Proportional Representation

[BillyStubbsTears]

Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521

It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...

Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.

Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else  to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.

Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?

[danumdon]

Still can't see it BST, both main parties have had many opportunities to go down this road but always ducked it at the last moment. I could well imagine that they could both split 2 to 4 ways in a PR system, with them both being such broad churches as things stand.

I can just see some awful outcomes now, a centre coalition having to rely on some extremists to propel them into power.

Id rather we had a government who could initiate their policies without having some washed down versions to contend with just to please some small minority who would hold a lager rump to ransom and extract far more than their manifesto deserved.

We've seen it in so many European countries' it would be a GE every six month in the worst cases or really weak and ineffective government that no one wanted or voted for.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You can see why the Lib Dems want it, it would be huge for them, it's hard to know what it would mean accross politics though, potentially a bigger voice for the minority parties.  Good and bad points to that isn't there?

[BobG]

The unions block Labour support of PR because it would marginalise their influence. But Labour will grow closer to supporting it because without it we now have either a one party democracy, or, a left leaning pact. That's the stark reality for left leaning folk in this country today. Support either PR or pacts, or face a lifetime of meaningless, pointless gesturing in opposition. Billy is right. Anyone who votes for any third party in any seat where Lab/Conservative is the real choice is voting for a  Conservative MP. The same principle applied in reverse to the Tory Party when UKIP was splitting the Tory vote.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Tories will never ever support PR because there has almost never in the past 50 years been a centre and right majority in the country. They have almost always dominated the right wing vote, so they are all but guaranteed 35-45% of the vote. And while the centre and left vote is split between Lab, LD, SNP, Green and PC, 40% of the vote is usually enough to give the Tories a majority in the Commons.

FPTP can only ever be justified democratically if the vast majority of seats have the vast majority of votes only going to two parties, like they did for most of history until the mid 1970s. With multiple parties competing and polling well in most seats as they do these days, FPTP is deeply undemocratic and should be got rid of if we truly want to be a representative democracy.

[Bristol Red Rover]

It's more than simple PR though. Most PR systems give relatively small areas several MPs, which plays to the idea of locally based MPs but still maintains the major Parties in control.

I think it's better to scrap that idea and allocate on a nationwide basis. Parties would then delegate MPs locally. And, to give more say locally, local councils should be given much much more power. That's where "local" matters.

Yes, this would mean BNP or the Communist Party could have MPs, but so be it. Marginals representation is democracy.

More important tho than any of this is to ban donations by anyone for parties. That is so undemocratic and corrupt. . The party funding should come from a central fund based on popularity of a party.

[BobG]

Hear hear. Hear bloody hear BRR!!!

And no sodding outside jobs either. Pay MPs a million a year. But no outside jobs and no job at all for 2 years after leaving politics. If they get paid enough as MPs that would be no hardship.

BobG

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's more than simple PR though. Most PR systems give relatively small areas several MPs, which plays to the idea of locally based MPs but still maintains the major Parties in control.

I think it's better to scrap that idea and allocate on a nationwide basis. Parties would then delegate MPs locally. And, to give more say locally, local councils should be given much much more power. That's where "local" matters.

Yes, this would mean BNP or the Communist Party could have MPs, but so be it. Marginals representation is democracy.

More important tho than any of this is to ban donations by anyone for parties. That is so undemocratic and corrupt. . The party funding should come from a central fund based on popularity of a party.

Two things I'd have a problem with with that.

Firstly, the electorate would have no say about whoever represents them, they would be imposed on them instead.

Secondly, they would not be able to get rid of any MP that they don't want.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Yep, a problem when it gets to simply voting for parties nationwide. In the Euro elections we had a list you could pick from. In a similar way it could be we get several votes to give to choices in a region. Democracy eh!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn
That's a very second order problem compared to the issue of many MPs getting elected on 35-40% of the vote in multi-candidate constituencies.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

But it could also see someone with a low percentage of the vote representing an area and that doesn't feel right either?

I'm not actually sure there is a perfect solution and I also don't have much taste for the current structure either.  My vote is essentially meaningless as an octopus would get in for labour here.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn
That's a very second order problem compared to the issue of many MPs getting elected on 35-40% of the vote in multi-candidate constituencies.

