Next General Election (snap election or 2025 ish?)

[roverstillidie91]

I've been taking more of a vested interest in what's been happening politically over the last few weeks.

Everything just seems a bit of a mess from partygate to labour (who in my eyes aren't any good to take over but then again I don't want a Conservatives either and not sure about the others).

I strictly stuck to lockdown rules and then for myself personally, my Grandad died of cancer last year and hardly seeing him since Covid 19 and with Partygate coming to light, Conservatives won't ever be under my consideration for a vote. Neither will Labour (who I believe Keir Starmer broke the rules anyway despite being let off) and whom won't be getting my vote Labour.


So my question is, is it time for a change to go away from Conservatives and Labour or stick with 1 of the status quo.

Is there actually a party who can bring a refreshing change?

And should there be a snap election (2025 seems a long time away)

Thoughts everyone?

[Ldr]

I’m going to vote for all the options on the ballot, no favouritism here :-)

[Donnywolf]

57 % of those that voted in last GE [13 million did not bother] registered anti Tory votes. Tories got a massive 80 Seat majority with just the other 43% of the votes

The Electorate are being programmed ,cajoled   persuaded and prodded towards voting for the Candidate "most likely" to prevent the Tory candidate from winning in THEIR Constituency

So my vote in Don Valley would be Labour whether I was a Labour supporter or not

Incidentally I found out my Constituency Don Valley includes Tickhill ?

Also it is proposed that it expands to include parts of Isle of Axholme probably to try to gentrify it

Sorry busted flush but we need PR soon

[drfchound]

Wolfie, that 43% of the vote was more than any other single Party could muster.
Are you saying that there should only be an option of two Party’s to vote for.
A very prominent poster said recently that a vote for a Party that can’t win is a waste of a vote and that one who could only get a small percentage of the vote shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
Is that democracy.

[Bentley Bullet]

If you make the goals bigger because you're not scoring enough you make the goals bigger for your opponents too.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Awful analogy as usual BB.

The FPTP system as it currently works is more like a Hungry Hippos game

On the Right hand side of the arena there's one mouth.

On the Left there's half a dozen.

The winner is the single mouth that gobbles most balls. (No reference to a Johnson aide there...)

Under PR, the hippos on the left would be able to pool all their winnings. And since they typically get 55-65% of all the available balls, the Right would never win again.

[SydneyRover]

yeah, but when they are scoring more own goals .................

[drfchound]

Awful analogy as usual BB.

The FPTP system as it currently works is more like a Hungry Hippos game

On the Right hand side of the arena there's one mouth.

On the Left there's half a dozen.

The winner is the single mouth that gobbles most balls. (No reference to a Johnson aide there...)

Under PR, the hippos on the left would be able to pool all their winnings. And since they typically get 55-65% of all the available balls, the Right would never win again.

So am I right in thinking that if Labour can’t win by themselves they need to have the back up of several othe Party’s to form a government.

[Bentley Bullet]

Awful analogy as usual BB.

The FPTP system as it currently works is more like a Hungry Hippos game

On the Right hand side of the arena there's one mouth.

On the Left there's half a dozen.

The winner is the single mouth that gobbles most balls. (No reference to a Johnson aide there...)

Under PR, the hippos on the left would be able to pool all their winnings. And since they typically get 55-65% of all the available balls, the Right would never win again.

No surprise there BST. You've not been right much in the past and I don't expect you to change the habit of a lifetime now. I'm not against PR, but the Tories would still have been the largest party under PR rules after the 2019 GE.

No doubt your great leader will insist on PR when he becomes PM!

[Donnywolf]

Wolfie, that 43% of the vote was more than any other single Party could muster.
Are you saying that there should only be an option of two Party’s to vote for.
A very prominent poster said recently that a vote for a Party that can’t win is a waste of a vote and that one who could only get a small percentage of the vote shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
Is that democracy.

No ... its just better imo that all votes cast have a proportionate share of the Seats whoever or whatever Party they support

43 % for Johnson or Thatcher or Blair should get them 43 % of the Seats and the other Parties get 57% -of the Seats.

That would then make each person's vote the equal.of every other person's vote

At the moment 13 million don't even bother voting  with lots saying I don't vote cos Lab or Con always win here anyway and I can see why they would say that

BUT if those people wanted to vote Green Party and 7 % DID vote that way they would immediately get 47 Seats ish rather than the 1 they get every time

If in a following election the 13 million saw their vote DID in fact look worthwhile and or they like what the Green Party had done with that extra power they might double that 7% to say 15 and double the number of Seats. Similarly Lib Dems could benefit with say 25 % of the Vote getting them 128 Seats ... maybe more the next GE

So this works well over most of mainland Europe where only us and Belarus don't use PR ... so I don't want just the big 2 to benefit from FPTP and bugger those who vote UKIP Green Lib Dem . I see those as wasted votes YES but only under this system and I want to see all votes and all voters counted equally

[drfchound]

Wolfie, Do you think that Labour would push for PR if they were to ever get back into Downing Street.

