Snapshot of _Karl Turner MP: There is no such thing as a “dishonest electoral pact between LD’s and Labour”. Liar Johnson literally was elected on a “dishonest electoral pact” when @Nigel_Farage stood candidates down so as not to split the vote with Conservative. Have a think?_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/KarlTurnerMP/status/1540606039590162438/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1540606039590162438)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'll probably hear this a bit, but: PR has never been an option. The referendum was on AV (ranked choice for single candidates).
And it was largely lost because people wanted to give the LDs a shoeing for backtracking on tuition fee pledges: which was a pretty cunning tactical stroke by Cameron.
It was lost because AV as a system needs quite a bit of explaining, isn’t well understood, and the referendum saw lots of unfair put-downs (such as attack ads showing a race where the person who comes second wins).
Lib Dems were given the chance to have a referendum on AV, but the system up for referendum was battered by their governing partners. Had the referendum been on PR (a much better understood concept), it would have been much closer, since those in favour wouldn’t have had to first explain what the system was before being able to campaign for it.
> I remember the ads. "keep this premature baby warm. Say NO to AV."
That'd be the campaign run by the same [person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Elliott_\(political_strategist\)) that did the Brexit campaign. They learned a lot of what does and doesn't work from the AV campaign.
I’m Australian and it’s actually incredibly simple to explain. If your first choice doesn’t win, who is your second choice? No idea why they didn’t just say this…
People did say this, but logical explanations of how a voting system works doesn't tug at the heartstrings of morons like a sign with a picture of a baby that says she needs a maternity ward, not a new voting system.
They did, those opposed didn’t sit back and let a succinct explanation take hold, they spread nonsense and confusion aggressively . Ever heard the phrase “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”? This is what happened here, it was “the understood” vs “new political system that had to be learned”. Politics is cut-throat, it never stood a chance.
Brexit didn’t need explaining, it was be in EU vs leave EU, whilst the explaining was done via tabloids over 2 decades. If the tabloids spent 2 decades blaming all ills on FPTP and calling for MMP as a solution then yeah that would work. That’s not like to happen is it?
Straight PR would be shit. No local representation, 100% safe seats for high ranked party members, bottom tier loonies creeping in. STV is the perfect system imo.
> bottom tier loonies creeping in.
Would it really be all that worse than what we have now with, for example, Nadine Dorries not only being an MP but an actual minister in charge of stuff?
We just had a byelection in which the Tory candidate for a supposed safe seat hid in a leisure centre rather than face the press after a defeat. They already aren’t picking their best and bravest.
Dorries is shit but yes it could definitely be worse. The likes of that Britain First lady that stands in every by-election could probably wangle a seat.
Also I think that “hid in a leisure centre” thing has been a bit over blown. She was just facing a pretty horrifically embarrassing defeat and probably wanted a bit of time to herself to compose herself. Not all that bad.
I have to agree - if say 5% of people vote for some ultranationalist far right nonsense - then that's what 5% of the people want and a handfull of MPs get to represent them
That's PV and that's the will of the people - now thoes MPs are unlikely to be a huge deal, but in a coallition - they may get some influence....but that's what people wanted
You can't have representation of only your views, that's called a dictatorship
>No local representation
Why is this a problem?
And you can have local lists per region.
>100% safe seats for high ranked party members,
THOSE ALREADY EXIST...
>bottom tier loonies creeping in
No because in a PR system, those people would drag everyone down, so the other MPs wouldn't want to have them on their list.
Whereas now the grade A crazies can simply be placed in a seat wheree they will reduce the majority from 20 000 to 10 000, which you know, won't matter.
>No local representation
I moved to the UK in the early 2000's and have moved in and out of the country a few times since then in different places and not once have I had an MP that has more than a minimal link to the constituency.
So yeah, we've already got that bad bit of it.
Lol what. You have exactly that with PR. Infact Ireland arguably has too much local representation with PR. PR is good and returns a wide array of parties which forces coalitions which generally works well.
Ya fair. I didn't really understand your initial comment but you're dead right. Fat chance anyone in Westminster will want to use a system that an ex home nation uses though.
> No local representation
Local candidates can't do shit due to the party system. What you want is powerful local government with tax and spend powers.
>Local candidates can't do shit due to the party system. What you want is powerful local government with tax and spend powers.
Localised taxation is inherently and unavoidably regressive and can only further entrench regional inequality. It's a terrible idea that needs to die off.
>Localised taxation is inherently and unavoidably regressive and can only further entrench regional inequality
Why is localised taxation inherently regressive? For example, how would a local land tax be regressive?
The distributions of wealth and demand for public services are more or less polar opposites.
So to use your example, a land tax would raise less money in a poorer area than in a wealthier area if the rate were set at the same level; thus you need a higher rate of tax in the poorer area to fund the same level of services. Once you factor in the differing demands for services, that gap only grows larger. Poorer areas would be saddled with larger tax burdens just to meet basic requirements, while wealthier areas can both leave more money in their residents' pockets while providing 'luxury' public services. End result? The gap grows wider.
This isn't just theory, either; we see it in council tax bands across the country already, despite relatively tight caps on the rate of increase set by government.
The fairest approach is to centralise taxation, and localise spending. We do the first part quite well already, but are useless at the second part.
>The distributions of wealth and demand for public services are more or less polar opposites.
Your argument seems to be based on getting rid of fiscal transfers between rich and poor areas. I’m making no such argument.
A rich area might want to use its tax raising power to fund an infrastructure project or a new university, which breaks your "distribution" assumption.
Council tax is almost the worst form of taxation, and shouldn’t be used as an example to argue against good forms of taxation.
Taxation can have beneficial secondary effects, e.g. making land use more efficient.
>localise spending
How can you localise spending if you’ve centralised taxation? All this does is create more opportunities for corrupt pork barrel spending.
What sort of tax powers exactly beyond what we currently have? Different income tax rates depending on which region you are in? How would you define what region a person is in for such purposes? What happens if the local government disagrees with the national government, how much money should we spend resolving that each year for each region?
There is a mix of local and UK government, some areas you need extra resource to tackle specific local issues, some areas affect everyone and benefit from a single national approach.
>What sort of tax powers exactly beyond what we currently have? Different income tax rates depending on which region you are in?
Yes.
>How would you define what region a person is in for such purposes?
Where they live? - Or where they share with the place they work.
>What happens if the local government disagrees with the national government
But they do different things?
You local council makes local roads, not highways.
OK, so I live in one region, I move to another region mid way through the year, but I spend most of my time throughout this period in a third region. All 3 have different tax rates. Why shouldn't I just pay the lowest rate of the 3?
How would the local governments coordinate amongst themselves to enforce this tax, and how much money would you like them to spend? At the moment those forms are dealt with nationally, which office would you like it to go to, which form would you like it to go on?
My self assessment is due in 2 years, part of my income is property, part of it is earned through my business, do you want me to work all this out accurately 2 years from now?
How is the country supposed to know how much money it will have when it changes national policy and has to account for every single region having a different set of income tax rates? Or shall we just do away with the national government?
You should also know that there are many other things that work only because the basic rate is 20% e.g. pensions.
I chose income tax because that's one tax that has caused problems for Scotland and not really achieved anything apart from maybe a little evasion for those who cross the border, and it would all very quickly fall apart if you tried to introduce any more differentials.
Local taxation currently means council tax and parking fees, both of which are at the awful end of the spectrum.
Land value tax is at the good end, and neatly solves your questions.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have fiscal transfers, nor corporation with neighbouring or national government.
Expecting locally elected MPs to do something for the local area is almost always a pipe dream, because Westminster is run by parties.
I think MMP would suit the U.K. best. It's so easy to explain. You still vote for your local MP, but now you can vote for a party, too. A local vote and a national vote.
The only system that has a chance at a national poll is PR because it’s the only one that is well enough understood to withstand attack ads. Only alternative would be for a party to win at FPTP with AV, MMP or whatever as part of their manifesto and enact the change via parliament, which if it was for a system that’s not well understood would be controversial. A lot of these arguments are fantasy politics, really it’s PR vs FPTP as the only viable systems for U.K. national politics.
We’re a politics subreddit. We all engage and learn willingly, Any system that is put to a referendum that needs an explanation will just be torpedoed by folks who benefit from FPTP in the first week of campaigning. AV wasn’t difficult to explain but the mere fact that it needed an explanation killed it stone dead. Same would apply to MMP.
