Snapshot of _The Lib Dems name their price for a deal with Labour_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/commons-confidential/2022/06/tories-panic-liberal-democrats-labour-coalition)
*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.*
>The price of Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority government would start with electoral reform without a referendum, in a confidence and supply agreement, I’m informed.
Inject this straight into my veins.
Exactly, you don't want the plebs getting spooked by the kind of adverts we had with the last AV referendum. Apparently AV would kill premature babies.
"[Babies need body armour, not a new voting system](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/02/voting-system-baby-gets)"
Note: Matthew Elliot, architect of vote leave ran tbe No to AV campain too.
Absolutely. It showed how easily we could be manipulated by emotions over logic and facts.
I described the AV vote as a national maths test that we all collectively failed.
Then Brexit was a national economics test that we all collectively failed.
I've been a proponent of PR since the first election I voted in (1997). The fact that millions of votes are literally just binned seemed ridiculous to 19 year old me. But when the announcement was made that the referendum was going to be for AV my heart sank.
AV is FPTP+ putting a patina of proportionality onto the current system. It still drives the two party system and still ends up with millions of votes wasted. It was genuinely a struggle with myself to decide how to vote in the referendum because I felt like it was a vote to eat shit, or shit with sugar on. 🤢
And I don't think that I'm in any way special about my view, I'm sure that there was a decent sized chunk of people who would have voted using the same criteria. I just want PR. We don't have a representative democracy because all but 8 of the MPs represent their party. If we're absolutely tied to the constituency model then we need to scrap parties. Have every MP run as an independent. This is where AV/STV would "work" (for a given value of course).
If we want a party model then we should scrap constituencies and go down the full PR route. It might even make sense to use both models, one for the Commons and the other for the Lords meaning that we're not going to get a carbon copy sitting in both houses. (Because if you vote one way for one house then the chances are that you'll vote the same way for the other house - even if it's just to get your preferred policies through.)
Anyway, sorry for the essay! 😔
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/dominic-cummings-honed-strategy-2004-vote-north-east
Cummings first dry run was actually 12 years before Brexit I believe with North East says No. Matthew Elliott wasn't involved this one either I don't think as he'd only just set up the TPA and wasn't anywhere near as dangerously well connected as he is now.
Just made the comment higher up and hadn't seen this. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Other common link the whole way through this. Chloe Westley. Comms for the Tax Payers Alliance (yes the fucking Atlas Network) with Elliott, Comms for No2AV, Comms for Vote Leave - Current Comms Spad for Boris.
a weird thing is that now £250 million doesn't seem like that much for bandying about! boris added 100 more million just each year in that lie on the side of a bus
Not a fan at all of BNP or Farage, but if enough of the electorate are voting for them then shouldn't they at-least get some seats? We shouldn't be relying on the system to prevent them getting seats as that's just ignoring the real issues of why so many people vote for them (not disagreeing with you, just on why those adverts were wrong).
Pretty much my thoughts. I think I ran some calcs and based on turnout in 2019 under a purely PR system (650 HoC seats, each one worth an equal vote share but no constituency seats, a real system would probably be more nuanced) you’d be looking at just under 50,000 votes getting you a seat.
I can’t see them getting much more than 200,000 at a push, a few MPs like that in the HoC isn’t the end of the world, (we already put up with the likes of Danny Kruger and his backward ass religious nutjobbery) and whether we like it or not, a very small proportion of the country are in fact, racist idiots, so it’s only fair they get some representation.
But what it gives us is the proper public platform for a ‘debate’ about the issues they want to discuss.
We hear so much about how we should have a ‘discussion’ about issues and how these people should be defeated by the challenge, not just by silencing them. Having them in parliament actually allows them to be defeated on issues properly and publicly.
That's a good idea in principle but the reality is that public debate is generally worthless in politics, everything becomes a shouting match and a game of soundbites, and a charismatic idiot will always win over a timid but honest expert. We've all seen how giving a platform to climate change deniers and flat-earthers went.
Another point to raise here is that even without having more than 1 MP, Douglas Carswell (who defected from.the Tories), UKIP were still invited onto programmes like Question Time etc to air their talking points. So the number of MPs is meaningless when it comes to the narrative most of the UK populace hear; the "debate" is filtered through a media lens. Even if the BNP had 20 MPs and the Greens had 60 I'd bet the BNP got more airtime on the mainstream media.
Yeah fascists are better out in the open where we can mock them in my opinion, fascism relies on people taking the glorious leader seriously so if they’re not already at the marching in their daft little uniforms stage this can be quite effective. Going on Question Time was pretty lethal to the BNP in the end as everyone saw what pricks they were.
The establishment parties have always used "but the BNP will get seats" as a scare to convince people that PR is bad. As much as I hate parties like the BNP/EDL, if people believe in them enough that they give them their vote, I think that vote should matter as much as mine and they should have someone to represent them.
I live in a very safe Tory seat. My vote has never mattered since I moved here. I do anyway but there really is no point in me voting. It does worry me that, if it gets bad enough, people who feel that the political process doesn't work for them may turn to violence or crime to get what they want. I really think we need a system that gives everyone's vote equal weight
Interesting how support for this idea of implementing PR based on electoral mandate rather than referendum seems generally popular in the comments.
Contrast this with the generally negative comments on the other post in the sub concerning the SNP saying that without a section 30 for a referendum they will use electoral mandate instead.
It seems to me people are okay with electoral mandate as long as it's what they want but against if it's not.
Both are major constitutional level changes so if a mandate is good enough for one it should be good enough for either. Clearly exact constitutional stipulations on such changes as other countries have would codify what is appropriate but without this its left to the whim of parties to do what they prefer on mandate alone and block everything else citing a need for referendum.
>We don't have a constitutional so I'm not really sure what you mean by "constitutional level changes".
I have one every day.
Everyone who's got an a-level in politics will tell you that we do have a constitution, but it's not codified in a single document. Part of that constitution is that parliament rules supreme and that anything voted for in Parliament can happen, even if a previous act of Parliament prevents it from happening.
Thusly, the SNP cannot win a vote on Scottish independence in Parliament alone, but Labour and the Lib Dems can win a vote in Parliament on electoral reform, but the new electoral reform couldn't remove the right of "Parliament" to decide on anything in the UK, including going back to FPTP, so they have to make sure that whichever government introduces it performs well generally. We can see the benefits of PR from an academic point of view but at the end of the day the responsibility for it will be with the parties that bring it in. Unfortunately I can't see Labour voting for this as it'll be turkeys voting for christmas, they won't have an appeal if it isn't "we're not the tories, we give a shit about other people", when there are 4 or 5 parties that broadly give a shit about other people but actually agree on the things that Labour can't.
>cover voting reform
Yes, it does.
Our constitution is based off of common law and off of tradition.
We have used referenda to suggest electoral reform which makes it a Constitutional level change.
By constitutional level change I was referring to items that are typically codified in a constitution (electoral system and secession rights) in countries which have them. Taking Ireland for example, constitutional changes require referendums.
Referendums called on a whim without legal triggers and detailed legal impacts clearly spelled out and without legal mechanisms to manage campaigns are clearly a bad idea. Countries which use referendums successfully as part of their democratic process usually have good process around them. In the absence of such process I think they are a bad idea in the UK but for they work well in Ireland as an example.
The distinction between constitutional changes and other changes is meaningless in a country without a constitution. Something being "constitution level" doesn't on any way mean that a referendum is needed.
We already had a referendum in the UK for voting reform and it was an absolute shambles. I don't see why we would opt to do that again.
If we were to start having more referendums (please God no), then we would need laws around that first. Looks at what happened with Brexit.
I think we agree I don't think the UK should have any referendums without any process, but that doesn't make referendums bad, just bad in the UK's current legal and social context.
Yeah, I understand that other countries successfully hold referendums, you're totally right on a global level, but locally we've had a few very high profile distasters which stemmed from referendums, and we have no legal obligation to hold them so why bother?
>I do think Scottish independence is inevitable, but that it will most likely need a referendum to get everyone to agree.
I think it's inevitable and that's why they should just put it in the manifesto to declare without a referendum. They are by definition hugely divisive and antagonistic processes, and since No will never be a permanent answer the only options are to do it now or wait and try again later. So just get it done.
I'd agree with this too. The issue is that they are only going to be able to leave when Westminster says so, so a decisive victory would help speed up that process.
Its obviously kicking the can down the road, because whichever PM is responsible for the UK breaking up will be destroyed, but it's gonna happen sooner or later by the looks of it.
>It seems to me people are okay with electoral mandate as long as it's what they want but against if it's not.
This applies to pretty much anything I find. Any argument/tactic/whatever is fine if it supports what I want but isn't if it supports something I don't.
I'm not quite sure were I stand on this particular example.
One thing I do think that needs to be kept in mind is that I expect people will be skeptical of any changes made, no matter how good the chnages actually are there will be a suspicion that anyone making changes to the electoral system is just doing it to benefit themself, one benefit that a referendum would have is easing those concerns.
To be fair I can see an argument that goes:
If the current system works well, then implementing PR without a referendum can't be bad because the current, representative enough, system implemented it.
If the current system works badly, then a better system (such as a referendum) should be used to decide this issue.
I feel a bit sympathetic to this argument, but I'm biased in favour of PR.
Referenda are absolute disasters in the UK. It'd be fine if they happened like they did in Ireland but in the UK it's become an absolute clownshow of misunderstanding and media hype the last two times
For me it's a difference in the scale of the mandate. Scotland is not an independent nation but part of the Union. If they had a mandate within the union for a referendum, fine, but they don't have that. They have a mandate within Scotland, but their leaving does effect us as well, and unlike the EU we don't have an article allowing them to leave unilaterally because when it came to forming the Union we did effectively become one nation. It's taken decades to unpick that to a position of devolved powers.
That doesn't necessarily mean I think Scotland shouldn't have a vote. It just means I don't think electoral mandate is a valid argument for why they should have one given the current political status of Scotland and the UK. The Good Friday Agreement has a carefully crafted system for Northern Ireland returning to a United Ireland that takes all parties into account for precisely this sort of reason.
If the English focused / English majority parties (Labour, Tories, Lib Dems) actually wanted to address Scottish issues with a settlement like the Good Friday agreement, with agreed terms of when a referendum could happen if Scots wanted it, etc. And what would be planned for each scenario, I'd vote for them.
But they just don't care. I don't necessarily want independence, but would still vote for the SNP as they, and the Greens, are the only parties which pay attention to Scottish issues.
