Michael Gove is a banana. I’m not being rude, he confessed as much this morning on Radio 4: “If that’s democracy then I am a banana”. This in reference to the potential for a Lib-Lab coalition brought about by our archaic first past the post system.
Well, he might not be a banana, but I should imagine that he would rather argue that he is, indeed, a particularly yellow type of fruit, than admit that our democracy is a sham, perpetuated only by a broken electoral system. For the Conservatives to admit that FPTP should be changed would be a disaster. So the only conclusion that I can draw is that Michael Gove is a banana.
However, as much as Michael may want to divert attention away from the real issue, it is impossible to ignore the despicable smugness on display here. We live in a democracy in which the two main parties want to give the electorate as little choice as possible. We live in a democracy in which our politicians do not want every voice to be heard, do not want every opinion to count. We live in a democracy in which we are dictated to by our ‘representatives’. A democracy based upon bending the public to the will of the politicians, as opposed to the politicians to the will of the people.
So actually, unfortunately, Michael Gove is not a banana. He was right- this is not a democracy. It’s just sad that he doesn’t seem to want to do anything about changing it.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
10 Comments
Michael Gove was upset that the load of tosh he was spinning about the bias in the electoral system being down to unequal constituency sizes was challnged by John Humphrey’s.
It was a shame a) that it has taken Humphreys to challenge this and b) that he didn’t go further on this issue.
How exactly would Michael Gove proposla work in the remote rural areas of scotland and wales ?
An MP for the Orkney, Shetlands, Western Isles and Skye ?
Which bit of the mainland would be linked to the Isle of Wight ? Hayling Island ??? Southsea ?
Have they told Welsh voters that they will go from having 40 MPs to just 28 (adding in the 10% reduction in MPs)
At first I though Gove had chosen the wrong word begining with B to describe himself, but perhaps he just had the phrase Banana republic on his mind as an apt description of the current UK situation.
Under STV the Lib Dems and Labour will most likely always have 50% of the seats (between them they always have had 50% of the votes post war, and any “fair votes” system will work in line with that). They will then have a coalition no one votes for, very few will want (except desperate Labour cabinet ministers trying to keep their eye in office) and no one can get rid of.
So maybe Gove has a point!
Any full coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems would require the support of the Lib Dem party members (although not the Labour party members, directly). If nobody wants it, it won’t happen.
“Confidence and supply” deals are more likely to be the long-term norm, in a fair parliament.
2 points about a Lib/Lab alliance.
Labour today aren’t the Labour of 1980. I think there’re so many things the Lib Dems have a disagreement with Labour on today that this alliance wouldn’t be so comfy as all that, and a lot of concessions would be required.
Secondly, that may be the obvious alliance that can be imagined under the *current* electoral system because only 3 parties get a significant number of seats. I fully believe that under a proportional preference-voting system, smaller parties would grow over time as people realized that they could vote for them without risking a tyrannical elected dictatorship from a party they detest. So, other parties would enter the fray and a Lib/Lab alliance would seem less necessary and less powerful anyway.
The Lib Dem Lab perpetual coalition – isn’t that what they said would happen in Scotland ?
Or perhaps would could happen is that Labour would continue to decline and the smart new politicians would join the lib dems.
Or perhaps the Conservative party would become truly conservative or truly more liberal, thus actually please one group of people instead of p***ing off two ?
Or perhaps the Conseravtives would split ? Or perhaps voters would still turn out a Lab?Lib coalition if it was as bad as Brown circa 2010 or Major circa 1997.
Odd how the BNP/Greens/UKIP say the other parties are all the same – the obvious conclusion therefore is that 90% of people are voting for the same party.
Gove is actually one of the most serious concerns about a potential Tory gvt – I’ve seen/heard him twice recently, on the BBC’s Education debate at the weekend, and on the radio yesterday, and he’s a seriously unpleasant character…
This is a copy of an email I sent to the Today programme this morning after the Gove interview.
Subject: URGENT COMPLAINT AFFECTING THE GENERAL ELECTION RESULT. Fw: DECEPTION, DECEPTION, DECEPTION BY THE BBC AND MICHAEL GOVE
Hello,
I would like to make an urgent formal complaint, about a matter affecting the result of the General Election this Thursday, as below.
Thank you for your attention.
Dane Clouston
—– Original Message —–
From: Dane Clouston
To: BBC Today
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:54 AM
Subject: DECEPTION, DECEPTION, DECEPTION BY THE BBC AND MICHAEL GOVE
Good morning! But WHAT A SHOCK! FROM THE BBC!
What a conservative double act with Michael Gove [and the today programme] !
Yes, Proportional Representation loses the constituency link.
So you asked Gove about Proportional Representation and he said it would end the constituency link.
But Gordon Brown is suggesting a Referendum on the Alternative Vote in existing Single Member Constituencies.
So Labour’s proposal does not lose the constituency link.
BUT THE BBC THIS MORNING GAVE THE CLEAR MESSAGE THAT LABOUR’S PROPOSED ELECTORAL REFORM WOULD LOSE THE CONSTITUENCY LINK.
LIES, LIES, LIES, DECEPTION, DECEPTION, DECEPTION BY THE BBC AND THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHICH LOOKS AFTER THE RICH, PRIVATE EDUCATION AND PRIVATE HEALTH, ALL OF WHICH NO DOUBT SUITS THE WELL PAID BBC COMMENTATORS AND NEWS READERS AND PRODUCERS.
I AM UTTERLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY SHOCKED BY THIS BBC/CONSERVATIVE PARTY DOUBLE ACT JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION.
I WISH TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed the Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member constituencies (STVM), which they and others call the Single Transferable Vote (“STV”) would give almost strict proportional representation, but which MPs would not like because it would lose the constituency link.
The Labour Party, for which I am now going to vote in this election, has proposed the Single Transferable Vote in existing Single Member constituencies (STVS), which they and others call the Alternative Vote (“AV”), which would normally give more proportional representation than X voting and First Past the Post. It would also eliminate safe seats for rotten MPs.
Under STVS (“AV”) I would twice have been elected Liberal MP for Newbury in 1974. On the other hand, under STVM (“STV”) the Newbury Constituency would have been merged with other constituencies to create a multi-member constituency, something for which I , as MP for Newbury, I would never have voted.
LABOUR’S PROPOSED ELECTORAL REFORM WOULD NOT LOSE THE CONSTITUENCY LINK, BUT YOU GAVE THE CLEAR IMPRESSION THIS MORNING THAT IT WOULD.
DANE CLOUSTON
Well done Dane. Bit OTT, but It’s always worth complaining, if only to make em more careful in future. Might even get you some air time.
The trouble is Dane you are wrong. (there’s a surprise)
STV does not lose the constituency link, it just creates a multi-member constituency.
You will find that that the multi-member constituency has been a feature of British Politics for years.
Not only were the old University seats elected by STV, the two member seat continued from the 1832 great reform act, right up to the1950’s
In local Government you will find an abundance of two and three member wards. At a parish level four or more member wards are quite common.
The Parliamentray constituency size under STV would be smaller than the old Euro-seats and smaller than the current Euro-constituencies.
What would under under STV is the idea that an MP represents everyone however they voted. They don’t and they can’t.
“Mouse”
In response to your aside, I would say that we are all wrong sometimes.
However, the link that people think of and care about is the link between an MP and her or his constituency, so that everyone knows who their MP is, and who is the MP for that constituency. That is the link that you lose with the Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member constituencies.
So on this occasion it is you, and Michael Gove and the Today programme, who are wrong, in my opinion.