembly.
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris What is that institution called?
Udany147 5 months ago
@Udany147 Swedish House of Nobility (Riddarhuset) and its been a Private Institution since 2003
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Didn't know about that. Hmm. that could be a really good alternative to the House of Lords. I don't think any "upper house", countries the size of Turkey can do with a unicameral parliament, and I'm sure Britain can too.
Udany147 5 months ago
@Udany147 I think a Bicameral Parliament is best because it allows for the sharing of power and not just having one house forcing their will on everyone else, but just have an Upper House elected by STV from Multi-Member Electorates.
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
@cardwitch91 (As you can read in David Laws book) We did push for PR but the Tories wouldn't accept it; they'd rather have governed as a minority and called fresh elections. We assumed given AV was half of PR-STV, the system of PR the LibDems and Electoral Reform Society support, people would vote for it and it was better than nothing (PR-STV is AV in constituencies with multiple members, like Ireland and Scottish councils). We underestimated the audacious mendacity of the NO campaign.
Faboba 2 months ago
@cardwitch91 PS - Labour will never support PR; it was surprising they were even willing to include AV in their manifesto (though that was promptly withdrawn during negotiations). The MPs in Labour heartlands (primarily Glasgow and the North East) owe their seats to the FPTP system which, if it didn't exist, would lead to the voters of all other parties ejecting them for being corrupt (as happened, even under FPTP in the Glasgow East by-election). Blair promised AV+ in 97 but was blocked by them
Faboba 2 months ago
Cleese, where the hell were you during the AV referendum? Maybe you could've convinced the Lib Dems to adopt a better system of PR.
WorldNews92 7 months ago
@WorldNews92 they didn't have a choice they had to make do with a referendum on OPV
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
Clearly that our system works because we won't change it :)
PR AV STV have all been tried but nope we like FPTP
eddieoxford 7 months ago
13 people can't count to 5
elco9791 8 months ago 4
I've posted this on my Facebook profile as an appeal to all my friends to make sure their vote today counts. No, it's not a vote on proportional representation. AV is far from perfect. But it's a less IMperfect system than first-past-the-post, and a sure step forward. Nothing has changed for centuries, and the UK has only ever had one referendum; this makes today's vote monumentally important. AV gives you more choice - an undisputed fact - so I can't see why anyone would vote for less.
oxfordruse 8 months ago
I want to know more about what's going to happen to the New Zealanders next month...
Ucofatoffski 8 months ago 2
Just in case anyone's thinking of voting No in the AV referendum so they can get a referendum on another system, watch this:
watch?v=h5oxgN17xSs
cactustactics 8 months ago
A shame that the vatican is even considered a city. It's like the stereotypical Mexican border, but for pedophiles. If a voter isn't smart enough to vote, that doesnt mean to make the system trivially simpler even if it's worse, it just means people need better educations. Cleese is fucking epic. I wish there were more people of his level, instead of morons like glenn beck.
mistereveready 9 months ago 2
@mistereveready the Vatican has more sovereignty than the UK, which is just an EU colony.
MrGilles1990 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW ABOUT WE DO SOMETHING REALLY BRAVE...
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
LOOK AT MY CHANNEL FOR ALL THE INFO
(click my screen name)
BlackRoof 9 months ago
lol @ ireland not lighting up properly. We are cranky, just in the way that we don't do whats expected...
GavinZac 9 months ago
STV is not a Proportional System.
flixuk 9 months ago
@flixuk no but it does aid in it, we use it here in Australia to elect our Senate also in my state we use it elect the members of the Legislative Council (upper house)
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
The date you give for this PPB's broadcast is incorrect. On page 330 of Ivor Crewe and Anthony King's magisterial history of the SDP, "SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the SDP" (OUP 1995), they give the date as December 1985.