The idea of a UK government making a decision about the UK which a future UK government could revise is not controversial.
The big differences are that it wouldn't be in a future Scottish governments control to reverse independence if they wanted, they would be at the mercy of the rest of the UK.
Also there is a question of whether it's within their powers. I'm sure the reaction would be different if the Lib Dems and Labour were trying to change the UK's voting system on the basis of winning a local election.
> Contrast this with the generally negative comments on the other post in the sub concerning the SNP saying that without a section 30 for a referendum they will use electoral mandate instead.
I think the issue here is that the idea of a mandate for the SNP is BS, and virtually everyone knows it, including the SNP, yet they plan to push ahead anyway.
FPTP necessitates voting for the party best positioned to stop your least favourite party getting a seat. In Scotland, that least favourite party is Conservatives, and best positioned is SNP. They are using that status as least-worst option to claim they are popular and supported by the population, thus being given a mandate.
The problem is that the Tories strategy has been to completely neglect reality over the last few years. Nobody can compete with a side for whom the normal rules of anything just do not apply.
Because your question is kind of ridiculous tbh. I’m not saying do away with democracy, I’m saying there’s a reason the public shouldn’t get to directly vote on everything the government does because the public are generally stupid and can’t be trusted to think critically. That’s not to say politicians have our best interests at heart either, but the fact that the public keep electing certain idiots just adds more weight to the fact that they shouldn’t be trusted.
I don't like it.
I think we need voting reform, but this is one of the only times I think a referendum is required.
Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them.
> Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them.
The Tories did that with the election bill already though.
IMO the left and liberals need to go on attack more. They need to ram this through, and then keep ramming other stuff through. Force Tories to react, keep them busy; an idle Tory is an attacking Tory, and an attacking Tory is feudalism with wifi.
>Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them.
No it sets the precedent that a party *seeking* power can change the system *if* they win and only off the back of an electoral mandate to do so.
Those are two very different things.
After the absolute hammering they took in the last AV referendum, I am quite sure the Lib Dems aren’t stupid enough to put it to the popular vote again.
Which is probably for the best - someone upthread reminds us of the “She needs a new cardiac unit, not a new voting system” ads the No campaign ran then. This is what we elect governments *for*.
we learned from the <50% turnout at the last ref that the majority of the electorate don't care if our voting system is STV or FPTP. A victory for apathy!
Once saw Gove walk into a pub I was drinking in, in central London. Go into the toilets and then come out and leave. Always thought he wanted to use the loo and was too cheap to buy a drink….but yeah he probs just had a wrap of nose candy burning a hole in his pocket
As it should be, no ifs, no buts. In fact they could renege on anything else - and have Ed Davey be a sacrificial lamb, destined to live out his days in Lib Dem purgatory on the altar of Facebook - so long as they get electoral reform as an act in parliament.
Any small step toward a more proportional system would be better for the country.
If the Lib Dems get PR through, they wouldn't even have to worry about their vote share collapsing. They're so wildly underrepresented that they'd win more seats under PR than FPTP even with a tiny fraction of their previous vote.
And this the whole idea that you cut out the cancer that is the likes of Matthew Elliott who ran No2AV before running Vote Leave. You can't campaign against something when there isn't something to vote on. If the mistakes made by Nick Clegg in 2010 ultimately end up with PR is that actually a bad thing? (Excluding the fact he works for Zuckerberg now lol 😆).
(Disclaimer, Leftist, not from UK, just go here for the laughs and wit rarely seen elsewhere. Wether you cry or jest, I’m entertained :)
I’d think a proportional system will make Scotland seceding much less likely. They’ll be represented on another level.
Regional parties in Europe frequently participate in coalitions, since they are usually a version of centrists.
FPTP leads to this insane one party rule situations where compromise is not needed. Half the country feels trapped.
Proportional system would be the best thing ever to happen to UK. Perhaps even help with dismantling the class system.
It would definitely make politics way more moderate and calm.
>I’d think a proportional system will make Scotland seceding much less likely. They’ll be represented on another level.
PR would reduce the SNP's power. They currently get about 50 seats from 1.2 million votes. To put that in comparison the Green party got 1 seat from 800k and the Brexit party got none from 600k.
They'd have fewer seats, but because PR would result in mostly hung parliaments they would likely have far more influence. Future Labour governments would frequently have to rely on the SNP for support, which would give them huge power to demand concessions and get their own policies passed.
So what we want now is for the Tories to get rid of Johnson and recover enough that Labour don't win a majority and then we get this coalition and electoral reform.
As Labour supporter I really need Lab to win enough votes to beat Tories but not enough to form government without LD support. We need Lib Dem to be king makers and get this done.
Labour will say no - many of their MPs wouldn't vote for that. LDs will then side with the Tories and let them have another shot at power.
Guarantee it.
Good. As a left-winger and Labour supporter, the LDMs are right to demand this. Electoral reform will solve many problems inherent in our system. The undemocratic FPTP needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
>Electoral reform will solve many problems inherent in our system. The undemocratic FPTP needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Electoral reform at the will of the party who wins is undemocratic and sets an absolutely ridiculous precedent.
It would mean any party who wins has the ability to change the electoral system to a system that benefits them. Its gerrymandering on a national level.
>Referenda have clear shown themselves as a destabilising force in UK politics.
No, they haven't. Brexit has done.
What destabilising force did the AV referendum cause? The Original EU referendum?
By messing with the electoral system without consulting the public you are removing agency from the democratic system. If you cannot raise enough support to win a referendum how in the holy hells should we go through with it?
By your logic, the Conservatives should be able to have taken us out of the EU without a referendum. Would you have supported that?
What about in 2032 when the Conservatives win and form a govt with UKIP v2 and decide to just change the electoral system back to FPTP?
It's sets a **horrendous** precedent to enact sweeping Constitutional reforms without consulting the people.
If the Lib Dems were the Electoral Reform Party, and the only goal in their manifesto was to change the electoral system from FPTP to PR them immediately disband and hold a new referendum then they would have an electoral mandate to enact electoral reform without a referendum.
If they were to have a single other goal in their manifesto, other than electoral reform then their mandate is dead. Because people might well vote for them for those other goals and not want to change the electoral system.
They also trusted that the voting public would be able to correctly choose between two options where one was straightforwardly objectively better than the other.
Back then they thought they could win another outright majority. They've since lost Scotland and know they're not going to win it back any time soon so don't have any realistic prospect of anything but the thinnest of majorities.
After 13 years out of power and with a relatively placid right of centre Cameron at the helm, I can understand why they felt they could do it. Massively naive in hindsight though.
That's it. They had the right ideas, but were far too naive as to how higher levels of politics work. The Tories just completely rinsed them - taking advantage of the good press caused by the Lib Dems softening their policies whilst giving the Lib Dems the blame for the awful stuff that got pushed through. The trick is to look at whatever the parties offer and think why would they do that. What do they have to gain. Never trusting anyone on their direct word.
They need to recognise that they can't trust the bigger party to willingly give up the established power they've had for decades. They need to be non-compromising on this. The tories in particular are far less willing than Labour (labour loses seats under STV but not by alot as they get more representation in Scotland then under FPTP, but the tories just lose almost everywhere lol), so I can see Labour being apprehensive but more willing to adopt PR if the Lib-Dems stick with it.
this is pretty good if true. Hope Lib-Dems don't compromise on STV like with the last referendum. AV+ is good, but compared to PR and STV, its a little on the weaker side for me.
One of the reasons AV was settled on was because Labour had hidden in their manifesto they supported it. But when push came to shove they just let their MPs support what they wanted and most realised their job was at risk if they lost FPTP.
I don't think the LDs will make the same mistake again.
Absolutely. LDs should not compromise on this at all. Every small party benefits from this, so its unlikely that any small party will decide to take up the offer instead for short-term power after seeing the LDs fail in 2010. Labour also benefits as a collective under a PR system, as they will weaken the Conservatives and strengthen their base in Scotland, so compared to the tories, will lose far less seats to the smaller parties (assuming there's no split, which likely will happen lol).
If Labour agrees and backs STV or PR, they have my vote. If not, it goes to LibDems, even if I live in a safe seat for Labour.
This is assuming his paymasters don't tell him to do a complete 180° turn lol.
But assuming he does actually stick by his historical support for PR, I genuinely think a referendum would win. I hate the slimy git but he apparently has an excellent way of selling shit to people so I only assume he can sell good stuff just as well
Nigel Farage being on the right side of something is just another example of modern politics being insane lol.
Ideally the Lib-Dems aren't stupid again and fucking don't do another Referendum plEASE
I would be fine with AV Plus if they make it a 50/50 split between single member constituency seats and multi-member constituency seats, with the latter having multi-member constituencies electing anywhere between 5 to 10 members ideally. But I wouldn't be surprised if it just ended up being a 70/30 split if it were to ever happen.
I'd prefer the MMP system used in New Zealand (and I think the Scottish parliament). MMP, AV+, and STV all have their pros and cons but they're all better than FPTP.
STV would be great for local elections though.
It was so pathetic what they did there, trash there party, put up tuition fees, and have a vote on something that anyone who knew what they were talking about didn't want in the first place...let alone those who didn't.
If you are going to destroy your electoral chances for decade, at least get the vote you actually want...
Labour literally went back on their support for AV. The referendum could have been won if it essentially wasn't just Clegg campaigning in favour of change
Significant if true. I’ll feel a lot better when it moves from Westminster gossip and into manifestos, policy documents and speeches by party leaders.
It still feels like it could just fizzle out.
SNP get royally fucked by FPTP. Broadly speaking, the goal of the SNP is not simply to maximise MPs.
They hold a bunch of completely useless seats because everything is decided internally within the Tory party. 10% of the seats is 0% of the power.
Bring in PR and suddenly politicians have to give a shit about Scotland and the SNP hold some power amidst the mess that explodes out of the current parties splitting. Even when not in power, other parties wouldn't fuck them so hard because they'd know they might need to make a coalition (or threaten to make a coalition) with the SNP.
Coalitions force compromise. That's not a weakness, it's a strength. It's not undemocratic, it actually spreads out power rather than concentrating it in 40% of voters.
SNP got 7.3% of the seats on 3.8% of the popular vote in the last election.
Under PR I doubt 3.8% would give any more power at all, as they’re unlikely to be needed in a coalition with such a small proportion of the vote.
With PR the case for secession weakens considerably. Since Scots would be represented and most likely even participate in ruling coalitions, which centrist parties tend to do.
>Since Scots would be represented and most likely even participate in ruling coalitions
Not necessarily. The SNP only got 4% of the total vote in 2019.
