Snapshot of _Andy Burnham says, Labour must ‘seize moment’ and back proportional representation | Andy Burnham_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/andy-burnham-says-labour-must-seize-moment-and-back-proportional-representation?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other)
*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.*
It may end Labour's dreams of being a regular defacfo ruling party of the UK for a second term - if they get in.
But seeing as The Conservative Party are the ones most often in power historically. This would be a wise action, as if you drill into the FPTP voting numbers. The country is nearly very much evenly split between ideologies. This would finally break the two party monopoly that's really a one party gig, and change the face of both, UK development and direction forever. For the better, I feel.
In the long run it would actually be beneficial for Labour. Their problem is they're two parties trying to be one, the old guard Labour and the Blairites. PR would allow them to finally split and appeal to each of their own target demographics, and then cooperate if an alliance is needed for a majority.
It forces the Labour Party to actually offer the public something they want. There's nothing stopping them from being the majority ruling party under PR for the next few decades but they have to earn it which is how it should be.
Are you referring to them being the largest party in most governments, or them actually winning over 50% of the vote?
The former is quite possible, the latter a formidable goal that's very rare under PR.
PR doesn't mean you need to get over 50% of votes to get a majority.
If you have PR you will most likely want to set a threshold for parties to get into the parliament. Could be 3% could be 5%. You don't want douzen of parties that have support of 1-2% because it makes governing almost impossible.
Under right circumstances 40% of votes could give you over 50% of seats in the parliament.
NZ Labour managed to pull it off at their last [general election](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_general_election), but I'll acknowledge it is not common.
Labour currently only seems to care about a few million right leaning red wall voters, it would be great to see what they would do if they had principles again.
It'd be interesting to see what Labour would become.
It's essentially at least two parties in one at the moment, maybe even three: moderates ('the right'), socialists ('the left'), and perhaps progressives (fairly radical, but different solutions and priorities to the traditional 'left').
Under PR, many members, voters, and politicians would likely move to another party. The Greens and Liberal Democrats would suit many, but the 'old left' might need to form a new party.
It'd be a seismic shift, and I think that'd be really good for British politics in the end.
If that happens, I could see the 'soft left' faction maintaining control of the party, while the populist left and right factions split and form their own parties. The former would include Corbyn, McDonald, etc., and the latter would have people like Jarvis and Nandy.
You say they are right leaning like Labour should be about Liberal politics and this deserves to be called out. If you want a Labour government (don't know that you do) you will never get one without those 3 million people.
So Labour have to earn power but the Tories don't?
FPTP gives the Tories a baked-in advantage because they need fewer votes per seat they win, helped by the split in the left-wing vote.
Nothing would be fairer than making seats match votes, giving us a parliament that actually represents the views of its people.
> It may end Labour's dreams of being a regular defacfo ruling party of the UK for a second term - if they get in.
Labour have won double-digit (or greater) majorities exactly **5 times in history**, three of which were under Tony Blair.
The belief that Labour could become a "regular de facto ruling party" under the current system is delusional.
Quite.
And there's a good argument that the predominant left-of-centre party in a PR system - whether it's Labour or a successor party - would be in government far more often. Majoritarian systems such as ours tend to have a bias towards conservative parties.
Anyone with any vision in Labour should be backing PR for that reason alone.
> The belief that Labour could become a "regular de facto ruling party" under the current system is delusional.
if they offered something people wanted maybe they'd get elected
Maybe if voters in England wanted Labour manifestos (like they have historically in Wales and Scotland, up until the latter ditched them for the SNP) they wouldn't keep voting Tory every election.
It is much better to propose something inspiring to people and convince them of the benefits of your policies then it is to simply write them off as Tory voters. Nothing will change if you don't do this.
Labour hasn't been very good at this. The only times they have really been able to galvanise voters outside of their traditional base was under Attlee and Blair. The other Labour governments are primarily the result of the electorate being dissatisfied with the Conservatives.
Acknowledging the historical fact that England is pre-disposed to Tory economics is not "writing them off as Tory voters", it is grasping the reality that Labour has an uphill struggle regardless of what it tries to sell.
>Labour hasn't been very good at this.
It **has** been good at this, in Scotland and Wales. It hasn't been at UK level because, as previously mentioned, England really likes voting Tory.
Agreed, there is too much weight given to which party would benefit and which would be worse off. Presumably the Blair govt didn't introduce it because they could happily win with the current system.
Instead the question should be: would such a system more accurately represent the will of the people.
In my view the answer is yes, so we should go for it, regardless of which parties it benefits in the short term.
Both Labour and Conservative would split into 2 factions and that's a good thing. All four can actual represent the interests of their supporters rather than this big tent crap that paralyzes them from taking any stance as it might upset someone.
Yes, we are going to have a big nationalist/racist party in the UK and it'll be a bit embarrassing, but that's better than having them ransoming everyone else for support.
But that division is fine, and we already have, and have had, bigoted parties in the system even under FPTP. Unfortunately they have voices and they have the right to be heard, but right now they bolster the numbers of the bigger party because of the system; let them be their own party and then the bigots can be bigots without the thin veil over them that they have now.
Honestly, they're better off as two ideologically-consistent parties that cooperate on issues where they're similarly aligned than one dysfunctional mess of a party that spends half its time at war with itself and flip-flops between being a European-style centre-left party and the Democrats to the Tory party's Republicans.
PR is the only way to break the cycle of Conservative/Labour governments and truly represent the voters. At the moment, a vote for any party other than Labour in a general election will simply reduce the number of Labour votes and lessen their chances of overturning the Conservative government. The smaller parties don't have a hope of governing under a first past the post voting system.
I dont know too much of the detail but it definitely felt like last time the LDs went into it expecting a gentlemanly handshaking coalition to take place and ended up with tories taking all the glory for gains and blaming the LDs for the losses.
The debacle over the student fees issue just cemented the problem in the public consciousness.
Let's fucking go. It would transform politics. For those who didn't want Brexit....you'll keep getting outcomes like Brexit if people are forced to vote for big parties that don't stand for what they actually want.
Won't be surprised if this just results in a smear campaign against him, both from the press and within the Labour Party.
The SNP support electoral reform to PR or similar despite the fact it would likely reduce the number of MPs they return to Westminster.
I'm relatively certain that the SNP leadership do actually mean this, but whether their MPs would vote for it or break the whip is a separate matter
Also, it also would make the UK less shitty which would reduce the case for independence. Constant Tory government is my number 1 reason for supporting independence.
Is it really though? One large country consistently votes against the interests and values of another, it would seem pretty obvious to me that its a good idea to separate so both can get governments that align with their needs and desires.
SNP used to support PR when it would benefit them. Now they massively benefit from FPTP, but to their credit they still support it.
Based on 2019 numbers, SNP would have about 25 MPs rather than the 48 they did get, ahead of the c. 17 greens, but less than the 75 Lib Dem MPs.
>Do the SNP support it? They'd be huge losers.
They'd lose MPs but gain influence, as there'd be no more majority governments who could just ignore them.
It works for the SNP at Hollyrood , they agree to it in principle and they like to be seen to do this kind of thing for the greater good. But in real political terms I would guess that any negotiation between Labour, SNP and Labour is going to hinge around PR being tabled, along with Stormont style right to referendum for devolved areas. How Starter will enable this in the face of the biggest tantrum that the tabloid press has ever thrown, I do not know.
At Hollyrood though the SNP get a percentage out of 100% of the electorate, whereas in Westminster they’d only get a fraction of 10% of the vote so they’d very likely not get seats in a direct proportional system, they only got 3% last election. In an MMP system though they’d be able to hold on to the seats.
I think they’d push for something more complicated than simply dividing the seats up by the total vote share I.e. something that somewhat accounts for specific regional interests such as Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland.
Even with STV they'd inevitable get fewer seats than they do now. They win, approximately, 100% of Scottish seats off of substantially less than 100% of the vote as it currently stands. Any PR system would resort in them getting fewer seats in Westminster, except *maybe* a multi list system or whatever its called/
Only with regards to Westminster and they only really use that as a vehicle to agitate for referendums which Labour are more inclined (though still likely to drag their heels) to give compared to the tories given that Scotland is pretty much lost to Labour forever anyway and that under PR, all governments would be coalitions. Those coalitions would trend towards a business-friendly, Europe-positive relationship labour (to keep the LDs onside) with environmental concessions (to keep the 4-10 Green MPs PR would likely create onside.)
Whereas tory coalitions would basically however many they can keep lining up with the 9-15 deranged unionists in NI and however many far-right England-based lunatic MPs that PR would create to steal seats from tories.
Even without getting the referendum they supposedly want but starting PR for UK General elections, they would still retain Holyrood under devo-max, giving them everything but defence and foreign relations powers.
I didn’t want Brexit then but i sure don’t want Europe now!
