Nigel needs more MPs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- I cannot want more MPs for the Greens and not argue for more MPs for Reform. Both have been sold massively short by first-past-the-post. Labour, meanwhile, is enjoying what look like decidedly ill-deserved gains. How long can this corrupt system last, most especially if we are to hold fascism at bay?
#uk #politics #election #labourparty #parliament
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
DONATE TO KEEP THIS CHANNEL ADVERT FREE
ko-fi.com/taxresearch
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
Agreed PR is a necessity.
It is the one thing Starmer MUST do. Despite the fact he appears resistant.
The voters want it. The Labour Party want it. The Labour convention voted for it. It is long past time.
They just won't do it, they think fptp is good for them
Blair promised PR before the '97 election. The problem with governments that win on a first past the post system is they don't want to change the system that elected them once in power
@El-Burrito I know Starmer doesn't want it. But Labour members and Conference delegates voted for it.
Given the three (not politicians) top experts in their field he has just appointed, I am willing to judge him on his efforts until it is possible to judge him on his results.
I believe PR is a necessity. I have believed that for a long time. I also believe that Starmer is unlikely to introduce PR in his first term. But he has to be persuaded that this a necessity for 21st century disUnited Kingdom.
Electoral reform - yes.
But, PR - No.
Discussing P. R. is totally different to supporting P. R.: Starmer has yet to endorse such a system. The first past the post electoral system ensures the political status quo remains unaffected/stagnant, providing the eternal two horse race towards governing the nation. For politics to progress, towards creating a more equal society, a new electoral system needs to be put in place, e.g. proportional representation, which would then allow smaller political parties to grow, thrive and have a voice within government; thus creating change over time. Many of the electorate feel completely disenfranchised by a system rigged to maintain the political status quo. By not endorsing P. R. Starmer leaves the whole debate on the matter in a very grey area. If Starmer were to fully endorse a system like P.R. I think it would generate greater trust amongst those who currently feel completely politically disenfranchised. Unfortunately, despite the state of politics in our nation being a complete farce and requiring immense changes to the current system, it should be noted that any government in power will not freely offer a vote on P. R.; unless they know it will be thrown out: Importantly we must be aware that a political party will not countenance giving up or sharing power without a fight.
I agree we need PR, but we cannot map current distribution of votes onto a supposed PR system. If we had PR, people would vote very differently, as they could vote for their favoured party, rather than often voting against the party they least favour, as happened a lot in this election. Tactical voting really made a difference in this election, but that is essentially a negative voting strategy.
Good point. It'd be so interesting to see how different people's votes would look under PR
People keep claiming tactical voting was significant in this election but that's basically unprovable
There's no real proof of tactical voting as you'd need a post election survey asking if people voted tactically. Just because tactical voting websites exist doesn't prove it affected the votes significantly
Spot on. I voted Labour to unseat the Tory. I actually want to vote Green.
I have believed in PR for many years , but unfortunately the Tory party didn’t want any part of it even though Winston Churchill helped impose this system on Germany after WWII to stop extremist governments like the Nazis regaining control. We had PR for the European Elections when we were in Europe and as much as MR Farage hated the EU , this system enabled him to be elected to the European Parliament, isn’t it odd he now espouses their system in order to promote his company Reform UK.
PR is in other countries around the world not just the EU
I live in Germany. We have this system and we have every kind of political party from far left to far right and everything in between which does indeed reflect the values of the electorate. But with every system there is advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand it’s good to have more coalition and consensus but on the other hand you can get a government like ours where the the three parties can’t compromise and nobody is happy resulting in even more disillusionment with politicians which pushes people into wanting whatever strongman/woman/ideology is on offer. I feel the disillusionment is on a global scale no matter what type of electoral system.
They seem pretty happy in China ;-) Just pointing out it's Neoliberalism that is failing across the West. In countries with more Keynesian economics, they are productive and prosperous
@@WarrenPeaceOG China is a dictatorship. You think that makes them happy? They are also just as capitalist and corrupt as the rest of us, except their pollution and working conditions are way worse.