They wrote, also on page 330: "The SDP received 6,000 phone calls and 1,500 letters following the broadcast, and a private Gallup survey, commissioned by the SDP, reported that support for [PR] had risen sharply, especially among working-class voters and the young."
crazyclive 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We hit it off so well after another visit busizz4me.info
yamunaperara 11 months ago
I notice that there is a lot of discussion about differences between electoral systems in the comments on this video. If you aren't entirely clear on the differences between FPTP, AV, and the different kinds of PR then can I recommend Vernon Bogdanor's book "What is Proportional Representation"? It really explains everything very clearly. If you don't fancy a book try the fact sheets produced by the Electoral Reform Society.
davimurph 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Make your holiday free with a Latino women busizz4me.info
JACLYNRHONDA 1 year ago
@RealReferendumNow STV meas PR and one type of MP.
ajuk1 1 year ago
FRANCE doesn't got PR retard looool what a idiot
smackdownvsraw123 1 year ago
@smackdownvsraw123 It did then.
ajuk1 1 year ago
@smackdownvsraw123 - France adopted PR at the end of World War II, discarding it in 1958. In 1986 it was used for parliament elections, but dropped it in 2004 in favour of a system where the two largest parties were put to the electorate again if neither had 50% or more. It's called the "Two-Round Run Off " system, which results in one winner.
PR in France was not very successful on either occasion.
Enerjee 9 months ago
Why doesn't everyone use this? I'm going to be pushing for this in America.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
@TacticusPrime If something does not have the support of a significant majority of people then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway, so frankly the more dissenting voices the better, I feel.
People represent parties because they come with a core of voters that will vote for whoever wears the right colour rosette. They agree with some of the principles, but in reality parties are small coalitions of people with similar, but differing views on many things.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR Political parties are based on broad agreement on philosophies of government/economics/sociology. They collapse when there values or positions don't fit enough of the voters. Like what happened to the Federalists and Whigs in America. They aren't permanent blocs of voters that people join to get elected.
In the current system, if a small strongly regional part were to develop (like Bloc Quebecois in Canada) they would have more influence than a party with more support but diffused.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
@TacticusPrime You are right, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have more influence and power than the BNP or UKIP for example despite having fewer votes. THis is a problem with the FPTP system - which is by no means ideal.
However under PR you have the opposite problem that small groups tend to hold the balance of power at the expense of the main bloc of opinion among the electorate.
I am not saying i think FPTP is the best way of doing things, I just don't think that PR is a step forward.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR I'm mostly sure the BNP is the more racist equivalent of the SNP or PC but for England. Besides, the answer to extremists is to make them speak their beliefs out loud. If people really understand their message, then their support won't grow. And having to deal with decent people on a daily basis might moderate them.
The PR system explained here is not the pure PR system of Israel. It's a mixed system. I don't think the true extremists would be able to hijack it.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
@LJAR Clesse in talking about AV rather than pure PR. but the model that people have done to see what past elections would have been like actually show it could have been worse than the current system. It isn't a bad system as such, I just don't think it will be miles better than what we have now.
I will probably vote for it when the referendum comes around, because I would like to see more coalitions like the current one in the UK.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR He's talking about STV, not AV. The key difference between the number of MPs returned for each constituency. STV tends to be much more proportional than AV, though.
That, and the only system where AV would have been a lot less proportional would have been in 1997. But that's because Major barely won in 1992; if AV was used in '92, then there would've almost certainly been coalition government.
TinTower 1 year ago
this explains why the tories are so opposed to AV. They know if the people had their say they'd be doomed
kakaze 1 year ago
this explains why the tories are so opposed to AV.
kakaze 1 year ago
@Josssssshhhhhhhhhh Erm, so you think that in 1987 it just so happened that in each and every constituency the most capable and representative candidate was white? I am no mathematician, but the odds of that are probably less than those of life emerging spontaneously in your morning tea tomorrow
SneakyDudeBG 1 year ago
It's just a shame that the liberals today are so bad at compromises.
chrismwere 1 year ago
They forgot to light up Sardinia which is an Italian island.