Having just done a Google search (apologies Glyn) if I am reading it correctly, no winning GE Party has ever achieved 50% or more of the vote.

[Donnywolf]

They never have done as far as I know but there is such a groundswell of Organisations (Make votes Matter) for example who are turning people's heads

As usual the stumbling block to some Labour policies has been the positions of Unions but I keep seeing that several of them now support the concept of PR and they have a working list of current Lab MPs who (say) they are behind it now

The other way Labour might have to go for PR is if they are the largest Party at the next GE but need Lib Dems and or SNP to form a Govt

The DUP took Mrs May for 2 billion was it but Lib Dems would have PR at the top of their demands and SNP I expect could come up with demand for recognized Indy Referendum

So Sir KS might have no choice but to put it to the people and I can't see why they and the people would not go for it

There should be no further extremism fromnthat point onwards. I see it maybe naively that the centre ground common sense people would hopefully always have a majority of Seats in such a system

Phew I don't do politics either ... It's a lesson in futility

[Donnywolf]

Update ... I just looked at MVM website because I wasn't sure you weren't right with the no Party has had more than 50% of the vote

I cut and pasted this which seems to suggest it does happen but very rarely (like BB getting a Round in )

Minority rule
The idea of a minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy. But with First Past the Post, it's the norm. For about 90% of the time since 1935 we've had single-party 'majority' governments, but not one of them had the support of a majority of voters. The Conservatives currently hold a majority of seats with just 43.6% of the votes. In the 2019 election they gained an extra 48 seats despite an increase of only 1.2% of the vote share. Almost since the first general election, politicians who most of us didn't vote for and don't agree with have had the power to govern the UK however they like.




Edit .... Since 1918 I found just 1 example over 50% in 1935 I think it was. That was 60 + per cent .... and thee was a 49.8 sometime but of course that's not over 50%

[BillyStubbsTears]

FPTP can only really be defended if there are only two seriously supported parties contesting each seat.

As far as I can see, the last time that happened was when the Tories and Liberals contested the 1868 General Election. The Liberals won 61% of the vote and 59% of the seats, which seems fair enough.

At the next election in 1974, the Liberals had split into the Liberal party and the Home Rule party.

Results were:

Party - % of votes - % of seats
Lib     -    52          -      37
HR     -      4          -       9
Tory   -     44        -       54

Ever since then the system has been fundamentally undemocratic. Governments have had more or less untrammelled power while never having the support of a majority of the population.

It's stayed the same partly through inertia, partly because whoever were the two biggest  parties had it in their interests to keep it that way and hammer down the smaller parties. But it is so unfair now that it has to change. The Greens or UKIP getting 5-10% of the vote spread across the country but getting 0-1 MPs is a disgrace. Similarly, the SNP getting 45% of the vote i Scotland but 95% of the MPs is simply wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS: Only twice in the past 136 years has a single party won more than 50% of the vote. That was the National Party in 1931 and 1935, when the majority of the Labour party merged with the Tories during the Great Depression crisis.

[danumdon]

https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/newsroom-2/2019/12/16/poll-three-quarters-of-labour-members-want-proportional-representation

Would you still be thinking this way if the SNP had never hit their peak and the Labour party still reigned supreme in Scotland?

I don't remember much of a debate from the Labour hierarchy when this was the case, Labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, nobody fell over themselves because of the FPTP system then.

What would now happen if Labour manage to become the largest party at the next election, i can't see Keith deciding to add a PR referendum to his yet to be revealed policies, why would he? he's already stated that he's not looking to have any truck with deals or agreements with other parties, does this not mean that PR is off the radar for him, Union or no union obstruction.

The link states that 75% of Labour voters wanted some form of PR after the loss in 2019, If labour won the next GE what percentage do you thing it would then stand at for PR, I'm surmising very much lower.

[Donnywolf]

Just to answer your last paragraph I would expect a huge number of the 75% would still be pro PR

In one of my posts above I did say there were several pro PR Unions now

I shamelessly pinched this from MVM and it says these unions back PR or the demise of FPTP

Unite the Union

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

Prospect

University and College Union (UCU)

Fire Brigades Union (FBU)

Musicians’ Union (MU)

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF)

Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA)

Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU)

Napo (Probation and family court staff)

In addition, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) recently unanimously passed a motion calling First Past the Post an “undemocratic election process” which “heavily contributed to a polarised UK, with a disillusioned and disengaged electorate”. The union will now establish a national policy forum to discuss the merits of PR

Looks like Sir Keir would get quite a backing for it

[River Don]

Our constituency is fairly solid tory. The libs and lab would need to come to an agreement over who stood against the tory to have any chance of getting him out. Personally I think the Lib Dems would be in a better position to do that.

However if there is no pact, then I might vote Green because of climate change or the Yorkshire party because I think the region is not well served by the current mayoral system. But both those would be token votes.

I ticked undecided.

Generally though, at the moment I'd vote against the tories because I don't think they are managing the economy well.

