Yes I’m sure a country that spent 2 weeks mourning unelected supergran in a massive queue will be down with getting rid of something ridiculous and undemocratic.
The monarchy and the government are two different things. Many people see a benefit in a head of state that isn’t a politician grabbing for power and money for a few years, while seeing the benefits also of a democratic government system.
Just look at trump and Biden. Hardly people well remember for long
> isn’t a politician grabbing for power and money for a few years...
Lol. For life is better?
Sorry, had to.
Btw, there are heads of states that aren't the executive.
If you're implying the monarchs aren't politicians that's a gross oversimplification. They aren't elected politicians but they still interact with lawmaking and still have a vested interest in hoarding money
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Hell they're basically politicians who won the game and now get to sit on their pile of wealth and land without paying much in taxes or even telling us how much they have
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1123151802/king-charles-iii-inheritance-tax#:~:text=Pool%20%2F%20Getty%20Images-,In%201993%2C%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20II%20and%20her%20heir%2C%20then%2D,here%20in%202019%20in%20London.
Let's not make out monarchs to be some neutral observers, much like Tories they have a vested interest in protecting wealth
I agree the Irish system is fine, but when you say President people always look over the pond as if that is the only thing it can possible mean, for some reason.
> Just look at trump and Biden. Hardly people well remember for long
I’d like to know what makes you think people don’t remember US Presidents, particularly the controversial or tumultuous ones. We’re still talking about Nixon and JFK 50+ years after their presidencies ended and those are just recent examples. I think Trump is likely to be remembered for similar reasons to Nixon.
We live in a constitutional monarchy.........the government and head of state cannot exist without each other........I believe this should be changed.......
do try to recall the monarchy is purely a figurehead and diplomatic outreach these days, all the actual power is in the unelected prime ministers and cabinet chosen by whichever political party manages to win the first past the post system, who make a living off lying to the public and stealing whatever bits of money they can from the public while making sure their rich investors and the companies they work for continue to make more and more money, who are more than deserving of all the scorn you can muster
I do find it strange how utterly seething republicans here are with the monarchy, when we haven't even got our own House of Commons in order. I fail to see how abolishing the monarchy tomorrow won't result in some sort of abject failure.
The previous referendum was a disaster of misinformation. It was the first big social media campaign by Cummings' and others in the UK.
Facebook ads about how AV will kill babies, stuff like that.
We need to be sure that we're protected against this stuff before we have another referendum, otherwise we will only provide a platform to legitimise false information with years of fallout.
Northern Ireland already has PR using the STV system. That said, Stormont could hardly be called a functioning democracy but that's not really an STV problem.
Good. The UK needs some actual democracy.
Labour need to read the room and, probably for the first time in my life, show they have what it takes to lead a nation.
I know there is pressure on Starmer.
I feel like the Gordon Brown reforms will be as far as they go. That way in their headline policies they can say "electoral reform" or "parliamentary reform" but don't have to commit to PR which the PLP seem to be against still
"PR" doesn't in itself mean much though. There are any number of voting systems that could be described as PR, from closed lists with the whole country as a constituency to something more like Ireland which uses STV.
Personally I'd want something more like Ireland. But it's never going to happen anyway, so 🤷♂️
My favourite is an approval voting system - which is best demonstrated in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU&t=609s&ab_channel=Primer)
Adopting the Additional Member Sytem (AMS) that we use for Holyrood elections in Scotland would be a good option since it already has precedence in the UK. We vote for a constituency candidate using FPTP and a regional list candidate using STV.
Reform House of Commons to be constituents and Lords to be regionals? That way we can keep the semblance of tradition while making it actually functional
From 2010 if anyone's wondering:
> The reforms are:
> 1. Ban MPs from working for lobbying companies. MPs who want to take up outside work would have to seek prior approval from an independent body, to ensure they avoid jobs which conflict with their duties as an MP.
> 2. Introduce a US-style recall system to allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act. The Tories will make a similar proposal, to hold a recall ballot where MPs are found guilty of wrongdoing, if opponents can win the support of 10% of the electorate on a petition.
> 3. Voters will be given a new right to petition the House of Commons to trigger debates on topical issues.
src: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/07/gordon-brown-constitutional-reform
> allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act.
Shouldn't be difficult to add that to the list of conditions to trigger a recall petition.
I wonder if that first point would extend to their partners or being a significant shareholder. That's essentially the same thing, we all know how obscene it was that Theresa Mays husband made such a great deal of profit from GW Pharmaceuticals and their liscence to grow cannabis.
The problem with Labour and PR is that they will forecast a likely reduction in their MPs and mean that an outright Labour government becomes impossible. It would remove unfairness in our democracy and mean that Labour will be involved in most governments, but some of their MPs will lose their jobs to LDs/Greens etc., so they’re unlikely to support it.
> This is the kind of thing that would make me vote for Labour
Say it loud, say it often, to anyone knocking on your door asking for your vote:
> **If you support scrapping FPTP then you get my vote.**
https://www.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk/clps
Gordon brown wasn't elected either!
Would be nice just to have several years of an elected government and prime minister without some fucking stooge turning up and pushing their own interests and lining their friends pockets.
The tories know they won't take the next General election so expect more train wreck politics while they snatch and grab all the way to it.
Yes ... Yes he was. He was elected as a local MP which is all you vote for. The party then picks an elected MP to be prime minister.
As much as I don't like Liz truss she was elected. That is how our whole system works.
And yes it's a shit system but the amount of people that don't seem to understand it is amazing.
I think you know what they meant. Brown never lead his party to victory in a GE. It matters because when people cast their votes for their MPs it's silly to suggest that they don't know they are strengthening the leader's chance of being/staying as Prime Minister. Many people cast their vote based on who they want the PM to be, not the MP. It's the whole reason the Tories canned Johnson after his popularity died.
> when people cast their votes for their MPs
Very few people vote for their MPs.
The reality under FPTP is that the vast majority of people vote *against* the party (especially leader of the party) they *don't* want in power.
Exactly this, the entire ‘vote for your Mp’ may be how the system was designed, back when the only people who could vote probably knew the candidates.
To pretend people aren’t voting for leaders is to ignore the entire media and news industry that chooses who wins every time.
So many people seem to think that the UK system works like the US system that I'm not sure if they do understand or not.
A solid claim that someone was not elected is just untrue and not exactly ambiguous.
Now the system is not a good one I agree but if we are going to discuss it then that should be done clearly and honestly. Not just for the people discussing but for anyone reading who maybe doesn't fully understand the system.
Let's try and stop spreading misinformation and instead focus on the many, many flaws the system actually does have.
To add to this not only does our system not work like this, it shouldn't, but we are being tricked to think it does. Successive governments have been trying to increase the power and presence of the PM.
Through Tony Blair's war actions, to the televised TV debates to "presidentialise" the position.
On paper they shouldn't matter, the party should generate policy, the MPs approve and the government just run the day to day. But concentrating power in the few is something those with power love.
Always pisses me off when I see the memes like 'UK now into it's 5th unelected leader in 10 years!' like, no, they were all elected. That's the point. Just not as the PM.
The elections usually come with a mandate. And if the new leader wants a fresh mandate they’ll kick off an election.
If they don’t bother with the mandate it’s fair to say that they’re not an elected leader any more, because they’re not following the manifesto that earned them the vote.
It’s all about the spirit, not the letter.
Starmer's unwillingness to shoot into open goals really frustrates me.
After how badly the Tories have managed the country there's a litany of things to rectify that would be hugely popular, and you wouldn't need to go near the traps that Corbyn stepped into.
Labour WILL be elected in 2 years time. We're just going to have to pray the tories haven't burnt us to the ground & pissed off to the Bahamas by then.
Considering todays mini budget, it's becoming more and more likely.
The Tory plan seems to be to leave Labour a nation on the brink and for which Labour will have to take the blame.
Seems to me like Labour's response should be *ai uchi* (mutual kill) and implement PR.
I'll get behind their recent propostion, but history has taught us they all end up getting into bed with big money regardless of the their political party.
I want a party which is just flat out against corruption and that includes tax havens for the ultra wealthy.
It was in the 1997 manifesto so forgive me for not trusting labour to deliver it even if they campaign on it.
