Jon:
"No Sane I think you should stop trying to presume you know the motives of those posting there - I don't know yours and you clearly haven't got anywhere near mine in your last post! (Dugsie's post 'Sounded clever...' because it was and he is).

About %33 turnout in the Glasgow by election yestersay - which is hardly a democratic mandate and is really a crisis in the making. But I'm not convinced that this substantially would change with a switch to any of the many PR versions.

But I do know that any PR system in effect gives even more power to the political parties, who benefit by making behind- the-scene deals for strategic and tactical reasons.

You claim that this kind of coalition politics is more 'democratic' than FPTP but both models are flawed with their own built in tenedencies to distort.

If any of us do expect 'business as usual' after this year it is because of the deep contempt for the Westminster which is obviuosly held by millions in the country. Expecting a solution from those who have done so much to posion 'politics' in general just seems naive - on a par with a presumption that Labour is going to turn to ashes."

To the uninitiated a nice effort, otherwise, i think I have probably heard it before.

The by-election turnout is not really on-topic here. Incidentally, it will be interesting to see the turnout at the General Election when people will want to be giving the parties, well, especially the government, a damn good kicking.

It's funny, people who talk about PR talk about it as though it preserves everything around it in aspic.

For heaven's sake man, if you don't want politicians to do a behind the scenes stitch up, get involved in the debate for PR and make sure to include measures that prevent behind the scenes stitch-ups. If you don't, don't blame others for not doing so either.

I think we ought to bring in here, and I think it was Lee who was mentioning it, about the need for measures of accountability to be enacted. Hey, also, it is about internal-party democracy. You obviously have decided for everybody that party democracy is never going to return to a left of centre party. With true party democracy, the party leadership can be held by its members from giving away on certain key points just to join a government.

What are the tendances to distort of a system for true PR? A system that awards a percentage share of the seats in accordance to the percentage share of the votes won? The old, there as bad as each other, there is nothing really between them effort, just won't wash in grown up debate at this late hour.

There are different battles going on my friend, as i said once before: Necessary and sufficient conditions. PR is necessary, but not sufficient. Strong parliamentary rules and strong party democracies are also important. Having the option of constituencies choosing against an individual, or whatever form of primary is suitable, can see to the back of old faces.

Your points demonstrate a point I make: What you say could be true, but all it is is a challenge to be met. A circumstance to be taken into account.

So you don't like PR. FPTP has not been too good for progressive politics, but then you love it, you aren't willing to do what you really have to do to achieve progressive politics. Right wing nay-sayers have you on the run, afraid of your own vision.

No Sane I think you should stop trying to presume you know the motives of those posting there - I don't know yours and you clearly haven't got anywhere near mine in your last post! (Dugsie's post 'Sounded clever...' because it was and he is).

About %33 turnout in the Glasgow by election yestersay - which is hardly a democratic mandate and is really a crisis in the making. But I'm not convinced that this substantially would change with a switch to any of the many PR versions.

But I do know that any PR system in effect gives even more power to the political parties, who benefit by making behind- the-scene deals for strategic and tactical reasons.

You claim that this kind of coalition politics is more 'democratic' than FPTP but both models are flawed with their own built in tenedencies to distort.

If any of us do expect 'business as usual' after this year it is because of the deep contempt for the Westminster which is obviuosly held by millions in the country. Expecting a solution from those who have done so much to posion 'politics' in general just seems naive - on a par with a presumption that Labour is going to turn to ashes.

Dugsie:
"'How do you arrive at this? There is no evidence that a majority of the population want PR - whatever the version - so your post seems misleading to say the least!'

If they wanted what I want them to want, then they would want it.

The General will is only the will of all when they are willing the best will Jon. All conscious political activists understand this."

Sounded clever, but wide of the mark, if about me. He speaks of the culture he, not I, knows.

Obviously we have touched a nerve of the anti-PR types who obviously expect business as usual after the Tory win next year.

Rosen:
""If i stop here, there are still more, as I said there would be. That's the nature of it... ongoing" Sane, the problem with that is that you're (apparently) asking for change, but you're not willing to explain exactly what the change IS. The policies you list are just that - POLICIES. They're nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, which is the democratic process. You give the impression that you haven't thought your ideas through properly, that you're making it up as you go along. That is not an approach likely to gain support."

Thanks Rosen. The point I was making is that as soon as somebody suggests something practical to be done, somebody else will say it cannot be done or is not worthwhile doing and the reason they will give will actually amount only to a circumstance to be considered or factored in even in the original idea. What I suggested, were just policies... well done for spotting that, pat yourself on the back.