Dodo251 1 year ago
The case for PR was going so well in this vid, until Cleese told that all the European countries have it.
youngThrashbarg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Funny thing is that Sweden actually had suffered from a weak and indecisive coalition government.
pronner1991 1 year ago
Funny thing is that Sweden actually had suffered from a weak and indecisive coalition government.
pronner1991 1 year ago
@pronner1991
Sweden has a higher standard of living and a higher happiness average then the UK
893160007 1 year ago
It is interesting and worthwhile to not the current MESS in Australia as a result of disproportionate misrepresentation...government will be formed by backroom manipulation and deal-making, despite the data showing that almost 75% of voters preferred the 2 major parties, supposedly what disproprtionate misrepresentation was supposed to avoid...PR is a complete fraud!
pontecanis 1 year ago
I don't agree that it is wrong that there were no ethnic minority or female MPs, not for any racist or sexist reasons obviously, I just think that MPs should be elected on their merits. Surely just because you're a woman or because you're from an ethnic minority doesn't mean you couldn't be represented by a white man. I'm not trying to sound like some sort of supremacist or anything, it's just that I believe in democracy and not in possitive discrimination.
Josssssshhhhhhhhhh 1 year ago 3
having said that, I agree with everything else in this video, please don't hate
Josssssshhhhhhhhhh 1 year ago 12
Comment removed
SneakyDudeBG 1 year ago
Forget PR for a second. ALL three channels....
times have changed haha (but not our electoral system. Damn I was meant to forget PR)
AlexThomson1000 1 year ago
love you john
lsdvine 1 year ago
gee, you know what, this was pretty convincing... If the Tory Lib coalition is effective I may begin to advocate PR....
OfficialHenrySymons 1 year ago 2
go to Israel or Belgium or the Netherlands and you'll see the effects of PR. It tears the nations apart by political gridlock.
moderate1992 1 year ago
635 have voted this up - and 2 down. So I guess those 2 stupid people get to run YouTube now.
BritSwedeGuy 1 year ago 43
@BritSwedeGuy They'll probably do better than Google has been.
QuikVidGuy 1 year ago
@BritSwedeGuy That's not how PR would work.
pringlesx 10 months ago
635 have voted this up - and 2 down. So I guess those 2 stupid people get to run YouTube now.
BritSwedeGuy 1 year ago
go to Israel and you'll see the dangers of PR. PR encourages nothing more than political gridlock, and France doesn't use PR.
moderate1992 1 year ago
@moderate1992 its called democracy, I know its inconvenient for the main parties but its not their business.
chrish12345 1 year ago
I love the map of Europe, instead of eastern European countries they have a giant block of scary CCCP
ukstreetracer 1 year ago 2
lol at the outdated... italy's politics is totally fucked because of pr!
DenkMusic 1 year ago
@DenkMusic Italy's politics is fucked because they have a President who owns the majority of the media. You need an independent press & broadcast media for real free, fair elections.
skiamakhos 1 year ago
I do not care about what the parties think, put all the systems to a referendum and let the people decide. If the parties want to support a particular system, fine, but the decision should be ours!
Mrajprice87 1 year ago
@Mrajprice87 exactlyyyyyy. he should stick with what he wanted before.
ImYourSuperhero01 1 year ago
This is so relevant for today.
We want STV - don't settle for AV, Mr Clegg!
rithompson 1 year ago 2
o god this is so relevate to whats happening now
poofacebananza 1 year ago
Wondered why Germany looked so small on the map then realised the wall didn't fall for another 2 years!