>The only system that has a chance at a national poll is PR because it’s the only one that is well enough understood to withstand attack ads
Its the one people used for 40 years in the EU.
It's the one people already have experience with.
MMP is pretty much the hardest to explain. Given how many list votes the SNP get in Holyrood elections (to very little benefit), it would seem that the electorate don't really understand it where it is already used, never mind where it isn't.
Well yeah when you're already sitting on a landslide the list vote isn't going to add much. Also the Scottish AMS seems to use a confusing regional list rather than just a national vote for a national party -- it's more complicated than New Zealand's MMP. Basically my vision of it is if you live in East London or Liverpool your vote should count even if you don't vote Labour -- but without a national party vote, it never will.
That would be rather problematic, as it would give disproportionate influence to voters in by-elections.
Take [Mixed-Member Proportional Representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation) as an example, in that system people vote for local candidates to directly represent them, but the balance of power in Parliament is determined by the popular vote.
So if someone who is directly elected is replaced by a member of another party suddenly Parliament is no longer proportional.
But unless there is a significant number of by elections, the shift in proportionality would be negligible, and there isn't a good way of making it 100% proportional anyway.
It could be set that if the paty/parties of government lose a certain % of their seats at by elections that a general election is called? Or maybe just a confidence vote in the government?
But we need to have these debates and conversations with more of the publicans more of parliament, rather than just finding potential issues with one form of PR and using that as justification to keep FPTP.
Quick edit: I'm not saying you specifically are trying to shut down conversation, just that it often happens. It's meant to be an additional point to add the the discussion, not a direct reaction to you so apologies if it came across like that.
>But unless there is a significant number of by elections, the shift in proportionality would be negligible, and there isn't a good way of making it 100% proportional anyway.
MMPR is fully proportional. Most PR systems are fully proportional (unless there are vote thresholds). By elections would operate on a significantly different electoral system than the general elections. To me that is rather problematic.
While it's not ideal it makes far more sense to simply let the party replace candidates in this instance then hold a by election under PR. As far as I know no country with any sort of party list PR (which is the only system which is truly proportional\*) has by elections. Because in the end that upends the very proportionality of the system.
\*I know that technically STV falls under proportional representation. But one only has to look at countries with STV to see it is not an actually proportional system.
Take Australia for example. Labour got 32.58% of the first preference vote, with this they got 51% of the seats in parliament. Meanwhile the Greens got 12.25% of the first preference vote and with that got 2.65% of the seats in parliament.
With MMPR you could maybe just remove the lowest person from the shortlist of non-constituency MPs for the winning party. To be honest I'm not particularly bothered either way as it is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
However I agree that you shouldn't just have a by-election MMPR without keeping it proportional, if a government performs very well in the constituencies and that's balanced out with fewer extra MPs from the national vote, they'd be at a disadvantage compared with a party who won fewer constituencies.
This is not correct.
So with your example where labor getting 32.58% of the vote and getting 51% of the vote. I believe you are talking about the Australian house of representatives which is not STV
From this link:-
The voting systems for the Senate and House of Representatives are quite different.
In the House of Representatives one candidate is elected from each electorate. The preferential voting system used in the House results in the election of the candidate supported by the majority of their electorate.
The proportional voting system used for the Senate enables multiple candidates to be elected at each election (6 from each state and 2 from the ACT and Northern Territory). Senators don’t need to be supported by the majority of voters in their state or territory; they need to receive a quota – a set percentage – of the votes in their state or territory. Proportional voting in the Senate has resulted in more independent and minor party senators being elected to the Senate than in the House.
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/why-is-the-voting-system-different-between-house-of-representatives-and-the-senate
So the house of representatives is a form of AV which as we know isn't proportional.
However the senate does use STV and in that election, Labor got 30.09% of the vote and 34% of the seats. Not 'perfect' (if by perfect you mean totally proportional) but 'better' than your example. Bearing in mind were talking about whole numbers of people, and districts, it's actually done a very good job.>
>isproportionate influence to voters in by-elections.
Why would there need to be a by election? If John quits and he was the Labour man in seat 7, well Labour promote Pete.....you're not voting for the local guy so much as the party much more with PR
My question would be how the heck independents would work
In MMPR you have both local candidates and party list candidates. So people might want some influence as to who their local candidate is. But there are many ways to solve that.
One possibility would be a 'primary' type election among candidates from the party that previously held the seat. Another would be a by election where the winning party (if it's a new party) would need to give up an at large seat to the party who lost. But in the end it's highly unlikely there would be any by elections.
Independents wouldn't really exist the way they do now. Because there is now a proportional national vote it's much more beneficial for them to form a party.
The answer is: "it depends".
How do you want it to solve it? Do you want to keep the proportionality? Does it really matter for the odd by-election?
If not, just run a normal by-election
You wouldn't have one. The PR system I'm familiar with, you elect a "list of names". If person A resigns, person B on that list would take its place. Usually you would have enough extra names for the small numbers of resignations.
In the Netherlands you vote for a party or individual member of the party.
Say a party gets votes for 20 seats. They'd put the top 20 people on their party list in those seats, unless someone low on the list is actually very popular with voters. Using this system if a seat empties up the party will fill that seat with the next name on the list.
If someone leaves a party however, they do not have to relinquish the seat and can stay in parliament as an independent or create a different political party. a bit like ChangeUK.
I'm not sure about by-elections, though I think under PR they don't really make sense (because they would shift proportionality).
If you want single seats you need some form of [Mixed-Member Proportional Representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation).
>Interesting question; what happens at a by-election under PR?
There are no by-elections.
In a list system, the party list designates the next person to take over.
How does it work, though? I can't imagine an independent would gain sufficient national vote share to gain a seat. Maybe in a regional list system like in Scotland?
Ireland uses STV for the Dail (Irish Lower House) and in the 2020 general election, 19 Independents were elected across the country out of a total of 160 seats.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_Irish\_general\_election#Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Irish_general_election#Results)
So it is possible for Independents to win seats in a PR system
I doubt the UK would go for a full nationwide list system. At the very least the individual nations would want their own desperate regions. Probably the various English regions too.
It wouldn’t dilute Westminster’s power. Parliament would have the same power as it already does. The MPs would just be elected in a different way.
The Tories and to a lesser extent Labour oppose it because it potentially affects their power and that’s the block. Not Westminster itself.
If you federalised England into devolved regions then Westminster's power would definitely be reduced. That's why Johnson has been trying to roll back devolution with things like the Internal Market act.
In addition to what /u/concretepigeon said, it depends on the system.
Pure [party list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation) systems effectively rule out independents, because the only options on the ballot are parties (or party candidates, in [open list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list) systems).
An independent could create their own party... but then they'd be a party. Plus, in a lot of countries they'd have to pass the electoral threshold, which might be something like 5% of the national vote, a tall order for an independent.
There's also a hybrid of party list and first-past-the-post, called [mixed-number proportional representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation), used by Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Germany, and others.
It has UK-style single-member constituencies in addition to regional or a national multi-member constituency.
Voters get two votes: one for an individual candidate in their local constituency, and another for a party in their region or the country as a whole.
Depending on the country, an independent could stand in a local constituency, although in Germany no such candidate has won in this way since 1949.
Given that quite a few people in the UK like having local constituencies, and that this system is already used in Scotland and Wales, it's worth thinking about this system, as it's a strong contender to be adopted by the UK, alongside the other popular option, STV.
What's the issue?
In party list systems, the voter voted for a party, and when a representative resigns or is removed, the next candidate in the party list takes their place.
Because the voter voted for the party, and the party list was public knowledge at the time of the election, this seems democratic.
Under STV, a by-election is held, quite like UK by-elections, but typically under alternative vote, rather than first-past-the-post. This also seems democratic.
It kinda works in list systems but it doesn’t work at all in STV. There are loads of different ways of filling mid term vacancies under STV. For example Northern Ireland utilise co-option whereas Scotland hold by-elections which undermine the whole point of STV as they aren’t proportional at all.
Ah, that's fair.
It is true that under STV, there is a risk that a by-election can throw off the proportionality of the legislature.
I tend to favour lists, so I can't speak much to the defence of STV in this regard.