I have a feeling that the SNP will renegade on it, it will massively cut the number of MPs they have in Westminster, potentially turning them into either the 4th or 5th largest party.
Would you rather be the third largest party who never is in government and has no say on most issues, or the fifth largest but semi-regularly be a junior member of a governing coalition?
Electoral reform *should* be an easy sell. Lab/Libs simply need to say "If there is one thing we can agree on, is that the last ten years of politics (the Con/Dup coalition, everything to do with Brexit, the current government) has been an absolute shitshow. PR would guarantee that this wouldn't happen ever again" would be very appealing to lots of voters. Of course the media would do everything to ensure that this wouldn't happen so I'm not holding me breath.
Ha, why?
All Electoral reform does for Labour is lose them power, people seem to fail to understand what FPTP is, when it swings, it swings hard. It is designed to not lead to the exact outcomes that happened in 2010, and if polling falls a bit for a leading party, the whole point of it is someone else comes the leading party, not compromise.
It is a broken system that is designed to stop the need for compromise, or dead lock occurring. Which is all a rather pathetic ideal if you support democracy through representation of the people, because it aim isn't that at all. It is to give, the majority, or the significant minority power. The reality of the UK shows however, there is rarely ever a majority.
Under Electoral Reform, Labour will have more opportunities to have a say compared to now due to coalitions. It's a comprimised form of power, but for Labour's long term political health, its absolutely crucial for them. The apprehension comes from individual MPs who fear losing their seats under PR. STV is probably the best choice as many MPs will maintain seat-safety so Lib-Dems have a pretty good foot forward here.
As you said and hopefully agree with me here, as there rarely is ever a majority, that means that there should be no such thing as absolute power, as the will of the people cannot be represented in that way, compromises over common ground between ideologies is far more representative of the overall opinion of the electorate. There are issues with this, which I heavily dislike, but I'd rather those issues than FPTP's issues. (lesser of two evils/unappealing-candidates is very annoying)
> Under Electoral Reform, Labour will have more opportunities to have a say compared to now due to coalitions.
I don't disagree. Unless they think they will win anyway, and then they don't have to compromise.
> but for Labour's long term political health, its absolutely crucial for them.
Nonsense, the long term health of the Tory party is dead, literally. Their electorate is ageing and more and more are in the group year on year, 5 constituencies of individuals die each year, 70% of those people will be Tory voters. Progress happens one death at a time, and as I say, when it swings, good bye Tories.
This isn't Trump's America which has a broad age range of demographics, the far right Brexit Tories are held up by corpses.
\>Nonsense, the long term health of the Tory party is dead, literally. Their electorate is ageing and more and more are in the group year on year, 5 constituencies of individuals die each year, 70% of those people will be Tory voters. Progress happens one death at a time, and as I say, when it swings, good bye Tories.
I'd agree but unless I see the Tories get only 50 seats the next election, I doubt they won't just regrow their base over the course of the next few terms and contend with Labour once more.
You can speculate on 10 to 20 years in the future all you like, if you asked anyone where we would be in 2010 people would have called this reality nonsense. The whole premise is pointless.
It doesn't fix it though. Does it not risk localised campaigning? We can all agree that the wants and needs of the people in the North of England are not the same as those in London, nor are the needs of those in Scotland the same as those England.
So in the same way that people argue the current presidential system in the US stops people just campaigning in California, New York and other populous democrat states where they could accrue the numbers but are instead forced to go to more states; could that problem not happen here?
London has about 13% of the UK population so would you not risk politicians focusing on London to score as many people as possible making "London promises" and disregarding the rest of the country? We already argue governments are too London focused when they have to try and appease other parts of the country to get enough seats.
I'm not trying to debate which system is better but simply is what I've stated not a risk? (Yes I know they would need more than London to get a majority but it's just used to illustrate a point).
But that assumes the STV system as opposed to one of the alternative electoral systems when the comment I was responding to doesn't mention STV.
But as you've brought it up, is it not true that STV rarely results in majority governments so actually it makes it very difficult for them to conduct business? We've seen over the last 12 years how difficult it can be to conduct government business with a coalition or propped up government.
A person may not always like what a majority government does but most would agree it's better than seeing a government that can't do anything because of trying to appease another party.
When you say majority government in your last paragraph you mean a party that gets around 38% of the vote, inherently undemocratic. Forming coalitions and moving to the centre is no bad thing.
No. The seats competed for represent similar populations (iirc about 100k each.) You get PR in each, with something like list seats or runoff in regions (eg Yorkshire gets an extra 1-2 MPs that represent the whole region) to rebalance.
**The price of Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority government** would start with electoral reform without a referendum, in a confidence and supply agreement, I’m informed. Senior Labour and Lib Dem figures are turning thoughts to potential arrangements as the by-election results from Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton, Boris Johnson’s continuing leadership and the cost-of-living crisis heighten the prospect of Tory election defeat. Keir Starmer is unlikely to secure an overall majority, so the Con-Dem coalition veteran Ed Davey’s current thinking is to demand a fairer voting system instead of short-term ministerial posts, red boxes and cars. Tories who fear that a Lab-Lib pincer movement could lock them out of power will go spare. Avoiding Nick Clegg’s 2011 electoral referendum mistake would fuel Johnson’s claims that both opposition parties would also ignore the EU referendum result and get Brexit undone. “We’ve just got to bite the bullet,” screamed my snout.
**Talk of Matt Hancock’s** possible cabinet return coincides with the Department of Health and Social Care spending £10,000 for external legal advice on removing CCTV that caught the lockdown lothario snogging aide Gina Coladangelo. Ministers with wandering lips can relax when documents reveal that the equivalent of four months’ pay for a nurse will help pull the plug on cameras supplied by state-owned Chinese firm Hikvision.
**Sitting on laps, vomiting, fisticuffs,** red wine on walls and abused cleaners doesn’t cover all the outrageous behaviour at No 10’s boozy lockdown parties. Two staffers named to me are, I’m told, relieved Sue Gray’s report didn’t include them having sex in a toilet – not least because one’s married to somebody else while the other has a partner. Emperor Johnson’s court makes Nero’s Rome appear tame.
**The word is that Johnson delayed** a post no-confidence vote reshuffle to avoid creating hostile ex-ministers. One loyalist believes the “moment of maximum danger” is the imminent 1922 Committee elections. Should rebels win a majority and approve a second vote this year, Johnson will be toast. Whereas should backbench lackeys triumph, he’ll be safe until the general election. Or at least that’s her theory. We’ll see.
**Ministers are digging dirt** on trade union leaders after working-class hero Mick “The Hood” Lynch mangled Tories and television interviewers, defying the government’s rail strike script. Tory HQ realises it’s ignorant about the new awkward squad. Sharon Graham, Christina McAnea, Patrick Roach et al are more than capable of biting back.
You have to deny it or it doesn't work as well. If the Conservative campaigner on your doorstep can point out that if you vote for the Lib Dem you were considering you'll get the Labour government you'd never consider in a million years, chances are that you'd vote Tory instead.
If either party had any brains they would be trading seats by stepping down in one or another. When you have the farce of democracy that was 2019 with Farages facist standing down, leading to the Conservative party dissolving itself and becoming the Brexit party so it could win, that isn't democracy in any form what so ever. It leads to the exact state of affair of this country right now.
Labour is disadvantaged by the centre to left split, especially in Scotland where Labour is almost extinct due to the SNP. If they agree to this with Lib-Dems, they open themselves to a very strong counterattack by the Tories, claiming that "Labour and the Lib-Dems are conspiring!" Hopefully to most people that wouldn't matter, but in fringe constituencies and the fact a Labour majority is unlikely, it's still a big reason to keep quiet or to not do it at all, and instead cooperate in a different, less visible way during the campaign.
> they open themselves to a very strong counterattack by the Tories
This is basically irrelevant though. In Constiuencies where this is an issue, i.e. Labour would lose, you would be backing the Lib Dem horse which Non-labour voters would still go in and vote for. In Tory-Labour seats, it just bolsters Labour.
People seem to fail to see how dead the Tories are under Boris Johnson, old people don't like Criminals, they try to scam them out of their money every day, even if they have no problem voting to starving children and destroy the country.
I don't doubt doing such an agreement would help, I'm just worried that we'd see some odd swing back due to this decision. The Lib-Dems are avoiding saying they'd cooperate in such a way with Labour for a reason (unless I missed it and I'm just wrong about this)
Lib-Dems want STV. This in practice would cause constituencies to join together to form multi member constituencies, where you have several local MPs in a bigger area, and you rank your choices between the candidates, and for an MP to be sent, they need a 1/n proportion of the votes, where n is the number of candidates per constituency.
The neatest number for this is 5 MPs per constituency, resulting in 130 constituencies in the country instead of 650
You rank your choices. You might not find your first choice wins, but your second might.
So if you want Labour to win but would be happy if Green won too you’d but Labour your first choice, Greens second. However, unlike AV, you least favourite would also get ranked, just the lowest ranking possible for the number of ballots.
This is the only way I think we'll get rid of the Torys unfortunately a coalition, the only way there will be a Labour majority is the people north of boarder wake up and realise one the SNP couldn't run a bath and two real change for Scotland will either come in form of independence and if Breixt has anything to go by breaking away from any union can be a bit tricky or vote Labour.
That's not what they said (although they did go onto say it in the other reply that appeared as I wrote this ffs). Scotland is free to vote for whomever they want to, this is a democracy. However the truth is is that the SNP and Scottish independence are toxic to the generic English swing voters who labour need to win over to be the largest party.
Labour can't get 20-30 seats in Scotland anymore, and have to massively distance themselves from the SNP so can't get 50 seats worth of support.
It's not Scotland's fault, it's just a reality caused by the rise of the SNP
Tony Blair managed to win the majority of seats in England twice. Why do Labour now need Scotland to beat the Tories?
The problem is not the SNP it has been Labour's inability to get voters to trust them as a viable alternative due to a combination of Iraq, 2008 and Corbyn fans.
Again, the simplification that "the English all vote Tory" doesn't help. In England the Tories won 45.4% of the votes, but substantially more than 44.4% of the seats.
First past the post once again handed them all the power.
Yes it kind of is, you've only got to look at the facts and figures and since the devolution and since SNP have taken over the torys have had free pass to government on top of that taken Scotland backwards its all there in black & white. You've been lead down a independence route with the SNP who's sole reason for existence is that one policy.
Your leader was suppose to outlines ways of tackling the drug problem in Scotland instead made it all about her and independence and Scotland is on its arse because the SNP once again only have one policy.