I do want a better government, i think proportional representation could be a powerful tool to break the two party system we like much of the rest of the world is burdened with.
it’s predominantly around energy policy and actually the *only* country in Europe that i am aware of making the pragmatic choices around energy is the UK.
-Modular Nuclear Power plants
-Mining for Coking Coal
-North Sea Gas and oil exploration
-Funding British Livestock Farming and Agriculture
Now i know i’m getting downvoted to hell for my Brexit statement and the above 4 bullet points are not going to improve the reactions from knee jerkers but if you don’t understand why those four bullet points are so important for our food, energy security and expanding a greener energy grid.
-Then i suggest you look up why China is rolling out modular nukes.
-What wind turbines are made from
-What rotational farming is and why it’s so important to the ecology of the land.
-Why Russia is making more money from Europe now from key commodity exports than before the sanctions.
-Why Natural Gas doesn’t just heat your home and fizz your drinks but integrally part of the fertiliser, food processing, manufacturing and even a core part of massive scaled computing that our very modern society is built on.
-Why China, the worlds biggest exporter of Solar Cells stopped making so early in this global energy crunch.
-Why literally everything everywhere just got really expensive and it’s getting a whole lot worse
There are some accurate points there glad someone actually mentioned how vital natural gas is for nitrogen fertiliser production, the global famine for the next two years (at least) is something we're sleepwalking into but no longer have the power to halt as we will see many millions die, but the realities of the situation being missed entirely regards the UK in relation to Europe.
Granted the majority of the EU members are god awful at their own energy policy in the current state of the world, due to failed policy directions, most notably in Germany where:
* they went colossal on green tech solar and wind, which the continent doesn't have sufficient energy potential for.
* \[[opposed nuclear to the point of attempting full decommissioning in Germany](https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab)\]([https://www.dw.com/en/will-germany-return-to-nuclear-power/a-62223935](https://www.dw.com/en/will-germany-return-to-nuclear-power/a-62223935)) and to varying degrees in other countries, peaking post-Fukashima (mostly due to irrational fears of events that simply cannot happen with our geography). This was worse in countries where green parties exercise large participation through coalition governments and get to condition their support on such policies being enacted.
* used cheap Russian fossil fuels as a hedge to all of that following the Merkel doctrine of "peace through interconnected trade" which in hindsight should have been stopped from the warning signs of 2008 and 2014 and has proven to be a disaster.
Now Germany is:
* having to [go even heavier on lignite](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-23/german-utilities-prepare-to-turn-on-coal-plants-amid-gas-crisis) which they wanted to phase out (wet inefficient coal basically), so their climate goals are dead in the water and in a twist of irony it's thanks to the tireless campaigning of the German Greens that they reduced to mining and burning the worst coal possible for the environment.
* [scramble for LNG terminal infrastructure](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/germanys-scholz-hopes-baltic-sea-lng-terminal-within-months-2022-06-21/) in the North to take on whatever US decides to sell them.
* Seriously consider Putin's offer to maintain supply if they screw over Ukraine and NATO by pulling support as much as they really don't want to.
Now, that is an unmitigated disaster. But the UK is not some beacon of perfection just by being outside the EU. We would have had the same advantages and disadvantages to our energy infrastructure regardless of whether or not we stayed in. Specifically:
* The wind green tech that doesn't work elsewhere in Europe, works great here, in fact, as I type this, [44.8% of our national grid energy input is coming from wind](https://grid.iamkate.com/).
* Didn't oppose nuclear so violently nor do we have a political system that allows for it. We actually halted and blundered into delaying closures long enough for the public opinion to shift back around to "we need this now and more of it." But we're \[still acting too late to extend Hinckley B to cover the shortfall\]([https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab](https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab)) and we won't have Sizewell's expansion done any time soon, so we've screwed up there but not as badly as Germany. Right now, it's doing about 25% of our national grid, but our nuclear energy program has stagnated in terms of infrastructure and research for some time.
* We've the North Sea fields, at least our economic zones of it.
* We're always the first in line for US, Canadian and Aussie fossil fuels and nuclear fuel resupply as and when needed at favourable terms.
Those are massive advantages to have and we'd have had them either way. There is even a school of thought that if we were in the EU we would have had significant leverage over Germany over when it came to making them fund additional offshore wind infrastructure in order to sell them power at whatever price we set once they'd paid to put it up in the first place, that's how desperate they are.
This comment is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at the point, we'd have been better off than mainland Europe, Brexit or no, but by no means does that make us perfect or even pragmatic. We simply had a better starting point to work with.
Of those bullet points, without even going into detail :
* first three would not be prevented by being in the EU
* the final one is just factually wrong on the basis that:
1. Livestock Farming and agriculture were already funded by EU programs in addition to any national program?
2. Considering that farming ventures can no longer access easy seasonal workers nor easily export into the largest market at their doorstep, I fail to see Where's the win here.
Maybe they think that not being part of the EU makes us somehow less of a Russian target and more distanced from the Ukrainian conflict??
Honestly I don’t know, I’m interested in OPs opinion here because this seems like a kinda wild statement
Which would be a ludicrous position if that were the case. We're a bigger target than most of the world on Russia's hit list. Hell, their national persecution complex pretty much has the UK as the oldest enemy constantly holding back and bringing down Russia going back as far as The Great Game. So rest assured, even if we were completely isolationist, we're first in the queue for a mushroom cloud.
They're even mad at us and continue to teach generations to be mad at us for the stuff we didn't do, like the way they tangentially blame us for lingering humiliations like the Russo-Japanese war, despite the fact we did not get actively involved. Even though, the [1902 Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance) we signed with Japan would have facilitated our intervention had the Japanese actually needed our help and had ample cause to sink their entire Navy after the [Dogger bank incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident) in which the Russian fleet mistook the Hull fishing fleet for Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea for some reason and murdered trawlermen out of sheer incompetence even blowing holes in one of their own ships in the crossfire, killing the ship's priest.
The only thing older than Russian incompetence is Russia's persecution complex.
Edit - Entente-era politics were absolutely wild.
You mean following the single market rules for third party countries, and negotiating in their own self interest realising the relative power (im)balance?
Yeah.those meanies....🙄
So why am I seeing this? I'd earnestly be grateful if you could explain what you are saying Vs this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57427997.amp
That article is from a year ago. Compare it with the [data from the OECD](https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/g20-gdp-growth-first-quarter-2022-oecd.htm) published on 14th June this year
ikr!? literally hundreds of articles from the same newspaper corps and the same international monetary fund affiliates.
I’m not saying trade with Europe hasn’t been stunted and the problems exacerbated by it but rejoining feels like a misstep into more domestic conflict and back into a house on fire;
-look at the recent French elections
-look at Germany’s Energy problems
-look at Italy and Spain’s finances.
The French far right now holds a huge number of seats in French parliament, the French; along with Poland, Hungary and even Italy and Germany are starting to or already having the same conversations that the UK did.
And they don’t have Nigel Farage as a muppet mouthed scapegoat, they are having these conversations organically
If we should consider rejoining, now is not the time to do it.
>I didn’t want Brexit then but i sure don’t want Europe now!
I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that you're opposed to rejoining, that you don't like Europe or something else entirely?
Well then I have good news for you: it was our decision to leave, but if we wanted to rejoin then that's the EU's decision and there's no way in hell that they'll let us back in in the next decade at least.
My understanding is that Starmer also supports PR; but the party doesn't
[https://labourlist.org/2021/09/conference-rejects-motion-committing-labour-to-proportional-representation/](https://labourlist.org/2021/09/conference-rejects-motion-committing-labour-to-proportional-representation/)
its great that leading figures are calling for it, but whilst the affiliates (as I understand Unions but happy to be corrected here) dont it wont pass.
The motion failed at the last conference due to opposition from the unions.
Some of that opposition was due to union policies which they had to abide by at the time, but has subsequently changed to be in favour of PR. Unite for example voted to back PR shortly after the Labour conference. Unison also recently came down in favour of PR. I'm fairly confident the Labour membership will vote through a motion committing the party to back PR, as the CLPs are massively in favour.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I can’t find anything that says Starmer supports PR, and if the last conference is any indication, he’ll be more than happy to bury it again, believing he’ll be the next Blair profiting directly from FPTP.
I remember seeing somewhere that he did, but it was a dead issue and he spent energy somewhere else (which at the time of the last conference it seemed from the outside to be all about not letting the party rip itself apart). The closest I can find is below, but I agree not a firm commitment/ endorsement for PR.
[https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/keir-starmer-weve-got-to-address-the-fact-that-millions-of-people-vote-in-safe-seats-and-they-feel-their-voice-doesnt-count/](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/keir-starmer-weve-got-to-address-the-fact-that-millions-of-people-vote-in-safe-seats-and-they-feel-their-voice-doesnt-count/)
Looks like there might be movement there
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-uks-biggest-union-just-passed-a-motion-in-support-of-proportional-representation/
> but the party doesn't
The party does. At the last conference, members overwhelmingly voted in favour of it, and the only reason it didn't pass was because of union votes. Since then, Unite has changed their position and now supports reform.