This isn’t (just) complaining. This is campaigning. They’re aiming for floating voters and those who are debating whether to vote or not.
This is why a an official pact would never work.
I can't see PR in its true form working in this country. We need local representation at the highest level. Some MPs do amazing work for their local constituents and losing that would be problematic.
I think STV or the AV proposal from under Cameron is probably the easiest way to go, at least initially.
I mean, 3 of the 4 countries of the UK have a system with proportionality for all of their local elections and we manage it fine.
It’s England that’s dragging its heels over this. The major parties in our 3 countries support a form of PR at Westminster unequivocally.
Westminster designed a PR system for Holyrood. Labour no less.
Well no, England doesn't have it's own parliament. Sctoland has Holyrood AND Westminster, England just has Westminster.
Maybe the answer is an English parliament (or smaller regional parliaments) for the local representation and Westminster for overall control.
Because the English finance minister would control more money than the UK finance minister. It's not a viable concept.
Only way you can do it is by splitting England into regional parliaments, but invariably that gets compared to the devolution settlements (when in reality, what the UK lacks is a common feature of many unitary states -
Local (council) Regional (No good name in the UK) and then the top level.
Your council manages things like managing schools and the bins,
regional government manages things like transport, infrastructure higher education,
and then the goverment does the things that need unitary application and regulation.
You're gonna need at least a theoretical justification for why not. There are pretty good arguments, both pragmatic and principled, for an English parliament (or regional assemblies with equivalent devolved powers to the Welsh and Scottish devolved bodies). Resolving both funding disparities and legislative deficits is a pretty compelling reason to look at further devolution. Maybe we just need to further expand the GMCA and hand some more powers over.
Of course there are sensible pragmatic ones as to why an English parliament or devolved regional assemblies would be a disaster, too, but if you're going to just throw an unsubstantiated assertion that they shouldn't be 'allowed or [...] contemplated' then you need some preeeety big justifications in your pocket.
That's a fair point but also an indication that maybe government departments should have either local offices for public contact or some sort of virtual offices with actual faces constantly assigned to regions and powers to change cases outcomes.
It's insane how everything on this country requires your MP to intercede on your behalf because some gov department writes you saying "computer says no and this is final. Goodbye."
It may be insane, but it's how things are - and the bigger the change is, the less likely it is to happen. Changing the voting system is a massive enough change without also wanting to rip up local representation. I feel that at the moment, a change to include 16 year old voters and bring in STV would be accepted (and potentially pass a referendum). Getting rid of local MPs might be enough change to tip the balance to no.
Not saying that it couldn't be changed further in the future, but baby steps rather than massive leaps.
Not disagreeing but just stating that these should be two mutually independent issues/two sides of a pincer strategy.
You shouldn't need an MP in 99% of the cases. And I honestly believe that government departments would be significantly less cruel and more 'humane' if a case workers were forced to interact repeatedly, in a face to face environment, with the applicants.
Comments like this make it clear that a lot of the opposition to FPTP is basically just "I don't like the results it produces RN". Electoral pacts are going to be a thing in almost every other serious electoral system.
So what if the electorate wants to vote tactically?
We are still in a democracy and have every right to vote in any way we want, whether that’s to get certain people in or out of power.
I think the argument here is that it's not democratic because, by a party choosing to not fight for a seat in good faith, they are removing or diminishing the ability of voters to make that democratic choice themselves.
FPTP isn't democratic in the first place though. If tory get 30% of the vote, more than any other party, but the other 70% combined would all rather have anyone but tory, then you gotta do what you gotta do to fight back.
> There's a famous paper that takes six different systems and one election and shows that under each system a different candidate wins.
That doesn't prove that no system is democratic. One of those systems may well be a closer representation of voters' wishes than the others. If I held one election where voters were accompanied into the ballot box by a man with a gun and one where they were allowed to vote without interference, I expect I'd get two very different election results. That doesn't make them both equally valid and it doesn't mean that democracy is inherently flawed.
Edit: In response to your comment below, since I can't reply to it: It's really not a distinction without a difference. It's an assumption on your part that voters don't agree with the policies of those they are voting for.
>No system's democratic.
No system's is perfect that true. Perfect should never be the enemy of good though.
>you've just got to choose the least-worst option
The thing thou is that FPTP is the worst option.
But in reality it’s only undemocratic if candidates don’t stand. As, for example, the Brexit Party did in Conservative seats in 2019. This week the Lib Dems stood in Wakefield and labour stood in Tiverton. Voters chose not to back them but the choice was available to voters.
You can *reductio ad absurdum* the shite out of this too.
If this is unfair, then it's unfair if Monica, the single-issue candidate who believes that custard creams should be provided to the local Women's Institute meeting by the government, doesn't stand, because her views aren't being represented. Anyone who disagrees with the platforms being offered by candidates but isn't standing themselves is participating in an unspoken electoral pact.
Would probably make a nice little revenue stream though. Hundreds of fringe candidates in each ward, all losing their deposits on election night, could even send the election into profit.
The only reason they have their knickers in a twist is because you can roughly divide the electorate into two groups -
1. Want things to get better
1. Selfish gits
Group 1. is divided on HOW they want to get things to get better, so their vote is divided between parties (some of them even vote Tory).
Group 2. just want things to be better for them. These are the base Conservative voter. Some of them branched out into voting for Brexit issue parties, but the Tories didn't complain when that option was withdrawn from them, because their natural choice after deciding to vote that way was Conservative.
it's not undemocratic either. if party believes that the best it can do for the voters in a particular seat is not to put forward a candidate, that's what it should do. you can't reduce everything to a simple act of voting. parties fight for their interests and interests of their members, but putting forward the candidates is only one aspect of this struggle for power.
Labour and the Lib Dems both stood candidates in both seats. Nobody was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred party.
All this "pact" amounted to was Labour choosing not to pour time and money into fighting a contest that they didn't think they'd win, and ditto the Lib Dems.
That happens in literally every election. Every single party (including the Tories) will make judgement calls about which seats to fight and which not to every single general election (and every single local election too). The only unusual thing here is that the parties have chosen to do it in a by-election, where usually all parties go hell for leather.
It’s not more or less democratic if any party chooses not to stand a candidate.
Democracy is the ability to vote freely. If no one you want to vote for stands then the option to stand yourself exists
Define dishonest...
Both parties were upfront and agreed to run candidates in both byelections but asked voters to make tactical decisions.
No laws or promises were broken. The voters made their own minds up who to vote for.
What Suella Braverman is really saying is that we lost thanks to good organisation by the Lib-Dems and Labour and now I don't like the rules of the game. A typical do as I say not as we do Tory attitude.
It's the electorate voting tactically not a 'dishonest electoral pact' between parties. Perhaps she'd like to remove the incentive for tactical voting by changing the electoral system to something more sensible?
To the outside, that looks a lot like abusing the system to get into power, then rigging the electoral system to be more favourable in the future.
We all know that's bollocks, but the optics would be really bad and would open up a lot of criticism.
Absolutely, but I'm saying that's how lots of people would see it, and how it would be spun by the media. I hope it happens, but it would leave an open goal for criticism, especially if it doesn't get broad support.
Fine with me, let's see how long the entitled careerist right-wing neolib element of it lasts on its own without the lefty grassroots doing all the work.
I'm well aware, I'm not saying that it's a fair or non-hypocritical criticism, but it's still exactly what will be said by Tories and some of the media.
This doesn’t reliably have the effect that you might expect - ie increase the chances of the main challenger to the Tories. If the LibDem stands down, some of their voters simply won’t vote, and some will vote Tory instead. The same is even true of Labour voters. And the other effect is that it damages the local party and their volunteer network, as well as giving the Tories an attack line about undermining democracy etc. It’s been gamed out quite a bit, and the conclusion was that it’s better to stand but not campaign.
LOL no, that would be idiotic and the only effect would be to help the Tories get reelected. They've done enough damage to the country already, thank you very much.
I was listening to Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell's podcast where they mentioned she was previously a C-list government lawyer handling minor cases. At each of her two previous postings she wasn't hired back.
Seems she's genuinely quite useless.
You know what's a brilliant way to stop "dishonest electoral pacts" and tactical voting? Bringing in some form of proportional representation.
Just a hunch but something tells me they only care because the Tory lost.