Though, a couple actually did speak to the process. Perhaps not the immediate process, but something for process per se. It is vital to have a free media, which we do not have at present. We have interested parties on the Right - meaning business parties - controlling much of the media output. There is indeed the Beeb, but that is all the time scurrying to whomsoever it seems is going to be in power. The Beeb, then, is hardly in a position to speak truth to power. Part of the process of a healthy, democratic life is the thorough discussion of a wide range of ideas. Yet, we do not really have that now.

Now if, Mr Rosen, this debate lies in what we need to do now, you clever old time organisers should be fit to work that one out. Since the Left has no political party to put its ideas through, does that mean coming up with its own manifesto, promoting it and earning it support, and then offering that support to whichever politician commits to the manifesto. Of course, we know that politicians are dirty bar-lambs, so this brings us to, I think it was Lee's point, that the accountability of politicians to ensure their quality, also needs to be looked after. Provisions for doing so could be included in a manifesto? Or not? I am sure you'll have an opinion.

Now, of course, this could lead to a question, if you're still here at this point, of who does the manifesto and how ideas are gathered and how it is popularized. Well, there have been campaigns a-plenty in history to learn from. I take it as read that none of you trust Compass, as I thought the very idea Compass was running with, was to establish its own policy positions, try to garner support for them, and then encourage Blue Labour to take up these positions. Compass itself would say it has had some success with this, but then Compass WOULD say that.

If it wasn't Compass drawing a manifesto together, who would it be? You? Which of you and how to decide between you? Are you all ready for a Tory win, as well? Are you ready for the multiple assaults on whatever might constitute a locale for a social democratic fightback? The Tories don't muck about with this, they destroyed industry to remove one major source of left wing power.

Jon:

"Sane wrote about PR: 'PR's democratic. Most people want it.' How do you arrive at this? There is no evidence that a majority of the population want PR - whatever the version - so your post seems misleading to say the least!"

This was a throwaway play on terms, as you would well know if you were to read the whole sentence. I think PR is very popular now. I think the very idea of the sheer lack of democratic value in the system we have, is hitting home in lots of places. All those wasted votes, extremist governments built on low voter turnout. PR has done especially well given Right wing business interests won't give it a fair go in their press. The Beeb can hardly promote it. As for the North, old redoubt of Labour, and new redboubt of Blue Labour; yes, we do have a problem if the self-defeating North won't support it. Of course, if they don't, the Southern politics soon to come their way, will be with them for a long time.

I was also interested in the idea of a mere matter of a number, being significant to amount to something structural. If most people, if not All, people did support one thing or another, say PR, could that not be considered structural, albeit lacking formality? So, lads and lasses, work not finished, on you go.

'How do you arrive at this? There is no evidence that a majority of the population want PR - whatever the version - so your post seems misleading to say the least!'

If they wanted what I want them to want, then they would want it.

The General will is only the will of all when they are willing the best will Jon. All conscious political activists understand this.

Sane wrote about PR:

'PR's democratic. Most people want it.'

How do you arrive at this? There is no evidence that a majority of the population want PR - whatever the version - so your post seems misleading to say the least!

"If i stop here, there are still more, as I said there would be. That's the nature of it... ongoing"

Sane, the problem with that is that you're (apparently) asking for change, but you're not willing to explain exactly what the change IS. The policies you list are just that - POLICIES. They're nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, which is the democratic process.

You give the impression that you haven't thought your ideas through properly, that you're making it up as you go along.

That is not an approach likely to gain support.

Lee:

"Our democracy deserves better, we deserve better, let's change it.
****************************************************************
to what ? you forgot to say."

We go point by point. It's an ongoing process. Where somebody sees a problem, or a gap, it is neither. Just our next piece of work.

We want PR, we want green industry and a reduced City.

We want more homes, in keeping with good environmental policy.
We want homes to no longer be an investment policy in lieu of fast disappearing pensions.

We want an integrated transport strategy.

We want a Beeb paid for by the licence fee but not subject to the whims of whichever eejit politician happens to get near it.

We want better media/media ownership laws so that individuals cannot get a stranglehold on the media and on opinion.

We want the standard for ownership of our football teams to be much higher.

If i stop here, there are still more, as I said there would be. That's the nature of it... ongoing.

Our democracy deserves better, we deserve better, let's change it.
****************************************************************
to what ? you forgot to say.

Pinter:
"Jonathon. You pose a very interesting question. Briefly I only support democratic intiatives. IF they are not attached to clearly democratic structures then I cannot support them. I have stated this all along. That is why it is impossible to support Labour. It is no longer democratic."

PR's democratic. Most people want it. Is that democratically structural enough for you, or should that be, structurally democratic enough?