If by quick you mean 5 years later they *may* face deselection versus the even greater job uncertainty of wholesale voting reform?
Look at history. The PLP aborted electoral reform under Blair too. The only way it'll happen is if they're forced to do it Day 1 in a coalition.
Exactly correct. Hung parliament is my hope for the next election and the Lib Dems need to play hardball for PR (the SNP can't). Any other scenario leads to no PR.
As someone who hates New Labour/Third Wayism and quit the party I would not only vote for them if they did this but id be out campaigning as much as humanly possible.
PR is the only hope this country has.
Morally it's the right thing to do, tactically it depends what your standpoint is, if you come from a place of 'labour is the best party to govern the country' then perhaps not, if you come from a place of 'i don't care who as long as they're progressive/competent/centrist and labour are likely to be the senior partner in that' then it would fit that mindset.
>if you come from a place of 'labour is the best party to govern the country' then perhaps not
I'd argue that it still is. Given the current state of British politics (and the likely state for years, probably decades to come) it is now unlikely that Labour can win a majority and, if they do, it'll be a small one. The SNP and LDs are now to strong electorally - especially the SNP - for a Labour only government. This means that the most likely way to oust the Tories is with some form of electoral pact - either a coalition or something like supply and demand. As long as we have FPTP, though, our politics will always be too tribal and confrontational and governments based on such agreements will struggle. I know that the LD/Tory coalition made it to the end, but it devastated the LDs and I would argue that Labour are more inherently tribal anyway.
If, however, you change the system then Labour become the most likely party to lead any government and, over a period of time, the whole approach to politics will change because anyone will need some degree of cross party consensus to get anything done.
If Labour stick to FPTP then, in my view, they'll either never govern again or will be a very weak government spending most of their time putting out fires rather than actually achieving anything.
'We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.' - 1997 Manifesto
I think that's pretty much an election promise, no?
There was an amendment tabled by the Lib Dems to the voting reform referendum bill that would have made it a vote on STV rather than AV. I wonder how Labour voted on that amendment?
No. AV was subtantially better than FPTP and would result in voters much more generally voting for the parties they actually wanted.
I could, for example, vote Lib Dems rather than Labour, despite the fact my primary goal is wanting a non-conservative government and Labour is the FPTP tactical choice.
Now, this wouldn't always make much of a difference to parliament at first, but it would begin to better show what the country actually wants, and would go a long way to showing the true voting intention of the public (which can't be seen under FPTP, as everyone I know tactically votes).
AV also gets people used to ranked voting, which is heavily used in many other voting systems, an important one being STV.
--------
All that being said, with AV being shut down, I see us moving to some MMP system if we do ever shift towards PR.
Well either way it was an obvious improvement to the electoral system that would have disadvantaged the two main parties... And Labour campaigned against it because they didn't want to lose power, not because they thought it was wrong.
PR has all the same properties - more even.
But they also committed on student fees to follow the Dearing report, Dearing said don't introduce fees and they did it anyway. Its by no means the only thing they did the exact opposite of what they said they would do.
I've not voted Labour in about a decade and a half, I'd vote Labour on this issue alone if I trusted them to actually implement it.
Unfortunately, I don't doubt that in the event of a Labour win this would be the first manifesto promise the get the axe.
So great in theory, but in practice I have some serious doubts.
The problem is, why are you automatically refusing to believe that they wouldn’t honour such a promise? Conservatives have been in power for 12 years, so it seems like this idea is based on… nothing.
>Conservatives have been in power for 12 years, so it seems like this idea is based on… nothing.
Or based on the last time Labour won an election after promising a referendum for PR and then quietly never did it in 13 years of governance?
Whereas the tories have actually held a referendum on a change of electoral systems
Labour are on the verge of giving conservatism an existential crisis the likes of which Thatcher gave socialism. I hope they pull it off but experience has taught me that the left can only be tried on to trip itself up. I hope this time is different.
Shame they lost the elections in 1997 and 2001, because if they'd won, they could have followed through on their manifesto commitme... What, they *won* those elections?
In that case we have PR already, then?
I don't see any real benefits of FPTP.
1. FPTP provides stability and under PR we'd have endless coalitions? Well Labour and the Tories (and even the Lib Dems and SNP for that matter) are coalitions within themselves, containing wings that are radically different to each other. So it seems clear to me that every Tory and Labour majority government has effectively been a coalition government anyway. And I fail to see how parties working more constructively with each other, and politics therefore becoming less adversarial, would be a bad thing.
2. FPTP is vital to main the constituency-local MP link? That's bogus as shown by the set-up in Ireland where the STV voting system is used. STV encourages candidates to build up a personal vote in their local area, and shifts the focus beyond constituencies and into smaller towns, and thus actually increases and enhances local politics. Also in the UK, I'd wager that the vast majority of voters can't even name their local MP (in fact there have been several surveys over the years indicating this), suggesting that the constituency link is not as strong as many people think. In reality, I'm sure that the vast majority of people vote for the party not the person, or indirectly for / against the Tory or Labour leaders.
3. As shown by the 2015 election when UKIP got nearly 13% of the vote but just 1 seat, FPTP curbs and restricts extreme views? Well that's also bogus, as those extreme views just infiltrate and become more common plaice in the main parties, as we've seen by the increased number of right-wing nutcases in the Republican and Tory parties. Numerous Tory MPs such as Christopher Chope, Mark Francoise, Steve Baker, Peter Bone etc., are / were essentially the same thing as Ukippers sharing the same political views. But of course they remained within the Tory party as they didn't want to give up / risk their ultra-safe seats where a donkey wearing a blue rosette would get elected easily. Also any party that gets nearly 13% of the vote deserves more than 1 seat in Westminster, regardless of how much I despise them and their policies.
Labour should stay away from electoral reform until they're in government under FPTP. The second Labour start talking electoral reform whilst still in opposition the Tories will pounce saying they want to change the rules because they can't win the current way.
I think a lot of smaller party supporters would lend their vote. A tactical election followed by electoral reform could actually put this country back on track
SNP would probably vote against it if its STV because they lose half their seats, so ideally if a Labour-Lib coalition can happen, it does instead of a Labour-SNP coalition
And their goal isn't power in Westminster. Having 50 or 5 MPs doesn't make a huge difference if the main parties will never form a coalition with you out of principle. Idk if the SNP MPs in Westminster get many motions passed as it is
Would it? You can pass laws that are not in the manifesto right? The only difference is that the Lords will scrutinise it more instead of waive it through. Unless there is a specific law that requires a referendum which I don't think there is
you could pass a proportional representation law without it being backed by a referendum or manifesto pledge, but that'd potentially delegitimise it in the eyes of the public and turn it into a partisan issue. I don't want the conservatives to latch onto being anti-proportional representation like brexit and have a culture war over electoral systems.
Technically yeah of course. I meant to avoid the accusations of it being illegitimate. The RW press would have a field day if it wasn't a manifesto promise and the only realistic way out of it would be via referendum I think.
It will not talk about electoral reform if it gets into government under FPTP; switching to Proportional Representation would displace many incumbents from their seats even if the total number of seats won by Labour stayed the same - that's what makes it so difficult to pass.
That is probably why Trudeau abandoned it in Canada; even if it benefits the party it doesn't benefit any particular MP very much, and creates a risk for most of them.
The Liberals are consistently, massively overrepresented by FPTP in Canada. Trudeau abandoned it because it would mean having to share power and lose his unfair advantage.
labour will never back electoral reform unless there is a strong Lib Dem party that actively threatens their safe seats like in 2010. They're currently polling at numbers that would put them slightly short of a majority under a universal swing, and it would probably be majority given that marginals always swing more than safe seats and Labour made ground in local elections in all the traditional marginals. If 40% of the vote gets Labour in power outright, there's no incentive for them to back reform that necessitates coalitions.
It would make for a strange electoral coalition. If labour promised true STV I can see some far right people voting for it, basically every group that gets 5-10% of the vote (or could) has an incentive. Not saying I oppose PR but it gets odd.
You cannot just make stuff up after you have been elected. If Labour wish to put this forward then they have to declare in a manifesto pledge.
The alternative that has been thrown around is the chance of a hung parliament with LD being a sidekick. From there Labour can give in to demands from the LD, who have this built into their manifesto. That's a big gamble to take imo.
The tide is turning on PR voting. People are recognising just how this favours the Tories, and the tide is most definitely turning against the Tories.
Well [the last time that happened](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK\)) the recommendation was for [AV+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_plus), and the Labour government completely ignored the report.