tenmantaylor 1 year ago 2
Could do worse than PR
emperorbevis 1 year ago
Could do worse than PR
emperorbevis 1 year ago
@mahargraham85
the BNP can never be prejudiced in an official capacity so we are safe, but the fact is if the BNP got a small number of seats they would be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to those seats. I realize hitler was also democratically elected, but right now that isn't a pressing issue is it, the issue is that our votes don't do enough to represent our views, there would be more liberals in power than BNP members, and more people would vote for who they really want to
HoobtheNoob 1 year ago
@HoobtheNoob oh but they can, the point is you vote to elect your MP, if 1% of each place votes BNP they don't get anything, because only 1% voted for them to represent them, but if you add them all up then they get elected? why? who do they represent? the BNP got 500,000 votes, the DUP and Sinn Fein got 150,000 each, so who should be in the house of commons? the DUP and SF because they were voted in by the people of NI? or the BNP because more people live in England?
mahargraham85 1 year ago
@mahargraham85 in the right PR system both would be possible - local vote and a top up vote
HoobtheNoob 1 year ago
As well as 20 UKIP's so 12 BNPs and 20 UKIPs that were not voted in as MPs would be able to out vote every Northern Irish and Welsh party combined as well as the Scottish parties, The Green Party would also have more MPs then any of the Northern Irish or Plaid Cymru just because more people live in those areas they are running in, is that a better situation? if I vote Lib Dem and get a BNP MP, or DUP or Sinn Fein and get UKIP or the Green party running everything I would not be a happy bunny!
mahargraham85 1 year ago
@mahargraham85 yeah its a real bitch that minorities will get a voice isn't it.
az824 1 year ago
Comment removed
mahargraham85 1 year ago
@az824 or lets say their are 4 parties, England North, England South, Wales and Scotland and each area votes for their own party and the government is formed of 4 MPs representing their area, thats fair, thats how we do it, not everyone votes for their area and England South win everything because more people live there then in the others, thats PR
mahargraham85 1 year ago
@az824 a minority party is by definition, a minority party, I dont think you understand the point, if their are 30 people voting to elect each MP and their are 3 MP areas and the results are:
area 1 A party 15, B 10, C 5,
area 2 A 11, B 10, C 9
and area 3 A 0 B 10, C 20
then A get 2 seats and C get 1, thats how it works, just because more people voted for C in area 3 then in the others doesn't mean they should get power over 1 and 2
mahargraham85 1 year ago
The people vote for who they most want to be their MP to represent them, that's what you vote for, in this way it works, if we had PR in this election you realise the BNP would have 12 seats in the house of commons, read that again, the BNP were out-voted in every area, yet 12 of them would be in the house of commons, more then all of Northern Ireland's parties put together,
mahargraham85 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PR is how the Nazi part got to power.....isn't that a lesson enough?
naughtylittlepico 1 year ago
@naughtylittlepico Oi! Stop trying to wind people up!
timtba 1 year ago 2
@timtba
Indeed, his argument falls flat on its face when you think theyre probably one of the only truly oppressive regimes that have come in through those means, compared with the multitude of others which did not.
SuperYogSothoth 1 year ago
@naughtylittlepico search for Godwin's Law. you might learn something :-)
RamBeauBull 1 year ago
It's great that someone like Cleese did this and showed it clearly and concise. But I still disagree. AV (or IRV voting) is a superior system (although it does take aspect of PR etc etc. and fairer overall, to dismiss FPTP just because it's in ignored it's good points.
Just look at the last few days in the UK with a hung parliament, back room deals, unclear and discrete politics and that will be EVERY election. Just because FPTP doesn't work doesn't mean PR is right.
TheSorrowLives 1 year ago
I'm for clear open politics no back room dealing (which I believe both FPTP and PR give more of). IRV or AV forced the politicians to us because they know that they cannot rely on people to vote for them out of principle alone.
Also in the last election the BNP would have one 12 seats in PR (see wikipedia), i'm still yet to see how I would ensure that my area wouldn't get a BNP MP even though they were defeated quite heavily in my area.
TheSorrowLives 1 year ago
Not much change since the 80's is there? I am holding out so much hope from this hung parliment.....they must know that we are all unhappy with them....surely???? Come on MP's....restore our faith!
justasksam169 1 year ago
PR reduces the constituency link and leads to greater party power and less voter power.