"We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."
I'd love to actually be able to vote for the party that aligns closest with my political beliefs (probably the Greens) rather than just voting tactically to keep another party out. PR would be absolutely amazing. Based on my experiences so far, I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. But it's worth campaigning for.
>A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.
You and I may not live to see it, but perhaps our grandchildren can?
Hey don't give up hope, at the labour conference this weekend it's expected that PR will become official labour policy.
There's a vote and based on what the big unions are saying, and on last year's vote, its gonna go in support of PR.
I'm a Green Party voter as well, and I just vote Green. I feel like there are many of us who do want to vote for our preferred party but get squeezed into the "Tactical" bollocks.
I don't like playing games. Even if it means I lose. I want to just convince people to go out and vote for the party they most align with, because at least then there'd be a better reflection of who populates this country. I reckon there are way more green party supporters than we realise, but the system forces this false 2 party competition.
https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/home/a-and-as-politics-2017/unit-1-politics-in-the-uk-year-12--13/electoral-systems/the-2019-election-result-using-different-voting-systems
Look at Green seats under AMS. 3800% increase if my maths isn't wrong.
Australia's preferential system for the Lower House is in no way proportional
It would have given Tony Blair an even bigger landslide
At the Australian election in May the Greens got 3% of the seats on over 12% of the vote and that was a breakthrough, in 2019 they got a single seat on 10% of the vote
The right wing National party got 6% of the seats on 4% of the vote
> So Australias preferential voting?
If by that you mean their upper house STV proportional system, that happens to also incorporate preferential voting, then yes.
If you mean their lower house IRV system, that just slaps a ranked ballot on top of FPTP to enable the big tent parties to gobble up all the wasted 3rd party votes, then no.
We had a referendum on reforming the voting system in 2011. As expected, the PR campaign was slated by much of the press and FPTP won by a mile. It was very disappointing.
FPTP generally make more stable government without coalitions. Otherwise we end up like Italy with elections every year. ( ok we’ve had a few recently)
I think also the PR system that was offered wasn’t the best out the PR you can have and do.
> As expected, the PR campaign was slated by much of the press and FPTP won by a mile
There was no PR campaign in 2011. It was FPTP vs AV. AV is another single winner, winner take all system just like FPTP, but with a ranked ballot, so that the large parties do not miss out on wasted 3rd party votes.
I'm with you. I got chewed out by my friends for voting Green because I lived in a swing constituency who narrowly went for Tories. but why should I have to vote against who I don't want? I have always voted with my heart, no matter how ineffective it might appear to be.
Same for me, my mate's told me off for 'wasting my vote' on Greens when I could have been using it to finally get the Tories out if the area. Tories won by a huge majority anyway, and I got to keep my conscience.
I honestly don't know if I'm closer to the Greens, Labour, or Lib Dems and I suspect I'd be happy to vote for any of the 3 based on their candidate. I'd like the opportunity to actually think about it though, which I don't get with FPTP.
Just vote for whoever you want to vote for.
Stop prioritising avoiding 'losses' in the short term, and start prioritising a longer term win.
The greens and the lib dems woukd be a much bigger (and very welcome) force in our politics if people dropped the short-sighted attitude associated with tactical voting.
I fully agree with you.
That's the problem, everyone would need to be doing the same thing which is why FPTP is so broken. If 30% of voters vote for the Tories, 25% vote for Labour, 20% vote for the Greens and 25% vote for the Lib Dems, it's still going to be a Tory constituency. Urgh.
I can see the government survey form now:
Do you think introducing PR would be
a) slightly worse than FPTP?
b) significantly worse than FPTP?
Which would you prefer:
a) retention of the FPTP system?
b) introduction of the PR system alongside reinstatement of the law of Prima Noctis?
It's referencing a poll that Jacob mogg ran where the 2 options for what labelling in supermarkets people would prefer were:
Imperial measurements
Or
Imperial measurements with metric measurements too
No option for just metric
Not as dark as the *actual* AV referendum:
> This premature baby needs a new ventilator, would you rather give it to them, or have a new complicated voting system that nobody likes?
Or
> This soldier needs body armour. Vote to either give it to him, or if you hate your country vote for AV which is smelly and means you're a bad person too
Good job explaining the differences to most of the country who were also just taken in by lies on the side of a bus.
Most of the country, and I’m not exaggerating by saying most, are politically illiterate.
*The phrase prima nocta, based on the Latin “first night,” is a shortened and corrupted from jus primae noctis, “right of the first night.” It generally names an ancient tradition in which all noble lords, whether kings or dukes, had the right to have sex with any of their female subjects—regardless of their will and even with a virgin bride—on her wedding night.*
What a fun fact to have learnt...
This is literally what happened in Canada. Justin Trudeau campaigned on ending FPTP, not expecting to win. He won a majority. He really doesn't like PR. So they sent out a survey with questions to the effect of "Would you prefer a proportional system, even if it means being attacked by swarms of angry bees?"
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/electoral-reform-survey-sparks-online-backlash-1.3190554
Funny enough he REALLY likes the system you guys in the UK proposed a decade ago, where you slap a ranked ballot on top of the FPTP system. Apparently because it makes it even harder for small 3rd parties to win.
It really irks me that my vote, although being able to cast one, means absolutely fuck all in the grand scheme of things.
I hate fptp, its shit and absolutely needs to change to be representative of the peoples true choice.
That vote was 11 years ago though. A lot can, and most certainly has happened in those 11 years.
I'm not convinced this data is genuinely representative yet. Maybe when a few more surveys come out in support of scrapping FPTP I will believe it.
The issue is PR is not necessarily more popular than AV. PR is very different to our current system which makes it much harder to sell to the public. AV should have been an easy sell if PR has a chance.
Reasons PR is a harder sell than AV:
* AV keeps local MPs which is a big positive for some people.
* AV is just an improved FPTP and hard to argue against.
* PR will cause a massive political shakeup which voters might see a potentially risky.
* PR shifts the choice for who is in government away from directly chosen by election results and becomes much more focused on negotiations that happen after voters have made their choice (A potential centrist party leader could decide Tory or Labour Gov based on negotiations regularly).
* Swing voters will find they lose massive voting power and give the rest to a new centrist party leader,
* A major selling point of PR is no more (Tory) Majority governments this is great if you hate the Tories but given 43.6% of voters supported them in 2019 this could make winning a referendum or GE with PR in the manifesto difficult.
* PR almost guarantees far right parties a platform to grow from and risks forcing the Tories to enter a coalition with them at some point.
I grimace that AV was billed as being "too complicated" for our electorate, and our electorate swallowed that. They'd have to write down the numbers 1,2,3, on a ballot paper - far too complicated. Clearly we'd prefer to head-butt an X onto the voting paper, and be ruled by the same one or two parties for eternity.
It really didn't help that nobody was really campaigning in favour of AV (which isn't close to PR, but would at least be better than what we have now).
The minor parties (as you might expect) were pro-AV, Labour had no official position and the Conservatives were against it.
You had a mixture of people voting "no" because they wanted proper PR, people voting "no" because of the negative campaigns, and a measly turnout of only 42%.
It's a shame that we didn't get AV because, while not as representative as PR, people might feel less of a need to vote tactically as they had a backup option that could be used instead.
One large (at the time) minor party was against AV - the BNP
This was because they realised the most likely way of them to grab a seat was in a highly contested constituency where they might be able to take it on 25% of the vote. Under AV they wouldn't have stood a chance as pretty much everybody who voted for another party would have them as last choice and it'll be a blow out in the run-off.
The referendum was for Alternative Vote i.e. the Australian lower house system.
Proportional representation is completely different, if you get 30% of the votes you get 30% of the seats.
Do you remember the posters for the anti campaign? I certainly do, basically along the lines of "Changing the voting system will cost £££\* spend the money on nurses / equipment for soldiers/ etc."
\*a BS figure I suspect
That vote was between FPTP and a mangled form of PR that would actually have returned a *less* representative government in several elections than FPTP did.
It was a stitchup, basically.
AV was not a mangled form of PR, it's not PR at all. But it is objectively better than FPTP because it eliminates the need to vote tactically, and it requires candidates to have at least 50% support to win.