It's worth checking out this campaign for electoral reform: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/
MVM is a grass roots cross-party effort to make Westminster elections less FPTP and more PR (without committing to any particular form of PR)
The answer to that depends on the voting system. Under STV (with multiple member constituencies) I assume they would do a by-election via AV (which is basically STV with only one winner). If it's AMS (as in Holyrood) a list candidate then I guess they'd be replaced without a by-election for the next highest list candidate. If they're a constituency MP, then a by-election as currently happens.
It depends on the system; if it's the Irish system then they get run under single-member single transferable vote, if it's the Scottish system then it's either a typical FPTP by-election or a party will just appoint the next person on the party's list - depending on what sort of seat they held.
STV is the system the Liberals/Lib Dems have been pushing for for the last hundred years. It was invented specifically for the UK which is why it's used in Ireland. With STV you just have a by-election like you do under FPTP but it's a ranked choice vote.
>People may not agree on which PR system is best, but nearly all of them agree anything from the PR spectrum is better than FPTP.
That's fine but that's not an argument you can use on the doorstep. Unless you can explain within a few seconds exactly what you propose and why it is more important than the cost of living crisis then you aren't gonna get anyone to vote for it.
tbf you can back two things at the same time. I think people can emotionally resonate with "The system is broken, Tories keep getting in power with a minority of the popular vote, and it's time we fundamentally changed the system so the people never have to see another man like Boris Johnson held unaccountable." or smth. An actual politician can probably spin it better as a "fight against boris" or smth lol. Like "if we had PR, Boris wouldnt have won!" kinda bs
I personally like STV just because it feels easy to explain and works fairly well with representing both the general voter population and local communities.
"5 seats are available in one constituency. You rank your choices. If your first choice loses the most or wins a seat by the most, your vote is not wasted, and instead transfers to your second choice. If that MP lost, all votes are transferred, and if the MP won, the surplus votes transfer. This transfer process repeats, until the 5 MPs are selected. This system means you can pick your favourite candidate, and vote tactically with your later votes, ensuring your vote always has the same value as another"
I say "tactical voting" so people don't feel scared that they wont be able to keep specific people out as that was a concern a friend had once. I'm aware of this. It might be better to say "your safe choice can come after all the ones you like." or smth
It depends.
In a party list system then the outgoing member is usually replaced by the next person on that party's list (assuming there is one, and that they're still a member of the party). This is how it works for the list part of AMS systems used in the UK (e.g. Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, and London Assembly).
For a system like STV it could be the next unelected person who takes up the seat, or there could be a by-election using AV (as STV with a single winner degenerates to AV).
He's right. It's got some shit effects (Labour becomes less powerful, the next Farage may become more powerful, etc) but realistically, the Tories will do everything in their power to prevent the emergence of a more democratic system. They are already gerrymandering and trying to prevent agreements between other parties.
It's the least worst option to provide something fairer to the electorate and to reduce the Tories to a lesser party. There's a very real chance that Labour and every other non-Tory party may never win outright again, hamstrung by FPTP, redistricting and laws that benefit Tory strategies.
If the cost of an end to a Tory default government is a coalition default of Lib-Lab-Green compromise, it's absolutely worth paying.
It would be the only thing that gets me to still vote for them. Or I'm jumping to green.
To be honest P.R has been needed for a long time. As it will be a far more repetitive of what people in the UK want.
And make a protest vote far more powerful.
I will never believe that Labour is committed to PR to the extent that if they win a majority in Parliament they will *actually* legislate for it.
Just like last time, as soon as they win a majority they will forget all about it.
Proportional representation would be absolutely brilliant. It would end majority Tory rule pretty much forever and we’d have a balance of all parties with deals needing to be made
It would help end pathetic nationalism too
I think it would be better to first pursue federalism in the UK. After decentralising power away from Westminster people in each region could then choose what electoral system they want. Keir starmer mentioned federalism after the brexit vote, but has sadly dropped the proposal since..Perhaps it could be revived? After all, we already have devolution in Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland. It would really just be a more formalised, decentralised evolution of what we already have.
\*Edit\* link to article: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/26/rebecca-long-bailey-calls-for-greater-powers-for-scotland-and-wales](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/26/rebecca-long-bailey-calls-for-greater-powers-for-scotland-and-wales)
If the Brexit vote can teach us anything it's that a 52% majority should not grant the automatic right to 'get brexit done' no matter what. 48% have been left out in the cold to grimly accept the outcome of the vote and to witness the disastrous car crash outcome on our ailing economy in very slow motion.
I won't support PR unless we create a new voting system that allows people to choose which party allies with who on the voting ballot (a new form of preferential voting). There is just too much potential for extremist parties to emerge and for 'third wheel' parties like the lib dems to form unpopular coalitions in order to either A) gain a disproportionate amount of influence for the number of votes won (I am aware that PR is MEANT to be proportional, but the outcome is often sadly not). B) act as kingmaker for other political parties after an election C) do shady deals in smoke filled rooms without public consent. Borgen, anyone?
Is it to much to remind everyone that the Nazis came to power in Germany under a form of Proportional Representation? Obviously there was a LOT else going on at the time, but nonetheless the proportional system made it easier for them to form a coalition government with other less extreme political parties like the CDU. Such a system needs to be implemented with care and consideration alongside goodwill.
Why exactly? I'm far from convinced about PR.
Labour will never back PR. Doing so would be like giving away a lottery ticket with a million pound prize to the person behind you in the que.
And it's easy for Burnham to be the way he is when he's not an MP and is just a Mayor.
Democratically: votes count regardless of how marginal your constituency is
Politically: Labour would be in government more often than once every 2 decades.
Burnham might not be a MP but job security for elected officials isn’t exactly what democracy is about, is it? It’s about accurately reflecting what people are voting for, which at the moment just isn’t the case. That MPs might lose their jobs if their party performs badly in an election is arguably the way it should be, cause that’s what the people decided. If you want a safe job go somewhere else, and even then as an outgoing MP job prospects aren’t going to be so bad.
Snapshot of _Andy Burnham says, Labour must ‘seize moment’ and back proportional representation | Andy Burnham_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/andy-burnham-says-labour-must-seize-moment-and-back-proportional-representation?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other) *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.*
It may end Labour's dreams of being a regular defacfo ruling party of the UK for a second term - if they get in. But seeing as The Conservative Party are the ones most often in power historically. This would be a wise action, as if you drill into the FPTP voting numbers. The country is nearly very much evenly split between ideologies. This would finally break the two party monopoly that's really a one party gig, and change the face of both, UK development and direction forever. For the better, I feel.
In the long run it would actually be beneficial for Labour. Their problem is they're two parties trying to be one, the old guard Labour and the Blairites. PR would allow them to finally split and appeal to each of their own target demographics, and then cooperate if an alliance is needed for a majority.
It forces the Labour Party to actually offer the public something they want. There's nothing stopping them from being the majority ruling party under PR for the next few decades but they have to earn it which is how it should be.
Are you referring to them being the largest party in most governments, or them actually winning over 50% of the vote? The former is quite possible, the latter a formidable goal that's very rare under PR.
PR doesn't mean you need to get over 50% of votes to get a majority. If you have PR you will most likely want to set a threshold for parties to get into the parliament. Could be 3% could be 5%. You don't want douzen of parties that have support of 1-2% because it makes governing almost impossible. Under right circumstances 40% of votes could give you over 50% of seats in the parliament.
NZ Labour managed to pull it off at their last [general election](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_general_election), but I'll acknowledge it is not common.
Largest/governing party.
Labour currently only seems to care about a few million right leaning red wall voters, it would be great to see what they would do if they had principles again.
It'd be interesting to see what Labour would become. It's essentially at least two parties in one at the moment, maybe even three: moderates ('the right'), socialists ('the left'), and perhaps progressives (fairly radical, but different solutions and priorities to the traditional 'left'). Under PR, many members, voters, and politicians would likely move to another party. The Greens and Liberal Democrats would suit many, but the 'old left' might need to form a new party. It'd be a seismic shift, and I think that'd be really good for British politics in the end.
If that happens, I could see the 'soft left' faction maintaining control of the party, while the populist left and right factions split and form their own parties. The former would include Corbyn, McDonald, etc., and the latter would have people like Jarvis and Nandy.
Corbyn and his cronies hardly soft left.
Labour is about social justice not Woke bulshit.
Wow what a great comment, good job buddy.
You say they are right leaning like Labour should be about Liberal politics and this deserves to be called out. If you want a Labour government (don't know that you do) you will never get one without those 3 million people.
So Labour have to earn power but the Tories don't? FPTP gives the Tories a baked-in advantage because they need fewer votes per seat they win, helped by the split in the left-wing vote. Nothing would be fairer than making seats match votes, giving us a parliament that actually represents the views of its people.
> It may end Labour's dreams of being a regular defacfo ruling party of the UK for a second term - if they get in. Labour have won double-digit (or greater) majorities exactly **5 times in history**, three of which were under Tony Blair. The belief that Labour could become a "regular de facto ruling party" under the current system is delusional.