@@WarrenPeaceOG They have to be happy in China, the party has dictated this.
@@strandedstarfish It's funny the roles have reversed since we created our cartoon version of China. China likely has more representative democracy than we do. We just get told by our own authoritarian govt and our billionaire media that China is a cartoon villain.
In reality, China is now the biggest economy and a world leader in high-tech and green energy. While our economy and people stagnate, theirs grow by leaps and bounds. Using the Keynesian economics we abandoned in the late 1970s, they are taking over the world. We are servicing aristocrats and billionaires.
What do you think of the Xiaomi SU7? (It's like an electric Porsche - 0-60mph in 2.7 seconds - at family car prices.😹 Hilariously, US is proposing 100% tariffs on these vehicles (can't compete) as well as completely banning DJI drones (can't compete). Less funny - because US can't compete economically, we're going to provoke WW3 to impose economic costs on Russia - I mean, China. But yeah, in China, electric car drives YOU!
Because the elephant in the room is the system underlying all of this. Its called the market based capitalist system. And nobody is able to challenge it.
They'll get more time to speak the house compared to many other MPs as that's the precedent, coupled with their disproportionately high attention platform to speak and debate all over the media.
The perceived injustice has been skewed by tactical voting and gaming of the system in terms of where the parties put resources. Having said that, we should not have to vote that way. I am also happy for Reform to have more representation - all voters should feel their voice is being heard.
It never works like that. Anyway, your lot called remainers remoaners and told them that they had to accept the democratic vote. Back at ya' lady!
Absolutely spot on Richard. Exactly how I feel. FPTP is outdated and very unfair.
I vote Green and I liked the Lib Dems.
I agree in principle but I think there's a red line when it comes to fascists. Racism as a thought process isn't illegal but saying or doing something racist is. A political party with racist candidates shouldn't be allowed to exist.
The other problem with this is the media which currently over platforms Farage. That is precisely why he has become so powerful. I understand the concern about silencing their political voice but the answer is to address their grievances not to feed their egos.
The only thing we won't tolerate is intolerance
@@WarrenPeaceOG that's a snappy little quote which completely ignores the point. Hitler was elevated through a democratic process, next thing you know......
I despise the Tories but would never deny them political power, but fascists?
Is there anything you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote for?
@@roboutram5463 People shouldn't be able to vote for intolerance. Like ethno-nationalism.
Remarkably, many people think we should tolerate every party because we are 'tolerant.' They think tolerance must be absolute.🤪
(Much like people who think in the battle of absolutism vs. relativity, that relativity must be absolute!😹(And therefore insist there is no meaning, life has no purpose, and we should all just die😆) Relativity is a relative concept)
We need to have the debate. Shameful that Labour just went along with the 'immigration bad' line.
So you are happy with the Far Left whose dogma killed 120 million last century.
I grew up in NZ, voted in our old FPP system and the current mixed PR system. In NZ elections, every voter has two votes - one for a local electorate MP, and a second ‘party’ vote. Under the current system, I believe that every government has been a coalition government that has taken at least 50% of the total votes. It’s far more representative of the wishes of the voters.
Tautoko
0:18 Reform got 5 MPs. The fifth MP was announced late because several recounts were needed.
Yep, only 800k per seat were actually required, which is still insane.
@@col.hertford9855it doesn't work like that though. We vote in constituencies. They won 5 and it took between 20 and 30k to return an MP
@@K_j_M I know it doesn’t work like that, but it should be proportional.
It just highlights how unrepresentative our system is@@K_j_M
Absolutely PR is very important - Labour will NEVER agree to this.
Just the Tories never did. So your argument is ?
@@bobmacdonald6183 Not correct. Labour scuppered PR last time there was a referendum. They have never had it as an official policy.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu It was in their 1997 manifesto.