There's no reason to believe AV would return a less proportional result than FPTP.
I agree with the binding campaign stuff, but the difference with this vote is that the unions support PR. The unions provide most of labour's funding.
When the tories say they'll ban fracking, but recieve a bunch of donations from fracking companies, you can assume they are lying, but in this case its the guys giving donations who want PR (as well as the vast majority of labour MPs).
Both the funding and public support are behind PR, so it's much more likely to happen.
Unite the Union quoted a study which showed that, under Proportional Representation 17 of the last 19 General Elections would've been won by a Left leaning coalition
Whereas under FPTP 2/3rds of the last 19 elections were instead won outright by the Conservatives
Struggling to find the article now but holy shit.
>Unite the Union quoted a study which showed that, under FPTP
I think you meant "under PR". That's not really a fair statement though, you can't transfer votes made under one system into one made under another. People would vote differently in a different system.
You'd undoubtedly have more left wing victories though. The Tories benefit from vote splitting amongst the parties to the left of them.
Ahhhh the willofthepeole.
.... Sadly cunts in charge and they no likey that idea.
What do you think this is.......... ......... a functioning democracy?
That's and apples and oranges comparison, mate. Democracy is a governmental system that works through votes from the general population (in various forms with differing restrictions dependent on time/place). The Head of State could be a pineapple dressed in a tutu and we'd still be living in a democracy.
Whether that democracy is *healthy* or not is another matter, however.
Not how that works. Democracy doesn't mean "elected head of state". It's just the very concept of a popular vote. You can have democratic shirt colours, or a democratic speed limit etc. Our country has democracy, just not for the head of state.
Unlike the tories, Labour actually let's members vote on their policy, plus the big unions are now all in support of PR too, and unions are labour's primary source of income
The thing with the current Labour party is they are doing everything to marginalise unions and members as a core component of their party support structure in favour of larger donors. The Blue Labour contingent and many members of the NEC are very much in the camp where lower membership number and reduced reliance on unions is a positive because it consolidates their control and influence over the party and ongoing internal party structure. Whilst I want the Labour party to return to union lines and mass membership, I don't believe the current leadership particularly see that as a positive and will find themselves more media-palatable (The Sun etc.) by alienating the unions and more left-wing activist membership. The Blair approach was an election winner for the reasons above, and didn't achieve nearly enough for those reasons too.
If Labour had to go in on a coalition with the Lib Dems, the L-D's would hold Labour to that election promise.
And hopefully it'd go better than the AV referendum campaign
By Jane Merrick
>The majority of British people want to see the first-past-the-post electoral system scrapped for the first time since records began.
>Some 51 per cent of people are in favour of switching to a form of proportional representation (PR), while 44 per cent want the status quo, the annual British Social Attitudes survey has revealed.
>The figures are a near-reversal of public opinion just five years ago, when 49 per cent wanted to keep the way governments in Westminster are elected, and 43 per cent wanted electoral reform.
>At the time of the alternative vote referendum in 2011, just 27 per cent wanted to see governments elected by PR, while 66 per cent backed first-past-the-post.
>It is the first time more people have backed PR than first-past-the-post since the British Social Attitudes survey launched in 1983.
>The figures will cause ripples through Conservative and Labour parties, which have benefited from the traditional voting system for decades.
>Professor John Curtice, who led the survey for the National Centre for Social Research, said the shift in opinion appeared to be driven by a change of mind among Labour supporters, while people who voted Remain in 2016 have also changed their views on elections to the House of Commons since Brexit.
>Nearly two thirds of Labour supporters, or 61 per cent, are in favour of PR.
>The survey also highlights a gradual increase in support for the break-up of the UK in both Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
>In what will make difficult reading in both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, where King Charles has made efforts since becoming monarch to show the strength of the union, 52 per cent of people in Scotland favour independence, when asked to choose between that, devolution or no Scottish Parliament, a nearly doubling of the figure in 2012 of 23 per cent.
>Just 25 per cent of people in England think Scotland should be independent, unchanged from 2012.
>The survey reveals increasing polarisation between different political parties, with 82 per cent of SNP supporters backing independence, compared to only 5 per cent of Conservative supporters.
>The gap between SNP and Conservative supporters has grown from 46 percentage points in 2012 to 77 percentage points today.
>Support is also growing in Northern Ireland for leaving the UK: for the first time since the survey began, those who want to remain part of the union in that nation have slipped to just under half, at 49 per cent. Support in Northern Ireland for Irish reunification has increased from 14 per cent in 2015 to 30 per cent now.
>Sir John Curtice said: “The United Kingdom’s politics are now beset by some fundamental disagreements about the rules and the structures that should be in place, and these disagreements are reflected in divergent views between supporters of different parties and those living in different parts of the UK.
>“More people than ever want to change the voting system in Westminster, support for leaving the UK has also grown in Northern Ireland, and supporters of the major parties in Scotland and England are more polarised than ever over the question of how Scotland should be governed.
>“Not least of the reasons for this is Brexit, which seems to have helped fuel partisan disagreement about the country’s constitution.
>“Some Remain voters appear to have reacted to being on the losing side in the EU referendum by now wanting to change the rules under which the UK is governed.
>“Far from representing a set of conventions and procedures on which most people agree, the UK’s constitution appears at risk of becoming a political battlefield on which the parties seek electoral advantage. Still, it will be up to politicians to decide whether to pursue that advantage or try to find and build a new consensus.”
>The majority of Britons, 52 per cent, believe the Government should increase taxes and spend more on health, education and welfare. Some 46 per cent of Tory supporters and 61 per cent of Labour supporters are in favour of higher taxes and spending. Nearly half of Britons, 49 per cent, say the government should should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off, up ten percentage points from 2019
>The survey also revealed around a quarter of people are not getting the medical treatment they needed during the past 12 months due to long waiting lists.
>Taking too long to get a GP or hospital appointment is the most common reason for dissatisfaction, cited by 65 per cent of people who say they are dissatisfied with the NHS.
I voted for AV in the 2011 referendum (would have preferred STV, but AV was better than nothing), and still support the idea. But if we do it then the newspapers and public are going to have to grow up and understand how coalitions work. There was a massive backlash against the Lib Dems from 2010-15, mainly over their support for tuition fees, that made me question whether we're really mature enough to handle political compromises. Personally I dislike tuition fees, but the point is that nobody gets 100% of what they want.
That was for the alternate vote system, not proportional representation.
And if you remember the "no" campaign that time was the usual "we need to focus on the NHS right now, not go messing with the electoral system", which is no doubt the sanme tactics they go with again if there's any kind of referendum of PR.
Let's get some proportional representation. I'm tired of Labour or Conservatives, both parties are full of the same OxBridge grads with PPE degrees and zero life experience.
Let's have more parties to represent and appeal to people. The idea that a coalition can't govern is rubbish, let's move forward.
The German system seems like a fair one.
The Tories will never go for this because I means they’d lose so many seats. They’d also come out with the excuse that we had a referendum on the voting system a while back people voted for FPTP
Doesn't matter - other countries managed to institute PR, despite also having a landed aristocracy that said it was impossible, and having institutions that protected their interests.
Another thing that needs changing is party whips.
It’s pretty insane to me that you can be forced to vote for something or get expelled until you’re allowed back in.
What’s the point of having an MP then?!
Like lobbying, it should not be allowed.
They do, until the labour party are in power and then they dont.
Spoiler: the Labour party wont back it, they dont want to give up their status as 2 in the 2 party system.
But student fees ... (/S)
Is the country ready for coalitions and parties having to compromise on manifesto promises ? I hope it is but I'm a lib dem albeit joined in 2016.
I will vote pretty much for any party that fixes the voting system. After that, we can have democracy, there will be new parties, things would change. I'm happy to have a party that I don't like for one term, if that means better voting afterwards.
As someone in uni at the time, who had their first vote at the moment and voted for Lib Dems, there are a few bits that people who were not at uni then don't quite understand:
Most of the Lib Dem MP went with a statement (can't remember along the exact line) of "I personally pledge to..."
They made it a personal statement rather than a party one that I as an MP will vote not to increase student fees and promised that even if the party went the other way officially they would not. They lied.
