[Politics] Proportional Representation

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Obviously people would vote differently under PR, but this is the results for a UK wide D'Hondt PR system. IMO you'd need a Federal / regional system like the EU elections for the UK

2017:

Conservative (42.72%): 280

Labour (40.34%): 264

Lib Dems (7.43%): 48

SNP (3.06%): 20

UKIP (1.86%): 12

Green (1.65%): 10

DUP (0.92%): 6

Sinn Fein (0.75%): 4

Plaid Cymru (0.52%): 3

SDLP (0.30%): 1

UUP (0.26%): 1

Alliance (0.20%): 1



2015:


Conservative (37.64%): 246

Labour (31.14%): 204

UKIP (12.93%): 84

Lib Dems (8.05%): 52

Green (3.70%): 24

SNP (3.26%): 21

DUP (0.97%): 6

Sinn Fein (0.80%): 5

Plaid Cymru (0.61%): 3

UUP (0.38%): 2

SDLP (0.32%): 2

Alliance (0.21%): 1


2010

Conservative (36.64%): 241

Labour (29.47%): 193

Lib Dems (23.40%): 154

UKIP (3.15%): 20

BNP (1.93%): 12

SNP (1.68%): 11

Green (0.91%): 5

Sinn Fein (0.59%): 3

DUP (0.58%): 3

Plaid Cymru (0.57%): 3

SDLP (0.38%): 2

UUP/NF (0.35%): 2

English Dems (0.22%): 1

Alliance (0.15%): None

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Obviously people would vote differently under PR, but this is the results for a UK wide D'Hondt PR system. IMO you'd need a Federal / regional system like the EU elections for the UK

2017:

Conservative (42.72%): 280

Labour (40.34%): 264

Lib Dems (7.43%): 48

SNP (3.06%): 20

UKIP (1.86%): 12

Green (1.65%): 10

DUP (0.92%): 6

Sinn Fein (0.75%): 4

Plaid Cymru (0.52%): 3

SDLP (0.30%): 1

UUP (0.26%): 1

Alliance (0.20%): 1



2015:


Conservative (37.64%): 246

Labour (31.14%): 204

UKIP (12.93%): 84

Lib Dems (8.05%): 52

Green (3.70%): 24

SNP (3.26%): 21

DUP (0.97%): 6

Sinn Fein (0.80%): 5

Plaid Cymru (0.61%): 3

UUP (0.38%): 2

SDLP (0.32%): 2

Alliance (0.21%): 1


2010

Conservative (36.64%): 241

Labour (29.47%): 193

Lib Dems (23.40%): 154

UKIP (3.15%): 20

BNP (1.93%): 12

SNP (1.68%): 11

Green (0.91%): 5

Sinn Fein (0.59%): 3

DUP (0.58%): 3

Plaid Cymru (0.57%): 3

SDLP (0.38%): 2

UUP/NF (0.35%): 2

English Dems (0.22%): 1

Alliance (0.15%): None

As you've made clear this is based on the current voting method and political system and is in no way representative of a vote under PR.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

But that wouldn't be a reason not to do it?

Not for me, no. I just think it would take time for people to realign themselves or build political parties that properly represented their views.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

As you've made clear this is based on the current voting method and political system and is in no way representative of a vote under PR.

Which to me, begs the question, how would people vote under PR. My initial reaction is that as seen elsewhere minor parties would benefit.

2010 would have seen an even further rise of Nationalist parties, and maybe even a breaking of the Lab/Con 1-2?

2015 - almost certainly Nigel Farage as Deputy PM

 

[Brovion]

You said we voted to keep FPTP, and more specifically "People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP." You can't tell us the only reason we don't have PR is because people voted against change, because we've never actually been offered PR as an alternative.

How exactly is what you wrote "a dig at PR supporters who voted to keep the current system"? It's nonsense.

As you pointed out, my first post was, deliberately, a bit disingenuous. The fact we still still have FPTP is because people voted for it. They voted for it for a number of reasons, some because they genuinely wanted to keep it and others because they were more voting against the alternative. As I pointed out that fact hasn't registered, all that people remember was that we had a vote and people decided not to change. So if you were a PR supporter who couldn't see the bigger picture and stupidly voted against change you've only yourself to blame that we still have FPTP.

 

[Simster]

As you pointed out, my first post was, deliberately, a bit disingenuous. The fact we still still have FPTP is because people voted for it. They voted for it for a number of reasons, some because they genuinely wanted to keep it and others because they were more voting against the alternative. As I pointed out that fact hasn't registered, all that people remember was that we had a vote and people decided not to change. So if you were a PR supporter who couldn't see the bigger picture and stupidly voted against change you've only yourself to blame that we still have FPTP.

Let's rewind, because all you're doing is repeating what you said in your second post - something I am not arguing with. I'll repeat the bit you wrote in your first post that I consider to be complete rubbish:

"People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP."

