Would Keir Starmer introduce proportional representation to the UK? | The New Statesman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 янв 2024
- The Conservatives and Labour Party both benefit from the first-past-the-post voting system? So, how likely is electoral reform, and is it a good idea?
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
Anoosh Chakelian, Rachel Cunliffe, and Freddie Hayward answer a listener's question on electoral reform and explain why proportional representation wouldn't guarantee a progressive alliance in the UK.
__
The New Statesman podcast is now on RUclips. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.
Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast here: • The New Statesman Podcast
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our RUclips channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on RUclips: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.substack.com
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...
For me, you either want a fair voting system or not. If UKIP would’ve got more seats in 2015 under PR than they did under FPTP, surely that’s democracy, those voters would’ve had their voice fairly represented (even though I wholly dislike UKIP & everything they stand for).
I’m tired of us citizens having to compromise all the time, having to vote tactically to stop the Tories rather than voting for the party we actually believe in.
It’s time to drag the U.K. into the 21st century.
Also her statement that "it doesn't benefit left wing parties" is wrong. Left wing parties have demonstrably been in power (as part of a coalition) for more years in practically every European country since they introduced PR systems than in the UK - by a large margin too. People tend (or have tended) to vote for left-wing (economic) policies by majority everywhere in Europe, but they tend to be more fractious and so in a majoritarian voting system such as FPTP they suffer disproportionately.
She even slipped up at the end (@9:15) she said, in reference to FPTP, "Yes, it's not exactly democrati-..." and then tried to correct herself. It's a bit suspect that they've got panellists who seemingly acknowledge that FPTP is demonstrably undemocratic in the results that it produces but are advocating for it anyway...
Exactly. We've had Labour , Democratic Left and Greens in coalition here in Ireland. Under FPTP we'd have permanent conservative rule. If Netherlands had FPTP Wilders would probably not need a coalition partner.
Exactly, it's so frustrating that discussion around voting reform is always couched in terms of whether it would benefit party X.
That's not the point, the point is to give more people a voice.
@@xeozim These tribes don't actually want democratic governance, they just spout tribal drivel and are comfortable with the status quo of pendulum politics and huge cost that incurs, undoing or repairing the mess left by the last lot. But why should they care, it's not their money their wasting, it's ours.
Same feeling here. And a fair number of MPs I believe would have helped the Brexit debate. More people would at least watch the parliament channel highlights, some engagement in the debate outside echo chambers. Whether it makes any difference I doubt, but a less polarising decision was possible. Instead Brexit became the ultimate FPTP winners takes all, and the result as arbitrary as flipping a coin.
No matter which way anyone voted, hopefully we can all agree FPTP fails to represent the majority, and even with Brexit given not every leaver agreed that leave means leave everything. It was for parliament to decide what it meant, but that’s not possible under winner takes all.
We absolutely need it. In 2015, the greens got 1.1 million votes and just 1 MP. UKIP got 3.8 million votes and also just 1 MP. The SNP on the other hand in the same election got 56 MPS with just 1.4 million votes... That is insane. We need a new system.
You won’t have to worry about that when Scotland takes its independence.
@@andrewpreston4127 good riddance. Spongers.
@@dannymccormick3337 Showing your ignorance.
By using first past the post we strengthen the feeling that the voter cannot make a difference. That we have a two party dictatorship. By allowing minority parties into parliament you allow a pressure release valve for radical voices without civil disobedience. Also the main parties can decide whether to form coalition with the extremes or with moderates on the opposite wing.
Does the UK systematically have more civil disobedience than more PR but otherwise similar ish countries?
@@danielwebb8402 it’s a good question. I certainly think there’s a lot of climate, animal, right wing demonstrations. I don’t have any statistics though.
@danielwebb8402 the French have a PR electoral system and they love a good riot.
Proportional representation will mean the division of the two main parties into its main political differences. The Tory loonies will become a more openly fascistic grouping, with its more liberal wing attracting Labour's liberals, allowing labour to return to its traditional pro-working class roots. Starmer knows that proportional voting will end his labour leadership as his pro-capital values will be evident.
Representation will always fail, only having a recallable delegate will deliver.
@@danielwebb8402 of course it doesn't.
45% of the population wanting PR does not make it a niche issue ! Remember we are governed by a party that secured only 44% of the votes at the last election. So that makes most UK governments over the last 5 decades niche governments.
Get a grip guys.
Our country needs PR so over 50% of voters sign up to be governed by values and policies they value. Give power back to the only tool citizens actually have….. their vote.
Enjoy coalition governments, frequent elections and long term voter dissatisfaction!
@@SplashTasty It takes grown up politicians to be in coalitions, luckily the next election should see many of the tribal infants removed and the ground will be set for a government fit to govern the UK with the mandate of the majority of the voters at the NEXT election. Starmer has to decide if he wants a legacy that makes a real lasting change to the governance of our country or just give his little red tribe a chance at power for about 5 years. Is he a Statesman or a just a tribal leader ? Personally, I just don't see a Statesman yet, which is so disappointing.
@@SplashTasty we already have that, but thanks.
The voting system should benefit the people - not the parties.
Good point. Most voters are not actually tribal the way Man Utd and Man City fans are. They want certain policies implemented or repealed. They're less concerned with Party than with policy.
Its not a good point. It is a completely nebulous statement. Wow, how brave. @@georgesdelatour
@@SplashTasty In the 1950s the Conservatives had 3 million individual members. Labour had 1 million individual members, plus up to 6 million affiliations via union membership. Today the Conservatives are down to 172,000 members and Labour 400,000 members. For comparison, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds now has 1.2 million members. I think it’s obvious voters are far less loyal to party than they used to be. They shop around for their politics a lot more than they used to.