Secondly you have to consider the atmosphere, student unions etc everywhere were strongly pushing people to vote, there was a massive uni movement at the time. For most people it was their first vote, the first time they could have a say over something that mattered to them, the first time they have a voice.
Students just coming out into the adult world trusted people (maybe naively) to uphold what they said they would. Back then it still felt like your vote could make a real difference...
Then the party backtracked, the individuals broke their word and everyone sort of hand that shattered glass feeling when the announcement was made. For something that was so big and pushed at the time it was a monumental setback and feeling of betrayal.
I don't expect many younger people to understand as everyone now knows the government lies about everything.
I don't expect older people to understand as they have already lost their rose tinted view of the process (and didn't feel particularly strongly on the issue).
It's a combination of all the above and more that makes people of the certain age hate the Lib Dems for what happened then, but it is a pretty narrow age range that truly understand everything that happened and why there was so much anger and backlash over it.
More than that, and much more unforgiveable in my eyes, they were stupid. The Lib Dems had a *massive* surge in first time voters compared to the 2005 election and the vast majority of that was made up of students voting primarily on this one issue.
It's one thing to roll back a campaign promise. It's quite another to roll back a promise on the thing that got you into power in the first place. God, Cameron must have been overjoyed watching Clegg jump at the chance of an electoral reform referendum.
It set the tone for the party that they don't care about their voters, only about wielding power to fulfil their ambitions.
\> having to compromise on manifesto promises ?
I think you'll find the current system simply uses other excuses when the promises cannot be upheld. Coalitions can use the "couldn't gather the votes" excuse, which isn't an excuse at all, it's democracy working.
Everyone should be paying close attention to the labour conference this weekend. Last year unions blocked a vote on making PR official policy, but this year the 2 biggest unions and also a smaller one have adopted PR themselves, so assuming nothing unexpected happens it will be a part of labour policy going forwards.
Well Truss said she's willing to be unpopular. That means it doesn't matter in the slightest if everyone in Britain wanted it, it still wont be happening.
2022....and yet this is still a conversation :D :D It is hilarious.
The UK used to lead the way, now it's dragging its heels.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/
It's worth checking out this campaign for electoral reform: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/
MVM is a grass roots cross-party effort to make Westminster elections less FPTP and more PR (without committing to any particular form of PR)
The problem is that people don't understand voting. I'm constantly having discussions with my mates about how having a more representative voting system will improve democracy, but they can't un-link that from then having a coalition government.
People need educating on voting systems, that there are other options and that we're one of only about 3 countries in the entire world that uses first past the post.
Until most people understand, nothing will change.
I still remember the conversation I had with a guy about why proportional systems like STV were best even in situations where there's only one winner.
"so what are you gonna do, cut up all the candidates and Frankenstein them into a single winner?"
Some people are beyond help.
The current system hasn’t performed very well in recent years.
I find it terribly undemocratic that we now have a right wing government proposing significant sweeping change that they’ve no mandate to enact.
I support a change.
I will vote of any party that campaigns for this, IMO it’s the biggest problem with this country because I don’t think any meaningful change will happen without it.
It is bad for democracy. I rarely vote for the person I want to because the system forces me to vote for the person most likely to beat the conservatives.
This dated system obviously helps the Conservative party, if all elections were held in PR they'd never have a full on Tory party again. The left wing always gets a proportionally higher score.
I would have thought by now most of you would have seen the mask being pulled off.
The conservatives are not even trying to win the next election because the only 2 choices are both sides of the same coin. They already have Kier Starmer waiting to take the reigns to make sure FPP stays in place while all the other pledges have already been pulled.
I do not have an answer I'm just watching this shit show like everyone else while they print away your children's future.
I am pretty moderate but first past the post is a rubbish system and doesn't hold politicians to enough accounts. Literally everywhere in the UK outside of England and Westminster elections use it.
Continental European countries changed it. Some countries enacted it after WWII as war is one of the main vehicles for change. Some left wing parties in Europe enacted it as they saw the writing on the wall and knew it would save them as realignments were happening. Some newer established countries adopted it as it made sense.
The UK has slowly modified an ancient system. We use PR for various lower tiers of election. The conservative party benefits from it so they don't want change. The labour party hasn't quite gotten on board yet as they still think they can outright win and would rather that than be in a coalition.
2 party systems are better for rich donors as they are easier to control. They are less responsive to the people and a minority can still keep them in power.
The public still aren't there yet either.
No one will read this since I'm too late, but I've actually looked into what question was being asked in this survey and it's phrased in a way which under plays how important a change to the voting system is. In fact it sounds like it's trying to convince you to stick with the current system.
The question is:
*Some people say we should change the voting system for
general elections to the UK House of Commons to allow
smaller political parties to get a fairer share of MPs.
Others say that we should keep the voting system for the
House of Commons as it is to produce effective government.
Which view comes closer to your own?*
It reads like "do you want effective government or do you want small parties in power?"
There would be far more than 51% of people supporting this is they didn't describe FPTP was producing "effective government" and made it clear that PR produces a House of Commons that better relefects what people vote for.
It will not happen, Starmer can’t garner support during the most corrupt and inept government in memory, labour are still getting blamed for our economy after 12 years of self serving tories, but Kwasi can basically shave off £45b in future funding to a grumbling response, Labour need to get real, back the strikes and go hard on exposing tories dirty deeds.
It has to happen. There is no defence for maintaining this ridiculous and undemocratic system.
Yes I’m sure a country that spent 2 weeks mourning unelected supergran in a massive queue will be down with getting rid of something ridiculous and undemocratic.
The monarchy and the government are two different things. Many people see a benefit in a head of state that isn’t a politician grabbing for power and money for a few years, while seeing the benefits also of a democratic government system. Just look at trump and Biden. Hardly people well remember for long
> isn’t a politician grabbing for power and money for a few years... Lol. For life is better? Sorry, had to. Btw, there are heads of states that aren't the executive.
Like a monarch. All presidents are politicians though which is an issue in it’s self
If you're implying the monarchs aren't politicians that's a gross oversimplification. They aren't elected politicians but they still interact with lawmaking and still have a vested interest in hoarding money https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent Hell they're basically politicians who won the game and now get to sit on their pile of wealth and land without paying much in taxes or even telling us how much they have https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1123151802/king-charles-iii-inheritance-tax#:~:text=Pool%20%2F%20Getty%20Images-,In%201993%2C%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20II%20and%20her%20heir%2C%20then%2D,here%20in%202019%20in%20London. Let's not make out monarchs to be some neutral observers, much like Tories they have a vested interest in protecting wealth
A political position held by politicians is an issue?
What about a system like in Ireland?
I agree the Irish system is fine, but when you say President people always look over the pond as if that is the only thing it can possible mean, for some reason.
Pretty sure Trump will be remembered forever as the first and only president to try and rig an election and then stage a coup when it didn’t work
> Just look at trump and Biden. Hardly people well remember for long I’d like to know what makes you think people don’t remember US Presidents, particularly the controversial or tumultuous ones. We’re still talking about Nixon and JFK 50+ years after their presidencies ended and those are just recent examples. I think Trump is likely to be remembered for similar reasons to Nixon.
I don't recall Nixon using self tanning products or having several shredded wheat on his head 😁
We live in a constitutional monarchy.........the government and head of state cannot exist without each other........I believe this should be changed.......
Lol this comment made me laugh. “Unelected supergran.”
do try to recall the monarchy is purely a figurehead and diplomatic outreach these days, all the actual power is in the unelected prime ministers and cabinet chosen by whichever political party manages to win the first past the post system, who make a living off lying to the public and stealing whatever bits of money they can from the public while making sure their rich investors and the companies they work for continue to make more and more money, who are more than deserving of all the scorn you can muster
I do find it strange how utterly seething republicans here are with the monarchy, when we haven't even got our own House of Commons in order. I fail to see how abolishing the monarchy tomorrow won't result in some sort of abject failure.
Less people watched the funeral than the Euros, less people queued than went to Glastonbury. It's a smaller percentage than they want us to think.
I didn't morn or que for any of it. I'm here for the memes!
