Lib Dem leader says people lending their votes to rival parties could shut the door on Conservatives at Westminster for years to come
It is extremely sad that we have to resort to using up our one chance in every five years to say what we don’t want from the country’s political parties. I would much rather use it on saying what would be good for the British people and not who would be bad. We have polls to verify what we do want, and yet we never get that opinion across to the people who are running for office. The idea that Starmer is holding the Labour to ransom over the fear of not removing the Tories is an abuse.
We need a PR voting system to stop the crazy that has been allowed into government. This idea that PR voting would allow the far right in is redundant. We are currently enduring a government that is being compared to the Nazi’s. A comparison with a lot of credibility. Our rights have been stripped away. They have a loud voice within the party that really wants to remove us from the ECHR. Good luck striking when that happens. Tolpuddle martyrs mark two inbound.
There is the idea that it would stop us choosing our local MP; this is ludicrous. Parachuting MPs into safe seats is a fairly familiar occurrence. A lot of the time you don’t get to choose your own candidate. There is an abundance of MPs who are neither local nor chosen by their own area. FPTP gives rise to a brand of placeholder MPs, who are in office purely to vote the partyline. Sometimes it is the thicker the better as it allows government legislation to be passed without hinderance. Having thick MPs who have no other priority than to keep themselves in a job is what kept Johnson in for so long.
The only good point for FPTP, imo, is that it is simple, but that simplicity just leaves it wide open to abuse.
Germany’s version of PR keeps local MPs
The UK’s versions of PR do too. We literally have in the UK right now:
-
STV elections for the Northern Irish assembly and Scottish local government; and
-
AV+ elections for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.
Both are ways of delivering proportionality and geographic representation at the same time (though STV is vastly superior - AV+ delivers proportionality by having two categories of representatives, whereas STV has both features incorporated into a single system).
Agreed. Yeah AV+ is essentially what the Germans have too
Not sure Mixed Member PR and AV are that close to be honest…
Oh I might just be confusing them
-
I hope there is some sort of synchronized effort to force Labour to abolish FPTP once they are in power. Most people I’ve been speaking to agree that it needs to go and even their own party base voted to change it. Surely that must be enough support to pressure Starmer.
It’s Labour that really needs to get the ball rolling on this. I fear it needs to be forced through Parliament and the Tories definitely won’t. That leaves only Labour capable of doing it with support from SNP and Lib Dems and Greens.
My big fear is that Starmer will talk cute about PR to get into office but then he’ll quietly ditch it for a generation “now is not the time”. Yes it fucking is! It’s about better representing the country democratically you double breasted oaf! Now is precisely the right time.
FPTP benefits large incumbent already established parties AKA the Tories and Labour. Neither will vote to decrease any perceived majority they might have. And round and round we go! You can understand it from the Tories… it’s just disappointing from Labour.
deleted by creator
@Greenseer @mannycalavera @SubArcticTundra @marcas AKA: Labour exists to keep the tories in power. But yes, because #PR will also exclude Labour from a parliamentary majority for ever. That they, more than the tories, would nevertheless be in government most of the time isn’t enough for them.
Anyway, Labour and Tories could win a majority in #PR any time they want: They just have to get more people to vote for them than against them. What a funny idea! 😱
deleted by creator
@happy @Greenseer @mannycalavera @SubArcticTundra @marcas yes, this is the labour leadership being the problem here, not the party as a whole. except, if the party ultimately can’t require that the leadership represents them, it doesn’t really make a difference to the rest of us what they feel.
Labour will never get the ball rolling on this. It’s the Lib Dems that will need to do it, and they’ll only get the opportunity in a hung parliament with a Labour minority.
Surely if Labour has a landslide and there are enough dissenters within the party, couldn’t they still find a majority with the SNP and an now stronger Lib Dem party?
In terms of theoretical numbers, sure. But 1) the Labour government will never put this motion forward i.e. dead before it’s started and 2) even if they were shamed into doing this they would whip so hard that there won’t be any dissent. So it doesn’t matter what the SNP and Lib Dem support would have been. That’s what is so utterly depressing about this. This should be front and centre in Labour’s drive for election. They can even spin it as a way of keeping the union together. But they’ll say more about ULEZ before they say anything about this. A generation wasted… again.