Rosen:
"The other part of your article, Noel, is disappointing. You promise new thinking to reinvigorate our political system, and you deliver the hoary old chestnut of PR. And the problem is that PR simply does not address the sickness of our Parliament, it's just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the sickness, which are the excessive powers of the executive and the party whipping system."

Please try not to forget: Necessary and sufficient conditions. PR is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Simple.

""...the top five ideas will become the pledge that all candidates standing for the next elections will be asked to commit to"

Now that's an interesting idea. Exactly HOW are they to be asked?

Do you have a document, a form of words, a kind of informal contract for candidates to sign? I'd love to see that.

Who does the asking? Do you intend to form a working group to distribute the documents, collect and keep them once signed, and announce publicly who has signed up ?

Whom are you going to ask to sign up? Labour candidates only, or all candidates."

I don't think this actually says anything. It just serves as a reminder of what needs to be considered when ideas/actions/policies are being considered. Thanks for the aide memoire.

Jonathon. You pose a very interesting question. Briefly I only support democratic intiatives. IF they are not attached to clearly democratic structures then I cannot support them. I have stated this all along. That is why it is impossible to support Labour. It is no longer democratic.

If we are going to talk SERIOUSLY about democracy .First we need to acknowledge the White Elephants stomping all over it.A serious issue at presant and for a long while now is the situation of Zionists and SAYANIM pulling Britain in a direction that is neither democratic or humanitarian. Of course it is healthy to have an input by a broard spectrum of the population. But be assured that the Zionists and particularly the SAYANIM are NOT representative of peace loving Jews.SAYANIM operators have one thing in mind -the advancement of Israel- even if this disadvantages the 'host' country allowing the SAYANIM to operate.
The situation Britain and the USA are in ie: 'dire' can be placed at the feet of groups that have neither of those countries best interests at heart.-spreading war so Israel looks more normal . Be brave ,when you hear anti-democratic hate.
"If it looks like aDuck and quacks , it's probably a Duck!"

"...the top five ideas will become the pledge that all candidates standing for the next elections will be asked to commit to"

Now that's an interesting idea. Exactly HOW are they to be asked?

Do you have a document, a form of words, a kind of informal contract for candidates to sign? I'd love to see that.

Who does the asking? Do you intend to form a working group to distribute the documents, collect and keep them once signed, and announce publicly who has signed up ?

Whom are you going to ask to sign up? Labour candidates only, or all candidates.

I think this strikes at the heart of the problem of electoral disillusion. Electoral candidates promise, elected MPs renege. The idea of a clear public commitment by individual MPs to which they can be held to account is very appealing.

The other part of your article, Noel, is disappointing. You promise new thinking to reinvigorate our political system, and you deliver the hoary old chestnut of PR. And the problem is that PR simply does not address the sickness of our Parliament, it's just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the sickness, which are the excessive powers of the executive and the party whipping system.

Please think again, Noel. Try introducing those evident creative talents to the development of genuinely new solutions, and not just to the delivery of the message.

I wish you success.

I agree.

Democratic reform is essential, not only because it is about fairness, but also because it fundamentally changes the rules of the game politically. If it is done correctly it will force parties to maximise their core vote in preference to chasing floating voters. That will encourage each party to develop a distinct political brand and that will improve voter choice in elections.

Moreover, the tired critique of the political establishment that claims that the electorate are not interested in, or do not want, electoral reform no longer stands up to scrutiny. The MPs expenses scandal demonstrated that.

There is now overwhelming support over a broad spectrum of the left for reform. It is a leading policy on LabourHome, the Fabian Society, Compass, The Guardian and now even in Progress. Even Labour List is discussing it. It is just a pity that this government won't yet fully countenance it. The irony is, if it had done, its electoral prospects might not be as dire as they are now.

Agree very much with Brian – the campaigning ideas that are developing from Compass Youth and Power 2010 have been particularly creative and have shown a real potential to reach beyond the usual ‘politico’ audience. I hope there is opportunity to explore this in more detail at the AGM on Saturday.

Angela – Has there actually been a political initiative launched during the last 50 years that you do support?

I'm signed up to that Noel, the more pressure the better and the campaigns have been good so far. Especially liked the thames barge, keep up the good work.

Sorry Noel but this sounds like a gimmick. Powere 2010 is nothign more than a warmed up version of the 'Power Inquiry' which was itself nothing more than recycling old ideas. Such ideas cannot be created by citizens groups and panels which are essentially focus groups. Ideas must have real substance. I fear that Power 2010 is a pale version of an idea. Are we really to believe that democracy can be restored by a few 'ideas' thrown up by a panel drawn up at random? Among such 'ideas' is the suggestion of votes at 16 asa 'core value' (sic). Helena Kennedy is very naive to think that any of this will change politics.
We are facing very dark days and this will require more than gimmicks.