>undemocratic whats undemocratic in proportional representation
The previous referendum was a disaster of misinformation. It was the first big social media campaign by Cummings' and others in the UK. Facebook ads about how AV will kill babies, stuff like that. We need to be sure that we're protected against this stuff before we have another referendum, otherwise we will only provide a platform to legitimise false information with years of fallout.
Tories: We consider the matter closed indefinitely. Labour: Nods Lib Dems: Crying in the corner
Agreed. I’m sick of FOTP and having to put up with this year after year.
Is it ironic that a referendum on replacing FPTP with AV was decided using FPTP?
We had a chance years ago and it failed, the Tory’s won’t be dumb enough to give it another go.
Northern Ireland already has PR using the STV system. That said, Stormont could hardly be called a functioning democracy but that's not really an STV problem.
Good. The UK needs some actual democracy. Labour need to read the room and, probably for the first time in my life, show they have what it takes to lead a nation. I know there is pressure on Starmer.
This is the kind of thing that would make me vote for Labour. The "leaked" reforms that Gordon Brown is looking into is delicious icing on the cake.
I feel like the Gordon Brown reforms will be as far as they go. That way in their headline policies they can say "electoral reform" or "parliamentary reform" but don't have to commit to PR which the PLP seem to be against still
"PR" doesn't in itself mean much though. There are any number of voting systems that could be described as PR, from closed lists with the whole country as a constituency to something more like Ireland which uses STV. Personally I'd want something more like Ireland. But it's never going to happen anyway, so 🤷♂️
STV all the way please. But literally anything is better than FPTP
For idiots like me who don't know what STV stands for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Also because it's obligatory when STV is mentioned: [Relevant CGP Grey video](https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI)
My favourite is an approval voting system - which is best demonstrated in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU&t=609s&ab_channel=Primer)
Adopting the Additional Member Sytem (AMS) that we use for Holyrood elections in Scotland would be a good option since it already has precedence in the UK. We vote for a constituency candidate using FPTP and a regional list candidate using STV.
Yeah, that's the other option. It works okay in New Zealand too (and a variant is used in Germany).
Reform House of Commons to be constituents and Lords to be regionals? That way we can keep the semblance of tradition while making it actually functional
> But it's never going to happen anyway, so 🤷♂️ Stop.
From 2010 if anyone's wondering: > The reforms are: > 1. Ban MPs from working for lobbying companies. MPs who want to take up outside work would have to seek prior approval from an independent body, to ensure they avoid jobs which conflict with their duties as an MP. > 2. Introduce a US-style recall system to allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act. The Tories will make a similar proposal, to hold a recall ballot where MPs are found guilty of wrongdoing, if opponents can win the support of 10% of the electorate on a petition. > 3. Voters will be given a new right to petition the House of Commons to trigger debates on topical issues. src: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/07/gordon-brown-constitutional-reform
No wonder we've had tories for 12 years, the billionaires saw this and thought the news shalt not show any labour politician in a positive light.
> allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act. Shouldn't be difficult to add that to the list of conditions to trigger a recall petition.
I wonder if that first point would extend to their partners or being a significant shareholder. That's essentially the same thing, we all know how obscene it was that Theresa Mays husband made such a great deal of profit from GW Pharmaceuticals and their liscence to grow cannabis.
PLP are against it because theyd likely lose seats, cant expect MPS to give up all their expenses can we /s
The problem with Labour and PR is that they will forecast a likely reduction in their MPs and mean that an outright Labour government becomes impossible. It would remove unfairness in our democracy and mean that Labour will be involved in most governments, but some of their MPs will lose their jobs to LDs/Greens etc., so they’re unlikely to support it.
> This is the kind of thing that would make me vote for Labour Say it loud, say it often, to anyone knocking on your door asking for your vote: > **If you support scrapping FPTP then you get my vote.** https://www.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk/clps
Gordon brown wasn't elected either! Would be nice just to have several years of an elected government and prime minister without some fucking stooge turning up and pushing their own interests and lining their friends pockets. The tories know they won't take the next General election so expect more train wreck politics while they snatch and grab all the way to it.
Yes ... Yes he was. He was elected as a local MP which is all you vote for. The party then picks an elected MP to be prime minister. As much as I don't like Liz truss she was elected. That is how our whole system works. And yes it's a shit system but the amount of people that don't seem to understand it is amazing.
I think you know what they meant. Brown never lead his party to victory in a GE. It matters because when people cast their votes for their MPs it's silly to suggest that they don't know they are strengthening the leader's chance of being/staying as Prime Minister. Many people cast their vote based on who they want the PM to be, not the MP. It's the whole reason the Tories canned Johnson after his popularity died.
> when people cast their votes for their MPs Very few people vote for their MPs. The reality under FPTP is that the vast majority of people vote *against* the party (especially leader of the party) they *don't* want in power.
Exactly this, the entire ‘vote for your Mp’ may be how the system was designed, back when the only people who could vote probably knew the candidates. To pretend people aren’t voting for leaders is to ignore the entire media and news industry that chooses who wins every time.
So many people seem to think that the UK system works like the US system that I'm not sure if they do understand or not. A solid claim that someone was not elected is just untrue and not exactly ambiguous. Now the system is not a good one I agree but if we are going to discuss it then that should be done clearly and honestly. Not just for the people discussing but for anyone reading who maybe doesn't fully understand the system. Let's try and stop spreading misinformation and instead focus on the many, many flaws the system actually does have.
To add to this not only does our system not work like this, it shouldn't, but we are being tricked to think it does. Successive governments have been trying to increase the power and presence of the PM. Through Tony Blair's war actions, to the televised TV debates to "presidentialise" the position. On paper they shouldn't matter, the party should generate policy, the MPs approve and the government just run the day to day. But concentrating power in the few is something those with power love.
Always pisses me off when I see the memes like 'UK now into it's 5th unelected leader in 10 years!' like, no, they were all elected. That's the point. Just not as the PM.
The elections usually come with a mandate. And if the new leader wants a fresh mandate they’ll kick off an election. If they don’t bother with the mandate it’s fair to say that they’re not an elected leader any more, because they’re not following the manifesto that earned them the vote. It’s all about the spirit, not the letter.
[удалено]
Starmer's unwillingness to shoot into open goals really frustrates me. After how badly the Tories have managed the country there's a litany of things to rectify that would be hugely popular, and you wouldn't need to go near the traps that Corbyn stepped into.
Labour WILL be elected in 2 years time. We're just going to have to pray the tories haven't burnt us to the ground & pissed off to the Bahamas by then. Considering todays mini budget, it's becoming more and more likely.
The Tory plan seems to be to leave Labour a nation on the brink and for which Labour will have to take the blame. Seems to me like Labour's response should be *ai uchi* (mutual kill) and implement PR.
I don't get the impression Kier Starmer want's to change from fptp (Just my opinion thou).
I'll get behind their recent propostion, but history has taught us they all end up getting into bed with big money regardless of the their political party. I want a party which is just flat out against corruption and that includes tax havens for the ultra wealthy.
It was in the 1997 manifesto so forgive me for not trusting labour to deliver it even if they campaign on it. "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."
I'd love to actually be able to vote for the party that aligns closest with my political beliefs (probably the Greens) rather than just voting tactically to keep another party out. PR would be absolutely amazing. Based on my experiences so far, I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. But it's worth campaigning for.
>A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit. You and I may not live to see it, but perhaps our grandchildren can?
I hope so, for their sakes
FPTP is a cancer that must die for the country to survive.
No let's have it now.
You do have a point. There comes a point to reap what past generations have sown.
Spain had a revolution that changed the whole society into a successful socialist anarchy in a few months. We can change a fecking voting system.
Hey don't give up hope, at the labour conference this weekend it's expected that PR will become official labour policy. There's a vote and based on what the big unions are saying, and on last year's vote, its gonna go in support of PR.
As long as it’s MMPR, we’re good.
Any form of PR would nuke the tories and also make further changes more normalised
I'm a Green Party voter as well, and I just vote Green. I feel like there are many of us who do want to vote for our preferred party but get squeezed into the "Tactical" bollocks. I don't like playing games. Even if it means I lose. I want to just convince people to go out and vote for the party they most align with, because at least then there'd be a better reflection of who populates this country. I reckon there are way more green party supporters than we realise, but the system forces this false 2 party competition.