Localism and direct democracy is the way forward, not PR and party political power.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR One person, one vote. That's the most localized you'll ever get. Each person's vote should go to support the party that he/she favors, and not be discounted because of his/her particular location. The idea that the current system provides a constituency link is preposterous. How well does the Tory MP listen to those who voted for the other guy?
Politics need less personality bullshit and more party platform reasonableness, not the other way around.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
@TacticusPrime
Or how much does the labour MP listen to his conservative constituents?
Voting for a party is the least local that you can get. If I can only vote for a party, the party then chooses who gets my vote. They can choose someone who doesn't even share my views. That isn't hard since none of the available political parties in Britain represents my views completely.
On the other hand if I was able to vote for any candidate I wanted to I could pick someone who shared my views.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR Look, one man or woman is not going to affect the balance of the House of Commons. The whips keep the party line more or less disciplined. Just because he might be personally against buying more Tridents, that doesn't mean he'll vote against it if the party is voting that way. So you might as well vote for the party whose policies you mostly agree with.
Every vote should count. If 4 parties split 25% each, then that's how the seats should go.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
@TacticusPrime So that is another reason not to have PR. Under PR the whips have even more power. If your seat in parliament depends on being selected for the party list then you are even more a slave of the party's whips and less a servant/representative of the voters.
There are other ways of getting a more equitable distribution of seats without closing the public voice out of the debate even more than it is now.
The more independent critical voices the better, PR silences them.
LJAR 1 year ago
@LJAR Actually no. "Independent" voices are exactly what is wrong with the US Senate. Nothing can get done because jackasses take the process hostage to score some bling for their particular state.
Decisions should be reached based on what is good for the country, not what's good for one person's particular corner of Yorkshire. PR would promote nationalism over sectarianism.
It's not "slavery" to the party to agree with its principles. That's why you joined in the first place.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TacticusPrime Or how much does the labour MP listen to his conservative constituents?
Voting for a party is the least local that you can get. If I can only vote for a party, the party then chooses who gets my vote. They can choose someone who doesn't even share my views. That isn't hard since none of the available political parties in Britain represents my views completely.
On the other hand if I was able to vote for any candidate I wanted to I could pick someone who shared my views.
LJAR 1 year ago
I love John Cleese but thi....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Entelex 1 year ago
Perhaps the BBC could run this, just to help the rest of the country understand the process, as the news broadcasters seem to get in a muddle explaining it!
babyhedgehog1968 1 year ago
Today... 29%=258 & 23%=57 !
mversolato 1 year ago
Somebody answer me this.
Wouldn't this system increase the possibility of hung parliaments...and, by quite a margin?
Richyhello 1 year ago 2
@Richyhello yes richy, yes it will. did you watch the video? the parties will actually have to compromise and work together with each other rather than britain swinging from left to right at the whim of the majority party.
leonardsleopard 1 year ago 4
Fuckin brilliant. what a legend.
flegolas 1 year ago
gosh 20 years and nothing changes, well thankfully the women and ethic minorities bit but otherwise .....
boglyn 1 year ago
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
all the labour supporters hate the conservatives so will vote libdem and all the conservatives hate labour so will vote libdem. libdems can win not on the back of good policies, but because 2 parties hate each other. So it doesn't reflect voter wishes. the vast majority of voters will be dissapointed when their 1st choice party doesn't get in, and the party with all the 2nd place votes does! It shouldn't work like this! The tories would never get into power again with this... 2 party system agen
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ Sounds Great! They'll have to change their ways and then we'll vote for them if they have good policies. No let's be serious. NB you have completely missed the point by totally disenfranchising other parties( Naughty Tory, showing your colours there); Greens, Independents, Ukip, BNP, & Monster raving Loonies etc so your figures don't add up. School Report:- F for Maths.
tantramancan 1 year ago
@tantramancan
And the constituencies which only have the 3 'main' parties? there are plenty of constituencies in the north east where I live where all that was available was lib dems, labour, conservatives and BNP.