Oh, that really is depressing. I suppose our only hope is that the voices asking for it grow loud enough then… I’m too young to remember last time – do you think PR has become more of a mainstream issue in recent years? Because I’ve heard articles in the guardian as well as a people around me mentioning it
do you think PR has become more of a mainstream issue in recent years? Because I’ve heard articles in the guardian as well as a people around me mentioning it
I don’t think it has. The previous AV referendum had the same level of fringe interest too around a similar stage to this. The Lib Dems were the ones to push it through in coalition and against heavy opposition from the Tories (who watered it down) and veiled opposition from Labour (who like the EU question didn’t do jack shit and sat on the fence) so it absolutely tanked. It didn’t help that thousands of student voters saw this as an opportunity to “fuck tuition fees” and vote against anything supported by the Lib Dems. Since then I don’t think a lot has changed in terms of coverage or main stream support. And, you know, that other referendum happened…
For example: how often do you hear about this on the daily news cycle versus hearing about anything Brexit related? Instead of XYZ news story can be partly blamed on Brexit do you ever hear ABC news story might have been different and more equitable under PR? Literally every single political and economic story needs to be about this for a sustained amount of time before this becomes mainstream again. Or Labour needs to swallow their pride and force the issue for the sake of the country.
veiled opposition from Labour (who like the EU question didn’t do jack shit and sat on the fence)
The leadership sat on the fence, but nearly half of the parliamentary Labour Party actively campaigned with the Tories against electoral reform.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/29/no-to-av-support-114-labour-mps
By forced through parliament do you mean passed without the PM’s approval? Because that’s the way I see it happening, although I’m not so sure now that I see Starmer pruning MPs ahead of the next election
No sorry I don’t mean that. I mean Labour needs to whip their MPs into voting for PR. The whole Labour machine needs to get behind it. Which they’re not it would seem. Starmer will be PM at the time and he also needs to make a strong case and be passionate about it. Think BoJo and Brexit but with an actually sensible idea.
The only way that happens is if Labour are short of a majority and the Lib Dems force it on them as the price of letting Starmer form a government. To be honest, Starmer’s intransigence on this is a reason to forgo tactical voting altogether and just vote Lib Dem regardless until he gets the fucking message.
I just wish Labour were more willing to talk up the benefits of tactical voting to their voters - instead of expelling long-standing Labour members like Neal Lawson who have the temerity to talk about tactical voting during the Starmer era (in exactly the same terms he talked about it in the Blair and Brown era, who didn’t seem to mind…)
Starmer wants to use FPTP to his advantage and to win a stonking majority. He’s not going to do that with tactical voting. And he has calculated that anyone that strays from that message is to be eliminated. It’s politics time, lads!
deleted by creator
I’d vote for a chimp whose one policy was that they were going to tear my arm off.
deleted by creator
I know people who won’t vote (one who spoils his ballot every election) because “they’re as bad as each other” when they really aren’t. The only hope of salvaging public services, getting any kind of green policies, and just less mayhem is voting in anyone who isn’t a Tory.
deleted by creator
Do you think they’d be more likely to pass it a few elections down the line once they see growing support for the Tories again?
Blair/Labour promised this then lost the election. We have had Tories ever since. This is not a good one to procrastinate on.
I think that could definitely be an option - they’ll likely have a large majority this time round and do no incentive to change the system but, as the margin erodes over the years and they have to compromise more with other parties, this will likely be on the table.
Another factor is Scotland. It will eventually go and that would likely mean Labour would only ever win with a massive turnout in their favour. I also think there were concerns about boundary changed helping the Tories. That would mean the only way to keep the Tories out would be PR and Labour, less likely to benefit from FPTP, could decide it’s a better option for them.
I’m not so sure about Scotland. There have only been three elections since 1945 where Scotland was the deciding factor in the result, and one of those delivered the Conservative/LD coalition.
deleted by creator
They will not go for it because of protectionism.