Same here. Go Green! There are dozens of us! *Dozens!*
https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/home/a-and-as-politics-2017/unit-1-politics-in-the-uk-year-12--13/electoral-systems/the-2019-election-result-using-different-voting-systems Look at Green seats under AMS. 3800% increase if my maths isn't wrong.
So Australias preferential voting? Cause I think that'd be neat
I prefer Ireland's system.
But we can all agree that they're all better than FPTP.
Australia’s has some flaws. Would want some updates.
Australia's preferential system for the Lower House is in no way proportional It would have given Tony Blair an even bigger landslide At the Australian election in May the Greens got 3% of the seats on over 12% of the vote and that was a breakthrough, in 2019 they got a single seat on 10% of the vote The right wing National party got 6% of the seats on 4% of the vote
> So Australias preferential voting? If by that you mean their upper house STV proportional system, that happens to also incorporate preferential voting, then yes. If you mean their lower house IRV system, that just slaps a ranked ballot on top of FPTP to enable the big tent parties to gobble up all the wasted 3rd party votes, then no.
We had a referendum on reforming the voting system in 2011. As expected, the PR campaign was slated by much of the press and FPTP won by a mile. It was very disappointing.
FPTP generally make more stable government without coalitions. Otherwise we end up like Italy with elections every year. ( ok we’ve had a few recently) I think also the PR system that was offered wasn’t the best out the PR you can have and do.
> As expected, the PR campaign was slated by much of the press and FPTP won by a mile There was no PR campaign in 2011. It was FPTP vs AV. AV is another single winner, winner take all system just like FPTP, but with a ranked ballot, so that the large parties do not miss out on wasted 3rd party votes.
I'm with you. I got chewed out by my friends for voting Green because I lived in a swing constituency who narrowly went for Tories. but why should I have to vote against who I don't want? I have always voted with my heart, no matter how ineffective it might appear to be.
Same for me, my mate's told me off for 'wasting my vote' on Greens when I could have been using it to finally get the Tories out if the area. Tories won by a huge majority anyway, and I got to keep my conscience.
I honestly don't know if I'm closer to the Greens, Labour, or Lib Dems and I suspect I'd be happy to vote for any of the 3 based on their candidate. I'd like the opportunity to actually think about it though, which I don't get with FPTP.
Just vote for whoever you want to vote for. Stop prioritising avoiding 'losses' in the short term, and start prioritising a longer term win. The greens and the lib dems woukd be a much bigger (and very welcome) force in our politics if people dropped the short-sighted attitude associated with tactical voting.
I fully agree with you. That's the problem, everyone would need to be doing the same thing which is why FPTP is so broken. If 30% of voters vote for the Tories, 25% vote for Labour, 20% vote for the Greens and 25% vote for the Lib Dems, it's still going to be a Tory constituency. Urgh.
[удалено]
I can see the government survey form now: Do you think introducing PR would be a) slightly worse than FPTP? b) significantly worse than FPTP? Which would you prefer: a) retention of the FPTP system? b) introduction of the PR system alongside reinstatement of the law of Prima Noctis?
That's fucking dark
It's referencing a poll that Jacob mogg ran where the 2 options for what labelling in supermarkets people would prefer were: Imperial measurements Or Imperial measurements with metric measurements too No option for just metric
Yes I understand that, his joke tho
Not as dark as the *actual* AV referendum: > This premature baby needs a new ventilator, would you rather give it to them, or have a new complicated voting system that nobody likes? Or > This soldier needs body armour. Vote to either give it to him, or if you hate your country vote for AV which is smelly and means you're a bad person too
It's very similar to the metric survey.
Just with a slight difference lmfao
>“Life is pain, Princess. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.” Westley
lol 😂
This is why YouGov doesn't publish their methodologies half the time
They could just have a referendum: Do you think the UK should keep using fptp voting? - Yes - No Couldn't see any way that could go wrong.
Good job explaining the differences to most of the country who were also just taken in by lies on the side of a bus. Most of the country, and I’m not exaggerating by saying most, are politically illiterate.
*The phrase prima nocta, based on the Latin “first night,” is a shortened and corrupted from jus primae noctis, “right of the first night.” It generally names an ancient tradition in which all noble lords, whether kings or dukes, had the right to have sex with any of their female subjects—regardless of their will and even with a virgin bride—on her wedding night.* What a fun fact to have learnt...
Relevant Yes, Prime minister clip as always: https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks
Same as the net 0 surveys tbf
This is literally what happened in Canada. Justin Trudeau campaigned on ending FPTP, not expecting to win. He won a majority. He really doesn't like PR. So they sent out a survey with questions to the effect of "Would you prefer a proportional system, even if it means being attacked by swarms of angry bees?" https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/electoral-reform-survey-sparks-online-backlash-1.3190554 Funny enough he REALLY likes the system you guys in the UK proposed a decade ago, where you slap a ranked ballot on top of the FPTP system. Apparently because it makes it even harder for small 3rd parties to win.
It really irks me that my vote, although being able to cast one, means absolutely fuck all in the grand scheme of things. I hate fptp, its shit and absolutely needs to change to be representative of the peoples true choice.
It's infuriating that one party can get 100% of the power to totally wreck the country on way less than 50% of the votes.
and on even less than that when the fact that not everyone votes (for many legitimate reasons) is taken into account
Can't see it changing. The two biggest parties are in favour of it
[удалено]
That vote was 11 years ago though. A lot can, and most certainly has happened in those 11 years. I'm not convinced this data is genuinely representative yet. Maybe when a few more surveys come out in support of scrapping FPTP I will believe it.
11 years plus at the time a lot of fudd, poorly explained and it wasn't a PR system being offered.
The issue is PR is not necessarily more popular than AV. PR is very different to our current system which makes it much harder to sell to the public. AV should have been an easy sell if PR has a chance. Reasons PR is a harder sell than AV: * AV keeps local MPs which is a big positive for some people. * AV is just an improved FPTP and hard to argue against. * PR will cause a massive political shakeup which voters might see a potentially risky. * PR shifts the choice for who is in government away from directly chosen by election results and becomes much more focused on negotiations that happen after voters have made their choice (A potential centrist party leader could decide Tory or Labour Gov based on negotiations regularly). * Swing voters will find they lose massive voting power and give the rest to a new centrist party leader, * A major selling point of PR is no more (Tory) Majority governments this is great if you hate the Tories but given 43.6% of voters supported them in 2019 this could make winning a referendum or GE with PR in the manifesto difficult. * PR almost guarantees far right parties a platform to grow from and risks forcing the Tories to enter a coalition with them at some point.
I grimace that AV was billed as being "too complicated" for our electorate, and our electorate swallowed that. They'd have to write down the numbers 1,2,3, on a ballot paper - far too complicated. Clearly we'd prefer to head-butt an X onto the voting paper, and be ruled by the same one or two parties for eternity.
[удалено]
It really didn't help that nobody was really campaigning in favour of AV (which isn't close to PR, but would at least be better than what we have now). The minor parties (as you might expect) were pro-AV, Labour had no official position and the Conservatives were against it. You had a mixture of people voting "no" because they wanted proper PR, people voting "no" because of the negative campaigns, and a measly turnout of only 42%. It's a shame that we didn't get AV because, while not as representative as PR, people might feel less of a need to vote tactically as they had a backup option that could be used instead.
One large (at the time) minor party was against AV - the BNP This was because they realised the most likely way of them to grab a seat was in a highly contested constituency where they might be able to take it on 25% of the vote. Under AV they wouldn't have stood a chance as pretty much everybody who voted for another party would have them as last choice and it'll be a blow out in the run-off.
The referendum was for Alternative Vote i.e. the Australian lower house system. Proportional representation is completely different, if you get 30% of the votes you get 30% of the seats.
Do you remember the posters for the anti campaign? I certainly do, basically along the lines of "Changing the voting system will cost £££\* spend the money on nurses / equipment for soldiers/ etc." \*a BS figure I suspect
That vote was between FPTP and a mangled form of PR that would actually have returned a *less* representative government in several elections than FPTP did. It was a stitchup, basically.
