PR vs FPTP

PR is a bad form of election, look at why we have enjoyed FPTP for so long. I am not so naive to say that FPTP is the best form of election, but it is the best form available to us currently; Scotland has a Minority Government in the form of the SNP which is hardly desirable as they wish to decapitate our Union. The European Elections approved two BNP members, who would have been black-balled under FPTP so, under all that I can see I would say it does a pretty poor job - you might even say it allows racism! The only benefit of PR is that more people have more of a say in government, this leads to more discussion and less action - which makes for a weaker and less decisive executive - imagine if Chamberlain had to seek a vote to defend the realm against the Nazis, or if Thatcher had to ask permission to defend our territory from the Argies?

There is a balance between representation and decision, some would argue that weirdos such as the greens and the Left don't get enough support but that is because we live in Britain. A country where there is always a clear mandate, unless you're an unelected PM like our beloved leader Gordon Brown, is a strong country one which is capable of clear decisive action in whatever field. PR works for university societies and other quasi-representative bodies but not nationwide executives.

It is a fact that PR would lead to minority government and hung-parliaments to the point that no decisions would be made to the detriment of the host country, I feel sure that any level-headed person would see the dilemma between getting more people involved and being able to make a clear decision quickly without the need for endless deal-making and weaseling.

I am in favour of the FPTP system, entirely.

Christopher Loftus - NUCA General Secretary