|
THE FOLLOWING ARE
LETTERS FROM THE DAILY MAIL SPECIAL LETTERS COLUMN ON AV ON MARCH 2ND 2011
We have chosen those which wish for a YES! vote
or LET US HAVE A GO!
From:- P W, Heacham, Norfolk.
Let's try PR
I'M
FED up with all the debate and delaying tactics over the issue of electoral
reform and can't help feeling disenfranchised.
There
are two issues here: if the constituency boundaries are altered (as I believe
they were by Labour) to favour Labour strongholds, effectively making votes in
some areas worth many votes in other areas, it's wrong.
It goes
against the principle of one man one vote, and should be put right. Otherwise,
it's a criminal distortion of the so-called democratic process.
The
second issue is the voting system. This is surely a matter for the electorate at
large to express it's wishes. It's not a political football to be kicked
into touch because it does/doesn't suit any particular party. I personally
would like to see the system changed, but can't see why it must be to the
Alternative Vote.
In
earlier years, the talk was always about PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, a system
which seems much fairer than AV. We imposed it in the Federal Republic of
Germany after the war - if it's good enough for them (and it seems to have
worked fairly well) why is it [PR] not good enough for us?
*
R G.
Hatfield, Herts.
Long
overdue
THE
FPTP system is a long way past its sell - by date. The system has been the
cause of much that has been wrong about overall governance since World War II.
Had it
not been for all the reconstruction that was needed in the after math of World
War II, it is inconceivable to think what might have happened here years ago,
not just in recent years.
Any
country needs leadership from the 'top' but the lack of long-term thinking has
been missing for years, entirely due to FPTP. David Cameron says this
system creates decisive and stable governments. Decisive yes, but stable no.
We've
endured the switching from one extreme way of thinking to another for too long,
purely because the Tories have come in and gone down one route unchecked in
their objectives and Labour has come in and gone down another route unchecked in
it's objectives.
The Coalition has shown that people can work together for the good of the
country, but that cannot happen when vested interests resulting from the FPTP
system are in place. Rather than affording strong government it provides weak
government because the excesses of one party changed by the excesses of
another party does not ensure that a steady course is followed, which ultimately
causes damage to society and therefore a weak governance.
Had
there been a system whereby the reins could have been held on Margaret
Thatcher's policies to explode the property market would the banks have been
given the opportunity to act recklessly and irresponsibly? The
consequences of this will be felt for years to come.
Had
there been a system whereby the reins could have been held on Tony Blair's
policies over the Iraq war and other misguided adventures would we be suffering
from the consequences of that!
Then
there is the immense burden being foisted on the public for carrying the
liability of the ever-increasing costs that go with funding of public
sector employee pension schemes, the responsibility for which seems to be
stretching for decades into the distance without an end in sight.
Would
this burden be upon us if there had been a system of governance that applied the
reins of the instigators of this policy?
I look
forward to hearing what measures the Government will put in place to right the
wrongs of so many bad decisions implemented because FPTP failed to prevent
extreme policies from being adopted.
*
[10/10]
[There is not a word we would change in this
article which for its common sense and justice few would disagree with.]
[To be continued-other comments to follow
shortly]
MARCH-2011
|