Quite. And there's a good argument that the predominant left-of-centre party in a PR system - whether it's Labour or a successor party - would be in government far more often. Majoritarian systems such as ours tend to have a bias towards conservative parties. Anyone with any vision in Labour should be backing PR for that reason alone.
> The belief that Labour could become a "regular de facto ruling party" under the current system is delusional. if they offered something people wanted maybe they'd get elected
You mean pretend to be anti immigration like the tories?
Maybe if voters in England wanted Labour manifestos (like they have historically in Wales and Scotland, up until the latter ditched them for the SNP) they wouldn't keep voting Tory every election.
You'd be right, _if_ most people actually _read_ manifestos.
It is much better to propose something inspiring to people and convince them of the benefits of your policies then it is to simply write them off as Tory voters. Nothing will change if you don't do this. Labour hasn't been very good at this. The only times they have really been able to galvanise voters outside of their traditional base was under Attlee and Blair. The other Labour governments are primarily the result of the electorate being dissatisfied with the Conservatives.
Acknowledging the historical fact that England is pre-disposed to Tory economics is not "writing them off as Tory voters", it is grasping the reality that Labour has an uphill struggle regardless of what it tries to sell. >Labour hasn't been very good at this. It **has** been good at this, in Scotland and Wales. It hasn't been at UK level because, as previously mentioned, England really likes voting Tory.
Agreed, there is too much weight given to which party would benefit and which would be worse off. Presumably the Blair govt didn't introduce it because they could happily win with the current system. Instead the question should be: would such a system more accurately represent the will of the people. In my view the answer is yes, so we should go for it, regardless of which parties it benefits in the short term.
I agree. It would mean the end of the labour party though, or a split into two or more factions. It would be very interesting to see.
Both Labour and Conservative would split into 2 factions and that's a good thing. All four can actual represent the interests of their supporters rather than this big tent crap that paralyzes them from taking any stance as it might upset someone. Yes, we are going to have a big nationalist/racist party in the UK and it'll be a bit embarrassing, but that's better than having them ransoming everyone else for support.
But that division is fine, and we already have, and have had, bigoted parties in the system even under FPTP. Unfortunately they have voices and they have the right to be heard, but right now they bolster the numbers of the bigger party because of the system; let them be their own party and then the bigots can be bigots without the thin veil over them that they have now.
Honestly, they're better off as two ideologically-consistent parties that cooperate on issues where they're similarly aligned than one dysfunctional mess of a party that spends half its time at war with itself and flip-flops between being a European-style centre-left party and the Democrats to the Tory party's Republicans.
PR is the only way to break the cycle of Conservative/Labour governments and truly represent the voters. At the moment, a vote for any party other than Labour in a general election will simply reduce the number of Labour votes and lessen their chances of overturning the Conservative government. The smaller parties don't have a hope of governing under a first past the post voting system.
Except for the kingmaker scenario However that last arrangement was an utter shit show, so yes I agree, PR needs to be on the cards.
I dont know too much of the detail but it definitely felt like last time the LDs went into it expecting a gentlemanly handshaking coalition to take place and ended up with tories taking all the glory for gains and blaming the LDs for the losses. The debacle over the student fees issue just cemented the problem in the public consciousness.
...but if we're paying some money to change the electoral system then we can't spend that money on helmets for our soldiers?!
Let's fucking go. It would transform politics. For those who didn't want Brexit....you'll keep getting outcomes like Brexit if people are forced to vote for big parties that don't stand for what they actually want. Won't be surprised if this just results in a smear campaign against him, both from the press and within the Labour Party.
[удалено]
The SNP support electoral reform to PR or similar despite the fact it would likely reduce the number of MPs they return to Westminster. I'm relatively certain that the SNP leadership do actually mean this, but whether their MPs would vote for it or break the whip is a separate matter
It might be a strange situation where they have less MPs but more actual power if their MPs are needed to form a coalition government.
Also, it also would make the UK less shitty which would reduce the case for independence. Constant Tory government is my number 1 reason for supporting independence.
What a shitty reason to become an independent nation.
Meh who cares what you think captain apathy.
You don't need to care, it's a public forum where we all get to state our piece.
Is it really though? One large country consistently votes against the interests and values of another, it would seem pretty obvious to me that its a good idea to separate so both can get governments that align with their needs and desires.
SNP used to support PR when it would benefit them. Now they massively benefit from FPTP, but to their credit they still support it. Based on 2019 numbers, SNP would have about 25 MPs rather than the 48 they did get, ahead of the c. 17 greens, but less than the 75 Lib Dem MPs.
>Do the SNP support it? They'd be huge losers. They'd lose MPs but gain influence, as there'd be no more majority governments who could just ignore them.
It works for the SNP at Hollyrood , they agree to it in principle and they like to be seen to do this kind of thing for the greater good. But in real political terms I would guess that any negotiation between Labour, SNP and Labour is going to hinge around PR being tabled, along with Stormont style right to referendum for devolved areas. How Starter will enable this in the face of the biggest tantrum that the tabloid press has ever thrown, I do not know.
At Hollyrood though the SNP get a percentage out of 100% of the electorate, whereas in Westminster they’d only get a fraction of 10% of the vote so they’d very likely not get seats in a direct proportional system, they only got 3% last election. In an MMP system though they’d be able to hold on to the seats.
I think they’d push for something more complicated than simply dividing the seats up by the total vote share I.e. something that somewhat accounts for specific regional interests such as Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland.
Have you folks never heard of STV?
Even with STV they'd inevitable get fewer seats than they do now. They win, approximately, 100% of Scottish seats off of substantially less than 100% of the vote as it currently stands. Any PR system would resort in them getting fewer seats in Westminster, except *maybe* a multi list system or whatever its called/
Only with regards to Westminster and they only really use that as a vehicle to agitate for referendums which Labour are more inclined (though still likely to drag their heels) to give compared to the tories given that Scotland is pretty much lost to Labour forever anyway and that under PR, all governments would be coalitions. Those coalitions would trend towards a business-friendly, Europe-positive relationship labour (to keep the LDs onside) with environmental concessions (to keep the 4-10 Green MPs PR would likely create onside.) Whereas tory coalitions would basically however many they can keep lining up with the 9-15 deranged unionists in NI and however many far-right England-based lunatic MPs that PR would create to steal seats from tories. Even without getting the referendum they supposedly want but starting PR for UK General elections, they would still retain Holyrood under devo-max, giving them everything but defence and foreign relations powers.
I didn’t want Brexit then but i sure don’t want Europe now! I do want a better government, i think proportional representation could be a powerful tool to break the two party system we like much of the rest of the world is burdened with.
> I didn’t want Brexit then but i sure don’t want Europe now! Why?