Indeed, the one good thing about this is that the smaller parties like UKIP (my party - I'm not a tory but would vote for them where there isn't a UKIP) could make some headway, but they don't have the money to throw into big campaigns.
Come on, it's a BIT better than an 'F'!
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ what about the greens, ukip, snp, plaid cymru and bnp?
leonardsleopard 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ
You seem to be making the case that the system should be rejected because it deprives one party of power. You seem to forget that the system is about empowering the voter, not the political parties.
PR is fairer to the voter, even if it is tougher on the politicians.
Not to mention that under PR, even if your party doesn't come in first place, you will still have a local sympathetic ear in parliament.
This, once again, empowers the voter. I don't see anything wrong with this.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
What a gem! And it certainly is slightly aggravating that the UK hasn't taken on PR yet. Even to this day. Guess we'll be seeing reds and blues in battle for some time.
nieson0727 1 year ago
From the eighties, and this country hasn't learn t, all the same excuses aswell, find or create your own demonstration in your area and fight for fair votes mps wont, until we shout it at them.....take back parliament(google it)....
01289PUDNAN 1 year ago
5 mps per constituency = far too much bureaucracy... in a government already heavily laden with debt. no thanks.
jrr1234567890 1 year ago
@jrr1234567890 one fifth the number of constituencies so moot point really.
mrnobbymagrew 1 year ago
@jrr1234567890 The constituencies are bigger dipshit. The number of MPs would remain exactly the same.
Obltzs 1 year ago
@Obltzs mate calm down, no need for the cussing. But large constituencies means smaller population centres, such as villages or hamlets which would have some influence in elections will have even less as they get swallowed into a big constituency
jrr1234567890 1 year ago
@jrr1234567890 But there would only be 140 constituencies, instead of the current 650. 140 x 5 = 700 MPs. Only 50 more than current.
Experiment47 1 year ago
i dont find him funny
jrr1234567890 1 year ago
Unfortunately, PR will always be against the interests of the party currently in power, since to be 'in power', a party must have over 50% of the seats. Since its hard to imagine a party having over 50% of the seats and so would invaraibly lose seats (unless it somehow has an even bigger proportion of the vote). In short, we'll never get it (unless a party seriously comitted to it, e.g. the Lib Dems, gets in. What are the chances of that?)
JayKnow 1 year ago
PR has been described as an entrapment of blackmail, paralysis, corruption, pet projects, powerplay and illusion, with center parties elevated into irremovable deities, like the German FDP, in power for ever. This irremovability is called "more democratic" by some,
Fortunately, an extra vote on ballot papers for "Do you want a Coalition" could be added. PR becomes an option, not a fixture.
cloudbusterman 1 year ago
Love that garish yellow golfing shirt he's wearing, to show off his party colour!
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa Yellow wasn't the SDP party colour, it was red white and blue, hence the stripes on the bar charts at the beginning...
owenblacker 1 year ago
@owenblacker I stand corrected - thank you. (Still like the top though.)
I wonder what he'd make of this current fiasco as the Lib Dems seem to edge further and further away from PR - where the rhetoric is morphing from 'electoral reform' to the more evasive 'political reform'. Hope they don't lose their bottle.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
51,000 views, 432 likes, 1 dislike. What does that say?
Also, I tried phoning the number (just in case) and it's not recognised, worth a try even if it is 23 years old!
AndyPVale 1 year ago
Great video
moorejonathan 1 year ago
2010 election showed that its time we move on and go for PR.
onepartofone 1 year ago
It's incredibly sad that this is still completely relevant and 100% true in 20-fucking-10. Our electoral system is a joke.
I live in an ultra-safe Conservative seat, it's elected conservative MPs since 1945, it fucking sucks to know that your vote is completely worthless and I'd love to see the system change.