When I lived in the UK my constituency had been in Tory hands since the 1800s so I felt my vote didn’t count. I now live in NZ. Under MMP you have 2 votes. One for your constituency MP and a party vote. The party vote has a 5% threshold before a party gets into parliament. This means that it is rare for a single party to have a majority. It means that you usually have a coalition government, and that the MP and parties have to work together to obtain a consensus and the choice is not binary. As for compulsory voting if you don’t want to pay a fine in Australia you just spoil your ballot paper.
You have two votes in NZ, because it is a unicameral nation, and lacks the electoral balance of an upper house of parliament. It[s also of course a small electorate compared to Britain
That sounds like an improvement on the Westminster system. But NZ has obviously carried-over some of the aristocratic clap-trap. Nobody needs a local political master in 2024 - constituencies are defunct and having your choices constrained by parties is pure elitism. People are more than capable of choosing their own representative - they don't need any 'help'.
@@ausbrum new zealand used the crappy british system in the 1990s
I like the vote being more representative, however this will make the UKIP type parties much more powerful.
Also, coalitions governments lack the speed of decision that a majority gov do. I am very conflicted and think the PR side need to address these points with the electorate
@@DH-bg1qo UKIP are already powerful - they pushed Cameron into having a referendum against the wishes of the majority of MPs or the public and then pushed the Tories into a hard Brexit. We continue to see the influence away from the centre right due to these people and can expect similar from the hard left under a Labour government.
I was a bit disappointed with this discussion. We all know AV is not a form of PR, so why not explicitly say that, instead of implying it is? What we need is a debate about how PR could be introduced, and what the best fit would be. Want stable governments? Well then have small constituencies with, say four to six MPs, that would limit how proportional the system is (eg like in Ireland, where they have a small number of large parties). Want it to be as proportional as possible? Then have large constituencies with a large number of MPs each, eg Israel has a single massive constituency, but it also has many tens of parties in parliament and finds it hard to form governments.
How would a referendum be held? Follow the Irish model of a citizens assembly which would look at all the evidence and suggest an alternative? Or go down the New Zealand route and hold a preliminary referendum on the principle of PR, with a supplementary question about what the preferred alternative; then hold a second referendum down the line offering the current option or the preferred alternative as determined by the first referendum.
How would we educate people about the alternative forms of PR without it degenerating into a campaign of misinformation? The lies told by both sides during the AV referendum were shocking and outrageous. From Clegg fallaciously arguing that AV would eliminate safe seats, to Abbott lying about some people having more than one vote. Any vote would need to be conducted on the merits of any alternative system, and not based on deliberate disinformation and misinformation.
Jenkins's AV+ was an interesting model, but it wasn't PR (Jenkins said as much, wanting to make electoral reform as appealing as possible to Labour MPs who were opposed to PR), at best one might argue it mitigated the worst excesses of FPTP and would have prevented landslide majorities.
We need to be having conversations with people who understand the pros and cons of various PR (and plurality and majoritarian) systems, and who can walk us through them. People who can tell us the differences between AMS and MMPR, or open vs closed list systems. Who can explain what a wasted vote is and why FPTP wastes so many votes.
Those are the debates we should be having.
Well said ...a good exposition of the arguments.
We need to be having debates about the r/w libertarian billionaires controlling the media
And we need to strengthen parliament so govt policy is no longer dictated by libertarian lobby groups, Tufton street etc
We have no democracy, what we have is a system where you can influence policy by throwing some money at the right people
What is never discussed is the need for a cultural shift when switching to PR, the technical part is easy but are parties and the public open for negotiations, coalitions and in general switch to consensus politics.
Exactly.
The majority, not only political geeks or members, of Labour voters blame the lib dems for not implementing all and only their policies when a junior coalition partner.
Parties would find themselves compelled to negotiate with each other, the result might just be that the UK gets some stability in its government.
New Zealand changed from FPP to the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) form of PR frrom 1996 after two referenda on the issue of electoral reform following elector dissatisfaction over the behaviour of Labour and National and the obvious unfairness of FPP to smaller parties who only managed to get an occasional MP although getting significant support in many constituencies.
We have had coalition governments either led by Labour or National supported by Greens on the left and ACT plus NZ First on the right ever since.
There is no appetite to change back.
Our experience is a useful lesson on making the change. The first referendum was to determine a different form of elections with Prefential, STV and MMP as the choice. MMP was the most favoured and a second referendum was held a year later to choose between MMP and FPP- the result is history.
Respect to Rod Donald (RIP) for campaigning for such changes.
The last Labour led govt. had huge problems delivering its agenda because of obstruction from their junior partner NZ First. This is the problem with MMP. Just saying
Proportional representation is by far the fairest democratic system there is, it accurately & fairly represents the view & wishes of the people at any given time & as those views change so does parliament in line with them during each electoral term.
What amazing bollox. PR means that Brits would have to elect every one of the 650 MP's. It would eliminate constituencies/ electorates, there would be no by elections.PR doesn't represent view and wishes: it produces small majorities.Preferential Voting is the fairest system: to be elected requires a 50.1% main vote, and actually allows voters to vote AGAINST a candidate.(Under FPP you can be elected with 40% of the vote, with PV you can have the remaining 60% voting against you.Having universally accepted the rampant stupidity of Brexit, it now appears that Britons race to embrace PR without having the brains to understand how it works. Of course the FAIREST democratic system is elected bi-cameralism, but that isn't a remote possibility in Britain because it cannot function as a nation unless it's population has a series of superiors to bow, scrape, and tug a forelock to
In the last German election before the adoption of the Euro, polls showed that 75% of Germans wanted to keep the Mark. However, 100% of the parties contesting the election wanted to get rid of it. So it went.