Preferential voting (aka Alternative voting) is fine too IMHO. It doesn’t need to be proportional. In Australia there is both. Preferential in the lower house, and proportional in the upper house. It works well.
One of the primary benefits of PR is that starting a new party is doable. You can build it up over time. As it is, you can't - parties hold the power, not the electorate.
It allows corruption to fester and means decisions about the future of the country don't happen at the ballot box.
Under STV, this effect largely remains. We need competitive elections, not another way to bake in the existing parties and protect them.
They don't actually think it's dishonest, they're just trying to motivate erstwhile Tory voters to leave the house. Many people disgusted with partygate won't vote for the Tories, or specifically Boris, unless they think that they have to to prevent Labour getting in.
Why must the Tory party continue to rule with a minority while a majority of the country would choose them not to. If we had actual representation they wouldn’t be in government right now
How did we go from brexit is the will of the people to fptp is the will of the people
They might win the most votes but they would be unlikely to form a government with someone like Boris at the helm and a vote of no confidence would come a lot quicker
> Would they risk fielding a candidate like Johnson
You're very much over thinking this. They've just lost 2 by elections and are breaking records with their unpopularity yet still have Boris in power. They aren't as smart as you think, this country just loves the idea of conservatism no matter who represents it
I don't see how they can complain. Labour and the Lib Dems stood candidates in both constituencies. These comments do worry me as I feel like this could be setting up an attempt to overturn future results.
The current voting system does not encourage me to vote *for* any party. It encourages me to vote *against* a party,
It's irrelevant anyway; I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country. Except in 1997 I have *always* had to vote in a constituency where the Tories had more than 50% of the vote, rendering my vote irrelevant whichever party I support. In 1997, the Tory vote in my constituency was a mere 47.4%, so there was a *small* chance of them losing /s
Even when I was at University, I fell outside the city constituency and in the largest Tory majority in the country.
Any one saying this doesnt know labours history. Its first mps were all elected in 1906 by the liberals not running in specifc constituencys and labour, in return not running in any close liberal seats
Or the conservatives history, if you go back all the way to distant 2019 when the brexit party stood down in the Tory seats…
Bunch of lying hypocritical bastard tories.
Having met a few Oxford and Cambridge grads at my master's in Sheffield I am utterly convinced that Oxbridge is completely overblown and that whilst a minority of hard working and intelligent students do get there based upon their abilities, a very large amount of students are there through wealth and connection who do not in fact have the intellectual capacity we'd associate with Oxbridge grads.
I went to Oxford once. My very first impression of the place was a student in a tweed jacket walking down the street talking to a lecturer or professor in the most stereotypical posh accent you could imagine.
The rest of the trip didn't dispell any of that first impression.
Must be a weird electoral pact if LD and Labour both stand and campaign against each other in the same seats lol. What's actually happing is voters are so fed up with the bullshit at Westminster that they'll vote for the candidate with the greatest odds at beating them.
There clearly is an informal pact between Labour and the Lib Dems, but this is the point - it was fine between the Conservatives and Brexit parties, so should be fine here, too
Oh no, not hypocrisy! The general public will never stand for that!
There's this type of nerdy, psuedo-logic based approach to politics that (predominantly) left wing politicians think is effective but I'm pretty sceptical about it actually landing with the public.
I get that this stuff needs to be called out but epic gotchas and pointing out logical inconsistencies in your opponents stances does nothing to win over voters.
It seems like right wing parties realise they're in a street fight and left wingers think they're under Marquess of Queensbury rules.
The worst practitioners of this are the mainstream Democrats in the US. They seem to think that being the class swot and calling out procedural errors and general hypocrisy is enough of an offer to the electorate.
Meanwhile the Republicans aren't afraid to play dirty and subsequently they're now able to burn that country down and remould it in their preferred image.
Left wing politicians need to offer people material improvements to their lives and tickle their emotional buttons when necessary but this kind of stuff is just milquetoast pap.
>There's this type of nerdy, psuedo-logic based approach to politics that (predominantly) left wing politicians think is effective but I'm pretty sceptical about it actually landing with the public.
>I get that this stuff needs to be called out but epic gotchas and pointing out logical inconsistencies in your opponents stances does nothing to win over voters.
It's the Tories who are trying to tell people how they should vote, not Labour or the Lib Dems, so I don't know how you reach this conclusion from the topic under discussion.
How Democrats and Republicans behave in the US is irrelevant to this situation, which relates to UK politics, not politics in the US.
It's going to be awful when the lib dems will be the only party to have PR in their next manifesto and then force labour to adopt it. So a policy only 15% want will be imposed on the rest of us.
If the LD make big strides electorally then the odds are very high they do it via tactical voting from Labour supporters in seats where LD have a better shot of beating the Tories. It's not as cut and dry as you present.
Hey now, only the Tories are allowed to be dishonest! It's their birthright to be exempt from the rules and laws they impose on the rest of us but if there's the slightest whiff of strategy from the opposition, that's not ok and is communism or something.
I'll tell you what a dishonest election pact looks like. A dishonest election pact looks like the Tories and the Brexit Party agreeing not to stand against each other in seats where one or the other could win, in favour of standing in Labour seats, only for the Tories to then go back on their word and stand in every seat regardless, as they did in 2019.
That's *literally* dishonest!
I don't think there's a pact at an offical level but....locally I'd expect people to consider their options, and maybe votting lib/labour when they wouldn't normally ot not split the anti tory vote.....better to get Tory lite or whatever the Lib dems are growing into then, more Tory
Is it more worrying? is it really? How inane.
Odious lies, people vote as they choose. That includes any tactical voting needed to finally oust the Tories.
The Lib Dems are centrist while I see them want to team up to hurt the tories I can’t see it lasting very long. The last time they were in coalition hurt them and they are not going to rush into it quickly again.
There is also a mini civil war going in the labour between the leadership, parliamentary party and the membership. If I would ED Davy I would stay well clear of that mess.
Snapshot of _Karl Turner MP: There is no such thing as a “dishonest electoral pact between LD’s and Labour”. Liar Johnson literally was elected on a “dishonest electoral pact” when @Nigel_Farage stood candidates down so as not to split the vote with Conservative. Have a think?_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/KarlTurnerMP/status/1540606039590162438/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1540606039590162438) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If only there was a voting system that didn't necessitate such pacts...
[удалено]
You'll probably hear this a bit, but: PR has never been an option. The referendum was on AV (ranked choice for single candidates). And it was largely lost because people wanted to give the LDs a shoeing for backtracking on tuition fee pledges: which was a pretty cunning tactical stroke by Cameron.
It was lost because AV as a system needs quite a bit of explaining, isn’t well understood, and the referendum saw lots of unfair put-downs (such as attack ads showing a race where the person who comes second wins). Lib Dems were given the chance to have a referendum on AV, but the system up for referendum was battered by their governing partners. Had the referendum been on PR (a much better understood concept), it would have been much closer, since those in favour wouldn’t have had to first explain what the system was before being able to campaign for it.
I remember the ads. "keep this premature baby warm. Say NO to AV."
> I remember the ads. "keep this premature baby warm. Say NO to AV." That'd be the campaign run by the same [person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Elliott_\(political_strategist\)) that did the Brexit campaign. They learned a lot of what does and doesn't work from the AV campaign.
I’m Australian and it’s actually incredibly simple to explain. If your first choice doesn’t win, who is your second choice? No idea why they didn’t just say this…
People did say this, but logical explanations of how a voting system works doesn't tug at the heartstrings of morons like a sign with a picture of a baby that says she needs a maternity ward, not a new voting system.
They did, those opposed didn’t sit back and let a succinct explanation take hold, they spread nonsense and confusion aggressively . Ever heard the phrase “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”? This is what happened here, it was “the understood” vs “new political system that had to be learned”. Politics is cut-throat, it never stood a chance.
Meanwhile, brexit happened
Brexit didn’t need explaining, it was be in EU vs leave EU, whilst the explaining was done via tabloids over 2 decades. If the tabloids spent 2 decades blaming all ills on FPTP and calling for MMP as a solution then yeah that would work. That’s not like to happen is it?
Straight PR would be shit. No local representation, 100% safe seats for high ranked party members, bottom tier loonies creeping in. STV is the perfect system imo.