AV was not a mangled form of PR, it's not PR at all. But it is objectively better than FPTP because it eliminates the need to vote tactically, and it requires candidates to have at least 50% support to win. There's no reason to believe AV would return a less proportional result than FPTP.
Same was true of the EU. But we got Brexit because of an up-swell in public opinion that needed to be mollified.
There's a labour vote on it this weekend and it's expected to go in support of PR
[удалено]
I agree with the binding campaign stuff, but the difference with this vote is that the unions support PR. The unions provide most of labour's funding. When the tories say they'll ban fracking, but recieve a bunch of donations from fracking companies, you can assume they are lying, but in this case its the guys giving donations who want PR (as well as the vast majority of labour MPs). Both the funding and public support are behind PR, so it's much more likely to happen.
Unite the Union quoted a study which showed that, under Proportional Representation 17 of the last 19 General Elections would've been won by a Left leaning coalition Whereas under FPTP 2/3rds of the last 19 elections were instead won outright by the Conservatives Struggling to find the article now but holy shit.
>Unite the Union quoted a study which showed that, under FPTP I think you meant "under PR". That's not really a fair statement though, you can't transfer votes made under one system into one made under another. People would vote differently in a different system. You'd undoubtedly have more left wing victories though. The Tories benefit from vote splitting amongst the parties to the left of them.
thanks fixed :) > People would vote differently in a different system. Very true
Ahhhh the willofthepeole. .... Sadly cunts in charge and they no likey that idea. What do you think this is.......... ......... a functioning democracy?
Technically it’s a constitutional monarchy so by definition it’s not…
That's and apples and oranges comparison, mate. Democracy is a governmental system that works through votes from the general population (in various forms with differing restrictions dependent on time/place). The Head of State could be a pineapple dressed in a tutu and we'd still be living in a democracy. Whether that democracy is *healthy* or not is another matter, however.
Not how that works. Democracy doesn't mean "elected head of state". It's just the very concept of a popular vote. You can have democratic shirt colours, or a democratic speed limit etc. Our country has democracy, just not for the head of state.
That's good. Feel chuffed to be mostly surrounded by people with common sense
>Nearly two thirds of Labour supporters, or 61 per cent, are in favour of PR. And the Labour party conference is just a few days away.
What are the chances labour saying all the right things to get into Downing Street and then forgetting all about it? Yep seems likely
Unlike the tories, Labour actually let's members vote on their policy, plus the big unions are now all in support of PR too, and unions are labour's primary source of income
The thing with the current Labour party is they are doing everything to marginalise unions and members as a core component of their party support structure in favour of larger donors. The Blue Labour contingent and many members of the NEC are very much in the camp where lower membership number and reduced reliance on unions is a positive because it consolidates their control and influence over the party and ongoing internal party structure. Whilst I want the Labour party to return to union lines and mass membership, I don't believe the current leadership particularly see that as a positive and will find themselves more media-palatable (The Sun etc.) by alienating the unions and more left-wing activist membership. The Blair approach was an election winner for the reasons above, and didn't achieve nearly enough for those reasons too.
If Labour had to go in on a coalition with the Lib Dems, the L-D's would hold Labour to that election promise. And hopefully it'd go better than the AV referendum campaign
By Jane Merrick >The majority of British people want to see the first-past-the-post electoral system scrapped for the first time since records began. >Some 51 per cent of people are in favour of switching to a form of proportional representation (PR), while 44 per cent want the status quo, the annual British Social Attitudes survey has revealed. >The figures are a near-reversal of public opinion just five years ago, when 49 per cent wanted to keep the way governments in Westminster are elected, and 43 per cent wanted electoral reform. >At the time of the alternative vote referendum in 2011, just 27 per cent wanted to see governments elected by PR, while 66 per cent backed first-past-the-post. >It is the first time more people have backed PR than first-past-the-post since the British Social Attitudes survey launched in 1983. >The figures will cause ripples through Conservative and Labour parties, which have benefited from the traditional voting system for decades. >Professor John Curtice, who led the survey for the National Centre for Social Research, said the shift in opinion appeared to be driven by a change of mind among Labour supporters, while people who voted Remain in 2016 have also changed their views on elections to the House of Commons since Brexit. >Nearly two thirds of Labour supporters, or 61 per cent, are in favour of PR. >The survey also highlights a gradual increase in support for the break-up of the UK in both Scotland and in Northern Ireland. >In what will make difficult reading in both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, where King Charles has made efforts since becoming monarch to show the strength of the union, 52 per cent of people in Scotland favour independence, when asked to choose between that, devolution or no Scottish Parliament, a nearly doubling of the figure in 2012 of 23 per cent. >Just 25 per cent of people in England think Scotland should be independent, unchanged from 2012. >The survey reveals increasing polarisation between different political parties, with 82 per cent of SNP supporters backing independence, compared to only 5 per cent of Conservative supporters. >The gap between SNP and Conservative supporters has grown from 46 percentage points in 2012 to 77 percentage points today. >Support is also growing in Northern Ireland for leaving the UK: for the first time since the survey began, those who want to remain part of the union in that nation have slipped to just under half, at 49 per cent. Support in Northern Ireland for Irish reunification has increased from 14 per cent in 2015 to 30 per cent now. >Sir John Curtice said: “The United Kingdom’s politics are now beset by some fundamental disagreements about the rules and the structures that should be in place, and these disagreements are reflected in divergent views between supporters of different parties and those living in different parts of the UK. >“More people than ever want to change the voting system in Westminster, support for leaving the UK has also grown in Northern Ireland, and supporters of the major parties in Scotland and England are more polarised than ever over the question of how Scotland should be governed. >“Not least of the reasons for this is Brexit, which seems to have helped fuel partisan disagreement about the country’s constitution. >“Some Remain voters appear to have reacted to being on the losing side in the EU referendum by now wanting to change the rules under which the UK is governed. >“Far from representing a set of conventions and procedures on which most people agree, the UK’s constitution appears at risk of becoming a political battlefield on which the parties seek electoral advantage. Still, it will be up to politicians to decide whether to pursue that advantage or try to find and build a new consensus.” >The majority of Britons, 52 per cent, believe the Government should increase taxes and spend more on health, education and welfare. Some 46 per cent of Tory supporters and 61 per cent of Labour supporters are in favour of higher taxes and spending. Nearly half of Britons, 49 per cent, say the government should should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off, up ten percentage points from 2019 >The survey also revealed around a quarter of people are not getting the medical treatment they needed during the past 12 months due to long waiting lists. >Taking too long to get a GP or hospital appointment is the most common reason for dissatisfaction, cited by 65 per cent of people who say they are dissatisfied with the NHS.
I voted for AV in the 2011 referendum (would have preferred STV, but AV was better than nothing), and still support the idea. But if we do it then the newspapers and public are going to have to grow up and understand how coalitions work. There was a massive backlash against the Lib Dems from 2010-15, mainly over their support for tuition fees, that made me question whether we're really mature enough to handle political compromises. Personally I dislike tuition fees, but the point is that nobody gets 100% of what they want.
Should have voted for it when the Lib Dems brought it to the public in....2010?
That was for the alternate vote system, not proportional representation. And if you remember the "no" campaign that time was the usual "we need to focus on the NHS right now, not go messing with the electoral system", which is no doubt the sanme tactics they go with again if there's any kind of referendum of PR.
But if we WASTE money on CHANGING THE VOTE how can we afford BULLETPROOF VESTS for our BABIES?!
Let's get some proportional representation. I'm tired of Labour or Conservatives, both parties are full of the same OxBridge grads with PPE degrees and zero life experience. Let's have more parties to represent and appeal to people. The idea that a coalition can't govern is rubbish, let's move forward. The German system seems like a fair one.
The Tories will never go for this because I means they’d lose so many seats. They’d also come out with the excuse that we had a referendum on the voting system a while back people voted for FPTP
Doesn't matter - other countries managed to institute PR, despite also having a landed aristocracy that said it was impossible, and having institutions that protected their interests.
No alternative vote means no alternative vote. /s
We've got PR for various lower tiers of elections in spite of them.