it’s predominantly around energy policy and actually the *only* country in Europe that i am aware of making the pragmatic choices around energy is the UK. -Modular Nuclear Power plants -Mining for Coking Coal -North Sea Gas and oil exploration -Funding British Livestock Farming and Agriculture Now i know i’m getting downvoted to hell for my Brexit statement and the above 4 bullet points are not going to improve the reactions from knee jerkers but if you don’t understand why those four bullet points are so important for our food, energy security and expanding a greener energy grid. -Then i suggest you look up why China is rolling out modular nukes. -What wind turbines are made from -What rotational farming is and why it’s so important to the ecology of the land. -Why Russia is making more money from Europe now from key commodity exports than before the sanctions. -Why Natural Gas doesn’t just heat your home and fizz your drinks but integrally part of the fertiliser, food processing, manufacturing and even a core part of massive scaled computing that our very modern society is built on. -Why China, the worlds biggest exporter of Solar Cells stopped making so early in this global energy crunch. -Why literally everything everywhere just got really expensive and it’s getting a whole lot worse
There are some accurate points there glad someone actually mentioned how vital natural gas is for nitrogen fertiliser production, the global famine for the next two years (at least) is something we're sleepwalking into but no longer have the power to halt as we will see many millions die, but the realities of the situation being missed entirely regards the UK in relation to Europe. Granted the majority of the EU members are god awful at their own energy policy in the current state of the world, due to failed policy directions, most notably in Germany where: * they went colossal on green tech solar and wind, which the continent doesn't have sufficient energy potential for. * \[[opposed nuclear to the point of attempting full decommissioning in Germany](https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab)\]([https://www.dw.com/en/will-germany-return-to-nuclear-power/a-62223935](https://www.dw.com/en/will-germany-return-to-nuclear-power/a-62223935)) and to varying degrees in other countries, peaking post-Fukashima (mostly due to irrational fears of events that simply cannot happen with our geography). This was worse in countries where green parties exercise large participation through coalition governments and get to condition their support on such policies being enacted. * used cheap Russian fossil fuels as a hedge to all of that following the Merkel doctrine of "peace through interconnected trade" which in hindsight should have been stopped from the warning signs of 2008 and 2014 and has proven to be a disaster. Now Germany is: * having to [go even heavier on lignite](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-23/german-utilities-prepare-to-turn-on-coal-plants-amid-gas-crisis) which they wanted to phase out (wet inefficient coal basically), so their climate goals are dead in the water and in a twist of irony it's thanks to the tireless campaigning of the German Greens that they reduced to mining and burning the worst coal possible for the environment. * [scramble for LNG terminal infrastructure](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/germanys-scholz-hopes-baltic-sea-lng-terminal-within-months-2022-06-21/) in the North to take on whatever US decides to sell them. * Seriously consider Putin's offer to maintain supply if they screw over Ukraine and NATO by pulling support as much as they really don't want to. Now, that is an unmitigated disaster. But the UK is not some beacon of perfection just by being outside the EU. We would have had the same advantages and disadvantages to our energy infrastructure regardless of whether or not we stayed in. Specifically: * The wind green tech that doesn't work elsewhere in Europe, works great here, in fact, as I type this, [44.8% of our national grid energy input is coming from wind](https://grid.iamkate.com/). * Didn't oppose nuclear so violently nor do we have a political system that allows for it. We actually halted and blundered into delaying closures long enough for the public opinion to shift back around to "we need this now and more of it." But we're \[still acting too late to extend Hinckley B to cover the shortfall\]([https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab](https://www.ft.com/content/17fdc088-962d-4a28-a60a-da23204375ab)) and we won't have Sizewell's expansion done any time soon, so we've screwed up there but not as badly as Germany. Right now, it's doing about 25% of our national grid, but our nuclear energy program has stagnated in terms of infrastructure and research for some time. * We've the North Sea fields, at least our economic zones of it. * We're always the first in line for US, Canadian and Aussie fossil fuels and nuclear fuel resupply as and when needed at favourable terms. Those are massive advantages to have and we'd have had them either way. There is even a school of thought that if we were in the EU we would have had significant leverage over Germany over when it came to making them fund additional offshore wind infrastructure in order to sell them power at whatever price we set once they'd paid to put it up in the first place, that's how desperate they are. This comment is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at the point, we'd have been better off than mainland Europe, Brexit or no, but by no means does that make us perfect or even pragmatic. We simply had a better starting point to work with.
Of those bullet points, without even going into detail : * first three would not be prevented by being in the EU * the final one is just factually wrong on the basis that: 1. Livestock Farming and agriculture were already funded by EU programs in addition to any national program? 2. Considering that farming ventures can no longer access easy seasonal workers nor easily export into the largest market at their doorstep, I fail to see Where's the win here.
Maybe they think that not being part of the EU makes us somehow less of a Russian target and more distanced from the Ukrainian conflict?? Honestly I don’t know, I’m interested in OPs opinion here because this seems like a kinda wild statement
Which would be a ludicrous position if that were the case. We're a bigger target than most of the world on Russia's hit list. Hell, their national persecution complex pretty much has the UK as the oldest enemy constantly holding back and bringing down Russia going back as far as The Great Game. So rest assured, even if we were completely isolationist, we're first in the queue for a mushroom cloud. They're even mad at us and continue to teach generations to be mad at us for the stuff we didn't do, like the way they tangentially blame us for lingering humiliations like the Russo-Japanese war, despite the fact we did not get actively involved. Even though, the [1902 Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance) we signed with Japan would have facilitated our intervention had the Japanese actually needed our help and had ample cause to sink their entire Navy after the [Dogger bank incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident) in which the Russian fleet mistook the Hull fishing fleet for Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea for some reason and murdered trawlermen out of sheer incompetence even blowing holes in one of their own ships in the crossfire, killing the ship's priest. The only thing older than Russian incompetence is Russia's persecution complex. Edit - Entente-era politics were absolutely wild.
A lot of people were happy with remaining in the EU until they saw how they've behaved towards us since.
Now that we've burned all our bridges with the EU and called them names they're not as nice to us anymore. :(
Yup, ever since we left our agreement with them they behave like we don't have an agreement!
The UK hasn't been treated worse than any other third country - which is precisely what "leaving the Union" means.
You mean following the single market rules for third party countries, and negotiating in their own self interest realising the relative power (im)balance? Yeah.those meanies....🙄
How does a person live through brexit and decide that they're actually better off? What's your logic there?
It’s convenient to blame Brexit for what’s happening globally.
It's convenient to blame global events for Britain's slower COVID recovery than other comparable states.
The UK has exceeded q4 2019 gdp France and Germany haven't.
So why am I seeing this? I'd earnestly be grateful if you could explain what you are saying Vs this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57427997.amp
That article is from a year ago. Compare it with the [data from the OECD](https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/g20-gdp-growth-first-quarter-2022-oecd.htm) published on 14th June this year
[Behold this counterpoint](https://i.imgur.com/lDMIaYA.jpg).
There are hundreds of articles out there with research to back it up stating how a lot of our current issues are down to brexit.
ikr!? literally hundreds of articles from the same newspaper corps and the same international monetary fund affiliates. I’m not saying trade with Europe hasn’t been stunted and the problems exacerbated by it but rejoining feels like a misstep into more domestic conflict and back into a house on fire; -look at the recent French elections -look at Germany’s Energy problems -look at Italy and Spain’s finances. The French far right now holds a huge number of seats in French parliament, the French; along with Poland, Hungary and even Italy and Germany are starting to or already having the same conversations that the UK did. And they don’t have Nigel Farage as a muppet mouthed scapegoat, they are having these conversations organically If we should consider rejoining, now is not the time to do it.
>I didn’t want Brexit then but i sure don’t want Europe now! I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that you're opposed to rejoining, that you don't like Europe or something else entirely?
I’m opposed to rejoining; it will only further tensions in the country.
Well then I have good news for you: it was our decision to leave, but if we wanted to rejoin then that's the EU's decision and there's no way in hell that they'll let us back in in the next decade at least.
Ahh, yes. When you are taken hostage by a madman and he shoots you in the foot, it is important to do what he says lest he shoot the other one also.
I bloody love Nasturtiums! My veg patch has so many this year
Pesto time.
Good news for you then, the EU will only allow UK back in if there is a big majority for rejoin.
My understanding is that Starmer also supports PR; but the party doesn't [https://labourlist.org/2021/09/conference-rejects-motion-committing-labour-to-proportional-representation/](https://labourlist.org/2021/09/conference-rejects-motion-committing-labour-to-proportional-representation/) its great that leading figures are calling for it, but whilst the affiliates (as I understand Unions but happy to be corrected here) dont it wont pass.
The motion failed at the last conference due to opposition from the unions. Some of that opposition was due to union policies which they had to abide by at the time, but has subsequently changed to be in favour of PR. Unite for example voted to back PR shortly after the Labour conference. Unison also recently came down in favour of PR. I'm fairly confident the Labour membership will vote through a motion committing the party to back PR, as the CLPs are massively in favour.
and thank FUCK for that lol
I’ll believe it when I see it. I can’t find anything that says Starmer supports PR, and if the last conference is any indication, he’ll be more than happy to bury it again, believing he’ll be the next Blair profiting directly from FPTP.
I remember seeing somewhere that he did, but it was a dead issue and he spent energy somewhere else (which at the time of the last conference it seemed from the outside to be all about not letting the party rip itself apart). The closest I can find is below, but I agree not a firm commitment/ endorsement for PR. [https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/keir-starmer-weve-got-to-address-the-fact-that-millions-of-people-vote-in-safe-seats-and-they-feel-their-voice-doesnt-count/](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/keir-starmer-weve-got-to-address-the-fact-that-millions-of-people-vote-in-safe-seats-and-they-feel-their-voice-doesnt-count/)
Our CLP passed a motion to support it last year and will most likely do it again this year.
Looks like there might be movement there https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-uks-biggest-union-just-passed-a-motion-in-support-of-proportional-representation/
Thanks - had not seen this
> but the party doesn't The party does. At the last conference, members overwhelmingly voted in favour of it, and the only reason it didn't pass was because of union votes. Since then, Unite has changed their position and now supports reform.
The PLP doesn't
It's not really up to them though. I don't think they really have any weight with what the party adopts at its conference.
Yet they can rebel once Labour are in government. Conference doesn't directly decide laws.
If something got passed overwhelmingly at their conference, and they deliberately went against it that would be a quick way to end their career.
If by quick you mean 5 years later they *may* face deselection versus the even greater job uncertainty of wholesale voting reform? Look at history. The PLP aborted electoral reform under Blair too. The only way it'll happen is if they're forced to do it Day 1 in a coalition.
Exactly correct. Hung parliament is my hope for the next election and the Lib Dems need to play hardball for PR (the SNP can't). Any other scenario leads to no PR.
