I think there is a vast discussion to be had in this country. However, whether it will make any more headway than previous similar discussions remains to be seen. 'The Independent' newspaper has taken up the cause, but has recently reported that neither the P.M. nor the Lord Chancellor is interested. I wonder why! I suspect like many others, I have only fairly recently developed a greater awareness of these issues, partly through my interest in the European alternative. You set out what appear to be the main alternatives very clearly. There is a national debate to be had about which would be best. If it is any indication of what might follow, this is how my own thinking has evolved so far: 1. Initial concern born from a better understanding of the deficiencies of the FPTP system, particularly when coupled with the major deficiencies within the British Parliamentary system. 2. Desire for reform - P.R. known to be an alternative, widely in use elsewhere. 3. Look into pure P.R. and find its weaknesses - especially after our Euro-elections went P.R., with the subsequent loss of local accountability for M.E.P.'s 4. Decide this is too a large price to pay - and too many other shortcomings such as greater power of central political parties to impose candidates... 5. Look for alternatives; find out about STV from the Electoral Reform Society. This looks good until you start to consider the implications of multi-member constituencies, with implications for huge numbers of M.P.'s, plenty of scope for buck-passing etc. 6. Think again. Come to my current view that the Second Ballot system as in France constitutes the best solution (so long as we don't end up with Chirac in charge). Who knows how the thinking may develop further if this debate does progress. One further alternative - as outlined rather impatiently by RhodGates on another strand - redefine democracy so that it no longer means 'government run by the people etc. etc.' but instead simply means 'a country where people are (relatively?) free to live their own lives' - on the grounds that true democracy is an unachievable dream! Perhaps true demoracy and anarchy are effectively the same thing! Maybe it would be helpful to have a better idea of what we are actually trying to achieve. Seriously though, I cannot see how the present system can indefinitely endure the present criticism, especially in the face of the low turn-out in all those safe seats. It may deliver strong governments, but is that preferable to weaker, necessarily more consensual ones? Strong is fine when it suits your own preferences; under different circumstances, many of those who cite the strong government argument would, I suspect, come out against that very same idea.

Sandistock, Your mentioning of the Lord Chancellor compels me to sound off about this very lightweight character, whose political existence is entirely due to his closeness and unwavering support of Blair. On his own, who could beleive that this fawning apology for a politician would have reached any political height whatsoever. Unfortunately he is so typical of the many Blairites, who have no intellectual depth but were hoping to be wafted up careerwise by clinging to his coat tails. A most distasteful lot and if some have lost their seats, then I say good riddance. Message was edited by: brolly3 Message was edited by: brolly3