@@mrmajeika6101 No, I don't believe it was.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The entire country rejected PR. 70% against. At the last referendum, Cameron allowed Clegg to hold. Only smaller parties are interested in PR. Because they realise its their only chance at any power. As to Farage having extra MP ‘s. And using the reasoning of greens and Lib Dems falling short because of their vote percentage. A loose cannon such as Farage should never be allowed any power, Just as Trump should never be allowed Power. Farage is just an agitator, with the object of increasing his personal wealth, Farage has marketed himself. Towards that end.
Belgium took a year, to form a government because of PR. PR is the road to chaos. As European Governments have proven.
As Farage recently said. “Coming after Labour next. “ Your comment is just one of the many being laughed at by radio presenters on all the media now being bombarded by Reform. At the behest of the CEO and major shareholder. Farage.
Count Binface will soon be welcoming more Tories over to Reform.
For probably the first time ever I agree with you Richard. Your argument was coherent, didn't have huge holes or assumptions in and makes perfect sense. Well done.
I'm learning toward Single transferable vote as I can rate my candidates by preference. I would have voted for Green but I knew it would be tactical to vote Labour as my constitute has always been Conservertives. I live in a coastal town and it feels dead in the winter. The summer we have a lot of events that bring in income to the area. My District Council debt repayments increased by 59% between 2021/22 and 2022/23
Central govt is meant to be funding local councils because central govt can borrow from itself, effectively for free, where councils are reliant on taxes for spending, maintenance, etc. Instead, central govt underfunds and forces local councils to borrow from private banks, to go into debt, to spend enourmous amounts servicing debt, to cut services, etc. We are led by economically illiterate donkeys building a rentier society, ie. the plebs pay aristocrats and billionaires rent for everything we used to own. 'We will rent everything and be peasants'
The first time I was happy that they didn’t introduce the proportional election system. Reform actually heard, they get and will get more platform than the Greens, Lib Dem and other small party…
A Bill should be tabled by the Lib Dem’s in favour of PR!
They will chicken out if it
Voters can be miss informed due to a lack of scrutiny in main stream media
Reform got 4 million votes ( over 14% of votes cast ) ,…….= 5 seats .
SNP won 11 Seats with 700,000 votes !
Lib dems won 13.5% of votes cast , they won 71 Seats !
Labour won over 400 seats with 34% of the votes that is over 60% of the seats !
The British call this “ democratic ?”
SNP won 9 seats.
Liberals 72.
@@stephfoxwell4620 ….thanks for your correction, i must check my sources !
Well said.
Anyone else remember some call about 'Tyrany of the Majority' just after brexit.
Came from alot of these persons in the labour camp just before they campaigned to over turn the brexit referendum for 7 years. 😂
Doubt we will hear such such comments anymore. 😂
Ironically the EU referendum result did actually exceed 50% which is more than you can say for Labours votes in this election
PR also means that MPs have little interest in being good constituency MPs. If you want to do PR then you have to return a lot of local governance to councils, perhaps even establish regional hubs.
PR is much more complicated than just “give everyone MPs equal to their vote share”.
Whoever wins, we must have PR is we are to be anything like a democracy.
😂😂😂 only want it now you've lost
@Cherrytune386 I've always wanted PR no matter who wins the election, its got nothing to do with who you voted for and didn't win. The 2 main parties are but a revolving door politics and it's grossly unfair
@@firebyrd437 Totally agree
@@Cherrytune386it's been party policy for a number of parties for years
@@theotherandrew5540 then we would have Tories in .
We need PR
Nigel needs more than one policy
Totally agree well said
What we don't know is what people would have preferred to vote for if they didn't vote tactically. Though he doesn't have many MPs Farage will get plenty of airtime.
Starmer is a legal should be devoted to fair play and just outcomes. He did say he was in favour of changing first past the post.
He has the mandate to call a referendum on it.
But now he has a tyranical majority. He won't.
