Is PR dead, then?

Interest in electoral reform is suddenly interesting the government, as it seems to be believe that it was our voting system which made MPs claim all the naughty things they did on their expenses. I confess I do not follow the logic of this connection.

They mumble about safe seats and MPs for life, although again, there does not seem to be any connection between the size of the majority and the degree of misdemeanour.

If they are serious about attacking the problem, then any system of proportional representation seems to be a dead duck, as it will probably let in the BNP and other undesirable parties. (If they are legal, why should they not have a small place? Is the thought police arranging everything?)

There is no need to change the present system, but it could be improved in several ways:

1) Adjust the size of constituencies more often. They would have to do this under the Brown favoured system of AV. The system would give greater representation within a constituency, but what about between them? Is it right that it would take 50,000 voters in a large constituency to elect an MP, but only 30,000 in a small one. Is this fair?

2) Institute primaries, so all voters choose the candidates for all parties, if they wish. The system, seems to work well in the USA, which uses our "first past the post" Poorly performing MPs are likely to be effectively deselected even if their constituency officials support him or her.

3) Allow for recall, whereby when a certain proportion of the electors call for it there must be another election. Brown seems to favour something like this, although so many calls would be made now, I suspect, that his party would go down to defeat. It wouldn't apply now, of course, so he is safe in mentioning it, and if by some mischance he were re-elected next Spring, he could always change again to suit his party.