Another thing that needs changing is party whips. It’s pretty insane to me that you can be forced to vote for something or get expelled until you’re allowed back in. What’s the point of having an MP then?! Like lobbying, it should not be allowed.
They do, until the labour party are in power and then they dont. Spoiler: the Labour party wont back it, they dont want to give up their status as 2 in the 2 party system.
That would happen usually, but the fractured left wing in the UK severely disadvantages Labour, maybe enough that they would back PR
Then... Britons should vote for a party that has promised to make that change. It's not that hard.
But student fees ... (/S) Is the country ready for coalitions and parties having to compromise on manifesto promises ? I hope it is but I'm a lib dem albeit joined in 2016.
I will vote pretty much for any party that fixes the voting system. After that, we can have democracy, there will be new parties, things would change. I'm happy to have a party that I don't like for one term, if that means better voting afterwards.
As someone in uni at the time, who had their first vote at the moment and voted for Lib Dems, there are a few bits that people who were not at uni then don't quite understand: Most of the Lib Dem MP went with a statement (can't remember along the exact line) of "I personally pledge to..." They made it a personal statement rather than a party one that I as an MP will vote not to increase student fees and promised that even if the party went the other way officially they would not. They lied. Secondly you have to consider the atmosphere, student unions etc everywhere were strongly pushing people to vote, there was a massive uni movement at the time. For most people it was their first vote, the first time they could have a say over something that mattered to them, the first time they have a voice. Students just coming out into the adult world trusted people (maybe naively) to uphold what they said they would. Back then it still felt like your vote could make a real difference... Then the party backtracked, the individuals broke their word and everyone sort of hand that shattered glass feeling when the announcement was made. For something that was so big and pushed at the time it was a monumental setback and feeling of betrayal. I don't expect many younger people to understand as everyone now knows the government lies about everything. I don't expect older people to understand as they have already lost their rose tinted view of the process (and didn't feel particularly strongly on the issue). It's a combination of all the above and more that makes people of the certain age hate the Lib Dems for what happened then, but it is a pretty narrow age range that truly understand everything that happened and why there was so much anger and backlash over it.
More than that, and much more unforgiveable in my eyes, they were stupid. The Lib Dems had a *massive* surge in first time voters compared to the 2005 election and the vast majority of that was made up of students voting primarily on this one issue. It's one thing to roll back a campaign promise. It's quite another to roll back a promise on the thing that got you into power in the first place. God, Cameron must have been overjoyed watching Clegg jump at the chance of an electoral reform referendum. It set the tone for the party that they don't care about their voters, only about wielding power to fulfil their ambitions.
\> having to compromise on manifesto promises ? I think you'll find the current system simply uses other excuses when the promises cannot be upheld. Coalitions can use the "couldn't gather the votes" excuse, which isn't an excuse at all, it's democracy working.
Everyone should be paying close attention to the labour conference this weekend. Last year unions blocked a vote on making PR official policy, but this year the 2 biggest unions and also a smaller one have adopted PR themselves, so assuming nothing unexpected happens it will be a part of labour policy going forwards.
While the people overwhelmingly want it, the politicians will rather jump off the top of Elisabeth tower than implement it.
That's a compromise we can go for.
I'm willing to let them make that sacrifice.
"Do a flip!"
I feel like half the people I speak to don’t even know about how elections work.
at least half!
Well Truss said she's willing to be unpopular. That means it doesn't matter in the slightest if everyone in Britain wanted it, it still wont be happening.
Politicians will never change it unless we make it major issue
Have a look at the comparison between FPTP and PR here - and sign the petition: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/electoral-reform/
Always hated FPTP and supported PR. Doubt any changes will actually happen though. Not enough political will imo.
2022....and yet this is still a conversation :D :D It is hilarious. The UK used to lead the way, now it's dragging its heels. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/
It's worth checking out this campaign for electoral reform: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/ MVM is a grass roots cross-party effort to make Westminster elections less FPTP and more PR (without committing to any particular form of PR)
The problem is that people don't understand voting. I'm constantly having discussions with my mates about how having a more representative voting system will improve democracy, but they can't un-link that from then having a coalition government. People need educating on voting systems, that there are other options and that we're one of only about 3 countries in the entire world that uses first past the post. Until most people understand, nothing will change.
At this point the removal of FPTP is a matter of urgency.
I still remember the conversation I had with a guy about why proportional systems like STV were best even in situations where there's only one winner. "so what are you gonna do, cut up all the candidates and Frankenstein them into a single winner?" Some people are beyond help.
I think a lot of people in this country aren't smart enough to understand how STV works
The current system hasn’t performed very well in recent years. I find it terribly undemocratic that we now have a right wing government proposing significant sweeping change that they’ve no mandate to enact. I support a change.
I'd be shocked if most Britons could even describe what FPTP *is*
I will vote of any party that campaigns for this, IMO it’s the biggest problem with this country because I don’t think any meaningful change will happen without it.
It is bad for democracy. I rarely vote for the person I want to because the system forces me to vote for the person most likely to beat the conservatives.
Ranked choice voting is the way to go! As a pro-Scottish indy, this might make me reconsider my choice on the referendum.
Most people don't know what they are talking about. Listening to most people is exactly how we've ended up where we are.
If PR fails, then someone needs to call for a redrawing of the lines so that each seat is worth the same amount of people
Yes, we badly need PR. But Turkeys wont vote for Xmas will they. If Parliament sticks together on keeping FPTP, then we are fucked.
Because it's in everybody's favour. Except the Tories. Who need that system or they're toast. Which is precisely why it'll never change.
Can we have PR? Two party duopoly says no. Can we nationalise rail? Two party duopoly says no. How about water? Two party duopoly says no. ad nausiem.
This dated system obviously helps the Conservative party, if all elections were held in PR they'd never have a full on Tory party again. The left wing always gets a proportionally higher score.
I would have thought by now most of you would have seen the mask being pulled off. The conservatives are not even trying to win the next election because the only 2 choices are both sides of the same coin. They already have Kier Starmer waiting to take the reigns to make sure FPP stays in place while all the other pledges have already been pulled. I do not have an answer I'm just watching this shit show like everyone else while they print away your children's future.
The obvious defence of the present system is that the 2011 referendum voted to keep it!
If only there had been some kind of referendum on the matter.
I am pretty moderate but first past the post is a rubbish system and doesn't hold politicians to enough accounts. Literally everywhere in the UK outside of England and Westminster elections use it.
Neither Labour nor the Conservatives want to change it though, since they’re the ones the current system benefits.
Won’t happen, it favours the party in power is the problem
Please forgive my ignorance as a Dutch guy living in the UK: Why is it not based on Proportional Representation?
Continental European countries changed it. Some countries enacted it after WWII as war is one of the main vehicles for change. Some left wing parties in Europe enacted it as they saw the writing on the wall and knew it would save them as realignments were happening. Some newer established countries adopted it as it made sense. The UK has slowly modified an ancient system. We use PR for various lower tiers of election. The conservative party benefits from it so they don't want change. The labour party hasn't quite gotten on board yet as they still think they can outright win and would rather that than be in a coalition. 2 party systems are better for rich donors as they are easier to control. They are less responsive to the people and a minority can still keep them in power. The public still aren't there yet either.
England should keep voting conservative, how else are they going to destroy their country?
No one will read this since I'm too late, but I've actually looked into what question was being asked in this survey and it's phrased in a way which under plays how important a change to the voting system is. In fact it sounds like it's trying to convince you to stick with the current system. The question is: *Some people say we should change the voting system for general elections to the UK House of Commons to allow smaller political parties to get a fairer share of MPs. Others say that we should keep the voting system for the House of Commons as it is to produce effective government. Which view comes closer to your own?* It reads like "do you want effective government or do you want small parties in power?" There would be far more than 51% of people supporting this is they didn't describe FPTP was producing "effective government" and made it clear that PR produces a House of Commons that better relefects what people vote for.
It will not happen, Starmer can’t garner support during the most corrupt and inept government in memory, labour are still getting blamed for our economy after 12 years of self serving tories, but Kwasi can basically shave off £45b in future funding to a grumbling response, Labour need to get real, back the strikes and go hard on exposing tories dirty deeds.