Wait and be disappointed. 😂
If people voted for a person rather than a party it would not be an issue. Party MPs rarely read the legislation they are being asked to vote on and parties rarely fulfill their election promises; so further entrenching the party political system and making it impossible to be an independent would only be a regression.
I would like an Reform MP here in the North West
First Past the Post has been fantastic for Alexander Lukoshenko in Belarus. He has held communist rule for 30 years using FPTP. The only other Country to use this mad system.
Wes Streeting privatised my hamster.
Pray he doesn't privatise your gerbil too.
National Hamster Service
Here's my 2p
Give every candidate who retains their deposit a seat
When it comes to votes in the house each can have the fraction of one vote that their vote share was in their constituency
Now, your vote at the ballot counts and you have the local connection PR critics say would be destroyed
They can be remunerated proportionately too
An effective second chamber idea: you've heard it here first.
A chamber of between 200-250 members. Take the share of the vote, round it up. Double it. The double figure represents the amount of elected individuals each party can elect to the upper house (i.e., Labour can have 68, Reform would have 30). That way every single vote counts and we have a democratically representative system to balance TFPTP system. I have already discussed this with Lady Hayter and Lord Norton and it appears to have initial traction.
Labour is over-represented and spread thin. If their vote drops just a few points, they will lose scores of seats. FPTP does not produce stable government, it produces ridiculous swings. One day we have minority supported Boris with a huge majority and now minority Starmer. This is bad for the long term governance of the country.
National Rally
Is far right,
I wouldn’t say reform is far right
Fair point !
Reform should not be needed politicians are supposed to act on the will of the people
Fair comment.
no, it means they don't have a geographically diverse enough support
Nigel needs to go the way of the Dodo.... At least regarding ReFUK Ltd, first past the post has worked extremely well.
I agree we need PR, I just hope whoever is in power when they give us a say (in a referendum) doesnt make a BOJO brexit hash out if it, and it's implemented with the care it deserves. As with all things, there are real-world consequences when changes are made, some good and some bad.
Electoral reform is essential, but I believe tat PR is not the answer.
PR almost guarantees hung parliaments, every time. And whilst wooly, utopian ideals of compromise and cooperation are lovely, the reality would be watered down promises and repeated collapses of coalitions.
It would also mean an end to constituency MPs, who work hard for areas they love. And manifestos would become irrelevant.
My choice would be Ranked Choice voting.
This would result in a far more representative parliament, just like PR, but would maintain the 650 constituency MP's AND the likelihood of parliamentary majorities.
they got 5.
Some good points about the electoral system, but if you could let me know what ideas of Reform are so repugnant. What did you mean by exposing him for what he is? I really am a bit perplexed by what seems to be propaganda by the media. Reform's joint Deputy Leader is Ben Habib, their biggest donor is Zia Yusuf, and Reform's candidate in my constituency was a chap called Abdoul - it seems to be quite a diverse party to me, so I'm guessing there is something else I am missing, so please educate me - ta.
Climate change lol.
I saw somewhere last night that the new title for Reform is FDS,, I really did.. it means Farage Demented Society.. Good innit..
Until we on the left accept that Reform voters do have a point and not simply racists we will never win them over
Thank Frogface For A Massive Labour Win !!!!
FPTP does not work in a party based parliament, it was designed to elect one representative from a given constituency into parliament to represent the views and requirements of their constituents..... Now party members are parachuted/imposed on a constituency with zero attachment to the community, they are there to get elected, not to represent the views and requirements of their constituents, but to follow obediently the party line, even if it goes against what their constituents would wish, even to the extent of abstaining on important legislation.. even under the fairest PR system of one vote per person, you would totally remove any connection between constituents and representative, because your MP would be imposed on you by the party.... To regain a completely democratic system, you would have to kick the party system out, and go back to having representatives elected from within each constituency who have connections within that community....the leader of parliament would be the person with the biggest majority, he would select his ministers from all representatives, and the rest of the parliament would be the democratic opposition, all would vote according to constituency interests NOT party lines.... That would be a truly democratic institution..