> bottom tier loonies creeping in. Would it really be all that worse than what we have now with, for example, Nadine Dorries not only being an MP but an actual minister in charge of stuff? We just had a byelection in which the Tory candidate for a supposed safe seat hid in a leisure centre rather than face the press after a defeat. They already aren’t picking their best and bravest.
Dorries is shit but yes it could definitely be worse. The likes of that Britain First lady that stands in every by-election could probably wangle a seat. Also I think that “hid in a leisure centre” thing has been a bit over blown. She was just facing a pretty horrifically embarrassing defeat and probably wanted a bit of time to herself to compose herself. Not all that bad.
If she can gain enough of the vote to win a seat then why shouldn't she have one?
I have to agree - if say 5% of people vote for some ultranationalist far right nonsense - then that's what 5% of the people want and a handfull of MPs get to represent them That's PV and that's the will of the people - now thoes MPs are unlikely to be a huge deal, but in a coallition - they may get some influence....but that's what people wanted You can't have representation of only your views, that's called a dictatorship
>No local representation Why is this a problem? And you can have local lists per region. >100% safe seats for high ranked party members, THOSE ALREADY EXIST... >bottom tier loonies creeping in No because in a PR system, those people would drag everyone down, so the other MPs wouldn't want to have them on their list. Whereas now the grade A crazies can simply be placed in a seat wheree they will reduce the majority from 20 000 to 10 000, which you know, won't matter.
>No local representation I moved to the UK in the early 2000's and have moved in and out of the country a few times since then in different places and not once have I had an MP that has more than a minimal link to the constituency. So yeah, we've already got that bad bit of it.
Lol what. You have exactly that with PR. Infact Ireland arguably has too much local representation with PR. PR is good and returns a wide array of parties which forces coalitions which generally works well.
Ireland uses STV.
Ya fair. I didn't really understand your initial comment but you're dead right. Fat chance anyone in Westminster will want to use a system that an ex home nation uses though.
> No local representation Local candidates can't do shit due to the party system. What you want is powerful local government with tax and spend powers.
>Local candidates can't do shit due to the party system. What you want is powerful local government with tax and spend powers. Localised taxation is inherently and unavoidably regressive and can only further entrench regional inequality. It's a terrible idea that needs to die off.
>Localised taxation is inherently and unavoidably regressive and can only further entrench regional inequality Why is localised taxation inherently regressive? For example, how would a local land tax be regressive?
The distributions of wealth and demand for public services are more or less polar opposites. So to use your example, a land tax would raise less money in a poorer area than in a wealthier area if the rate were set at the same level; thus you need a higher rate of tax in the poorer area to fund the same level of services. Once you factor in the differing demands for services, that gap only grows larger. Poorer areas would be saddled with larger tax burdens just to meet basic requirements, while wealthier areas can both leave more money in their residents' pockets while providing 'luxury' public services. End result? The gap grows wider. This isn't just theory, either; we see it in council tax bands across the country already, despite relatively tight caps on the rate of increase set by government. The fairest approach is to centralise taxation, and localise spending. We do the first part quite well already, but are useless at the second part.
>The distributions of wealth and demand for public services are more or less polar opposites. Your argument seems to be based on getting rid of fiscal transfers between rich and poor areas. I’m making no such argument. A rich area might want to use its tax raising power to fund an infrastructure project or a new university, which breaks your "distribution" assumption. Council tax is almost the worst form of taxation, and shouldn’t be used as an example to argue against good forms of taxation. Taxation can have beneficial secondary effects, e.g. making land use more efficient. >localise spending How can you localise spending if you’ve centralised taxation? All this does is create more opportunities for corrupt pork barrel spending.
What sort of tax powers exactly beyond what we currently have? Different income tax rates depending on which region you are in? How would you define what region a person is in for such purposes? What happens if the local government disagrees with the national government, how much money should we spend resolving that each year for each region? There is a mix of local and UK government, some areas you need extra resource to tackle specific local issues, some areas affect everyone and benefit from a single national approach.
>What sort of tax powers exactly beyond what we currently have? Different income tax rates depending on which region you are in? Yes. >How would you define what region a person is in for such purposes? Where they live? - Or where they share with the place they work. >What happens if the local government disagrees with the national government But they do different things? You local council makes local roads, not highways.
OK, so I live in one region, I move to another region mid way through the year, but I spend most of my time throughout this period in a third region. All 3 have different tax rates. Why shouldn't I just pay the lowest rate of the 3? How would the local governments coordinate amongst themselves to enforce this tax, and how much money would you like them to spend? At the moment those forms are dealt with nationally, which office would you like it to go to, which form would you like it to go on? My self assessment is due in 2 years, part of my income is property, part of it is earned through my business, do you want me to work all this out accurately 2 years from now? How is the country supposed to know how much money it will have when it changes national policy and has to account for every single region having a different set of income tax rates? Or shall we just do away with the national government? You should also know that there are many other things that work only because the basic rate is 20% e.g. pensions. I chose income tax because that's one tax that has caused problems for Scotland and not really achieved anything apart from maybe a little evasion for those who cross the border, and it would all very quickly fall apart if you tried to introduce any more differentials.
Local taxation currently means council tax and parking fees, both of which are at the awful end of the spectrum. Land value tax is at the good end, and neatly solves your questions. I'm not saying we shouldn't have fiscal transfers, nor corporation with neighbouring or national government. Expecting locally elected MPs to do something for the local area is almost always a pipe dream, because Westminster is run by parties.
I think MMP would suit the U.K. best. It's so easy to explain. You still vote for your local MP, but now you can vote for a party, too. A local vote and a national vote.
The only system that has a chance at a national poll is PR because it’s the only one that is well enough understood to withstand attack ads. Only alternative would be for a party to win at FPTP with AV, MMP or whatever as part of their manifesto and enact the change via parliament, which if it was for a system that’s not well understood would be controversial. A lot of these arguments are fantasy politics, really it’s PR vs FPTP as the only viable systems for U.K. national politics.
MMP is just PR and FPTP merged, not exactly difficult to understand.
We’re a politics subreddit. We all engage and learn willingly, Any system that is put to a referendum that needs an explanation will just be torpedoed by folks who benefit from FPTP in the first week of campaigning. AV wasn’t difficult to explain but the mere fact that it needed an explanation killed it stone dead. Same would apply to MMP.
Back in the 90s New Zealand ran these to explain the "party vote" part of MMP: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mVoyBlf-Mrc
That word “merged” is doing some heavy lifting here.
>The only system that has a chance at a national poll is PR because it’s the only one that is well enough understood to withstand attack ads Its the one people used for 40 years in the EU. It's the one people already have experience with.
MMP is pretty much the hardest to explain. Given how many list votes the SNP get in Holyrood elections (to very little benefit), it would seem that the electorate don't really understand it where it is already used, never mind where it isn't.
Well yeah when you're already sitting on a landslide the list vote isn't going to add much. Also the Scottish AMS seems to use a confusing regional list rather than just a national vote for a national party -- it's more complicated than New Zealand's MMP. Basically my vision of it is if you live in East London or Liverpool your vote should count even if you don't vote Labour -- but without a national party vote, it never will.
Interesting question; what happens at a by-election under PR? How is a representative elected for a single seat under PR?
Maybe use STV or ranked choice voting for by elections?
That would be rather problematic, as it would give disproportionate influence to voters in by-elections. Take [Mixed-Member Proportional Representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation) as an example, in that system people vote for local candidates to directly represent them, but the balance of power in Parliament is determined by the popular vote. So if someone who is directly elected is replaced by a member of another party suddenly Parliament is no longer proportional.
But unless there is a significant number of by elections, the shift in proportionality would be negligible, and there isn't a good way of making it 100% proportional anyway. It could be set that if the paty/parties of government lose a certain % of their seats at by elections that a general election is called? Or maybe just a confidence vote in the government? But we need to have these debates and conversations with more of the publicans more of parliament, rather than just finding potential issues with one form of PR and using that as justification to keep FPTP. Quick edit: I'm not saying you specifically are trying to shut down conversation, just that it often happens. It's meant to be an additional point to add the the discussion, not a direct reaction to you so apologies if it came across like that.