All independence supporters say Scottish people should have a say on Scottish matters which is fair enough but if your going to follow the SNP to independence your fucked because their track record is bollocks and going down the independence route with them will be cutting ones nose off to spite one's face.
I don't want Scottish independence because SNP will fuck it up and it'll be left to the rest of the UK to fix up the fuck up.
What if I told you the Tories are delighted at the SNP's existence? look at Cameron's demeanour in that ITV debate from 2015. He loved Sturgeon for the fact she'd contribute in him winning a majority. You're being played for a fool by the Tories.
Yea it is that's why a lot traditional Labour supporters voted tory but Mark my words I don't think they'll do it again as they have learned there lessons from this tory government.
Unlike you lot North of the board you keep voting for the same party and expecting different circumstances all the time and we're still hearing the same load of shit come from the SNP.
Look take off your blue and white glasses and look at the facts no matter how much you sing the flower of Scotland, wear you kilts, eat your haggis and drink your whisky, it doesn't help education, health care, infrastructure ect.
Scotland used to be the best of us in the UK under the SNP you've gone backwards. But by all means vote for them definition of madness, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results you all must be quite mad up there.
While you could get away with changing the voting system as a manifesto commitment without a referendum, doing it without a manifesto commitment or a referendum puts you in a bind.
It would be very easy for voters to feel betrayed if they ended up with a change to the voting system the plurality of the public didn’t actively vote for.
Except the reform acts focused on making sure less ppl were disenfranchised.
This on the other hand is a partisan power grab from an irrelevant political party who are fed up of losing.
The lib dems could start by trying to increase its vote share from 10% and appeal to wide sections of the electorate, not just middle class folks in southern moderately sized towns, or posh people from South West London. Then they might actually win. If they think PR gives them a better chance of winning, then they can think again as there is no serious appetite for neoliberalism in the UK.
By your example there's 10% appetite for neoliberalism and they should get 10% of the power, right now they get 0% and all the people who vote for them have no voice.
I'm sure you're well aware that the predecessor party to the Lib Dems were advocating for electoral reform when they held the office of Prime Minister. The only people scared of it are those who know they stand to lose their disproportionate stranglehold on power in this country at odds with the electorate.
If Lynton and the other tory strategists had any brains they need to hammer the "no referendum" point home.
Dissatisfied tory voters in the south for the most part do not want a labour government. While they might have voted LD to stick it to Johnson, they might reconsider it if their vote ensures an eternal labour government, which will be dictated by inner city wokeists.
As always I'll point out whilst PR is more representative of the nation you have to accept that means that you'll get more representatives of greens and lib Dems, those on the other end of the scale (ie UKIP, Reform etc) will likely be represented in parliament
I've always taken the opinion that it is good for the country in general for people's opinions to be proportionally represented. Even if I completely despise the politics of UKIP, it's unhealthy to have the situation in 2015 where they got some 12% of the vote but 1 MP. Everyone should have a voice, even if we don't like what they have to say.
I completely agree with you however there have been many times where I've seen voters of left wing parties say UKIP etc should not be allowed representation. I really don't agree with their policies but to call them Nazis isn't correct
Yeah I disagree with people who say that, it's hypocritical. I think parties should only be barred from running for parliament when they are encouraging or promoting illegal activity (for example hate crimes). A small number of UKIP's members in the past probably come close to that, but overall as a party they aren't quite so extreme and should be allowed representation, particularly if they represent 12% of voters' views.
In the same line of thought, I'm sure that the Green party for example would get significantly more vote share with PR, because as it stands I reckon many people don't vote for them simply because they think there is no point. As progressive as Brighton is I doubt it's so much farther left than other areas of the UK and the Greens hold it simply because people know they can actually vote for them and be represented.
Think you are right there. We will end up with rainbow coalitions but overall think this would result in more balanced politics. Still remains to be seen if it's ever possible over here
Classic case of asking for something they'll never get, hoping to score points with their own base. Just like Tories with brexit ref originally.
Come the actual election, if this is on the cards Tory media will just say: Lab-Lib wants Britain CRIPPLED just like FAILING Europe, all the sheep panic vote Tory etc etc
Hope I'm wrong I'd love to see electoral reform just think UK is incapable of delivering any change worth having while the media mafia has everyone with a noose around their necks as the starting point.
These circumstances would sweeten the somewhat funky taste of both of these neo liberal sheisters being in power. Fptp has to go and if this is how we get rid of it, so bit. Politicially almost nothing between 3 parties anyway.
The only countries in Europe in that have a good health care system comparable to the UK are the big economic countries such as France, Italy and Spain or the two Nordic countries of Norway and Sweden which have a very high GDP per capita twice as much as Scotland to be in fact.
Scotland neither has the economy or the GDP to offer free health care even with independence go out and do your research on these matters because I'm not being funny the SNP have you walking blindly off a cliff with this independence bull shit.
I admire a party brave enough to fundamentally force their minority position with minimal proof of electoral support, completely against their own party name
American here... unfamiliar with parliamentary coalitions... LibDems were in coalition with David Cameron Tory government...right? Why would Labor suddenly want/trust them to join their coalition now? Is it common for small parties to switch their coalitions to that degree?
The Liberal Democrats are a central left party. At the time Cameron’s conservative where a moderate right party and Labour a moderate left.
When no one had a majority in the 2010 general election, obviously a majority government could not be formed. The LibDems had enough MPs to work with Labour and other parties to for a coalition government or with the Conservatives to form a coalition government.
Meetings where held over 22 days in May and there is a both parties. The Liberal Democrats were the king makers at this points as they could determine which party would form a government.
The Conservatives offered a better at the time, which included more ministerial positions for LibDems, more support for Liberal Democrat policies and a referendum of political reform. I’m exchange the Liberal Democrats had to support conservative policies. For over a decade many Labour supporters have vilified the Liberal Democrats for entering coalition with the Conservatives.
However, it was over 10 years ago. Politics has changed. The Labour Party have suffered several hard hitting defeats, the Conservative policies have become much more hard to digest. The Labour Party is much less Left leaning and I think most have come to the realisation that calling LibDem supports “yellow tories” and not actively working to remove this government together has not been working well. Keir Starmer, who again like Blair and Brown, is a more moderate leader and understands that this is the only way he can defeat the conservatives.
So, in some regards the Lib Dems will be irrelevant to whether electoral reform takes place. If the proponents for PR within the Labour party succeed and get it put into their manifesto then Labour will implement it if they have the support in parliament to do so after the election. If it's not in the manifesto it 100%, won't happen without a referendum - Doesn't matter what the election result is, doesn't matter what the Lib Dems demand, it won't happen. For the simple reason that there won't be enough support among Labour MPs to change our voting system without an electoral mandate. It's the same reason that there wasn't a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, too many Labour MPs refused to support it.
Obviously though there will be some consideration of the Lib Dems position when Labour is debating this over the next 2 years. A lot of people will be very aware that electoral reform could be the roadblock to a Labour government in 2024, and hence it's better to just try and win the argument in the General Election.
PLP doesn't like PR as much as the membership does. They'll happily kick it into the long grass again if there's no coalition partner forcing their hand
My point is that this has to be decided before the next election, not afterwards. Labour won't agree to a change without a referendum if it's not in their manifesto.
> It's the same reason that there wasn't a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, too many Labour MPs refused to support it.
This wasn't the reason, in 2010 a Labour-Lib Dem coalition couldn't happen because even combined they were still 16 seats short of a majority. They would have needed a bunch of the other parties to join them and even then would have been toppled by almost anything.
I know this is their big thing but I don't support it. You can't do electoral reform UK-wide without a referendum. I know the Tories have made changes to FPTP with Mayoral elections but they're not nation-wide elections.
You absolutely do need a referendum for something of this scale. Labour should make sure that's the case or it'll be nothing.
>You can't do electoral reform UK-wide without a referendum
We've had two referendums in this country now (AV and Brexit) where the Conservatives have profited and Labour have sat on their hands and refused to do the right thing. Why should LDs trust Labour with a third referendum when their only purpose has been to have been hijacked by the conservative media?
>Labour should make sure that's the case or it'll be nothing.
Hope Labour enjoys working with the SNP instead then.
Snapshot of _The Lib Dems name their price for a deal with Labour_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/commons-confidential/2022/06/tories-panic-liberal-democrats-labour-coalition) *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.*
>The price of Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority government would start with electoral reform without a referendum, in a confidence and supply agreement, I’m informed. Inject this straight into my veins.
"without a referendum" I see they have learned.
Exactly, you don't want the plebs getting spooked by the kind of adverts we had with the last AV referendum. Apparently AV would kill premature babies.
"[Babies need body armour, not a new voting system](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/02/voting-system-baby-gets)" Note: Matthew Elliot, architect of vote leave ran tbe No to AV campain too.
I still believe that the AV referendum was a trial run for the EU referendum when it came to the style and targeting of adverts.
Absolutely. It showed how easily we could be manipulated by emotions over logic and facts. I described the AV vote as a national maths test that we all collectively failed. Then Brexit was a national economics test that we all collectively failed.
I've been a proponent of PR since the first election I voted in (1997). The fact that millions of votes are literally just binned seemed ridiculous to 19 year old me. But when the announcement was made that the referendum was going to be for AV my heart sank. AV is FPTP+ putting a patina of proportionality onto the current system. It still drives the two party system and still ends up with millions of votes wasted. It was genuinely a struggle with myself to decide how to vote in the referendum because I felt like it was a vote to eat shit, or shit with sugar on. 🤢 And I don't think that I'm in any way special about my view, I'm sure that there was a decent sized chunk of people who would have voted using the same criteria. I just want PR. We don't have a representative democracy because all but 8 of the MPs represent their party. If we're absolutely tied to the constituency model then we need to scrap parties. Have every MP run as an independent. This is where AV/STV would "work" (for a given value of course). If we want a party model then we should scrap constituencies and go down the full PR route. It might even make sense to use both models, one for the Commons and the other for the Lords meaning that we're not going to get a carbon copy sitting in both houses. (Because if you vote one way for one house then the chances are that you'll vote the same way for the other house - even if it's just to get your preferred policies through.) Anyway, sorry for the essay! 😔
It was Dominic Cummings first rodeo, so very much, yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/dominic-cummings-honed-strategy-2004-vote-north-east Cummings first dry run was actually 12 years before Brexit I believe with North East says No. Matthew Elliott wasn't involved this one either I don't think as he'd only just set up the TPA and wasn't anywhere near as dangerously well connected as he is now.