The Libdems need a closer look, something genius going on over there 🤔 actual effective representation maybe 🤷♂️
Unless there are just two candidates, FPTP can never be properly democratic. There needs to be a full package of reform - simple PR, combined with changes to the House of Lords and an easier voting process. The country had an 'Alternative Vote' system put to them in a referendum in 2011. It was a bit complicated - involving - as I recall - listing the candidates in order. Typical of the Tories - presenting the people with that which was least likely to succeed - as the price of Lib Dem co-operation. It went down like the proverbial lead balloon - 67% against. So it's no good just saying the obvious and then throwing away the opportunity by holding a referendum. Amazingly - but perhaps tellingly - the heaviest defeats were in the areas of the country which some years later voted for Brexit. Just think about that for a moment.
The AV proposal was a cynical way of deflecting PR. I understand that STV is considered worth investigating.
Green got 4 seats, but the share proportion is about 44. Green came second in 41 constituencies, so STV may have them gaining around this number. Maybe more if people knew they could vote for who they want and not have to vote tactically. I would love to see that influence on policies.
Its 4 to many. send him to Rwanda one way Ticket
Juvenile
Self declared Richard J Murphy stan. Blog is a daily read, videos go down well with morning coffee.
I don't know what I said to get blocked by your account on Twitter but I agree with a lot of what you say. I agree on this especially. Farage and his opinions need daylight and discussion to discredit them and our govt need to address the problems that lead to those opinions not bury their heads in the sand. I think this Labour govt will be lucky if it lasts a single term in office and unless they solve the problems in the UK, they are going to ensure Farage and his reform party benefit from their lack of progress at the next election.
‘Nigel’ needs gone!
PR by all means but the system used needs careful consideration, Proportionality of influence does not go hand in hand with simple proportionality of vote numbers. The problem of strict proportional representation can make kingmakers of fringe and often extreme parties, dragging otherwise centrist parties to left or right depending. Ranked preferential voting systems can go some way to smoothing out the disadvantages.
You would get more views if you included the word farage in the title
It will always be the case that the people who lost out to a system, want it changed
Slaves want to end slavery. SA victims want to end SA. Occupied people want to end the occupation. People being carpet bombed want to end US veto over international law. It's like a law of nature or something
Yup
Hate to be the one to tell you this Richard but Reform actually have 5 MPs
I believe that once the atmosphere of general euphoria flowing from finally dumping the Tories out of office has subsided and there is some time for greater introspection and scrutiny of the overall election result, more and more people will be shocked by the relatively small vote share Labour secured Nationally - polling (which was everywhere and in our faces daily/hourly in the run up to July 4th) predicted Labour getting approx 40% (maybe a shade less) but the actual total Labour vote share was barely more than a third of all ballots cast - 33.7% in the end.
For this vote share to give Labour a massive House of Commons majority and approx 63% of all new MPs is frankly astounding and at its heart, fundamentally undemocratic.
I also believe that Labour's grip on power, whilst numerically large in terms of its dominance in the Commons chamber, is actually quite weak - FPTP is double edged sword and if you don't deliver on your promises, it can very quickly turn against you - Labour now finds itself under pressure from both left (Greens in urban areas) and right (ReformUK in coastal and rural areas).
If Labour really was the "Progressive" force it purports to function as, it would bow to the democratic will of its own party members and funding masters, incorporate Proportionality into its manifesto and establish a wholly independent Citizens' Convention, toute suite, as a mechanism designed to bring the UK into the grown-up club of 21st century European democracies?
Sadly, that's not going to happen because Starmer is intent on steamrolling through his own personal vision of the future of Great Britain PLC?