CobaltKris 1 year ago 51
@CobaltKris I know the the feeling mate, try living near Henley! One non- Conservative MP in 125 years, and even that was in 1906!
skywarp88 1 year ago
@CobaltKris
I'm the same in Canada my province had only 1 non conservative last election all conservative the year before yet the province voted like 50 some percent conservative
893160007 1 year ago
I can't believe that the same thing I hate about government right now was ALREADY being opposed BEFORE I WAS BORN!!! This country is in the dark ages and I can wait to move abroad.
Starspell27 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PR would make it easier for the nazis to get in and have power. The rest of Europe might well have PR but that's probably why the rest of Europe has embraced fascism and Britain hasnt. This may be an invisible slippery slop my friends, but lets wait and see Me, Im undecided.
TruthofDilly 1 year ago
@TruthofDilly
Strafio 1 year ago
@TruthofDilly
Not in the STV system described here.
Did you notice how candidates were numbered in order of preference?
This is because the second and third choices count for something.
The extreme parties wouldn't get the second and third choices required to get in.
Strafio 1 year ago
@Strafio - Ok, thank you for the advice. That's very helpful.
TruthofDilly 1 year ago
@TruthofDilly
Search for "Single Transferable Vote" in Wiki for more details.
You'll find the system to be pretty sound.
Strafio 1 year ago
@Strafio - Will do. Cheers my friend. I'm glad that there are people in the world who care enough to share and explore ideas that are for the greater good of the people. Many thanks.
TruthofDilly 1 year ago
Well and humoursly explained and apt apart from namedropping the vatican to impress shows its dated lol (And I don't think they have adopted PR even now).
intermender 1 year ago
@intermender You do you know that Cleese's line about his word with the Pope was a joke. Don't you?
crazyclive 10 months ago
@crazyclive i disagree, i don't think its that clear cut. I was in 1987, religion had much more undeserved respect in those days while priests were secretly committing crimes against innocents. And although Cleese was recognised as a satarist, this was not a monty python sketch. I think it is more of a sell, political spin , to get catholics and religous people in general on the side of PR. If you were a catholic and you knew the pope was considering PR would you say yes or no to PR?
intermender 10 months ago
@intermender No, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. He said it as it was intended to be: one of many *jokes* he used to help lighten up what was an epic 10-minute PPB on no less a subject than proportional representation. (Have you considered why the political parties don't bother with 10-minute PPBs anymore?) If you can't tell the difference between facts and jokes, then I feel very, very sorry for you.
crazyclive 10 months ago
@crazyclive Well, if that is true can you give me an online reference? Otherwise, your comment isn't really convincing even when you lace it with patronising pity. All i have now is your own word that you are clever at spotting satire and jokes and so i should trust you.
intermender 10 months ago
Blimey, that's a blast from the past! I had forgotten all about David Owen, and this brought it all back - my time at university, Thatcher in power etc. This message is even more important and relevant now, in the light of Thursday's bizarrely-skewed seats/votes graphs, which look pretty similar to the ones shown here.
macronencer 1 year ago 2
Superb!
Thanks for posting!
ENGLISHBL0KE 1 year ago
I wish we had instructional videos this in the U.S.
wisdumcube 1 year ago
You can really see similarities in delivery between Cleese and Clegg.
martinbowmusic 1 year ago
@martinbowmusic if only cleese were running for prime minister..... what a perfect world that would be
variablyposy 1 year ago 20
@martinbowmusic You're onto something there. The only difference is that Cleese plays the role of the bumptious, jumped-up Englishman entirely for laughs, whereas Clegg does it for real without noticing himself.
crazyclive 10 months ago
Lab= 258 Lib Dem= 57 SNP= 6 PC=3 SDLP=3 OK? 258+57+6+3+3= 327
Jadabh3 1 year ago
He downplays "what happens to your local MP"
Under the current system, there's ONE MP responsible for your constituency. If there are 4 or 5, you're setting yourselves up for a giant circle of finger-pointing of shirking responsibility and accountability.
togglepants2 1 year ago
@togglepants2 MPs bring your concerns and issues to the government, they don't run or make decisions about local issues, that's what you vote councils for. There would be no finger pointing because MPs don't have any power in your contituency.