Starmer professed to support lots of things he now seems to have abandoned.
It begins?
We can only hope
I'll believe it when I see it. Blair said that he would introduce PR and we all know how that turned out.
Yes but FPTP provided Blair with 3 large majorities. Looking at polling Kier will not get that.
As someone who hates New Labour/Third Wayism and quit the party I would not only vote for them if they did this but id be out campaigning as much as humanly possible. PR is the only hope this country has.
Morally it's the right thing to do, tactically it depends what your standpoint is, if you come from a place of 'labour is the best party to govern the country' then perhaps not, if you come from a place of 'i don't care who as long as they're progressive/competent/centrist and labour are likely to be the senior partner in that' then it would fit that mindset.
>if you come from a place of 'labour is the best party to govern the country' then perhaps not I'd argue that it still is. Given the current state of British politics (and the likely state for years, probably decades to come) it is now unlikely that Labour can win a majority and, if they do, it'll be a small one. The SNP and LDs are now to strong electorally - especially the SNP - for a Labour only government. This means that the most likely way to oust the Tories is with some form of electoral pact - either a coalition or something like supply and demand. As long as we have FPTP, though, our politics will always be too tribal and confrontational and governments based on such agreements will struggle. I know that the LD/Tory coalition made it to the end, but it devastated the LDs and I would argue that Labour are more inherently tribal anyway. If, however, you change the system then Labour become the most likely party to lead any government and, over a period of time, the whole approach to politics will change because anyone will need some degree of cross party consensus to get anything done. If Labour stick to FPTP then, in my view, they'll either never govern again or will be a very weak government spending most of their time putting out fires rather than actually achieving anything.
again\* '97 and 01 it was in your manifesto what happened to that?
PR wasn’t really in the 97 or 01 manifesto it was worded ‘we will look into alternative forms of voting’
'We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.' - 1997 Manifesto I think that's pretty much an election promise, no?
Well we did eventually get that referendum. Guess who campaigned against it (other than the Tories)?
To be fair that referendum wasn't on a proportional alternative to FPTP.
Pretty much. AV was just FPTP with more steps.
There was an amendment tabled by the Lib Dems to the voting reform referendum bill that would have made it a vote on STV rather than AV. I wonder how Labour voted on that amendment?
No. AV was subtantially better than FPTP and would result in voters much more generally voting for the parties they actually wanted. I could, for example, vote Lib Dems rather than Labour, despite the fact my primary goal is wanting a non-conservative government and Labour is the FPTP tactical choice. Now, this wouldn't always make much of a difference to parliament at first, but it would begin to better show what the country actually wants, and would go a long way to showing the true voting intention of the public (which can't be seen under FPTP, as everyone I know tactically votes). AV also gets people used to ranked voting, which is heavily used in many other voting systems, an important one being STV. -------- All that being said, with AV being shut down, I see us moving to some MMP system if we do ever shift towards PR.
Well either way it was an obvious improvement to the electoral system that would have disadvantaged the two main parties... And Labour campaigned against it because they didn't want to lose power, not because they thought it was wrong. PR has all the same properties - more even.
But they also committed on student fees to follow the Dearing report, Dearing said don't introduce fees and they did it anyway. Its by no means the only thing they did the exact opposite of what they said they would do.
I already thought that Burnham was the best contender for next leader of the party. With this news he'd certainly have my vote!
They won't.
>Seize the moment try to freeze it and own it. >Squeeze it and hold it, 'cause we consider these minutes golden. *Andy Burnham*
Dream on Dream on D:Ream on They can only get better
I've not voted Labour in about a decade and a half, I'd vote Labour on this issue alone if I trusted them to actually implement it. Unfortunately, I don't doubt that in the event of a Labour win this would be the first manifesto promise the get the axe. So great in theory, but in practice I have some serious doubts.
And Tory enablers wonder how this country has turned into a shithole.
Oh no parties being held to account for their past actions, what a dire situation.
The problem is, why are you automatically refusing to believe that they wouldn’t honour such a promise? Conservatives have been in power for 12 years, so it seems like this idea is based on… nothing.
Blair shafted Ashdown in 97 on this very issue.
>Conservatives have been in power for 12 years, so it seems like this idea is based on… nothing. Or based on the last time Labour won an election after promising a referendum for PR and then quietly never did it in 13 years of governance? Whereas the tories have actually held a referendum on a change of electoral systems
Not a hope but I'd love it if they did.
Labour are on the verge of giving conservatism an existential crisis the likes of which Thatcher gave socialism. I hope they pull it off but experience has taught me that the left can only be tried on to trip itself up. I hope this time is different.
The misplaced comma is almost more annoying than FPTP
Irritating, reddit did the caption for me automatically when I pasted in the link.
The only circumstance I can see Labour backing proportional representation is if they win a general election but just barely.
Shame they lost the elections in 1997 and 2001, because if they'd won, they could have followed through on their manifesto commitme... What, they *won* those elections? In that case we have PR already, then?
Proportional representation could save the country tbh
go on lad
He’s right. But Starmer won’t.
I don't see any real benefits of FPTP. 1. FPTP provides stability and under PR we'd have endless coalitions? Well Labour and the Tories (and even the Lib Dems and SNP for that matter) are coalitions within themselves, containing wings that are radically different to each other. So it seems clear to me that every Tory and Labour majority government has effectively been a coalition government anyway. And I fail to see how parties working more constructively with each other, and politics therefore becoming less adversarial, would be a bad thing. 2. FPTP is vital to main the constituency-local MP link? That's bogus as shown by the set-up in Ireland where the STV voting system is used. STV encourages candidates to build up a personal vote in their local area, and shifts the focus beyond constituencies and into smaller towns, and thus actually increases and enhances local politics. Also in the UK, I'd wager that the vast majority of voters can't even name their local MP (in fact there have been several surveys over the years indicating this), suggesting that the constituency link is not as strong as many people think. In reality, I'm sure that the vast majority of people vote for the party not the person, or indirectly for / against the Tory or Labour leaders. 3. As shown by the 2015 election when UKIP got nearly 13% of the vote but just 1 seat, FPTP curbs and restricts extreme views? Well that's also bogus, as those extreme views just infiltrate and become more common plaice in the main parties, as we've seen by the increased number of right-wing nutcases in the Republican and Tory parties. Numerous Tory MPs such as Christopher Chope, Mark Francoise, Steve Baker, Peter Bone etc., are / were essentially the same thing as Ukippers sharing the same political views. But of course they remained within the Tory party as they didn't want to give up / risk their ultra-safe seats where a donkey wearing a blue rosette would get elected easily. Also any party that gets nearly 13% of the vote deserves more than 1 seat in Westminster, regardless of how much I despise them and their policies.
Labour should stay away from electoral reform until they're in government under FPTP. The second Labour start talking electoral reform whilst still in opposition the Tories will pounce saying they want to change the rules because they can't win the current way.
I think a lot of smaller party supporters would lend their vote. A tactical election followed by electoral reform could actually put this country back on track
This is the dream.
yep, lib-lab coalition, efta membership, new anti-corruption laws, revitalised public services, a living wage, bring me the sunlit uplands
Keep going.
SNP would probably vote against it if its STV because they lose half their seats, so ideally if a Labour-Lib coalition can happen, it does instead of a Labour-SNP coalition
SNP said they would back PR reform because while they know it would damage them they are also decent humans (most of the time)
And their goal isn't power in Westminster. Having 50 or 5 MPs doesn't make a huge difference if the main parties will never form a coalition with you out of principle. Idk if the SNP MPs in Westminster get many motions passed as it is
They’ve explicitly come out for it admitting that it would negatively affect them
If its in their manifesto then I'll be ok with it then I guess.
The SNP would back it because, and I can't stress this enough THEY DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT WESTMINSTER
lmao honestly yeah that gets me on board with Labour-SNP. Big worry off my shoulders there ty :)
> SNP would probably vote against it if its STV because they lose half their seats SNP regularly include PR as an election pledge in their manifestos.
They'd have to have it in the manifesto. Otherwise it would be a referendum and Fuck. That.
Would it? You can pass laws that are not in the manifesto right? The only difference is that the Lords will scrutinise it more instead of waive it through. Unless there is a specific law that requires a referendum which I don't think there is
you could pass a proportional representation law without it being backed by a referendum or manifesto pledge, but that'd potentially delegitimise it in the eyes of the public and turn it into a partisan issue. I don't want the conservatives to latch onto being anti-proportional representation like brexit and have a culture war over electoral systems.
Technically yeah of course. I meant to avoid the accusations of it being illegitimate. The RW press would have a field day if it wasn't a manifesto promise and the only realistic way out of it would be via referendum I think.