I agree with this. I would much prefer proportional votes and the necessity for a Government to form from proper negotiation between Labour, LD and Greens. However, Reform cannon demand PR without exposing a contradiction. They are adamant that despite things changing with Brexit in the last 8 years, with the majority of the population now against it, they contend that the referendum has a mandate to pursue total removal from not just the EU (as it said on the ballot) but also from any trading block, Norway style. So, given the larger majority voting for First-past-the-post in 2011, it's not possible for them to reasonably argue that vote should be disregarded.
Most balanced video you have made yet.
Im still conflicted, there is not just the constituency of what we believe, there is the constituency of where we live. I want my bourgh to be represented by someone we elect with our interests as a community.
Vote DEFORM and join the Chav Brigade. 😂😂
hohoho you clown
Good point!
I agree that a democratic defecit is caused by the current FPTP system, and that PR would be a fairer system. However, comparing the vote share to seat ratios of Labour and Reform UK is a little misleading. The Labour Party has existed for over 100 years and Reform UK for less than 10. Labour has worked hard over a long time to contest elections and occasionally form governments and build a credible record in office as well as an efficient party machine capable of maximizing election performance, not to mention the ability to stand credible candidates in every seat in the country including many that required many fewer votes in order to oust the incumbent or retain the seat for Labour. These are hard won advantages that have streamlined the Labour Party through the dialectical process of electoral defeats and victories. If Reform UK lasts for 100 years (and I hope it doesn't) we would not be surprised to see its vote to seat ratio reduce significantly over that time.
A problem is people largely understand they are voting under FPTP. So they may have voted accordingly and chosen to vote against a candidate using the one most likely to achieve their desires.
I would have voted Reform if I thought it might help split the Tory vote and so they both lost and let a preferable alternative win.
and that is the argument every govt has used to dismiss electoral reform. I would rather suffer coalition govts for the rest of my life than seeing someone like Farage win with a landslide majority. People say it will never happen, that he's just too unpopular but they also said that the Le Pen party in France would never win at the ballot box. Never say never
Ok - but democracy is about shifting power to the many - parties are just special interest groups that developed from historical elitist factions. Fairly representing parties has very little correlation with democratic representation. If you cannot choose your own representative in a representative democracy - or even worse your vote is discarded because you didn't pick the local constituency FPTP winner then the system is just continuing fantasy aristocracy - which serves the elite political aristocrats the best. Keir, Richi, Liz, Theresa, Boris etc would never have held power in a real democracy.
If Nigel wants more M.P.s I suggest he does a Nationwide recruitment drive in Weatherspoons pubs.
what's wrong with Wetherspoons? you patronising knob
You'd get more intelligent conversation from the beer mats.
@@CHUTNEX Exactly.
Instead labour are being exposed and so are you.
I like your argument. I understand that a lot of tactical voting took place, which I guess is a perverse sort of PR. In which case, Labour benefited from this corruption of the FPTP. I would have thought it better to have the best and fairest form of achievable PR. The Tories are the only party to want to perpetuate FPTP and even they might have benefited from PR this time.
Sorry but Labour rejected THEIR OWN MEMBERS vote for pr about a year ago. They also were talking about implementing PR prior to Blair's win but quickly forgot about that once they had a landslide victory
The difficulty is that we don't have proportional representation yet, and the reality is that Farage can get his vile emotionally driven message to those politically ignorant of what the consequences of a Reform govt will be, despite voting for him. 4 seats is enough thanks.
Really want to know what his 'vile emotionally driven message' is - thanks ever so
@@shiningrain1 Farage is selling a Pipe Dream, ha can agitate for whatever he likes, knowing he will never have power to implement these idiotic ideas. Zero immigration, what a stupid idea, remember zero immigration, when there is nobody to wipe your arse or feed you. When we have no nurses, Doctors for our hospitals and GP practices. Tories stopped training nurses Doctors or made it so difficult to train other than you build yourself a huge debt. Farage has only one message, anti immigration. And he is monetised it for his bank balance. As the CEO of Reform Ltd hevwill make sure he gets it.