Labour Conference 22 voted for PR. It should be in the manifesto.
Most at that conference blame the Lib dems for not implementing all and only their own policies whilst a junior coalition partner in 2010-15. So not really sure they understand the pros and cons of PR enough to have an opinion.
@@danielwebb8402junior partners can still force legislation if they align with the opposition, junior doesn't mean powerless. The DUP managed with fewer seats than the Lib Dems had
@Wulfuswulferson
Yep.
Like the huge above inflation increase in tax free allowance. Lib dem policy that coalition implemented.
That.... the Lib dems got credit for, still, with the public?
The leadership doesn't give 2 hoots about what the conference decides.
200%
With first past the post, parties win with less than 50% of the vote. Not a very good mandate !
Historically the UK has been dominated by parties that represent the owners of land and now large businesses, rather than the whole populace and equality. The Tories and now Conservative party represent this position in modern times. There has only been 5 periods of Labour governance in the UK for its entire history. For Labour to support an election system that demonstrably shows they are severely limited in succeeding with, would be stupid. I would recommend that Labour very clearly pushes for election reform, as 'First past the post' does not work for them in the long term, rather than getting giddy at the fact they have a big majority at the point of winning in this system. Clearly 'First past the post' is unsustainable for them.
It would be nice to feel like I could vote *for* something instead of constantly voting against something with FPTP. Also it simply doesn't feel fair that you can get a massive majority in the HoC with a minority of the vote. I understand the general public not being particularly interested in this - there are far more pressing issues to fix first - but it absolutely needs to be looked at. It does feel like something that would be shunted back to a potential second term rather than first for this reason. There are so many versions that it would need some careful debate before campaigning for it as well.
Short answer is no because FPTP suits the two main parties down to the ground .
It doesn't suit Labour so much because of how fragmented the left vote is, handing scores of seats to the Tories with well under 50%
We really need proportional representation, the two main parties are pretty much equally useless and change is needed to bring in politicians who can fix the issues we've got instead throwing money down the drain only to give up halfway through each of their goals
PR is the only thing that matters to me. At the next election, labour will be trying to avoid the question as much as possible and it's up to all electoral reform advocators to bring it up at every occasion.
Interesting how your discussion looked at how it benefited one party or the other. It should not be about which party benefits as they 'should' solely serve the country as a whole. In stead it should be about what voting system would best for the country and the people. What enables the best support for the people to 'sustainably prosper' and leaves no one left out or left behind? That is the question.
This is what frustrates me about a lot of centrish commentary, it treats politics like a sport where it's all about the best tactics to win rather than the best tactics to improve people's lives
There will be a lot of tactical voting, just aiming to remove the Tories. Many of those who vote tactically would presumably like to remove first past the post. There is a loss of enthusiasm amongst Labour membership and smaller parties .
@tompearce3610
There is a network of us who have identified Labour held seats with majorities of 2000 + - and by tactically voting for the Green or Fib-Dem candidate we can split the the Labour votes.
Tactical voting works two ways.
@@colintawn3535 that's democracy, I have no problem with that but I also think PR would be a fairer representation of public wishes.
@@tompearce3610
Which PR system will you choose?
There are several variants used in different countries including AV ( which was rejected in the UK ) STV , the NZ model and the Italian model.
@@colintawn3535 Irish version of STV far away best system.
@@colintawn3535 the same as applied in the mayoral elections last time round.
Single Transferable Vote is the best system for eliminating the unfairness of FPTP by reducing wasted votes but it also limits the more radical parties by allowing preferential redistribution so that you can reallocate your vote to a more moderate party if your first choices do not make the cut.
"Radical" and "moderate" are subjective estimations. Supposing you're a voter whose main concern is keeping the LibDems out of any coalition government. You think they will exercise some bad influence on either a Labour or Conservative-led coalition. How easy would it be under PR for voters to make sure Ed Davey doesn't wind up as Foreign Secretary?
@@georgesdelatour that would be easy you vote in whatever preference you choose but you make sure you a) put the maximum number of preferences you are allowed and b) if you can put a preference next to every candidate you put the Lib Dem’s as your last preference and if you can’t you don’t put them as a preference.
The public need educating about voting and the proportional representational systems, and possibly the history as to why this has been kept from the British public.
If I remember correctly, Labour dalleyed with democracy thanks to Ed Milliband's reform of the Leadership election. But the current Labour leadership probably regard that as a 'fingers burnt' moment as it ended up with a leadership that they thoroughly diasapprove of. The trouble with more genuinely democractic systems is that those in power might lose their authority. Unlikely, then, n'est pas?
The leadership of political parties is different to the membership of Parliament. Labour leaders need to have the support of a majority of MPs or they can't function effectively in the role. So the current system of splitting the vote between MPs, unions and members makes sense.
Elections to Parliament need to be a compromise between getting the person most supported by the area and getting the person most supported by the percentage of voters. I think that instead of 650 constituencies electing 1 MP via FPTP, each constituency should be merged with one of its neighbours, thus electing 325 MPs by FPTP. Then the other 325 should be elected by PR within their region - each of the 12 regions should have 27 regional MPS (28 for the largest). That way equal weight is given to each region, rather than having the most populous areas get the most power.