Experiment47 1 year ago
@Experiment47 Not true - the Boundary Commissions are responsible for changes in Constituency Boundaries. Technically they only make recommendations for changes too, & it is up to the Secretary of State to implement them - he/she may reject them if not to their liking.
eTechne 1 year ago
@eTechne Yes I meant the Boundary Commission not Electoral Commission. But anyway, while the Secretary of State does have power to modify the changes, in practice (s)he does not, to avoid any allegations of gerrymandering. The final recommendations then have to be passed through parliament, where other parties can vote against it. The most recent changes passed with no "nays".
Experiment47 1 year ago
He downplays "what happens to your local MP"
Under the current system, there's ONE MP responsible for your constituency. If there are 4 or 5, you're setting yourselves up for a giant circle of finger-pointing of shirking responsibility and accountability.
togglepants2 1 year ago
how old is this video?
kittykittyfaery 1 year ago
@kittykittyfaery 1987....we've updated description
fairvote 1 year ago
Hi Guys. Here's the truth. The Single transferable vote - STV - or open list proportional representation - PR - is the best electoral system as it comprises voting in preference for people. In other words you vote for the top three candidates for the constituency, and if your number one choice doesn't meet the threshold for the seat (votes/(seats+1)) +1 when all the votes are tallied, then it goes to your second choice and so on. This ensures full representation.
combatRidders 1 year ago 4
The only reason the crazy voting system in the UK hasn't been changed is because the major parties would lose out the most. Vote Lib Dem and support their struggle for electoral reform to make the UK parliament fully representative. End charade politics for good. I think the people of this great nation deserve to have their views heard.
I'm high. But I think the point is more than valid?
combatRidders 1 year ago
Only John Cleese could make a party political broadcast on proportional representation entertaining.
joshaf26 1 year ago 8
WHAT YEAR IS IT FROM, PLEASE??
finehomemadewine 1 year ago
John Cleese is a god among men.
EvilMuppet1979 1 year ago 4
25 years on John, and we might finally be able to pull it off!
Vote Lib Dem on the 6th. We have to save this country from two-party politics.
AphoticCosmos 1 year ago 3
It seems like the arguments against PR are similar to those against a dictatorship.
"But how can we have an efficient government if there isn't a single person with absolute power in charge of everything?"
fragglet 1 year ago 9
Vote Nick Clegg!!
heelfan1234 1 year ago 11
libdem2010. com 6th may
jimed 1 year ago 10
Very relevant. Vote Lim Dem!
aceflashheart 1 year ago 34
First of all, I truly won't be voting for the SDP. Second of all, what happened to the New Zealanders early that month? You can't just cut of the tape like that... and she was a bit of alright.
TableWolfMusic 1 year ago
This makes so much sense... I kinda wish we (US) would do it.
When I was really young, and was first told about Democracy, I actually thought our system of gov't worked like a PR system (cuz in my little head, with little prior influence, PR made the most sense!)
EverythingZen14 1 year ago 6
Wait not only where Labour and the Tories going bonkers extreme in the 80s but John Cleese was backing the Alliance! How did they not win a landslide!
Maybe Cleese should have ran for Parliament!
Well finally twenty years later it looks like the Lib Dems might just pull it off, PR at least.
JapeUK 1 year ago 9
New Zealanders will... WHAT? WHAT WILL THEY DO?
TheHenryCatman 1 year ago 3
@TheHenryCatman They will get MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), I presume.
Or a chance to vote on the referendum for MMP. Cos we did around that time (late 80s I think). Well, THEY (grown-ups) did. I was at school still, but I remember the changeover from FPP.
Aside: Awesome! McNaught on the nostalgic frontline. Who would have though that a return to the Beeb could eclipse the glitz of the NZ broadcasting dream?
alexlodda 1 year ago