In that sentence, you are implying that the reason we don't have PR is that the vote between FPTP and AV resulted in keeping what we have. That simply isn't true. It's also not true to suggest that any pro-PR person has themselves to blame if they didn't vote for AV, because well, AV isn't PR is it?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Which to me, begs the question, how would people vote under PR. My initial reaction is that as seen elsewhere minor parties would benefit.

2010 would have seen an even further rise of Nationalist parties, and maybe even a breaking of the Lab/Con 1-2?

2015 - almost certainly Nigel Farage as Deputy PM

I think you'd see an emergence of some single agenda politicians, arriving on the landscape to get one thing changed or at least heard. For example:

I'm very keen for more NHS or Govt funding to go to hospices and for better alignment between hospices, which may see each other as funding competitors. Currently only around 9% of the cost of running a Hospice comes from the Govt.

Now I think if I started a movement and got 20-30 other independents to agree, in principal with this single point, (* I think you'd also have to form a united opinion broadly on other issues but be clear that your objective is raising the single point) you could pick up enough votes for one seat and then start to influence from there.

So, there are around 46.9m people eligible to vote and 650 seats in parliament, so roughly 72,000 votes per seat. If, and it's a big IF, you could get 30 people to stand for election (on a low cost basis) they'd each need to secure around 2,400 votes from a constituency of appx 55,000 voters?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I remember this debate from the 1980s. As a Lib Dem voter I have always been in support of PR. I think the coalition government 2010-15 showed that the public don't get it - which is why the Lib Dems were wrongly blamed for all of the ills of the government and decimated as a party.

I don't think the parties trust one another at all to produce good, joined-up long-term government.

I look today at the Two Party system with both the Tory Party and the Labour Party not just split over Europe but split ideologically within both parties. Government by either party is - in effect - a political coalition; for the Tories it is right-wing ERG Hard Brexiteers, resigned Leavers and a few hardy Remainders. The Labour Party contains everything from hard left renationalisers, Momentum, Remainers and moderate centrists.

And the House of Commons itself is this archaic structure where one bench opposes the other, forever locked in binary confrontation with the minor parties pushed to the side as Tory and Labour face off. The parties, the chamber, FPTP - all of it - is no longer fit for purpose in a 21st Century modern democracy. What progressive legislation we've seen affect daily life over recent decades has come largely from Europe - open borders, employee rights, environment laws etc.

Taking back control is bollocks when the government of the day is either led by Momentum / The Unions or City / Oxbridge public school old school tie brigade. For a moment there before Iraq / Afghanistan Tony Blair was onto something, I think he was the only leader in my 50 years that got anywhere near to being universally liked, and even that was only his first term.

 

[vegster]

At this point we need [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to post an opinion poll showing the Tories at least +3 % in the polls...…. despite Austerity, Food Banks, Increased poverty/ homelessness, Crime going up plus wage stagnation for the many combined with increasing inflation.

 

[Brovion]

Let's rewind, because all you're doing is repeating what you said in your second post - something I am not arguing with. I'll repeat the bit you wrote in your first post that I consider to be complete rubbish:

"People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP."

In that sentence, you are implying that the reason we don't have PR is that the vote between FPTP and AV resulted in keeping what we have. That simply isn't true. It's also not true to suggest that any pro-PR person has themselves to blame if they didn't vote for AV, because well, AV isn't PR is it?

I disagree. We had a golden opportunity to start the process of electoral reform and we didn't take it. After all I can't believe Clegg had suddenly become a supporter of AV has opposed to PR - but he campaigned for it as he knew that at least it WAS a change. (You could argue that he was out-manouevered by Cameron, but that's another debate). The defeat of his proposal enabled those who didn't want change to be able to say: "See? The British people prefer FPTP because that's what they voted for. Now let's have no more nonsense about change as there is obviously no appetite for it." Clegg knew that's what would happen, hence his support. And it's a huge pity that some other supporters of PR didn't follow his example.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Mention Hitler, lost argument etc...

I'd like to see a preference system introduced as we have up here in the enlightened capital when we vote for the major.

Why?

and....

Why?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is a stupid argument. How is it any better that 70% of the nation gets the worst excesses of the will of 30% foisted upon them, as is the case now?

Again, as opposed to 70% of the electorate now, who don't get any of what they want at all.

Godwin's law invoked. You lose.

1. Because 30 is a bigger number than zero.

2. See above

3. Even if this were true wrt point 3 (which it isn't: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate") it doesn't invalidate points 1 or 2 any more than it invalidates my saying that it is in the high 30s today where I am and it feels hot and humid.

So there.

 

[ofco8]

No.

 

[Weststander]

I remember this debate from the 1980s. As a Lib Dem voter I have always been in support of PR. I think the coalition government 2010-15 showed that the public don't get it - which is why the Lib Dems were wrongly blamed for all of the ills of the government and decimated as a party.

I don't think the parties trust one another at all to produce good, joined-up long-term government.

