A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
At both national and local level, people have little confidence in consultations which they see as
“fixed” , the results ignored
Expensive inquiries are whitewash exercises
Politicians are not trusted and their behaviour is widely disliked - seen as adversarial, abusive to one
another, untruthful and lacking integrity
Broken pledges
The composition of the House of Commons does not reflect voters’ intentions
The second chamber is still unelected and subject to patronage
MPs and Ministers are seen as too close to and too much influenced by corporations
Sums spent by corporations on lobbying government and MPs cause a of lack of confidence
Funding of parties is highly questionable and a constant source of controversy
Frequent reports of sleaze and corruption in both houses of Parliament; member voting themselves
over- generous pay settlements, expenses and pensions; abusing expenses and obstructing
investigations
A more representative voting system is needed. The composition of Parliament does not reflect the wishes
of the people. In 2005, six voters in ten supported a party other than New Labour, yet New Labour won six
out of every ten seats in the House of Commons. In 1997, only 37% of people between 18 and 24 voted.
Between y 1964 and 2001, identification with political parties dropped from 44% to 14%. In the 2001
election, 52% of voters did not vote and in that year and 2005 more eligible people did not voted than voted.
Votes cast were New Labour 35.2%, Conservative 32.3%, Lib Dem 22%, other 10.5%. Seats in the House of
Commons were New Labour 55.7%, Conservative 30.7%, Lib Dem 9.6%, other 4.6%. That is what a first past
the post (F PTP) system does. Significantly, no elected institution created since 1997 has used first past the
post (FPTP). Despite its promise in 1997 to hold a referendum on how we elect MPs, New Labour dragged its
feet for thirteen years and did not fulfil its promise.
A fair voting system would enable a far wider spectrum of information and opinion to be contributed to
policy. Arguably, there would be better dialogue, leading to better decisions. Parties would be forced to
collaborate and reach consensus. Parties would no longer be able to inflict extreme policies on us -in effect,
dictatorship by the party that unfairly wins most seats. Proportional representation would enable smaller
parties, like the Greens, to gain more seats and a greater diversity of parties would be able to contribute.
More people would feel their votes counted and their views were represented. They would have an incentive
to vote for the party of their choice, rather than vote tactically or not at all.
We need deliberative processes and dialogue of the highest quality in reaching key decisions about whether
to go to war, how to deal with climate change and other difficult and complex issues.
This requires intellectual integrity, willingness to listen with an open mind in search of solutions that will
benefit the vast majority of people in the world. Decisions need to be informed by the widest range of
expertise and opinion, not outweighed by powerful vested interests or party political considerations. This is
far from what we see in the House of Commons. An adversarial party political system, including “whipping” is
completely out of step with the rigorous decision processes needed today. Instead we see a witty display,
point scoring, blame, denial and lack of responsibility. As Jean Lambert, Green Party MEP for London said at a
meeting I attended:
147