No system is perfect, and it would be foolish to think that PR (of any sort) would be! However, I believe the last few Tory Governments have demonstrated the very real danger that giving a single party the power to do "whatever they liked" is too much for anyone to handle! The conundrum is for Labour to resolve, even though, as one of the two parties that derive benefit from FPTP, they must work against their own interests to change the status quo. But change they must, because their membership demands it, as does the majority (under FPTP) in the country.
For those of us with longer memories, radical constitutional change (Lisbon treaty), or endless futile wars in the mid east, forced through by Labour on tiny shares of the popular vote could also by stymied.
@@0w784g The Lib Dems are an extremist Euro-Federalist Party. You literally can't outflank them from a more Federalist position. Both Labour and Conservatives have included diverse voices on Europe, from Eurosceptics to Federalists. Dependence on the Lib Dems as coalition partners would have pushed UK politics in a more Euro-Federalist direction, even if it wasn't what most voters wanted.
Can we stop considering AV proportional representation, it’s not.
Curious do you think STV is though. They seem broadly the same.
@@EadwinTomlinson
STV is far superior to AV
In Australia, where the lower house uses AV, in the 2022 federal election, the left wing Greens received around more than 10% of the vote yet only got 4 seats out of the 151.
The far right one nation party got 3% of the first preference vote but got zero
The populist right wing United Australian Party got around 3% of the first preference vote but got squat.
I would love to see us in the UK change to PR.
Turkeys won't vote for Christmas. So we're stuck with turkeys.
What?
What I want is for politics to become a more collaborative, less partisan system. One which enables long term planning and discourages short termist policy decisions.
IMO a big part of that is voter reform, but its not enough on its own. I would love to see Labour take on this issue as a whole, but I'm not optimistic...
The reason one should be in favour of any country adopting a system of proportional representation is because it assures every vote counts in equal measure or at least very close to it. PR makes the election process more democratic. That's the reason the political left and progressive forces should fight for PR. NOT because it might be in their favour.
At some point we have to have an objective, rather than a party political, look at how democracy and the constitution works best for our country. A set of principles or values would be the most useful start we could make against which any proposal for reform (or indeed the current set up) could be judged. The biggest mistake would be to set one form or another in stone as 'gaming' the system is not going to go away and the ability to review and reform in order to restore a level playing field is essential. The call for a form of PR is of course led by those who seek to gain and your analysis of how PR might change voting intentions is no doubt also true but the real prize in a country that claims to be the home of democracy is to start with a system of representation that fairly reflects votes. At present, we start with a lie and build on it.
There can never be an "objective" (i.e. independent of humans) way to assess how democracy works best. It's precisely because we cannot agree about these matters that we have politics. Whoever says "democracy" says "politics".
@@georgesdelatour philosophically I would agree with you. My point was about taking a more dispassionate view of what might be fairer - a system that would manage the disagreements you mention. PR would currently favour the smaller parties of which most are on the progressive left. This is great if you have a left wing perspective but in accepting the ‘fairness’ of PR you also have to accept the eventuality that at another point the right may
Sorry! My finger wandered! …the right may be more in favour. Hope that makes sense. Cheers
@@user-wq9lb6vp2h Thsnkd for your reply
I think Keir Starmer’s promise to give 6.5 million non-UK citizens the vote is based on the assumption they’re more likely to vote for his side. It’s definitely not “objective” in your sense.
Some consequences of PR might surprise people. For instance, Muslims currently vote overwhelmingly for Labour. They are one of Labour’s most reliable client groups. I suspect this loyalty is not because most Muslims favour Labour’s progressive social agenda; the whole Birmingham Parkfield School drama suggests many Muslims would be to the right of the Conservatives on social values. They support Labour because most are relatively poor, and trust Labour to better support them economically, and because they think Labour is less likely to reduce immigration from their countries of origin, where many still have family members.
PR might free Muslims to set up their own Muslim Party, thereby reducing the Labour vote. Their price for supporting a Labour-led coalition might be for Labour to become more socially conservative. But could Labour do that?
All good points which I guess are reflective of parties tendency to game the system for their own benefit. Our political system is really a mirror of our country and I feel PR is a truer reflection of what people want today than the distorted FPTP mirror that reflects our feudal past. PR on its own, of course, will not solve our constitutional problems but may provide an avenue for a consensus for change.
I think you missed the point that right wing parties perhaps wouldn't do as well under PR if people didn't feel so disenfranchised by FPTP in the first place. The frustration builds over decades.
In the end, I think whether you'd get right or left wing governments under PR misses the point. We need governments that reflect the will of the people and they are then more accountable. I personally believe in compulsory voting too.
There's a relatively small but simple electoral refoem that could be enacted immediately - give ex-pats the vote. I'm British, but live in Poland, with my trusty British passport. I applied for a postal vote for the Brexit Referendum and was granted one (and of course voted Remain). When I later applied for one when May called her GE, it was refused as I "did not live in the UK". No further explanation was given as to why I was being treated differently after not much more than a year. Emails to the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the British Embassy in Warsaw were never answered - which confirms that ex-pats are of no interest to Westminster despite being British citizens, and typically having family back in our homeland whose futures are just as much our concern. I believe we are the only major country does this does this: in the recent Polish election around half a million Poles living in the UK were able to vote at their Embassy and Consulates in Britain, Americans ex-pats are fully expected to vote at American Embassies, and I believe it's the same for other EU countries, Australia, New Zealand and others.
I've become pretty much a one issue voter. I will not look at any party's other policies if they are not also putting in Lords and voting reform.
I think that the current system has some merits but it prevents the political system representing the breadth of views in the population left or right. The second best thing about PR is that it naturally causes parties to work together and compromise.