To you it's a second order problem, to me Party Lists are very much a first order problem.

No way does this country deserve to be stuck with a cartload of Nadine Dorries that nobody anywhere in the whole electorate can unseat.

I'd go for Single Transferable Vote as used in Scottish Local Government elections currently:

https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info/200237/elections/761/previous_election_and_referenda_results/3

It keeps the representative/constituent relationship; the vote is for a candidate not a party; the winner has to get a majority preference of the electorate; and it is tried and tested with British voters so no-one can come up with the condescending old chestnut of it'd be too complicated for them.

[tyke1962]

Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521

It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...

Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.

Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else  to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.

Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?

Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .

However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .

Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?

Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .

[Glyn_Wigley]

Presumably if an MP on a party list dies, someone else will suddenly be anointed as an MP without anything being put to the electorate.

No-one will convince me that that is in any way democratic.

[scawsby steve]

Hear hear. Hear bloody hear BRR!!!

And no sodding outside jobs either. Pay MPs a million a year. But no outside jobs and no job at all for 2 years after leaving politics. If they get paid enough as MPs that would be no hardship.

BobG

Pay those f*cking clowns a million pounds a year? For spending half their time on the Westminster veranda p*ssing it up?

Yeah right.

[Draytonian III]

Whatever system is in place for next general election I won’t be voting Labour after Tony Blair sold the country down the river. Feel free to slag me off but I shall stick to my opinion/view

[BillyStubbsTears]

Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521

It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...

Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.

Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else  to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.

Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?

Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .


However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .

Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?

Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .

Tyke.
It's about Conference votes.

Last year there was a vote at Labour's Conference demanding that PR be in the next Labour manifesto.

85% of individual members voted for it. 95% of union votes went against it.

The motion was defeated.

It's got nothing to do with Starmer's opinion of unions. It's about Labour party democracy.

I'll say again, the only thing holding Labour back from embracing PR is the half century out of date attitude of the unions. If they change their stance, PR will become party policy.

[danumdon]

I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.

I'm not sure that thinking would manifest itself if we happened to introduce some sort of PR system.The party lineup could be as wide as the Atlantic with many a subtle change and alteration in differing parties thinking and policies, remember a great many people could be socially liberal but economically conservative and vice versa, no one size will fit all and the electorate will be very aware of this.

No one i know has ever voted in a manner to want to produce a coalition government. The voting populace are rather more sophisticated than people give them credit for(the ones who actually vote)they would not play along with certain party lines or supposedly political associations just because certain parties  believe their focus groups have told them.They would see through this type of horseplay and still vote to their own personal requirements, wherever the constituency they happened to vote in and would not see it as a wasted vote but that they'd had their 10p's worth of democracy.

Also like others have stated, nobody wants a political party to impose certain individuals on them picked off lists, they want individuals they can relate to, hold accountable and if it pleases get rid, to me that all sounds like that shower we only just managed to extricate ourselves from.

When someone tells you they know whats good for you personally is the time when your ears prick up and you want to see and hear some sort of accountability from them. There's no golden bullet here, all types of governance have their pros and cons.

[Branton Red]

Strengthening democracy and individuals' democratic rights has been a positive for all peoples throughout history.

There is an echo from the past when opponents to PR say it may lead to bad outcomes. It mirrors what establishment figures said when arguing against increasing the franchise historically - the poor can't be trusted with the vote; women can't be trusted with the vote.

I.e. People are too stupid and can't be trusted to make the right decision. This is essentially an argument against democracy. History has shown that both those historic and current naysayers are wrong.

Democracy isn't perfect but it is by far the best (as well as fairest) form of Government ever tried. We should always be looking to strengthen our democracy and never be to afraid to do this.

Full PR in the HoC and a fully elected HoL on a constituency basis, so people still have a local elected representative to take their grievances too, would be my choice.

[tyke1962]

Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521

It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...

Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.

Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else  to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.

Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?

Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .


However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .

Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?

Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .

Tyke.
It's about Conference votes.

Last year there was a vote at Labour's Conference demanding that PR be in the next Labour manifesto.

85% of individual members voted for it. 95% of union votes went against it.

The motion was defeated.

It's got nothing to do with Starmer's opinion of unions. It's about Labour party democracy.