I look today at the Two Party system with both the Tory Party and the Labour Party not just split over Europe but split ideologically within both parties. Government by either party is - in effect - a political coalition; for the Tories it is right-wing ERG Hard Brexiteers, resigned Leavers and a few hardy Remainders. The Labour Party contains everything from hard left renationalisers, Momentum, Remainers and moderate centrists.

And the House of Commons itself is this archaic structure where one bench opposes the other, forever locked in binary confrontation with the minor parties pushed to the side as Tory and Labour face off. The parties, the chamber, FPTP - all of it - is no longer fit for purpose in a 21st Century modern democracy. What progressive legislation we've seen affect daily life over recent decades has come largely from Europe - open borders, employee rights, environment laws etc.

Taking back control is bollocks when the government of the day is either led by Momentum / The Unions or City / Oxbridge public school old school tie brigade. For a moment there before Iraq / Afghanistan Tony Blair was onto something, I think he was the only leader in my 50 years that got anywhere near to being universally liked, and even that was only his first term.

I've known many people from the left who hated Blair (pre Iraq), calling him a Tory in all but name. That socialism was betrayed. Many union leaders hated the bloke throughout.

The pre Iraq perspective is rose tinted.

 

[Weststander]

At this point we need [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to post an opinion poll showing the Tories at least +3 % in the polls...…. despite Austerity, Food Banks, Increased poverty/ homelessness, Crime going up plus wage stagnation for the many combined with increasing inflation.

So much bitter socialism on NSC political threads, with blinkered posts down strict party politcal lines. No flexibility.

I know many people, including some NSC members who can't be bothered to post on these threads, who vote Tory or LibDem, who hate the thought of Corbyn gaining power and are confident that he won't.

The posters dominating these threads, gives a very unrepresentative cross section. The 60% plus that won't be voting for Corbyn's Labour, remain unaffected by the brow beating. Pollsters and political journalists refer to the largest group as 'Shy Tories' - the many million of voters who don't bogged down in these 'debates'.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I've known many people from the left who hated Blair (pre Iraq), calling him a Tory in all but name. That socialism was betrayed. Many union leaders hated the bloke throughout.

The pre Iraq perspective is rose tinted.

The won by a landslide, the country needed a change, he positioned himself in the centre to make his appeal as broad as possible and in his first 2 terms we outperformed USA, Germany and France and rode the internet wave. Meanwhile the Tories were in disarray and finding themselves again after post-Thatcherism (I would say they've never found their way since, but that's another question).

Labour were pleased to be back in government, the Lib Dems were pleased to see a centrist leader and some Tories were pleased to see some of their policies being adopted by Blair. I'm not saying it was ideal but it was a government that had something for everyone, unlike the current Tory / Labour options that exclude everyone absolutely of a Remain and/or centrist persuasion.

 

[gazingdown]

Eh? On an election by election basis, the winning party gets in with around 33% of the vote. That means 67% of the electorate don't get what they want. That is what is relevant.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is nonsensical. You may as well say that 90% of the country vote LibDem or Labour or Cons, so 90% get what they want 100% of the time. That'll be comforting to LibDems or UKIP or Green voters then, who at times have made up more than 25% of the electorate between them.

What I meant was 70/80% of the voting population get what they want 50% of the time. e.g. over 20 years, 10yrs of Cons, 10 yrs of Labour. Under PR, it could be argued they never really get what they really want (or voted for as it were) as both parties would have to change some policies to placate whichever minority party they tie up with. So they end up implementing something that only a small minority want (and, depending on the policy, the majority are against!). So, Greens, far left groups, BNP (and, yes Lib Dems & UKIP) would get some (albeit not much) of what they want done. Up for discussion whether that's a good thing or bad thing!

FWIW, I don't have strong preference for FPTP or PR but it's not as simple to say PR means "fairer" representation as it can result in the opposite (i.e potentially a small party with dis-proportionate representation.

I think, with a 2 party country such as here (and other countries, the US being the most obvious) then I think FTFP may be the best way to go. In countries with more split parties (e.g. in countries with a 3 or 4 party split such as a few European countries) then PR of sorts is the best way to go as none of the parties all get to anywhere near 50% of seats in government.

Whichever system you have, the ruling people need >50% of seats/votes in parliament to put bills through. So, you'd still end up with Lab or Cons governments - question is, do you want them tieing up with the minority parties, both groups of which are likely to be further from the centre ground (i.e. far left or right).

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

So, given Mr Corbyn's desire for a party for the MANY not the FEW, I'm guessing he'll be all over PR ... right?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Now do we think consensus politics is the way ahead?

Clearly we need to break the ridiculous situation of pretend democracy, which party do you want either Con or Lab and if you live in Tory heartlands or Labour strongholds you don't need to worry as your vote doesn't count anyway. Look at how much these two parties spend in Essex compared with other parts of the country and you'll see why the non marginal areas don't matter a jot. We need PR now to allow EVERY vote to count.

 

[worthingseagull123]

FPTP keeps nutters like UKIP and the Green Party out the way.

Lets not have PR.