Starmer promised lords reform but has gone back on it and overruled the conference vote for PR last year so LD, reform or greens?
We should do PR with a minimum threshold to win seats (4% of the vote), and compulsory voting so the turnout will be higher. This will weed out silly/batshit parties, as well as the parliament make up will be more representative of the voters.
Absolutely, voti g should be compulsory with an option for none of the above, we should all have a biometric id card that can used to vote either in person or on line, that way the public could vote on any major issues not just to elect MPs.
Compulsory voting - is that undemocratic and freedom of choice taken away?
@@user-ol6rd7pl5t
Your option kills democracy. What happened to Freedom of Choice? To vote or not vote is a democratic right. I have always voted in local and national elections ,that is my choice but people who choose not to vote are not enemies of the state..
Don't vote? Don't complain.
@@colintawn3535because an apathetic non voting populace is good for entrenching power. The option for none of the above is the 'i don't want to vote' option
I feel like no one who is pushing for proportional representation or more democratic voting systems are specifically aiming for a goal or endpoint for an election. They're wanting an unfair system to be made fairer. So I think it's somewhat disingenuous to act like "you might strengthen the right wing" is an argument against more democratic voting systems.
If a democratic system elects right wing extremists then that's a problem that reaches far far wider than how we vote.
remember this is 3 tory magazine talkers, they want tories in power
Don't know what to say, really. I've never, ever heard any significant Labour person mention proportional representation as something they aspire to. For PR to happen, the majority party, either as a governing party, or the majority member of a coalition,... has to want it. And for the matter to then be put to the country in a referendum. The scenario of the 2010 coalition, where the Tories sabotaged at every turn the deal between themselves and the LD's cannot be allowed to happen again.
In 2019 it took roughly 800k votes to elect each Green MP and 25k for each SNP MP. That alone should be a reason to change.
And in 2015 6m votes got 0 UKIP MPs, no wonder people are disenfranchised
@@Wulfuswulferson that too.
AV is not PR. Arguing a vote 10 years ago against something that is not PR means people do not like PR is brave.
Yes, I don't think he really understood much about it.
I think it would be more so a commitment in a second-term Labour manifesto. Making PR their big pitch now might feel a little out of touch considering how poor the economy is.
To be honest it would be stupid not to. The simple fact is that the conservatives, due to the first past the post system, far and away spend more time in power. Proportional representation would create a system where a liberal political coalition would remain, largely, in power
Labour voters are essentially voting for a party leader who opposes everything they actually want.
And the drones will still go out and do it..
Cope. Labour policies will bring the country back to where it should be.
@@baz1184 Labour doesn't have any policies except the much touted non doms which is going to pay for breakfast club for millions, 5000 doctors and 10,000 nurses, all from a theoretical £2 billion...If you think this is terrible government, when Labour get in, they are the dark side of politics, pretend to be nice and virtuous, everyone's mate..they will bring the country to war at the first opportunity and will bankrupt the UK in less than 18 months...check back in early 2026
Probably true but how do you think conservative voters think about the conservative party? Its the same! The joys of a 2 party system.
If a party like Reform UK gets say 5-6-7 million votes, there will be no option other than to look at PR. Otherwise, all of these people dont have a say, keep in mind the Brexit Party got 4m votes and never had an active seat.
No party wants to change to a system that would result in them potentially having less power in future. We need PR but it's a nightmare for the two parties that have a chance of winning under our current system.
Force the big party,s to compromise or have no power, simple change politics as in most of Europe, STV the Irish version of PR is far away the best.
Labour must know how many people vote for it to keep the Tories out, rather than with any enthusiasm. Same with the Tories. They won't bring in PR unless forced from outside.
Are the parties themselves an end or a means?
With the 2 party system, when the 2 parties agree the electorate gets no choice, and that's the way they like it!
We in the UK are its is in America. A two party state and totally agree the main parties will never change it.
Labour winning is great & all but in 10 years maybe 15 the Conservatives will get in & quickly tear down everything Labour have built alot quicker than it took to build.This is why Proportional representation is needed despite the fear mongering that some unsavoury parties will get more seats that's what negotiating is for.
Britain’s system would probably work fine if the press was fair and both sides would be properly scrutinized when in power.
This abomination of a system has only been able to continue the way it has is entirely the fault of our dysfunctional Oligarch owned Fourth Estate. Even a semi functional Legacy Media would create an environment where it was impossible for an elite gang of Public School Boys to maintain an iron grip on all the levers of office in perpetuity just administer the wishes of the top 10% of society while feeding everyone else to the Wolves.
When it comes down to the wire i don't hold the Etonian Toffs responsible for this Cess Pit i hold the Legacy Media who just serves as their Purple Party PR Department.
Nope. The unfit for purpose of a bicameral system whereby political hacks and favourites get "promoted" to the Lords needs reform. And the system whereby political parties parachute their favourites into safe seats, over which candidate you have _no_ say - even if you're a party member - also needs to change. A system like the US primaries should be implemented.
@@CatholicSatannah. Most party members are extremists for their side. Should be ignored.
Agreed but we don't want to stem too far into the US system otherwise will end up with a Judicery that is elected by the party of power and not independant, just look at what Trump did with the Supreme Court. It is always going to be challenging to have a media that is non biased but it does need more balancing out.@@CatholicSatan
We need PR and a collaborative system of government not the adversarial system we have now.
PR was also passed by labour conference a few years ago but effectively vetoed by Starmer
Along with about 100 other things that the membership want.
Why would you introduce House of Lords reform but not PR?