Just made the comment higher up and hadn't seen this. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Other common link the whole way through this. Chloe Westley. Comms for the Tax Payers Alliance (yes the fucking Atlas Network) with Elliott, Comms for No2AV, Comms for Vote Leave - Current Comms Spad for Boris.
a weird thing is that now £250 million doesn't seem like that much for bandying about! boris added 100 more million just each year in that lie on the side of a bus
Lol iirc there were adverts about letting the BNP and separately, Farage, into power if we had AV.
Not a fan at all of BNP or Farage, but if enough of the electorate are voting for them then shouldn't they at-least get some seats? We shouldn't be relying on the system to prevent them getting seats as that's just ignoring the real issues of why so many people vote for them (not disagreeing with you, just on why those adverts were wrong).
Pretty much my thoughts. I think I ran some calcs and based on turnout in 2019 under a purely PR system (650 HoC seats, each one worth an equal vote share but no constituency seats, a real system would probably be more nuanced) you’d be looking at just under 50,000 votes getting you a seat. I can’t see them getting much more than 200,000 at a push, a few MPs like that in the HoC isn’t the end of the world, (we already put up with the likes of Danny Kruger and his backward ass religious nutjobbery) and whether we like it or not, a very small proportion of the country are in fact, racist idiots, so it’s only fair they get some representation.
I honestly can't see 4 BNP seats doing any more damage to the country than 300 Tory ones, given... \* *gestures vaguely everywhere* \*
But what it gives us is the proper public platform for a ‘debate’ about the issues they want to discuss. We hear so much about how we should have a ‘discussion’ about issues and how these people should be defeated by the challenge, not just by silencing them. Having them in parliament actually allows them to be defeated on issues properly and publicly.
That's a good idea in principle but the reality is that public debate is generally worthless in politics, everything becomes a shouting match and a game of soundbites, and a charismatic idiot will always win over a timid but honest expert. We've all seen how giving a platform to climate change deniers and flat-earthers went.
Another point to raise here is that even without having more than 1 MP, Douglas Carswell (who defected from.the Tories), UKIP were still invited onto programmes like Question Time etc to air their talking points. So the number of MPs is meaningless when it comes to the narrative most of the UK populace hear; the "debate" is filtered through a media lens. Even if the BNP had 20 MPs and the Greens had 60 I'd bet the BNP got more airtime on the mainstream media.
In Parliament it is at least governed by the rules of the debating chamber.
I think you would be surprised how many people would vote far right under PR. 3 million at least. 😉
Yeah fascists are better out in the open where we can mock them in my opinion, fascism relies on people taking the glorious leader seriously so if they’re not already at the marching in their daft little uniforms stage this can be quite effective. Going on Question Time was pretty lethal to the BNP in the end as everyone saw what pricks they were.
I agree with you. Just pointing out the fear tactics were used. Same shit in Indy ref.
The establishment parties have always used "but the BNP will get seats" as a scare to convince people that PR is bad. As much as I hate parties like the BNP/EDL, if people believe in them enough that they give them their vote, I think that vote should matter as much as mine and they should have someone to represent them. I live in a very safe Tory seat. My vote has never mattered since I moved here. I do anyway but there really is no point in me voting. It does worry me that, if it gets bad enough, people who feel that the political process doesn't work for them may turn to violence or crime to get what they want. I really think we need a system that gives everyone's vote equal weight
Wait I thought AV would make me impotent?! You mean to tell me that politicans lied to me?!!!
Interesting how support for this idea of implementing PR based on electoral mandate rather than referendum seems generally popular in the comments. Contrast this with the generally negative comments on the other post in the sub concerning the SNP saying that without a section 30 for a referendum they will use electoral mandate instead. It seems to me people are okay with electoral mandate as long as it's what they want but against if it's not. Both are major constitutional level changes so if a mandate is good enough for one it should be good enough for either. Clearly exact constitutional stipulations on such changes as other countries have would codify what is appropriate but without this its left to the whim of parties to do what they prefer on mandate alone and block everything else citing a need for referendum.
[удалено]
>We don't have a constitutional so I'm not really sure what you mean by "constitutional level changes". I have one every day. Everyone who's got an a-level in politics will tell you that we do have a constitution, but it's not codified in a single document. Part of that constitution is that parliament rules supreme and that anything voted for in Parliament can happen, even if a previous act of Parliament prevents it from happening. Thusly, the SNP cannot win a vote on Scottish independence in Parliament alone, but Labour and the Lib Dems can win a vote in Parliament on electoral reform, but the new electoral reform couldn't remove the right of "Parliament" to decide on anything in the UK, including going back to FPTP, so they have to make sure that whichever government introduces it performs well generally. We can see the benefits of PR from an academic point of view but at the end of the day the responsibility for it will be with the parties that bring it in. Unfortunately I can't see Labour voting for this as it'll be turkeys voting for christmas, they won't have an appeal if it isn't "we're not the tories, we give a shit about other people", when there are 4 or 5 parties that broadly give a shit about other people but actually agree on the things that Labour can't.
Yes. The UK has an uncodified constitution, which doesn't cover voting reform. There's no need for this to be a referendum.
>cover voting reform Yes, it does. Our constitution is based off of common law and off of tradition. We have used referenda to suggest electoral reform which makes it a Constitutional level change.
By constitutional level change I was referring to items that are typically codified in a constitution (electoral system and secession rights) in countries which have them. Taking Ireland for example, constitutional changes require referendums. Referendums called on a whim without legal triggers and detailed legal impacts clearly spelled out and without legal mechanisms to manage campaigns are clearly a bad idea. Countries which use referendums successfully as part of their democratic process usually have good process around them. In the absence of such process I think they are a bad idea in the UK but for they work well in Ireland as an example.
The distinction between constitutional changes and other changes is meaningless in a country without a constitution. Something being "constitution level" doesn't on any way mean that a referendum is needed. We already had a referendum in the UK for voting reform and it was an absolute shambles. I don't see why we would opt to do that again. If we were to start having more referendums (please God no), then we would need laws around that first. Looks at what happened with Brexit.
I think we agree I don't think the UK should have any referendums without any process, but that doesn't make referendums bad, just bad in the UK's current legal and social context.
Yeah, I understand that other countries successfully hold referendums, you're totally right on a global level, but locally we've had a few very high profile distasters which stemmed from referendums, and we have no legal obligation to hold them so why bother?
>I do think Scottish independence is inevitable, but that it will most likely need a referendum to get everyone to agree. I think it's inevitable and that's why they should just put it in the manifesto to declare without a referendum. They are by definition hugely divisive and antagonistic processes, and since No will never be a permanent answer the only options are to do it now or wait and try again later. So just get it done.
I'd agree with this too. The issue is that they are only going to be able to leave when Westminster says so, so a decisive victory would help speed up that process. Its obviously kicking the can down the road, because whichever PM is responsible for the UK breaking up will be destroyed, but it's gonna happen sooner or later by the looks of it.
>It seems to me people are okay with electoral mandate as long as it's what they want but against if it's not. This applies to pretty much anything I find. Any argument/tactic/whatever is fine if it supports what I want but isn't if it supports something I don't. I'm not quite sure were I stand on this particular example. One thing I do think that needs to be kept in mind is that I expect people will be skeptical of any changes made, no matter how good the chnages actually are there will be a suspicion that anyone making changes to the electoral system is just doing it to benefit themself, one benefit that a referendum would have is easing those concerns.
To be fair I can see an argument that goes: If the current system works well, then implementing PR without a referendum can't be bad because the current, representative enough, system implemented it. If the current system works badly, then a better system (such as a referendum) should be used to decide this issue. I feel a bit sympathetic to this argument, but I'm biased in favour of PR.
Referenda are absolute disasters in the UK. It'd be fine if they happened like they did in Ireland but in the UK it's become an absolute clownshow of misunderstanding and media hype the last two times
For me it's a difference in the scale of the mandate. Scotland is not an independent nation but part of the Union. If they had a mandate within the union for a referendum, fine, but they don't have that. They have a mandate within Scotland, but their leaving does effect us as well, and unlike the EU we don't have an article allowing them to leave unilaterally because when it came to forming the Union we did effectively become one nation. It's taken decades to unpick that to a position of devolved powers. That doesn't necessarily mean I think Scotland shouldn't have a vote. It just means I don't think electoral mandate is a valid argument for why they should have one given the current political status of Scotland and the UK. The Good Friday Agreement has a carefully crafted system for Northern Ireland returning to a United Ireland that takes all parties into account for precisely this sort of reason.
If the English focused / English majority parties (Labour, Tories, Lib Dems) actually wanted to address Scottish issues with a settlement like the Good Friday agreement, with agreed terms of when a referendum could happen if Scots wanted it, etc. And what would be planned for each scenario, I'd vote for them. But they just don't care. I don't necessarily want independence, but would still vote for the SNP as they, and the Greens, are the only parties which pay attention to Scottish issues.
The idea of a UK government making a decision about the UK which a future UK government could revise is not controversial. The big differences are that it wouldn't be in a future Scottish governments control to reverse independence if they wanted, they would be at the mercy of the rest of the UK. Also there is a question of whether it's within their powers. I'm sure the reaction would be different if the Lib Dems and Labour were trying to change the UK's voting system on the basis of winning a local election.
> Contrast this with the generally negative comments on the other post in the sub concerning the SNP saying that without a section 30 for a referendum they will use electoral mandate instead. I think the issue here is that the idea of a mandate for the SNP is BS, and virtually everyone knows it, including the SNP, yet they plan to push ahead anyway. FPTP necessitates voting for the party best positioned to stop your least favourite party getting a seat. In Scotland, that least favourite party is Conservatives, and best positioned is SNP. They are using that status as least-worst option to claim they are popular and supported by the population, thus being given a mandate.
You can’t ask the public when the public are mostly fucking idiots, as has been proved with recent referendums.
Why even have democracy if you cant trust how they'd vote? bit condescending.
Aw is that condescending? Well it’s true, most people are idiots.
Then the game is who can best convince said idiots, should be as easy for labour as it is for conservative
The problem is that the Tories strategy has been to completely neglect reality over the last few years. Nobody can compete with a side for whom the normal rules of anything just do not apply.
[удалено]
Because your question is kind of ridiculous tbh. I’m not saying do away with democracy, I’m saying there’s a reason the public shouldn’t get to directly vote on everything the government does because the public are generally stupid and can’t be trusted to think critically. That’s not to say politicians have our best interests at heart either, but the fact that the public keep electing certain idiots just adds more weight to the fact that they shouldn’t be trusted.