I'll say again, the only thing holding Labour back from embracing PR is the half century out of date attitude of the unions. If they change their stance, PR will become party policy.

Fair do's .

[SydneyRover]

''‘Huge boost’: UNISON vote to back proportional representation
“UNISON members want a proportional system that properly reflects the voice of working people."''

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/huge-boost-unison-vote-to-back-proportional-representation-326706/?utm_medium=referral&

Apologies if this has already been posted

[drfchound]

''‘Huge boost’: UNISON vote to back proportional representation
“UNISON members want a proportional system that properly reflects the voice of working people."''

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/huge-boost-unison-vote-to-back-proportional-representation-326706/?utm_medium=referral&

Apologies if this has already been posted

This from the Guardian in May 2021:

“At Labour’s annual conference this week, a motion is to be put forward calling for the party to back proportional representation (PR) for the election of MPs to the House of Commons.

There are many philosophical arguments that can be made against PR. PR makes coalition governments the norm rather than the exception. It reduces the ability of a party to deliver on its manifesto promises. It gives disproportionate weight to small parties. It encourages a more transactional form of politics, based on post-election horse-trading. It produces a more fragmented, inward-looking form of politics, whereby parties no longer need to seek broad-based electoral support in order to achieve power.

These ideas are worth debating, but there is a more immediate reason why Labour should not support PR: it would be electorally catastrophic for the party. PR would mean the end of majority Labour governments and possibly the Labour party.”

[Donnywolf]

I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.

I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever

I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections

I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.

Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish

Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course

It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)

So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status

I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely

[albie]

The biggest potential benefit of PR is the chance to bring those who do not vote back into the debate.

I have no problem with people choosing to abstain, but that is different from being outside the arena covered by the main parties. Anything which increases participation is welcome, and if your vote counts under a new system there is more reason to take part.

A good move from Unison IMO, and we need a proper review of the voting system AND the constitution, to create a modern democratic system.

PR will of course, break the model of the existing political parties.
Labour will split between the neo liberal extreme centrists,who may merge with the LD's, and the socialist left. Funding will divide likewise, and that will change the whole landscape.

The Tories are unlikely to remain as a single unit, with the ERG dominance over the legacy conservatives, like Dominic Grieve.

As others say, the system would need to allow for a democratic renewal.
The idea of a job for life, for a candidate parachuted in from outside, is offensive to voters ability to control the elected member. The scandal of Labour imposing a candidate in Wakefield is an example of abuse of the democratic process.

It is only a player if the UK has a hung parliament, where a coalition is needed to give the numbers for support.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.

I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever

I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections

I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.

Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish

Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course

It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)

So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status

I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely

Your kind of PR gives extremists more power, not less, by rewarding them with seats they can't win at present.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..

[Donnywolf]

I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.

I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever

I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections

I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.

Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish

Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course

It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)

So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status

I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely

Your kind of PR gives extremists more power, not less, by rewarding them with seats they can't win at present.

Or maybe people don't vote for the known extremists .... but I was talking re Tory extremism as we have at the moment .... and which 57% don't want

.... or Labour extremism when union power was rife who lots of people did not like

Anyway F1 starting that's me done as I have said before I realise I will not change the views of a partisan and neither will they change mine

[Glyn_Wigley]

There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..

But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't?

[albie]

I am with Glyn on this.

Just because someone seems "extreme" to you is not a reason for exclusion.
For a democracy to work, all opinions are in the mix.

The real benefit is breaking the logjam of disaffection by giving representation by proportion.
Move the ossified establishment from their comfy perch and see how the cookie crumbles.

Artificial bars to entry simply erode trust, and make it look like a rigged set up....because it is!

[drfchound]

I am with Glyn on this.

Just because someone seems "extreme" to you is not a reason for exclusion.
For a democracy to work, all opinions are in the mix.

The real benefit is breaking the logjam of disaffection by giving representation by proportion.
Move the ossified establishment from their comfy perch and see how the cookie crumbles.

Artificial bars to entry simply erode trust, and make it look like a rigged set up....because it is!

There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..

But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't?

Absolutely this.
BST supports PR as long as it is rigged his way.
His kind of democracy.