It will not talk about electoral reform if it gets into government under FPTP; switching to Proportional Representation would displace many incumbents from their seats even if the total number of seats won by Labour stayed the same - that's what makes it so difficult to pass. That is probably why Trudeau abandoned it in Canada; even if it benefits the party it doesn't benefit any particular MP very much, and creates a risk for most of them.
The Liberals are consistently, massively overrepresented by FPTP in Canada. Trudeau abandoned it because it would mean having to share power and lose his unfair advantage.
Once Labour get in government, they'll lose all interest in proportional representation.
labour will never back electoral reform unless there is a strong Lib Dem party that actively threatens their safe seats like in 2010. They're currently polling at numbers that would put them slightly short of a majority under a universal swing, and it would probably be majority given that marginals always swing more than safe seats and Labour made ground in local elections in all the traditional marginals. If 40% of the vote gets Labour in power outright, there's no incentive for them to back reform that necessitates coalitions.
It would make for a strange electoral coalition. If labour promised true STV I can see some far right people voting for it, basically every group that gets 5-10% of the vote (or could) has an incentive. Not saying I oppose PR but it gets odd.
You cannot just make stuff up after you have been elected. If Labour wish to put this forward then they have to declare in a manifesto pledge. The alternative that has been thrown around is the chance of a hung parliament with LD being a sidekick. From there Labour can give in to demands from the LD, who have this built into their manifesto. That's a big gamble to take imo. The tide is turning on PR voting. People are recognising just how this favours the Tories, and the tide is most definitely turning against the Tories.
they backed it in '97 and got elected, turned out they were full of shit when they promised it, but it didn't stop them getting elected
[удалено]
Well [the last time that happened](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK\)) the recommendation was for [AV+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_plus), and the Labour government completely ignored the report.
Exactly this.
It's worth checking out this campaign for electoral reform: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/ MVM is a grass roots cross-party effort to make Westminster elections less FPTP and more PR (without committing to any particular form of PR)
That'd require Labour not being terrible, therefore not being the Labour party
Can anyone explain how a by-election works in PR? Say you have a tractor porn watching MP and so they resign. How does that work?
The answer to that depends on the voting system. Under STV (with multiple member constituencies) I assume they would do a by-election via AV (which is basically STV with only one winner). If it's AMS (as in Holyrood) a list candidate then I guess they'd be replaced without a by-election for the next highest list candidate. If they're a constituency MP, then a by-election as currently happens.
It depends on the system; if it's the Irish system then they get run under single-member single transferable vote, if it's the Scottish system then it's either a typical FPTP by-election or a party will just appoint the next person on the party's list - depending on what sort of seat they held.
STV is the system the Liberals/Lib Dems have been pushing for for the last hundred years. It was invented specifically for the UK which is why it's used in Ireland. With STV you just have a by-election like you do under FPTP but it's a ranked choice vote.
Isn't it an issue that people want PR but then cannot agree which version would be best?
People may not agree on which PR system is best, but nearly all of them agree anything from the PR spectrum is better than FPTP.
>People may not agree on which PR system is best, but nearly all of them agree anything from the PR spectrum is better than FPTP. That's fine but that's not an argument you can use on the doorstep. Unless you can explain within a few seconds exactly what you propose and why it is more important than the cost of living crisis then you aren't gonna get anyone to vote for it.
tbf you can back two things at the same time. I think people can emotionally resonate with "The system is broken, Tories keep getting in power with a minority of the popular vote, and it's time we fundamentally changed the system so the people never have to see another man like Boris Johnson held unaccountable." or smth. An actual politician can probably spin it better as a "fight against boris" or smth lol. Like "if we had PR, Boris wouldnt have won!" kinda bs
STV is what the Lib Dems would push for in a coalition with Labour
Not MMP?
Nope. It's a fine alternative but STV has been Lib Dem policy for generations. Personally I don't like party lists at all so I'd always favour STV.
depends on which system of PR there is, my favoured is MMR, but this sub seems to mostly back STV like in Scotland
I personally like STV just because it feels easy to explain and works fairly well with representing both the general voter population and local communities. "5 seats are available in one constituency. You rank your choices. If your first choice loses the most or wins a seat by the most, your vote is not wasted, and instead transfers to your second choice. If that MP lost, all votes are transferred, and if the MP won, the surplus votes transfer. This transfer process repeats, until the 5 MPs are selected. This system means you can pick your favourite candidate, and vote tactically with your later votes, ensuring your vote always has the same value as another"
[удалено]
I say "tactical voting" so people don't feel scared that they wont be able to keep specific people out as that was a concern a friend had once. I'm aware of this. It might be better to say "your safe choice can come after all the ones you like." or smth
Next MP down on the list takes their place
So in that instance, both Wakefield and Tiverton would now still be Tory?
If the PR system was purely list based there wouldn't be a constituency for any MP but yes, they'd be replaced with a Tory
Isn't that a big problem and quite undemocratic?
Not really, if 40% of people vote Tory ~40% of mps should be tories
It depends. In a party list system then the outgoing member is usually replaced by the next person on that party's list (assuming there is one, and that they're still a member of the party). This is how it works for the list part of AMS systems used in the UK (e.g. Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, and London Assembly). For a system like STV it could be the next unelected person who takes up the seat, or there could be a by-election using AV (as STV with a single winner degenerates to AV).
[удалено]
The same labour that went out of its way to trash PR in the 2011 referendum?
Single Transferable vote isn't PR
He's right. It's got some shit effects (Labour becomes less powerful, the next Farage may become more powerful, etc) but realistically, the Tories will do everything in their power to prevent the emergence of a more democratic system. They are already gerrymandering and trying to prevent agreements between other parties. It's the least worst option to provide something fairer to the electorate and to reduce the Tories to a lesser party. There's a very real chance that Labour and every other non-Tory party may never win outright again, hamstrung by FPTP, redistricting and laws that benefit Tory strategies. If the cost of an end to a Tory default government is a coalition default of Lib-Lab-Green compromise, it's absolutely worth paying.
It would be the only thing that gets me to still vote for them. Or I'm jumping to green. To be honest P.R has been needed for a long time. As it will be a far more repetitive of what people in the UK want. And make a protest vote far more powerful.
Burnham is a LibDem?!
I will never believe that Labour is committed to PR to the extent that if they win a majority in Parliament they will *actually* legislate for it. Just like last time, as soon as they win a majority they will forget all about it.
Proportional representation would be absolutely brilliant. It would end majority Tory rule pretty much forever and we’d have a balance of all parties with deals needing to be made It would help end pathetic nationalism too
I think it would be better to first pursue federalism in the UK. After decentralising power away from Westminster people in each region could then choose what electoral system they want. Keir starmer mentioned federalism after the brexit vote, but has sadly dropped the proposal since..Perhaps it could be revived? After all, we already have devolution in Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland. It would really just be a more formalised, decentralised evolution of what we already have. \*Edit\* link to article: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/26/rebecca-long-bailey-calls-for-greater-powers-for-scotland-and-wales](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/26/rebecca-long-bailey-calls-for-greater-powers-for-scotland-and-wales) If the Brexit vote can teach us anything it's that a 52% majority should not grant the automatic right to 'get brexit done' no matter what. 48% have been left out in the cold to grimly accept the outcome of the vote and to witness the disastrous car crash outcome on our ailing economy in very slow motion. I won't support PR unless we create a new voting system that allows people to choose which party allies with who on the voting ballot (a new form of preferential voting). There is just too much potential for extremist parties to emerge and for 'third wheel' parties like the lib dems to form unpopular coalitions in order to either A) gain a disproportionate amount of influence for the number of votes won (I am aware that PR is MEANT to be proportional, but the outcome is often sadly not). B) act as kingmaker for other political parties after an election C) do shady deals in smoke filled rooms without public consent. Borgen, anyone? Is it to much to remind everyone that the Nazis came to power in Germany under a form of Proportional Representation? Obviously there was a LOT else going on at the time, but nonetheless the proportional system made it easier for them to form a coalition government with other less extreme political parties like the CDU. Such a system needs to be implemented with care and consideration alongside goodwill.
This photo is from my small hometown that I grew up in, so weird to see it all over the news with all these politicians in it 😅 But yea PR FTW ✊
Why exactly? I'm far from convinced about PR. Labour will never back PR. Doing so would be like giving away a lottery ticket with a million pound prize to the person behind you in the que. And it's easy for Burnham to be the way he is when he's not an MP and is just a Mayor.
genuine question but why are you against PR? I've not seen many arguments against it so I'm curious.
Democratically: votes count regardless of how marginal your constituency is Politically: Labour would be in government more often than once every 2 decades.
Burnham might not be a MP but job security for elected officials isn’t exactly what democracy is about, is it? It’s about accurately reflecting what people are voting for, which at the moment just isn’t the case. That MPs might lose their jobs if their party performs badly in an election is arguably the way it should be, cause that’s what the people decided. If you want a safe job go somewhere else, and even then as an outgoing MP job prospects aren’t going to be so bad.