>But unless there is a significant number of by elections, the shift in proportionality would be negligible, and there isn't a good way of making it 100% proportional anyway. MMPR is fully proportional. Most PR systems are fully proportional (unless there are vote thresholds). By elections would operate on a significantly different electoral system than the general elections. To me that is rather problematic. While it's not ideal it makes far more sense to simply let the party replace candidates in this instance then hold a by election under PR. As far as I know no country with any sort of party list PR (which is the only system which is truly proportional\*) has by elections. Because in the end that upends the very proportionality of the system. \*I know that technically STV falls under proportional representation. But one only has to look at countries with STV to see it is not an actually proportional system. Take Australia for example. Labour got 32.58% of the first preference vote, with this they got 51% of the seats in parliament. Meanwhile the Greens got 12.25% of the first preference vote and with that got 2.65% of the seats in parliament.
With MMPR you could maybe just remove the lowest person from the shortlist of non-constituency MPs for the winning party. To be honest I'm not particularly bothered either way as it is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things. However I agree that you shouldn't just have a by-election MMPR without keeping it proportional, if a government performs very well in the constituencies and that's balanced out with fewer extra MPs from the national vote, they'd be at a disadvantage compared with a party who won fewer constituencies.
This is not correct. So with your example where labor getting 32.58% of the vote and getting 51% of the vote. I believe you are talking about the Australian house of representatives which is not STV From this link:- The voting systems for the Senate and House of Representatives are quite different. In the House of Representatives one candidate is elected from each electorate. The preferential voting system used in the House results in the election of the candidate supported by the majority of their electorate. The proportional voting system used for the Senate enables multiple candidates to be elected at each election (6 from each state and 2 from the ACT and Northern Territory). Senators don’t need to be supported by the majority of voters in their state or territory; they need to receive a quota – a set percentage – of the votes in their state or territory. Proportional voting in the Senate has resulted in more independent and minor party senators being elected to the Senate than in the House. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/why-is-the-voting-system-different-between-house-of-representatives-and-the-senate So the house of representatives is a form of AV which as we know isn't proportional. However the senate does use STV and in that election, Labor got 30.09% of the vote and 34% of the seats. Not 'perfect' (if by perfect you mean totally proportional) but 'better' than your example. Bearing in mind were talking about whole numbers of people, and districts, it's actually done a very good job.>
>isproportionate influence to voters in by-elections. Why would there need to be a by election? If John quits and he was the Labour man in seat 7, well Labour promote Pete.....you're not voting for the local guy so much as the party much more with PR My question would be how the heck independents would work
In MMPR you have both local candidates and party list candidates. So people might want some influence as to who their local candidate is. But there are many ways to solve that. One possibility would be a 'primary' type election among candidates from the party that previously held the seat. Another would be a by election where the winning party (if it's a new party) would need to give up an at large seat to the party who lost. But in the end it's highly unlikely there would be any by elections. Independents wouldn't really exist the way they do now. Because there is now a proportional national vote it's much more beneficial for them to form a party.
Aye this could work, but remember the average person - we want to keep this insanely simple....
Okay…. So how would you run an STV by-election?
The answer is: "it depends". How do you want it to solve it? Do you want to keep the proportionality? Does it really matter for the odd by-election? If not, just run a normal by-election
It’s unsolvable. There are plenty of crappy compromises but no good solutions.
This is not correct. There are many good solutions.
Name one.
Use the same system as we do now :)
cough quack sparkle market crime caption materialistic melodic vegetable grey ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Okay? But if an MP dies or resigns there would still need to be a means to fill the vacancy.
wrong market provide coordinated treatment longing support rich continue doll ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Parties don’t necessarily provide lists in PR. That’s only in list systems. STV for example doesn’t work like that.
humorous jobless snails cautious frightening library waiting gaping safe drunk ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Nationwide PR isn’t perfectly proportional either. It just approximates proportionality closer than STV.
caption faulty serious handle correct crowd ludicrous safe ad hoc flowery ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
You wouldn't have one. The PR system I'm familiar with, you elect a "list of names". If person A resigns, person B on that list would take its place. Usually you would have enough extra names for the small numbers of resignations.
In the Netherlands you vote for a party or individual member of the party. Say a party gets votes for 20 seats. They'd put the top 20 people on their party list in those seats, unless someone low on the list is actually very popular with voters. Using this system if a seat empties up the party will fill that seat with the next name on the list. If someone leaves a party however, they do not have to relinquish the seat and can stay in parliament as an independent or create a different political party. a bit like ChangeUK.
I'm not sure about by-elections, though I think under PR they don't really make sense (because they would shift proportionality). If you want single seats you need some form of [Mixed-Member Proportional Representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation).
>Interesting question; what happens at a by-election under PR? There are no by-elections. In a list system, the party list designates the next person to take over.
What happens with independent candidates under PR? Do they just not exist any longer?
Independents can still run in proportionate systems.
How does it work, though? I can't imagine an independent would gain sufficient national vote share to gain a seat. Maybe in a regional list system like in Scotland?
Ireland uses STV for the Dail (Irish Lower House) and in the 2020 general election, 19 Independents were elected across the country out of a total of 160 seats. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_Irish\_general\_election#Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Irish_general_election#Results) So it is possible for Independents to win seats in a PR system
Thanks! A concrete example is always helpful 👍
No worries!
I doubt the UK would go for a full nationwide list system. At the very least the individual nations would want their own desperate regions. Probably the various English regions too.
Hence why it will never happen. Westminster won't vote to dilute its own power.
It wouldn’t dilute Westminster’s power. Parliament would have the same power as it already does. The MPs would just be elected in a different way. The Tories and to a lesser extent Labour oppose it because it potentially affects their power and that’s the block. Not Westminster itself.
If you federalised England into devolved regions then Westminster's power would definitely be reduced. That's why Johnson has been trying to roll back devolution with things like the Internal Market act.
In addition to what /u/concretepigeon said, it depends on the system. Pure [party list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation) systems effectively rule out independents, because the only options on the ballot are parties (or party candidates, in [open list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list) systems). An independent could create their own party... but then they'd be a party. Plus, in a lot of countries they'd have to pass the electoral threshold, which might be something like 5% of the national vote, a tall order for an independent. There's also a hybrid of party list and first-past-the-post, called [mixed-number proportional representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation), used by Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Germany, and others. It has UK-style single-member constituencies in addition to regional or a national multi-member constituency. Voters get two votes: one for an individual candidate in their local constituency, and another for a party in their region or the country as a whole. Depending on the country, an independent could stand in a local constituency, although in Germany no such candidate has won in this way since 1949. Given that quite a few people in the UK like having local constituencies, and that this system is already used in Scotland and Wales, it's worth thinking about this system, as it's a strong contender to be adopted by the UK, alongside the other popular option, STV.
By-elections under PR are the number one biggest issue with PR. Basically they don’t work at all.
What's the issue? In party list systems, the voter voted for a party, and when a representative resigns or is removed, the next candidate in the party list takes their place. Because the voter voted for the party, and the party list was public knowledge at the time of the election, this seems democratic. Under STV, a by-election is held, quite like UK by-elections, but typically under alternative vote, rather than first-past-the-post. This also seems democratic.
It kinda works in list systems but it doesn’t work at all in STV. There are loads of different ways of filling mid term vacancies under STV. For example Northern Ireland utilise co-option whereas Scotland hold by-elections which undermine the whole point of STV as they aren’t proportional at all.
Ah, that's fair. It is true that under STV, there is a risk that a by-election can throw off the proportionality of the legislature. I tend to favour lists, so I can't speak much to the defence of STV in this regard.
This isn’t (just) complaining. This is campaigning. They’re aiming for floating voters and those who are debating whether to vote or not. This is why a an official pact would never work.
I can't see PR in its true form working in this country. We need local representation at the highest level. Some MPs do amazing work for their local constituents and losing that would be problematic. I think STV or the AV proposal from under Cameron is probably the easiest way to go, at least initially.
I mean, 3 of the 4 countries of the UK have a system with proportionality for all of their local elections and we manage it fine. It’s England that’s dragging its heels over this. The major parties in our 3 countries support a form of PR at Westminster unequivocally. Westminster designed a PR system for Holyrood. Labour no less.
Well no, England doesn't have it's own parliament. Sctoland has Holyrood AND Westminster, England just has Westminster. Maybe the answer is an English parliament (or smaller regional parliaments) for the local representation and Westminster for overall control.
"England" already has a parliament.
In the sense that the UK parliament is in England? With English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish MPs?