We desperately need an element of proportional representation to prevent a repeat of the last 14 years of Tory disaster. It would allow me to vote according to my preference rather than voting anti-Tory.
Very negative discussion by 3 supporters of the Belurussian system. If Blair had introduced we would have had a progressive alliance instead of the Tories since then...
We shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils because anyone else won't get a look in. AV was never a PR type of system. Not enough people know that their votes actually don't count because of the way FPTP and Westminster actually works. PR forces parties to work together, MPs would have to work much harder for our votes and there would be no such thing as a Safe Seat.
Single Transferable Vote is by far the most democratic PR system.
STV maximises voter choice, giving voters free rein to express preferences between as many candidates (and implicitly parties) as they like. In other words, voters can make it as clear as possible who they want elected and who they don’t. Basically voting with their hearts instead of tactically voting.
As I remember it, the UK had a referendum to eliminate the ‘first past the post’ system back in 2011, and voters overwhelmingly voted to keep it versus adopting the proposed alternative method (more proportional). What’s changed? If a majority of voters love it so dearly, what’s the issue?
I'm a Labour supporter but I don't like the idea of PR, it leads to more coalitions. I'm from Northern Ireland where we have a very flawed system called power sharing at stormont. It basically allows politicians to be unaccountable for their actions
Quite right. UKIP got loads of votes in 2015 but one seat.
Reality was that UKIP political activists joined the Conservatives and moved it rightward. Several became Conservative MPs.
In Britain broad political parties mean people who believe in different things are in the same party. In Europe they are in different parties.
The consequences of this are that the Conservatives are now indistinguishable from UKIP in 2015 and Labour, is an uncontroversial centre party that supports Brexit.
Mrs Thatcher once said her greatest achievement was Tony Blair. Meaning that the politics of the right are an uncontested paradigm. True. Broad parties in Britain lead to centre right political solutions.
It is true European countries have right wing parties that get MPs. In Britain the same thing happens just with two parties that nominally represent broad coalitions.
It's not a priority for Labour but it bloody well aught to be. We MUST stop the Tories from regrouping and getting back into power again any time in the future.
"Things are bad now but lets not change things because they might get worse."
In the councils in oxfordshire and overlapping into it, we have Progressive Oxfordshire with LibDems having the most seats in most councils except Oxford City which is Labour run and Cherwell where Labour have a couple more seats than the LibDems but Labour stood under that banner, also with the Greens. However, in Cherwell North Oxfordshire, the Labour NEC overrode their local party and refused to let them run Cherwell as a coalition, so the Tories now run Cherwell DC as a minority as the only council there they kept control.. LABOUR NEC - LET PROGRESSIVE OXFORDSHIRE RUN CHERWELL WITH LABOUR, AS OFFERED TO THE VOTERS AND AGREED BY THEM!
Coul give us STV PR for local elections
People don't understand PR and all the variations. It needs to be explained.!
The key thing about PR is not who is in charge! That will always fluctuate between left or right. The main point is extreme elements like what is happening now with the Conservative party will not be able to impose extreme or very unpopular hard line policies! PR will calm those issues! Yes minority parties will get seats on both sides but they will not have power only get some influence! At the moment we are a centre right country run by far right politicians! Who are doing nothing but damage! This is the Tory equivalent of Britain in the 1970s. Extreme left and extreme right do nothing but damage! Because it’s only aimed a niche element of the country and not the betterment of the whole of the country! That is the benefit of PR!
Best plan is to bring it in for local elections first. Let people see hoeit works. Proper PR too. Now the complicated dog's breakfast the voters were offered by Cameron/ Clegg. I couldn't understand it and I live under PR. List systems sound too opaque. Best go with STV. Keep the constituency link. FPTP is corrupt and inefficient.
It is doubtful Starmer will push PR in the first five years at least. If he does propose such a change they will make every effort to duplicate FPTP as near as they can because for a politician the current system holds a lot of ways because first, they are always unwilling to share power with anyone and PR will result in this being a large part of the political landscape going forwards but for a political party, their view has always been that if you win then you stand a better chance of winning big and not having to share power as a result which PR would bring the risk of. Second, it would take considerable time to make such a change with a lot of those contributing to the debate finding it easy to delay proceedings so leverage their own slant on the outcome.
As you said in the video PR is not one system. A transferrable vote system would strengthen the main parties against radical ones. Labour would probably get Green and Lib Dem votes in many seats. Conversely Reform would no longer have power over the conservatives because the second choice would fall to them. It could be a good way to deradicalise parties.
Yes....moderate parties are what we call ' transfer friendly ' here in 🇮🇪
They miss the point on PR completely, it's not that left learning people want PR because it will benefit Labour, the greens or anyone else. It's simply that the current system biases towards The Conservatives whom have wrecked the UK economy, removed citizens rights and broken public services. PR protects UK from extremists governments. You are right to say you would end up with some MPs from parties nominally further to the right than majority of Conservative MPs however these extremists can't form a government to enact deleterious policies. I have even seen 'political journalists' from the UK point at Wilders in NL and say 'look FPTP not so bad', seemingly unaware any government he leads will be significantly to the left in terms of policy agenda of any UK Government since 2010. Not sure if this is FPTP propoganda or simple ignorance of the topic under discussion.
My desire for the labour government would be to implement PR in everywhere but Westminster. So all the local and regional elections would have PR. The public would get used to it and then getting it into the commons would be easier.