I don't like it. I think we need voting reform, but this is one of the only times I think a referendum is required. Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them.
> Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them. The Tories did that with the election bill already though.
IMO the left and liberals need to go on attack more. They need to ram this through, and then keep ramming other stuff through. Force Tories to react, keep them busy; an idle Tory is an attacking Tory, and an attacking Tory is feudalism with wifi.
>Otherwise it sets a precident of the party in power being able to just change the system to something which favours them. No it sets the precedent that a party *seeking* power can change the system *if* they win and only off the back of an electoral mandate to do so. Those are two very different things.
I think the precedent is there now that it is a referendum issue. And I do think reform is essential.
After the absolute hammering they took in the last AV referendum, I am quite sure the Lib Dems aren’t stupid enough to put it to the popular vote again. Which is probably for the best - someone upthread reminds us of the “She needs a new cardiac unit, not a new voting system” ads the No campaign ran then. This is what we elect governments *for*.
we learned from the <50% turnout at the last ref that the majority of the electorate don't care if our voting system is STV or FPTP. A victory for apathy!
We voted on AV vs FPTP in the 2011 referendum. Not STV vs FPTP.
I would lick this off a pub toilet cistern if in powder form
You'd Gove it.
Once saw Gove walk into a pub I was drinking in, in central London. Go into the toilets and then come out and leave. Always thought he wanted to use the loo and was too cheap to buy a drink….but yeah he probs just had a wrap of nose candy burning a hole in his pocket
I'd lick it straight off of Ed Davey
I'd lick Ed Davey for this.
I can only get so hard.
I'm surging.
Ooops - surged too early
As it should be, no ifs, no buts. In fact they could renege on anything else - and have Ed Davey be a sacrificial lamb, destined to live out his days in Lib Dem purgatory on the altar of Facebook - so long as they get electoral reform as an act in parliament. Any small step toward a more proportional system would be better for the country.
If the Lib Dems get PR through, they wouldn't even have to worry about their vote share collapsing. They're so wildly underrepresented that they'd win more seats under PR than FPTP even with a tiny fraction of their previous vote.
Oh dude I need this shit, I fucking want this so much, I want this democracy to function better
And this the whole idea that you cut out the cancer that is the likes of Matthew Elliott who ran No2AV before running Vote Leave. You can't campaign against something when there isn't something to vote on. If the mistakes made by Nick Clegg in 2010 ultimately end up with PR is that actually a bad thing? (Excluding the fact he works for Zuckerberg now lol 😆).
(Disclaimer, Leftist, not from UK, just go here for the laughs and wit rarely seen elsewhere. Wether you cry or jest, I’m entertained :) I’d think a proportional system will make Scotland seceding much less likely. They’ll be represented on another level. Regional parties in Europe frequently participate in coalitions, since they are usually a version of centrists. FPTP leads to this insane one party rule situations where compromise is not needed. Half the country feels trapped. Proportional system would be the best thing ever to happen to UK. Perhaps even help with dismantling the class system. It would definitely make politics way more moderate and calm.
>I’d think a proportional system will make Scotland seceding much less likely. They’ll be represented on another level. PR would reduce the SNP's power. They currently get about 50 seats from 1.2 million votes. To put that in comparison the Green party got 1 seat from 800k and the Brexit party got none from 600k.
50 seats opposing an 80 seat majority is less powerful than 30 seats in a multi-party system with no majority where that can be kingmakers.
50 seats in a FPTP system for a single party is far far more powerful than 30 in a PR system. The SNP will never get into a coalition in a PR system.
And Lib Dems got 11 seats with 3.7 million votes. Three times as many votes as the SNP, but one fifth the number of seats.
They'd have fewer seats, but because PR would result in mostly hung parliaments they would likely have far more influence. Future Labour governments would frequently have to rely on the SNP for support, which would give them huge power to demand concessions and get their own policies passed.
So what we want now is for the Tories to get rid of Johnson and recover enough that Labour don't win a majority and then we get this coalition and electoral reform.
As Labour supporter I really need Lab to win enough votes to beat Tories but not enough to form government without LD support. We need Lib Dem to be king makers and get this done.
Please be Single Transferrable Vote with constituencies merged to have 5-6 MPs each.
Labour will say no - many of their MPs wouldn't vote for that. LDs will then side with the Tories and let them have another shot at power. Guarantee it.
Why would the Lib Dems make electoral reform a deal breaker with Labour but not with the Tories?
Because they've learned their lesson from how it went the last time.
> LDs will then side with the Tories Highly doubt that. The country is in a very different position to 2010
Well yes that’s the choice.
Not a chance. It goes to a vote with the members, I don't know a single member who would even consider it.
You know literally nothing about the LibDems if you think the membership would approve a Tory coalition
Good. As a left-winger and Labour supporter, the LDMs are right to demand this. Electoral reform will solve many problems inherent in our system. The undemocratic FPTP needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
>Electoral reform will solve many problems inherent in our system. The undemocratic FPTP needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Electoral reform at the will of the party who wins is undemocratic and sets an absolutely ridiculous precedent. It would mean any party who wins has the ability to change the electoral system to a system that benefits them. Its gerrymandering on a national level.
How else would you do it? Referenda have clear shown themselves as a destabilising force in UK politics.
>Referenda have clear shown themselves as a destabilising force in UK politics. No, they haven't. Brexit has done. What destabilising force did the AV referendum cause? The Original EU referendum? By messing with the electoral system without consulting the public you are removing agency from the democratic system. If you cannot raise enough support to win a referendum how in the holy hells should we go through with it? By your logic, the Conservatives should be able to have taken us out of the EU without a referendum. Would you have supported that? What about in 2032 when the Conservatives win and form a govt with UKIP v2 and decide to just change the electoral system back to FPTP? It's sets a **horrendous** precedent to enact sweeping Constitutional reforms without consulting the people. If the Lib Dems were the Electoral Reform Party, and the only goal in their manifesto was to change the electoral system from FPTP to PR them immediately disband and hold a new referendum then they would have an electoral mandate to enact electoral reform without a referendum. If they were to have a single other goal in their manifesto, other than electoral reform then their mandate is dead. Because people might well vote for them for those other goals and not want to change the electoral system.
So good to see the Lib Dems might be serious about electoral reform this time round. Who knows I might even vote for them for this.
They were serious last time, they were also naïve about it.
Yeah, they put an iota of trust in the Conservative party. The tories gave the lib dems an epic shafting in that period of politics.
They also trusted that the voting public would be able to correctly choose between two options where one was straightforwardly objectively better than the other.
Yeah but you underestimate how much that baby needed a maternity unit.
VOTE NO OR THE BABY WILL DIE
We were told to vote No by the people who wanted to keep FPTP. We were told to vote No by people who said AV doesn't go far enough.
Reminder that Labour said they supported AV then most Labour MPs campaigned against it as well.
Back then they thought they could win another outright majority. They've since lost Scotland and know they're not going to win it back any time soon so don't have any realistic prospect of anything but the thinnest of majorities.
After 13 years out of power and with a relatively placid right of centre Cameron at the helm, I can understand why they felt they could do it. Massively naive in hindsight though.
That's it. They had the right ideas, but were far too naive as to how higher levels of politics work. The Tories just completely rinsed them - taking advantage of the good press caused by the Lib Dems softening their policies whilst giving the Lib Dems the blame for the awful stuff that got pushed through. The trick is to look at whatever the parties offer and think why would they do that. What do they have to gain. Never trusting anyone on their direct word.
> naïve about it It's not like they had any real power to do anything else. Cameron could have easily just said no.
Even more serious about free tuition.
They need to recognise that they can't trust the bigger party to willingly give up the established power they've had for decades. They need to be non-compromising on this. The tories in particular are far less willing than Labour (labour loses seats under STV but not by alot as they get more representation in Scotland then under FPTP, but the tories just lose almost everywhere lol), so I can see Labour being apprehensive but more willing to adopt PR if the Lib-Dems stick with it.
this is pretty good if true. Hope Lib-Dems don't compromise on STV like with the last referendum. AV+ is good, but compared to PR and STV, its a little on the weaker side for me.
One of the reasons AV was settled on was because Labour had hidden in their manifesto they supported it. But when push came to shove they just let their MPs support what they wanted and most realised their job was at risk if they lost FPTP. I don't think the LDs will make the same mistake again.
Absolutely. LDs should not compromise on this at all. Every small party benefits from this, so its unlikely that any small party will decide to take up the offer instead for short-term power after seeing the LDs fail in 2010. Labour also benefits as a collective under a PR system, as they will weaken the Conservatives and strengthen their base in Scotland, so compared to the tories, will lose far less seats to the smaller parties (assuming there's no split, which likely will happen lol). If Labour agrees and backs STV or PR, they have my vote. If not, it goes to LibDems, even if I live in a safe seat for Labour.
Also whilst it pains me to say this, Nigel Farage would have an important role to play in the event of a referendum
This is assuming his paymasters don't tell him to do a complete 180° turn lol. But assuming he does actually stick by his historical support for PR, I genuinely think a referendum would win. I hate the slimy git but he apparently has an excellent way of selling shit to people so I only assume he can sell good stuff just as well
Nigel Farage being on the right side of something is just another example of modern politics being insane lol. Ideally the Lib-Dems aren't stupid again and fucking don't do another Referendum plEASE
I would be fine with AV Plus if they make it a 50/50 split between single member constituency seats and multi-member constituency seats, with the latter having multi-member constituencies electing anywhere between 5 to 10 members ideally. But I wouldn't be surprised if it just ended up being a 70/30 split if it were to ever happen.
I'd prefer the MMP system used in New Zealand (and I think the Scottish parliament). MMP, AV+, and STV all have their pros and cons but they're all better than FPTP. STV would be great for local elections though.
It was so pathetic what they did there, trash there party, put up tuition fees, and have a vote on something that anyone who knew what they were talking about didn't want in the first place...let alone those who didn't. If you are going to destroy your electoral chances for decade, at least get the vote you actually want...
Labour literally went back on their support for AV. The referendum could have been won if it essentially wasn't just Clegg campaigning in favour of change
If labour had implemented their promise of voting reform they made in the 1997 manifesto we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Significant if true. I’ll feel a lot better when it moves from Westminster gossip and into manifestos, policy documents and speeches by party leaders. It still feels like it could just fizzle out.
Fully support the lib Dems calls for PR. The SNP also back PR, so all Labour needs to do is get behind this and we can get it across the line.