That's a fair point, but nothing that couldn't be solved with devolving some powers to an English assembly or parliament.
An "English" parliament should not be allowed, or even contemplated.
Why not?
Because the English finance minister would control more money than the UK finance minister. It's not a viable concept. Only way you can do it is by splitting England into regional parliaments, but invariably that gets compared to the devolution settlements (when in reality, what the UK lacks is a common feature of many unitary states - Local (council) Regional (No good name in the UK) and then the top level. Your council manages things like managing schools and the bins, regional government manages things like transport, infrastructure higher education, and then the goverment does the things that need unitary application and regulation.
You're gonna need at least a theoretical justification for why not. There are pretty good arguments, both pragmatic and principled, for an English parliament (or regional assemblies with equivalent devolved powers to the Welsh and Scottish devolved bodies). Resolving both funding disparities and legislative deficits is a pretty compelling reason to look at further devolution. Maybe we just need to further expand the GMCA and hand some more powers over. Of course there are sensible pragmatic ones as to why an English parliament or devolved regional assemblies would be a disaster, too, but if you're going to just throw an unsubstantiated assertion that they shouldn't be 'allowed or [...] contemplated' then you need some preeeety big justifications in your pocket.
That's a fair point but also an indication that maybe government departments should have either local offices for public contact or some sort of virtual offices with actual faces constantly assigned to regions and powers to change cases outcomes. It's insane how everything on this country requires your MP to intercede on your behalf because some gov department writes you saying "computer says no and this is final. Goodbye."
It may be insane, but it's how things are - and the bigger the change is, the less likely it is to happen. Changing the voting system is a massive enough change without also wanting to rip up local representation. I feel that at the moment, a change to include 16 year old voters and bring in STV would be accepted (and potentially pass a referendum). Getting rid of local MPs might be enough change to tip the balance to no. Not saying that it couldn't be changed further in the future, but baby steps rather than massive leaps.
Not disagreeing but just stating that these should be two mutually independent issues/two sides of a pincer strategy. You shouldn't need an MP in 99% of the cases. And I honestly believe that government departments would be significantly less cruel and more 'humane' if a case workers were forced to interact repeatedly, in a face to face environment, with the applicants.
That was back when they thought the 1970s neoliberal consensus would last forever. Short sighted fools
Comments like this make it clear that a lot of the opposition to FPTP is basically just "I don't like the results it produces RN". Electoral pacts are going to be a thing in almost every other serious electoral system.
So what if the electorate wants to vote tactically? We are still in a democracy and have every right to vote in any way we want, whether that’s to get certain people in or out of power.
Well you see it can’t be allowed because it might hurt the Tories chances of winning and maintaining power forever you see.
I think the argument here is that it's not democratic because, by a party choosing to not fight for a seat in good faith, they are removing or diminishing the ability of voters to make that democratic choice themselves.
FPTP isn't democratic in the first place though. If tory get 30% of the vote, more than any other party, but the other 70% combined would all rather have anyone but tory, then you gotta do what you gotta do to fight back.
I really don’t see why we can’t elect MPs the way we elected MEPs. It’s a more democratic, proven in the UK system.
The answer's in the question :-/ Tories don't want more democracy.
[удалено]
> There's a famous paper that takes six different systems and one election and shows that under each system a different candidate wins. That doesn't prove that no system is democratic. One of those systems may well be a closer representation of voters' wishes than the others. If I held one election where voters were accompanied into the ballot box by a man with a gun and one where they were allowed to vote without interference, I expect I'd get two very different election results. That doesn't make them both equally valid and it doesn't mean that democracy is inherently flawed. Edit: In response to your comment below, since I can't reply to it: It's really not a distinction without a difference. It's an assumption on your part that voters don't agree with the policies of those they are voting for.
>No system's democratic. No system's is perfect that true. Perfect should never be the enemy of good though. >you've just got to choose the least-worst option The thing thou is that FPTP is the worst option.
But in reality it’s only undemocratic if candidates don’t stand. As, for example, the Brexit Party did in Conservative seats in 2019. This week the Lib Dems stood in Wakefield and labour stood in Tiverton. Voters chose not to back them but the choice was available to voters.
You can *reductio ad absurdum* the shite out of this too. If this is unfair, then it's unfair if Monica, the single-issue candidate who believes that custard creams should be provided to the local Women's Institute meeting by the government, doesn't stand, because her views aren't being represented. Anyone who disagrees with the platforms being offered by candidates but isn't standing themselves is participating in an unspoken electoral pact. Would probably make a nice little revenue stream though. Hundreds of fringe candidates in each ward, all losing their deposits on election night, could even send the election into profit. The only reason they have their knickers in a twist is because you can roughly divide the electorate into two groups - 1. Want things to get better 1. Selfish gits Group 1. is divided on HOW they want to get things to get better, so their vote is divided between parties (some of them even vote Tory). Group 2. just want things to be better for them. These are the base Conservative voter. Some of them branched out into voting for Brexit issue parties, but the Tories didn't complain when that option was withdrawn from them, because their natural choice after deciding to vote that way was Conservative.
it's not undemocratic either. if party believes that the best it can do for the voters in a particular seat is not to put forward a candidate, that's what it should do. you can't reduce everything to a simple act of voting. parties fight for their interests and interests of their members, but putting forward the candidates is only one aspect of this struggle for power.
I'm not sure "forcing people to run for seats they don't want" is any more democratic though.
Labour and the Lib Dems both stood candidates in both seats. Nobody was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred party. All this "pact" amounted to was Labour choosing not to pour time and money into fighting a contest that they didn't think they'd win, and ditto the Lib Dems. That happens in literally every election. Every single party (including the Tories) will make judgement calls about which seats to fight and which not to every single general election (and every single local election too). The only unusual thing here is that the parties have chosen to do it in a by-election, where usually all parties go hell for leather.
It’s not more or less democratic if any party chooses not to stand a candidate. Democracy is the ability to vote freely. If no one you want to vote for stands then the option to stand yourself exists
Define dishonest... Both parties were upfront and agreed to run candidates in both byelections but asked voters to make tactical decisions. No laws or promises were broken. The voters made their own minds up who to vote for. What Suella Braverman is really saying is that we lost thanks to good organisation by the Lib-Dems and Labour and now I don't like the rules of the game. A typical do as I say not as we do Tory attitude.
It's the electorate voting tactically not a 'dishonest electoral pact' between parties. Perhaps she'd like to remove the incentive for tactical voting by changing the electoral system to something more sensible?
Both the lib democrats and labour should commit to electoral reform and to achieve it stand down strategically on these tactical seats.
To the outside, that looks a lot like abusing the system to get into power, then rigging the electoral system to be more favourable in the future. We all know that's bollocks, but the optics would be really bad and would open up a lot of criticism.
Not really. For one thing, proper PR would probably end up with the Labour big tent splitting into two parties, centrist and leftist.
More than 2 Centre, left, libertarian left, anarchists, cooperative party... That's 5 just from the top of my head
True, but only the first two would gain any real traction electorally.
Absolutely, but I'm saying that's how lots of people would see it, and how it would be spun by the media. I hope it happens, but it would leave an open goal for criticism, especially if it doesn't get broad support.
Fine with me, let's see how long the entitled careerist right-wing neolib element of it lasts on its own without the lefty grassroots doing all the work.
[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/conservative-party-fined-ps70000-following-investigation-election-campaign-expenses](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/conservative-party-fined-ps70000-following-investigation-election-campaign-expenses)
I'm well aware, I'm not saying that it's a fair or non-hypocritical criticism, but it's still exactly what will be said by Tories and some of the media.
This doesn’t reliably have the effect that you might expect - ie increase the chances of the main challenger to the Tories. If the LibDem stands down, some of their voters simply won’t vote, and some will vote Tory instead. The same is even true of Labour voters. And the other effect is that it damages the local party and their volunteer network, as well as giving the Tories an attack line about undermining democracy etc. It’s been gamed out quite a bit, and the conclusion was that it’s better to stand but not campaign.
LOL no, that would be idiotic and the only effect would be to help the Tories get reelected. They've done enough damage to the country already, thank you very much.
Eventually she'll be saying it's disappointing that the opposition parties continue to exist
Braverman comes across as genuinely dim every time she opens her mouth.