[Ldr]

Just to answer your last paragraph I would expect a huge number of the 75% would still be pro PR

In one of my posts above I did say there were several pro PR Unions now

I shamelessly pinched this from MVM and it says these unions back PR or the demise of FPTP

Unite the Union

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

Prospect

University and College Union (UCU)

Fire Brigades Union (FBU)

Musicians’ Union (MU)

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF)

Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA)

Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU)

Napo (Probation and family court staff)

In addition, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) recently unanimously passed a motion calling First Past the Post an “undemocratic election process” which “heavily contributed to a polarised UK, with a disillusioned and disengaged electorate”. The union will now establish a national policy forum to discuss the merits of PR

Looks like Sir Keir would get quite a backing for it

Out of how many unions is that Wolfie?

[Donnywolf]

I don't know Ldr . I long since stopped posting on Political threads and only did so today with my reply #2

After that I have replied to 2 questions of me but in answer to yours I honestly don't know.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/newsroom-2/2019/12/16/poll-three-quarters-of-labour-members-want-proportional-representation

Would you still be thinking this way if the SNP had never hit their peak and the Labour party still reigned supreme in Scotland?

I don't remember much of a debate from the Labour hierarchy when this was the case, Labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, nobody fell over themselves because of the FPTP system then.

What would now happen if Labour manage to become the largest party at the next election, i can't see Keith deciding to add a PR referendum to his yet to be revealed policies, why would he? he's already stated that he's not looking to have any truck with deals or agreements with other parties, does this not mean that PR is off the radar for him, Union or no union obstruction.

The link states that 75% of Labour voters wanted some form of PR after the loss in 2019, If labour won the next GE what percentage do you thing it would then stand at for PR, I'm surmising very much lower.

I've supported PR for decades and I've said many times that Blair's biggest mistake by far was not going with his first instincts and bringing in PR when he won in 1997. That was a historic mistake, on the grounds of both  general moral correctness, and the fact that there would never have been the insane Austerity Governments of the past decade which have done so much damage.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just to answer your last paragraph I would expect a huge number of the 75% would still be pro PR

In one of my posts above I did say there were several pro PR Unions now

I shamelessly pinched this from MVM and it says these unions back PR or the demise of FPTP

Unite the Union

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

Prospect

University and College Union (UCU)

Fire Brigades Union (FBU)

Musicians’ Union (MU)

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF)

Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA)

Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU)

Napo (Probation and family court staff)

In addition, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) recently unanimously passed a motion calling First Past the Post an “undemocratic election process” which “heavily contributed to a polarised UK, with a disillusioned and disengaged electorate”. The union will now establish a national policy forum to discuss the merits of PR

Looks like Sir Keir would get quite a backing for it

The biggest union in the country, Unison, also voted to support PR last month.

It's coming. Probably straight after the next election.

[IDM]

Given that, in my opinion, most people vote for the party/leader they want to see in government/as pm or vote against the ones they don’t want, in theory who the candidates are in their local constituency is subsequently largely irrelevant.  Therefore PR seems a much fairer system. 

PR may also encourage folks who often don’t vote because they believe their votes are wasted, to actually vote..  I would go as far as to say that voting should be mandatory.

[scawsby steve]

There isn't an option for "none of them, 'cos they're all the same".

[IDM]

There isn't an option for "none of them, 'cos they're all the same".

In my opinion there should be a “none of the above” option in mandatory voting.  Then it is clear that these votes are actual choices rather than not being arsed to turn out and vote.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Awful analogy as usual BB.

The FPTP system as it currently works is more like a Hungry Hippos game

On the Right hand side of the arena there's one mouth.

On the Left there's half a dozen.

The winner is the single mouth that gobbles most balls. (No reference to a Johnson aide there...)

Under PR, the hippos on the left would be able to pool all their winnings. And since they typically get 55-65% of all the available balls, the Right would never win again.

"Awful analogy BST"  you have neglected to state  how many Oxpeckers each hippo has on its back  ... think you are getting into deep water here

Great analogy as usual BB.

[scawsby steve]

There isn't an option for "none of them, 'cos they're all the same".

In my opinion there should be a “none of the above” option in mandatory voting.  Then it is clear that these votes are actual choices rather than not being arsed to turn out and vote.

How the f*ck can there ever be mandatory voting? What are they going to do, fine everyone who fails to show? People just wouldn't pay the fines. They don't even pay them for more serious offences.

We live in a country that can't even protect people from having their heads kicked in, so I wouldn't worry too much about people not voting.

[IDM]

I have no idea, I just think it would be a good thing to have.

[wilts rover]

Since the formation of the Labour Party in 1900 FPT has more often than not delivered a Tory government.

If these had been run under PR system they would almost always have been a Non-Tory majority.

Labour should be looking at PR but it wont. Because as I have said before the Labour Party IS a coalition of a number of factions with very little in common with one another. Under PR these would split into their own parties - meaning the end of the LP as we (they) know it.

[drfchound]

Wilts, and some people won’t admit to.