Damn I didn’t realise the SNP backed PR. Especially respectable because they benefit greatly from FPTP
SNP get royally fucked by FPTP. Broadly speaking, the goal of the SNP is not simply to maximise MPs. They hold a bunch of completely useless seats because everything is decided internally within the Tory party. 10% of the seats is 0% of the power. Bring in PR and suddenly politicians have to give a shit about Scotland and the SNP hold some power amidst the mess that explodes out of the current parties splitting. Even when not in power, other parties wouldn't fuck them so hard because they'd know they might need to make a coalition (or threaten to make a coalition) with the SNP. Coalitions force compromise. That's not a weakness, it's a strength. It's not undemocratic, it actually spreads out power rather than concentrating it in 40% of voters.
SNP got 7.3% of the seats on 3.8% of the popular vote in the last election. Under PR I doubt 3.8% would give any more power at all, as they’re unlikely to be needed in a coalition with such a small proportion of the vote.
With PR the case for secession weakens considerably. Since Scots would be represented and most likely even participate in ruling coalitions, which centrist parties tend to do.
>Since Scots would be represented and most likely even participate in ruling coalitions Not necessarily. The SNP only got 4% of the total vote in 2019.
I have a feeling that the SNP will renegade on it, it will massively cut the number of MPs they have in Westminster, potentially turning them into either the 4th or 5th largest party.
Would you rather be the third largest party who never is in government and has no say on most issues, or the fifth largest but semi-regularly be a junior member of a governing coalition?
Electoral reform *should* be an easy sell. Lab/Libs simply need to say "If there is one thing we can agree on, is that the last ten years of politics (the Con/Dup coalition, everything to do with Brexit, the current government) has been an absolute shitshow. PR would guarantee that this wouldn't happen ever again" would be very appealing to lots of voters. Of course the media would do everything to ensure that this wouldn't happen so I'm not holding me breath.
Ha, why? All Electoral reform does for Labour is lose them power, people seem to fail to understand what FPTP is, when it swings, it swings hard. It is designed to not lead to the exact outcomes that happened in 2010, and if polling falls a bit for a leading party, the whole point of it is someone else comes the leading party, not compromise. It is a broken system that is designed to stop the need for compromise, or dead lock occurring. Which is all a rather pathetic ideal if you support democracy through representation of the people, because it aim isn't that at all. It is to give, the majority, or the significant minority power. The reality of the UK shows however, there is rarely ever a majority.
Under Electoral Reform, Labour will have more opportunities to have a say compared to now due to coalitions. It's a comprimised form of power, but for Labour's long term political health, its absolutely crucial for them. The apprehension comes from individual MPs who fear losing their seats under PR. STV is probably the best choice as many MPs will maintain seat-safety so Lib-Dems have a pretty good foot forward here. As you said and hopefully agree with me here, as there rarely is ever a majority, that means that there should be no such thing as absolute power, as the will of the people cannot be represented in that way, compromises over common ground between ideologies is far more representative of the overall opinion of the electorate. There are issues with this, which I heavily dislike, but I'd rather those issues than FPTP's issues. (lesser of two evils/unappealing-candidates is very annoying)
> Under Electoral Reform, Labour will have more opportunities to have a say compared to now due to coalitions. I don't disagree. Unless they think they will win anyway, and then they don't have to compromise. > but for Labour's long term political health, its absolutely crucial for them. Nonsense, the long term health of the Tory party is dead, literally. Their electorate is ageing and more and more are in the group year on year, 5 constituencies of individuals die each year, 70% of those people will be Tory voters. Progress happens one death at a time, and as I say, when it swings, good bye Tories. This isn't Trump's America which has a broad age range of demographics, the far right Brexit Tories are held up by corpses.
\>Nonsense, the long term health of the Tory party is dead, literally. Their electorate is ageing and more and more are in the group year on year, 5 constituencies of individuals die each year, 70% of those people will be Tory voters. Progress happens one death at a time, and as I say, when it swings, good bye Tories. I'd agree but unless I see the Tories get only 50 seats the next election, I doubt they won't just regrow their base over the course of the next few terms and contend with Labour once more.
You can speculate on 10 to 20 years in the future all you like, if you asked anyone where we would be in 2010 people would have called this reality nonsense. The whole premise is pointless.
It doesn't fix it though. Does it not risk localised campaigning? We can all agree that the wants and needs of the people in the North of England are not the same as those in London, nor are the needs of those in Scotland the same as those England. So in the same way that people argue the current presidential system in the US stops people just campaigning in California, New York and other populous democrat states where they could accrue the numbers but are instead forced to go to more states; could that problem not happen here? London has about 13% of the UK population so would you not risk politicians focusing on London to score as many people as possible making "London promises" and disregarding the rest of the country? We already argue governments are too London focused when they have to try and appease other parts of the country to get enough seats. I'm not trying to debate which system is better but simply is what I've stated not a risk? (Yes I know they would need more than London to get a majority but it's just used to illustrate a point).
I suggest you read how the STV system actually works
But that assumes the STV system as opposed to one of the alternative electoral systems when the comment I was responding to doesn't mention STV. But as you've brought it up, is it not true that STV rarely results in majority governments so actually it makes it very difficult for them to conduct business? We've seen over the last 12 years how difficult it can be to conduct government business with a coalition or propped up government. A person may not always like what a majority government does but most would agree it's better than seeing a government that can't do anything because of trying to appease another party.
When you say majority government in your last paragraph you mean a party that gets around 38% of the vote, inherently undemocratic. Forming coalitions and moving to the centre is no bad thing.
No. The seats competed for represent similar populations (iirc about 100k each.) You get PR in each, with something like list seats or runoff in regions (eg Yorkshire gets an extra 1-2 MPs that represent the whole region) to rebalance.
ohh Lib Dems I think you may have just gotten my vote.
…"unless I live in an area where Labour are stronger and I have agreed to vote swap with someone in another area of the country."
**The price of Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority government** would start with electoral reform without a referendum, in a confidence and supply agreement, I’m informed. Senior Labour and Lib Dem figures are turning thoughts to potential arrangements as the by-election results from Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton, Boris Johnson’s continuing leadership and the cost-of-living crisis heighten the prospect of Tory election defeat. Keir Starmer is unlikely to secure an overall majority, so the Con-Dem coalition veteran Ed Davey’s current thinking is to demand a fairer voting system instead of short-term ministerial posts, red boxes and cars. Tories who fear that a Lab-Lib pincer movement could lock them out of power will go spare. Avoiding Nick Clegg’s 2011 electoral referendum mistake would fuel Johnson’s claims that both opposition parties would also ignore the EU referendum result and get Brexit undone. “We’ve just got to bite the bullet,” screamed my snout. **Talk of Matt Hancock’s** possible cabinet return coincides with the Department of Health and Social Care spending £10,000 for external legal advice on removing CCTV that caught the lockdown lothario snogging aide Gina Coladangelo. Ministers with wandering lips can relax when documents reveal that the equivalent of four months’ pay for a nurse will help pull the plug on cameras supplied by state-owned Chinese firm Hikvision. **Sitting on laps, vomiting, fisticuffs,** red wine on walls and abused cleaners doesn’t cover all the outrageous behaviour at No 10’s boozy lockdown parties. Two staffers named to me are, I’m told, relieved Sue Gray’s report didn’t include them having sex in a toilet – not least because one’s married to somebody else while the other has a partner. Emperor Johnson’s court makes Nero’s Rome appear tame. **The word is that Johnson delayed** a post no-confidence vote reshuffle to avoid creating hostile ex-ministers. One loyalist believes the “moment of maximum danger” is the imminent 1922 Committee elections. Should rebels win a majority and approve a second vote this year, Johnson will be toast. Whereas should backbench lackeys triumph, he’ll be safe until the general election. Or at least that’s her theory. We’ll see. **Ministers are digging dirt** on trade union leaders after working-class hero Mick “The Hood” Lynch mangled Tories and television interviewers, defying the government’s rail strike script. Tory HQ realises it’s ignorant about the new awkward squad. Sharon Graham, Christina McAnea, Patrick Roach et al are more than capable of biting back.
Seems a reasonable price
[удалено]
You have to deny it or it doesn't work as well. If the Conservative campaigner on your doorstep can point out that if you vote for the Lib Dem you were considering you'll get the Labour government you'd never consider in a million years, chances are that you'd vote Tory instead.
STV is like the brexit deal, technically the thing people were aiming for but the worst possible version of it. MMP all the way
[удалено]
£3.47 plus a bag of pickled onion Monster Munch.
Grab bag.
If either party had any brains they would be trading seats by stepping down in one or another. When you have the farce of democracy that was 2019 with Farages facist standing down, leading to the Conservative party dissolving itself and becoming the Brexit party so it could win, that isn't democracy in any form what so ever. It leads to the exact state of affair of this country right now.
Labour is disadvantaged by the centre to left split, especially in Scotland where Labour is almost extinct due to the SNP. If they agree to this with Lib-Dems, they open themselves to a very strong counterattack by the Tories, claiming that "Labour and the Lib-Dems are conspiring!" Hopefully to most people that wouldn't matter, but in fringe constituencies and the fact a Labour majority is unlikely, it's still a big reason to keep quiet or to not do it at all, and instead cooperate in a different, less visible way during the campaign.
> they open themselves to a very strong counterattack by the Tories This is basically irrelevant though. In Constiuencies where this is an issue, i.e. Labour would lose, you would be backing the Lib Dem horse which Non-labour voters would still go in and vote for. In Tory-Labour seats, it just bolsters Labour. People seem to fail to see how dead the Tories are under Boris Johnson, old people don't like Criminals, they try to scam them out of their money every day, even if they have no problem voting to starving children and destroy the country.
I don't doubt doing such an agreement would help, I'm just worried that we'd see some odd swing back due to this decision. The Lib-Dems are avoiding saying they'd cooperate in such a way with Labour for a reason (unless I missed it and I'm just wrong about this)
That reason being there isn't an election and no reason to mention it? Why would they...it is nothing to do with anything presently.
[удалено]
Lib-Dems want STV. This in practice would cause constituencies to join together to form multi member constituencies, where you have several local MPs in a bigger area, and you rank your choices between the candidates, and for an MP to be sent, they need a 1/n proportion of the votes, where n is the number of candidates per constituency. The neatest number for this is 5 MPs per constituency, resulting in 130 constituencies in the country instead of 650
You rank your choices. You might not find your first choice wins, but your second might. So if you want Labour to win but would be happy if Green won too you’d but Labour your first choice, Greens second. However, unlike AV, you least favourite would also get ranked, just the lowest ranking possible for the number of ballots.