[удалено]
I like to pair him with Porcine Prince Boarish and call him Bacon Grease-Hogg
The entire cabinet is a bit dim
I was listening to Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell's podcast where they mentioned she was previously a C-list government lawyer handling minor cases. At each of her two previous postings she wasn't hired back. Seems she's genuinely quite useless.
You know what's a brilliant way to stop "dishonest electoral pacts" and tactical voting? Bringing in some form of proportional representation. Just a hunch but something tells me they only care because the Tory lost.
Preferential voting (aka Alternative voting) is fine too IMHO. It doesn’t need to be proportional. In Australia there is both. Preferential in the lower house, and proportional in the upper house. It works well.
sense scarce payment spectacular absorbed enter fall hunt familiar observation ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
If a party can get 10% of the vote and 0 seats, you don't get to call that proportional representation.
soft hat rich fertile bear scarce theory disgusting plate frame ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
One of the primary benefits of PR is that starting a new party is doable. You can build it up over time. As it is, you can't - parties hold the power, not the electorate. It allows corruption to fester and means decisions about the future of the country don't happen at the ballot box. Under STV, this effect largely remains. We need competitive elections, not another way to bake in the existing parties and protect them.
They don't actually think it's dishonest, they're just trying to motivate erstwhile Tory voters to leave the house. Many people disgusted with partygate won't vote for the Tories, or specifically Boris, unless they think that they have to to prevent Labour getting in.
Why must the Tory party continue to rule with a minority while a majority of the country would choose them not to. If we had actual representation they wouldn’t be in government right now How did we go from brexit is the will of the people to fptp is the will of the people
[удалено]
They might win the most votes but they would be unlikely to form a government with someone like Boris at the helm and a vote of no confidence would come a lot quicker
[удалено]
> Would they risk fielding a candidate like Johnson You're very much over thinking this. They've just lost 2 by elections and are breaking records with their unpopularity yet still have Boris in power. They aren't as smart as you think, this country just loves the idea of conservatism no matter who represents it
I don't see how they can complain. Labour and the Lib Dems stood candidates in both constituencies. These comments do worry me as I feel like this could be setting up an attempt to overturn future results.
This is what I’ve been thinking for some time, it’s all becoming very trumpian.
I hadn't thought about that until your comment. It's a very scary thought.
Until we have an electoral system which allows us to express our views, we will do what we have to do to express our views.
Do your views include voting for a party - Labour - that also refuse to introduce a better electoral system?
The current voting system does not encourage me to vote *for* any party. It encourages me to vote *against* a party, It's irrelevant anyway; I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country. Except in 1997 I have *always* had to vote in a constituency where the Tories had more than 50% of the vote, rendering my vote irrelevant whichever party I support. In 1997, the Tory vote in my constituency was a mere 47.4%, so there was a *small* chance of them losing /s Even when I was at University, I fell outside the city constituency and in the largest Tory majority in the country.
Tiverton and Honiton had the tories at 60.2%
If it means removing a much, much, much worse party from a position of power; yes.
The dishonesty of Boris, Farage, the Tories, the Brexit parties was in the lies and corruption, not playing tactically with stepping down.
Any one saying this doesnt know labours history. Its first mps were all elected in 1906 by the liberals not running in specifc constituencys and labour, in return not running in any close liberal seats
Or the conservatives history, if you go back all the way to distant 2019 when the brexit party stood down in the Tory seats… Bunch of lying hypocritical bastard tories.
It's hard to believe these people have failed upwards to such a zenith.
Vote ABC, anything but Conservative
[удалено]
Having met a few Oxford and Cambridge grads at my master's in Sheffield I am utterly convinced that Oxbridge is completely overblown and that whilst a minority of hard working and intelligent students do get there based upon their abilities, a very large amount of students are there through wealth and connection who do not in fact have the intellectual capacity we'd associate with Oxbridge grads.
I think it's more that they're taught to bullshit, particularly PPE students
I mean you only get a place if you can bullshit your way through the interview so it does seem to be a requirement of education there.
I went to Oxford once. My very first impression of the place was a student in a tweed jacket walking down the street talking to a lecturer or professor in the most stereotypical posh accent you could imagine. The rest of the trip didn't dispell any of that first impression.
I recently watched the box set of Boston Legal and reckon I have a better grasp of the law than Braverman.
That's democracy baby, if you don't like it then allow for PR next time?
Must be a weird electoral pact if LD and Labour both stand and campaign against each other in the same seats lol. What's actually happing is voters are so fed up with the bullshit at Westminster that they'll vote for the candidate with the greatest odds at beating them.
There clearly is an informal pact between Labour and the Lib Dems, but this is the point - it was fine between the Conservatives and Brexit parties, so should be fine here, too
Electoral pacts are perfectly democratic. Getting the Tories out is the priority.
Oh no, not hypocrisy! The general public will never stand for that! There's this type of nerdy, psuedo-logic based approach to politics that (predominantly) left wing politicians think is effective but I'm pretty sceptical about it actually landing with the public. I get that this stuff needs to be called out but epic gotchas and pointing out logical inconsistencies in your opponents stances does nothing to win over voters. It seems like right wing parties realise they're in a street fight and left wingers think they're under Marquess of Queensbury rules. The worst practitioners of this are the mainstream Democrats in the US. They seem to think that being the class swot and calling out procedural errors and general hypocrisy is enough of an offer to the electorate. Meanwhile the Republicans aren't afraid to play dirty and subsequently they're now able to burn that country down and remould it in their preferred image. Left wing politicians need to offer people material improvements to their lives and tickle their emotional buttons when necessary but this kind of stuff is just milquetoast pap.
[удалено]
Democrats? This is r/ukpolitics.
>There's this type of nerdy, psuedo-logic based approach to politics that (predominantly) left wing politicians think is effective but I'm pretty sceptical about it actually landing with the public. >I get that this stuff needs to be called out but epic gotchas and pointing out logical inconsistencies in your opponents stances does nothing to win over voters. It's the Tories who are trying to tell people how they should vote, not Labour or the Lib Dems, so I don't know how you reach this conclusion from the topic under discussion. How Democrats and Republicans behave in the US is irrelevant to this situation, which relates to UK politics, not politics in the US.
[удалено]
There was a Lib Dem candidate in Wakefield and a Labour candidate in T&H. No choice removed.
It's going to be awful when the lib dems will be the only party to have PR in their next manifesto and then force labour to adopt it. So a policy only 15% want will be imposed on the rest of us.
Just like the Tories? Yeah okay. Ignoring the fact that most Labour members WANT PR, eh?
If the LD make big strides electorally then the odds are very high they do it via tactical voting from Labour supporters in seats where LD have a better shot of beating the Tories. It's not as cut and dry as you present.
[Karl Turner MP](https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP) ^verified | Reach: 44300 | Location: East Hull Bio: East Hull @UKLabour MP. Lawyer. Former Shadow Attorney General; Solicitor General. Stella’s dad, wife Leanne. Visiting Fellow @LeedsBeckett ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
Karl should know, the Lib Dems did a job in the locals in May in Hull
Hey now, only the Tories are allowed to be dishonest! It's their birthright to be exempt from the rules and laws they impose on the rest of us but if there's the slightest whiff of strategy from the opposition, that's not ok and is communism or something.
A Tory who has the gall to use the word “dishonest” about anyone else.
I'll tell you what a dishonest election pact looks like. A dishonest election pact looks like the Tories and the Brexit Party agreeing not to stand against each other in seats where one or the other could win, in favour of standing in Labour seats, only for the Tories to then go back on their word and stand in every seat regardless, as they did in 2019. That's *literally* dishonest!
Isn’t it normal for parties to have electoral pacts especially in FPTP in a multi party system?
I don't think there's a pact at an offical level but....locally I'd expect people to consider their options, and maybe votting lib/labour when they wouldn't normally ot not split the anti tory vote.....better to get Tory lite or whatever the Lib dems are growing into then, more Tory
Is it more worrying? is it really? How inane. Odious lies, people vote as they choose. That includes any tactical voting needed to finally oust the Tories.
The Lib Dems are centrist while I see them want to team up to hurt the tories I can’t see it lasting very long. The last time they were in coalition hurt them and they are not going to rush into it quickly again. There is also a mini civil war going in the labour between the leadership, parliamentary party and the membership. If I would ED Davy I would stay well clear of that mess.