If labour went ahead with lords reforms then it could be introduced there as well
The elections in Scotland r a mish mash of both. Fptp and the ppr. So SNP won 62 seats in 2020 under fotp the tories got 6. Under ppr SNP got 1 seat and tories 20. They take the seats left after fotp and divide by the amount won in fptp. So off course those parties with less seats won in foto get more under ppr. 6 into 100 is a lot more than 62 into 100. Trouble is left Scotland with far too many bloody tories.
The Canadian Liberal Party had Senate reform on the docket back in 2015 and have done nothing substantive at all since. It is a ploy to peak interest around election periods and electoral support. Not to say it has to be that way...just that it has been thus far.
PR is good thing and politicians know it. That's why they never allow it in UK or America. Too much to lose.
Why does no one ever suggest the French system of 1st and 2nd rounds of voting? Has no one been to France?
The problem with PR is very simple. Poll after poll shows that the UK people prefer PR over FPTP until you put a specific type of PR up against FPTP. It seems that the UK is very attached to the idea of local people electing their local representative, they really like the idea of one constituency deciding to go against all national trends and vote for a local maverick, they also want to have Portillo moment where a party big wig is thrown out at the election.
That implies that for a specific PR proposal to be acceptable it has to allow for local people electing an independent maverick but also a system that does not protect party big wigs.
Those pushing PR as they think that will lead to a permanent progressive alliance are just gerrymanderers at heart, but with more a soothing tone
I have a local rep here in my seat under PR. 3 of them in fact. This is the problem in a nutshell. Brits don't understand any other system. Or don't want to. Btw no reason we can't have Portico moments under PR. More likely if anything - no rotten boroughs.
@@daraorourke5798 What you have is a multi member constituency. So you are voting not just for a directly elected MP but also, usually but not always, by way of a second vote for a party and in your case probably 2 of your local reps are allocated based on the party vote - usually nationally, although it could be done regionally, from a party list to ensure that overall the number of MPs is broadly proportionate to the national vote.
Only 2 problems with your system: Most multi-member PR systems in use (not all) use a closed party list to allocate their preferred party candidates so an aspiring politician simply has to climb the greasy pole of party favouritism to ensure a high enough spot on the party list that they are highly unlikely ever to suffer a Portillo moment and of course that also means that trying to deal with local constituency issues is not a priority for MPs who are high enough on the party list.
Proportional Representation doesn’t lead to Proportional Political Influence.
Imagine a 100 seat parliament elected by PR. The election result is: Blue Party 47%, Red Party 47%, Yellow Party 6%. In such a parliament, the Yellow Party will hold far more than 6% of the political influence, and will get its way far more than 6% of the time, because the Yellows are the king-makers. They can carry one of the two other parties over the 50% mark needed to control the government. As a result, they’ll hold far more political influence than whichever 47% party they choose not to support.
This, along with Public Choice Theory and Probabalistic Voting Theory, helps explain why no one has managed to find any firm empirical evidence that PR parliaments deliver the policies preferred by voters any more consistently than FPTP parliaments do.
We absolutely need PR. Its not a real democracy without it. Green MPs, Reform MPs, even the inevitable Islamic Party of Britain should have MPs, if we are to see the whole country represented in Parliament, and I want intelligent minds and debate in the house. Not a load of fools.
The two big parties won't introduce PR unless they are dragged to it kicking and screaming. ie only if it's the condition for getting into power in a coalition.
Otherwise, forget it.
It's true that not everyone who votes LibDem under FPTP would do so under PR. But I'm a LibDem party member who votes Labour because of where I live in the slim hopes of getting rid of my Tory MP.
What a terrible answer to a simple question, how could you not mention that labour conference voted for PR overwhelmingly in '22 and Starmer overruled it, so the answer is clear, he won't implement PR. Also didnt mention the biggest downside of FPTP, it breeds ideologically narrow governments, less plurality of opinion but the main argument in favour of PR is it increases democracy and voter engagement, anyone supporting democracy should support those ideals even if it risks outcomes they don't want. 6m people voted for UKIP and they got 0 MPs, not really democratic
Problem is the left parties all act individually where as the right under the Conservative Party are little groups under the banner so they just claim all the centre right vote, pr would end that their elements would split to try and secure visibility for their view point
Make it easier to vote and give incentives. Bring in voting at 16yrs of age and anything else that can be done to improve democracy and then bring in PR. We need to bolster democracy.
Following up on the Tories changing the voting system for London mayor, the government also changed the voting system from AV to FPTP for the PPC election in may. Given that the conservatives control most PPCs in England and are very unpopular, it will be interesting to see if this change will come back to bite them.
The Labour Party membership and most voters want PR, the trouble is that those at the top, ie the MPs and PPCs have a vested interest in keeping FPTP because it means more labour and less Lib Dem or green MPs. Conclusion, they won’t. Sadly.
From about 5:50 in, our New Statesman correspondents make a serious political error. Majoritarian poliical systems, such as those found in the UK and US have tended to be more unequal. . They may not be in the future, but they have been in most of the post-war period. This, in itelf, is a significant progressive argument for PR, regardless of whether "left-wing" governments get in.
We must know exactly who we are voting for. Not the chums of politicians. If people are elected for dubious reasons this is a very bad idea indeed. Proportional representation does promote the losers, is this a good idea?
Should he? Yes, will he? Probably not, the system as is suites both the Conservative and Labour Party just fine, whiles making it difficult for rivals to enter the political debate.
If the Liberal Democrats got into power with enough seats to make a difference, I suspect they very likely would because it would benefit them plus other parties, it would also weaken the two main parties, and what we see in the UK is not that different from what we see in the US where two parties dominant, whiles having the rules in place to make it very difficult for third party to enter the arena and almost impossible in the US.