This is the only way I think we'll get rid of the Torys unfortunately a coalition, the only way there will be a Labour majority is the people north of boarder wake up and realise one the SNP couldn't run a bath and two real change for Scotland will either come in form of independence and if Breixt has anything to go by breaking away from any union can be a bit tricky or vote Labour.
Ahhh, it's Scotlands fault.
That's not what they said (although they did go onto say it in the other reply that appeared as I wrote this ffs). Scotland is free to vote for whomever they want to, this is a democracy. However the truth is is that the SNP and Scottish independence are toxic to the generic English swing voters who labour need to win over to be the largest party. Labour can't get 20-30 seats in Scotland anymore, and have to massively distance themselves from the SNP so can't get 50 seats worth of support. It's not Scotland's fault, it's just a reality caused by the rise of the SNP
Tony Blair managed to win the majority of seats in England twice. Why do Labour now need Scotland to beat the Tories? The problem is not the SNP it has been Labour's inability to get voters to trust them as a viable alternative due to a combination of Iraq, 2008 and Corbyn fans.
> the only way there will be a Labour majority is the people north of boarder wake up and realise Hmmmm, they did...
How about the English just don't vote for the Tories? SNP rose because English people vote Tory.
Again, the simplification that "the English all vote Tory" doesn't help. In England the Tories won 45.4% of the votes, but substantially more than 44.4% of the seats. First past the post once again handed them all the power.
Yes it kind of is, you've only got to look at the facts and figures and since the devolution and since SNP have taken over the torys have had free pass to government on top of that taken Scotland backwards its all there in black & white. You've been lead down a independence route with the SNP who's sole reason for existence is that one policy. Your leader was suppose to outlines ways of tackling the drug problem in Scotland instead made it all about her and independence and Scotland is on its arse because the SNP once again only have one policy. All independence supporters say Scottish people should have a say on Scottish matters which is fair enough but if your going to follow the SNP to independence your fucked because their track record is bollocks and going down the independence route with them will be cutting ones nose off to spite one's face. I don't want Scottish independence because SNP will fuck it up and it'll be left to the rest of the UK to fix up the fuck up.
Word salad. It's Labours fault they're shit, not the SNP's.
What if I told you the Tories are delighted at the SNP's existence? look at Cameron's demeanour in that ITV debate from 2015. He loved Sturgeon for the fact she'd contribute in him winning a majority. You're being played for a fool by the Tories.
Is this meant to make me vote Labour or something ?
Tories get shafted by the SNP, how are they delighted? If you mean English Tories, not Scottish Tories, then that's England's fault.
Yea it is that's why a lot traditional Labour supporters voted tory but Mark my words I don't think they'll do it again as they have learned there lessons from this tory government. Unlike you lot North of the board you keep voting for the same party and expecting different circumstances all the time and we're still hearing the same load of shit come from the SNP. Look take off your blue and white glasses and look at the facts no matter how much you sing the flower of Scotland, wear you kilts, eat your haggis and drink your whisky, it doesn't help education, health care, infrastructure ect. Scotland used to be the best of us in the UK under the SNP you've gone backwards. But by all means vote for them definition of madness, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results you all must be quite mad up there.
While you could get away with changing the voting system as a manifesto commitment without a referendum, doing it without a manifesto commitment or a referendum puts you in a bind. It would be very easy for voters to feel betrayed if they ended up with a change to the voting system the plurality of the public didn’t actively vote for.
Were voters betrayed by the passing of the various reform acts?
Except the reform acts focused on making sure less ppl were disenfranchised. This on the other hand is a partisan power grab from an irrelevant political party who are fed up of losing.
And now tell me how a fptp system is not just an institutionalized power grab.
The lib dems could start by trying to increase its vote share from 10% and appeal to wide sections of the electorate, not just middle class folks in southern moderately sized towns, or posh people from South West London. Then they might actually win. If they think PR gives them a better chance of winning, then they can think again as there is no serious appetite for neoliberalism in the UK.
I have the feeling you don't understand how all of this works. It is OK to be a small party. Still they should be properly represented.
By your example there's 10% appetite for neoliberalism and they should get 10% of the power, right now they get 0% and all the people who vote for them have no voice.
I'm sure you're well aware that the predecessor party to the Lib Dems were advocating for electoral reform when they held the office of Prime Minister. The only people scared of it are those who know they stand to lose their disproportionate stranglehold on power in this country at odds with the electorate.
If Lynton and the other tory strategists had any brains they need to hammer the "no referendum" point home. Dissatisfied tory voters in the south for the most part do not want a labour government. While they might have voted LD to stick it to Johnson, they might reconsider it if their vote ensures an eternal labour government, which will be dictated by inner city wokeists.
Sounds like a deal is DOA then.
As always I'll point out whilst PR is more representative of the nation you have to accept that means that you'll get more representatives of greens and lib Dems, those on the other end of the scale (ie UKIP, Reform etc) will likely be represented in parliament
And? Look at the current Tory partys line up of MPs basically UKIP.
I've always taken the opinion that it is good for the country in general for people's opinions to be proportionally represented. Even if I completely despise the politics of UKIP, it's unhealthy to have the situation in 2015 where they got some 12% of the vote but 1 MP. Everyone should have a voice, even if we don't like what they have to say.
I completely agree with you however there have been many times where I've seen voters of left wing parties say UKIP etc should not be allowed representation. I really don't agree with their policies but to call them Nazis isn't correct
Yeah I disagree with people who say that, it's hypocritical. I think parties should only be barred from running for parliament when they are encouraging or promoting illegal activity (for example hate crimes). A small number of UKIP's members in the past probably come close to that, but overall as a party they aren't quite so extreme and should be allowed representation, particularly if they represent 12% of voters' views. In the same line of thought, I'm sure that the Green party for example would get significantly more vote share with PR, because as it stands I reckon many people don't vote for them simply because they think there is no point. As progressive as Brighton is I doubt it's so much farther left than other areas of the UK and the Greens hold it simply because people know they can actually vote for them and be represented.
Think you are right there. We will end up with rainbow coalitions but overall think this would result in more balanced politics. Still remains to be seen if it's ever possible over here
Classic case of asking for something they'll never get, hoping to score points with their own base. Just like Tories with brexit ref originally. Come the actual election, if this is on the cards Tory media will just say: Lab-Lib wants Britain CRIPPLED just like FAILING Europe, all the sheep panic vote Tory etc etc Hope I'm wrong I'd love to see electoral reform just think UK is incapable of delivering any change worth having while the media mafia has everyone with a noose around their necks as the starting point.
These circumstances would sweeten the somewhat funky taste of both of these neo liberal sheisters being in power. Fptp has to go and if this is how we get rid of it, so bit. Politicially almost nothing between 3 parties anyway.
The only countries in Europe in that have a good health care system comparable to the UK are the big economic countries such as France, Italy and Spain or the two Nordic countries of Norway and Sweden which have a very high GDP per capita twice as much as Scotland to be in fact. Scotland neither has the economy or the GDP to offer free health care even with independence go out and do your research on these matters because I'm not being funny the SNP have you walking blindly off a cliff with this independence bull shit.
I admire a party brave enough to fundamentally force their minority position with minimal proof of electoral support, completely against their own party name
Of course. They hate referendums.
American here... unfamiliar with parliamentary coalitions... LibDems were in coalition with David Cameron Tory government...right? Why would Labor suddenly want/trust them to join their coalition now? Is it common for small parties to switch their coalitions to that degree?
The Liberal Democrats are a central left party. At the time Cameron’s conservative where a moderate right party and Labour a moderate left. When no one had a majority in the 2010 general election, obviously a majority government could not be formed. The LibDems had enough MPs to work with Labour and other parties to for a coalition government or with the Conservatives to form a coalition government. Meetings where held over 22 days in May and there is a both parties. The Liberal Democrats were the king makers at this points as they could determine which party would form a government. The Conservatives offered a better at the time, which included more ministerial positions for LibDems, more support for Liberal Democrat policies and a referendum of political reform. I’m exchange the Liberal Democrats had to support conservative policies. For over a decade many Labour supporters have vilified the Liberal Democrats for entering coalition with the Conservatives. However, it was over 10 years ago. Politics has changed. The Labour Party have suffered several hard hitting defeats, the Conservative policies have become much more hard to digest. The Labour Party is much less Left leaning and I think most have come to the realisation that calling LibDem supports “yellow tories” and not actively working to remove this government together has not been working well. Keir Starmer, who again like Blair and Brown, is a more moderate leader and understands that this is the only way he can defeat the conservatives.
So, in some regards the Lib Dems will be irrelevant to whether electoral reform takes place. If the proponents for PR within the Labour party succeed and get it put into their manifesto then Labour will implement it if they have the support in parliament to do so after the election. If it's not in the manifesto it 100%, won't happen without a referendum - Doesn't matter what the election result is, doesn't matter what the Lib Dems demand, it won't happen. For the simple reason that there won't be enough support among Labour MPs to change our voting system without an electoral mandate. It's the same reason that there wasn't a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, too many Labour MPs refused to support it. Obviously though there will be some consideration of the Lib Dems position when Labour is debating this over the next 2 years. A lot of people will be very aware that electoral reform could be the roadblock to a Labour government in 2024, and hence it's better to just try and win the argument in the General Election.
PLP doesn't like PR as much as the membership does. They'll happily kick it into the long grass again if there's no coalition partner forcing their hand
My point is that this has to be decided before the next election, not afterwards. Labour won't agree to a change without a referendum if it's not in their manifesto.
> It's the same reason that there wasn't a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, too many Labour MPs refused to support it. This wasn't the reason, in 2010 a Labour-Lib Dem coalition couldn't happen because even combined they were still 16 seats short of a majority. They would have needed a bunch of the other parties to join them and even then would have been toppled by almost anything.
I know this is their big thing but I don't support it. You can't do electoral reform UK-wide without a referendum. I know the Tories have made changes to FPTP with Mayoral elections but they're not nation-wide elections. You absolutely do need a referendum for something of this scale. Labour should make sure that's the case or it'll be nothing.
>You can't do electoral reform UK-wide without a referendum We've had two referendums in this country now (AV and Brexit) where the Conservatives have profited and Labour have sat on their hands and refused to do the right thing. Why should LDs trust Labour with a third referendum when their only purpose has been to have been hijacked by the conservative media? >Labour should make sure that's the case or it'll be nothing. Hope Labour enjoys working with the SNP instead then.