It's also why I dislike the term saying one country is a democracy and another isn't, it's not an on-off switch, it scales from 0-100 and I consider the UK and the US to be a democracy, but a pretty weak one that the system doesn't represent the interest of the public because it ignores a lot of the voices in it and probably a big reason why Brexit in the UK happened and Trump in the US got into power, it's a call for help from many in society that feel they are unheard and being left behind and it stands to reason, trying to group so many varied people into two camps doesn't sound very democratic to me, views on a lot of policies vary a lot from people, but people are boxed into two different ideologies when it comes to who you can realistically vote for, and yes you can vote for others, but because of the way the system is designed, it ends up being a wasted vote that archives little to nothing.
Would PR enable the SNP to be in government in Westminster? And would it stop the breakup of the UK?
We need a system which allows the climate emergency to be addressed by politicians. FPP is seen not to work, so something else is required if the electorate is to have any confidence in the political system, going forward. Should there not be change in Westminster, then that will be seen as MPs being even more out of touch with the real world. PR would lead to more fragmentation, but that should be seen as a positive for democracy.
Getting adequate left wing results is a bonus. Fairness in electoral results is what's most important.
PR isn't ideal. It's honestly likely the next worse option after FPTP because it gives all the power of who goes to parliament to the leadership of the party and you don't have a local rep. STV is ideal. But we just need better than the worst option
PR is maybe better than FPTP but it does mean you could end up more often with coalition governments and that has its disadvantages. They can stymie the radical policies needed sometimes. Can you imagine a Tory/Reform Party coalition? It doesn’t bear thinking about. On balance I would be happier with PR for representational purposes, but just saying that it’s not all win win.
I wish they would, unfortunately they won’t; although Labour only manage to get in once every 2 or 3 decades, they still like having big majorities, which is why the Blair/Brown government never bothered, which has lead to 14 years of Tory catastrophe.
Edit: The only way we’ll get PR is if the situation reverses and for some reason the Tories find that FPTP stops benefiting them and starts harming them and benefiting Labour instead!
FPTP is part of the reason why Britain has remained a stable democracy for such a long time. PR is far too friendly to extremist ideas getting into govt. If the parties nowadays were of higher quality we would have no reason to change....
How about PR for the upper house as a starter for 10? That way we can get rid of the feudal honours system and enable folk to have a meaningful vote even if the FPP forces them to vote tactically. If it works well, then perhaps the whole lot could move towards PR. Just a thought....
Thé woman on thé left quoted a poll which reported 45% in favour of PR, vs 25% against. Under fptp that would win election for the party who had it in their manifesto. I listened to possible flaws in PR that could arise but in a true democracy, government of the people by the people, proportionality is essential.
Fickle and irrational or manipulated voters is a problem I won’t address here.
To sum up, a PR system of election would have flaws but I argue that they would not be as glaring and unjust as the current system. Surly it would, at the very least, encourage cooperation rather than competition among the elected representatives?
Without Proportional Voting, we will be STUCK with this UTTER crap forever...AND the TAX system needs to MORE focussed toward those WITH the wealth!
PR will only be seen to be right by the electorate if someone like Liberal democrats, Green or Reform gets more votes than the Tories or Labour.
Unlikely unfortunately but if the Tories or indeed Labour were ever to suffer a major split within the party .That would bring about electoral reform especially if it were the Tories as the press would get behind it .
That's why I want it to happen it looks possible but still unlikely.I am watching Liz Truss's seat with interest.
I’m not sure that there’s a moral distinction between FPTP at present and gerrymandering.
Democracy is about people power. This discussion concentrated on party interest and advantage. The constitution should be an entirely separate field of governance where the people set the limits of power for politicians, amongst other things. Politicians deciding when to change the constitution and constraining the choices is anti-democratic. Changing the system when you think it is most advantageous to yourself is a constitutional crime.
Fully proportional systems would break the two main parties up. Labour splitting into socialists and social democrats and Tories splitting into moderates and libertarians.
Ultimately, a less proportional system would come about due to the resistance from the establishment to a fundamental change in governance.
Lady on the right: "I got into a bit of terrible for reporting that" I beg your pardon? Journalists aren't allowed to report on things the subject of their reports speak about, on record to boot??? 1:00
Labour won’t get a second term to introduce Electoral Reform. It has to introduced in the first term to secure a better future for us all.
FPTP needs to go….MMP offers a much better future for our democracy where we have local and national representation
What is wrong with People actually voting for their values through PR ?
Full on PR with fixed lists would be even worse......this has been my experience in Spain. Who's your local MP? You don't have one. Who do you go to when you have a problem? Suck it up.....
I'm not defending FPTP, it's not a good system, but think hard about what alternative you'd like to replace it with. Maybe preferential voting? But we need a national debate before anything is imposed......
What they need to do is intially ask the public if they want PR. Then present a bunch of pr options and properly explain them to the public and have a series of votes to wittoe the choices down to, culminating in a choice of the final two. Like other nations have
Kind of strange to hear the panel basically say - proportional representation (a more democratic system) is potentially dangerous because it brings in who the voters want and the voters may not want what we (the panel) want 🫤.
We have proportional voting in Scotland btw
Having witnessed just how corrupt the Tories are willing to be, and just how far they are willing to abuse the citizens of the UK, I fear for what they may be willing to do in the future. Starmer should make PR an absolute priority, or he can go down in history as the man who could have stopped authoritarianism developing in the UK, but didn't do it.
The labour conference voted for PR last year, Starmer overruled it, he will not bring in PR