PR sounds like such a brilliant idea, that in effect Reform would now have around 90 odd MPs. Are people that subscribed into PR that they're willing to let multi millionaire racists, bigots be paid by the taxpayer & join in debate in the houses of parliament? Is everyone willing to put up with that, so that the other lower seated parties are more represented? It's a big price to pay imo. That is a much larger base to further increase their vote and possibly become the new Tory party in all but name, depending on where the tories re-align themselves. It is a dangerous precedent to install PR, not just now, but anytime. I voted green and do not subscribe to PR so that my vote counts a bit more. It has the possibility to install any populist bullshitter, like Farage. I also do not like FPTP, but until I'm able to see a way that can accommodate representation without letting an extremist into power, PR will just deliver coalition government after coalition government. Can you imagine the Tories and Reform in coalition. Be careful what you wish for.
I agree with the need for PR but arguing for normalising bigotry so that they can be heard and exposed is a privileged position to be in. The process of hearing them out normalises them and shifts the overton window - and in the meantime, you expose marginalised people to abuse. How do you propose to protect those that are targeted by parties like Reform?
Hi Richard, as a long term Liberal Democrat (other than the Clegg years), I find myself gaming the system and voting Labour as the only likely “left” wing choice. Liberals got far fewer votes this time as there was a lot of tactical voting. I’m sure some greens and Labour supports also did this, though from the results, it seems like greens did this less.
I agree that reform are a loathsome party but they need representation. I expect if they did that we would see more alliances against them, even with centre right parties.
We need true PR. I really like the German system with a local representative chosen via a plurality, then regional lists system using PR. Do you have a preference of system?
The way you present the data at the beginning is slightly misleading, it didn’t take over a million votes to elect Reform’s 4 mps, to elect those 4 mps it took the number of votes cast by Reform voters in those 4 constituencies which is less a lot less than a million.
Not very often I agree with you ideas but you are 100% right about the election process. Reform were also the only party with any common sense policies at all.
The electoral system has always been undemocratic. The LibDems have always suffered from this, and even this time they did - this time they got seats in proportion to their vote, but under PR they would have been part of a rainbow coalition.
We've had extreme right wing governments under the Tories because of FPTP, FPTP is also the reason why Labour's current policies are so far to the right in regard to the economy.
As for Reform having common sense policies, you are just showing your gullibility and lack of understanding of science.
@@MentalLentil-ev9jr We have not had a right wing government since 1997 that's why the Country is in a mess, by the way Labours right wing policies as you call them, could only muster 34% of the vote, people dont want Left Wing crap because it never works.
Nigel needs less MP's!!
Mate, you’re just on anti-Labour campaign. That’s it. And it’s unfair for Reform to get five MPs? Why the selective pity party for Reform? Why not the Greens? And this has always been the case. Why is it only now such an injustice?!
Farage brought about the Brexit referendum. I think he is the only person who can pressure the government to bring about some form of PR. The Greens are probably quite happy with things as they are.
How long did you go to university to figure that out. Outstanding.
nigel needs to go, he shouldn’t be allowed to step foot in parliament
you dont believe in democracy then?
@@Dc-uf1ln i believe in democracy, i just don’t need to hear his racist views everywhere i go, he’s a businessman and runs as a business, he’s the major shareholder, why would i want a poundshop running my country for his profit, check companies house, it ukip brexit with just a different name, and if you believe in democracy let’s have another referendum to see if people want to rejoin the EU, i bet you don’t want that
@@jrb3006jbeverywhere you go? So you're a politics nerd with a 24/7 mainline to political news?
@@skyblazeeterno I take it you don't use the Internet much, things like RUclips where his ads are on nearly every video, but getting back to the democracy part, what part of true democracy don't you like? Let me guess when people don't agree with you
@@jrb3006jb seems like you're the person not liking democracy. People voted for Farage and other Reform candidates.deal with it
Hi Richard, much as I can’t agree with you on many points, and one or two that I do, I don’t understand your use of ‘repugnant’ when you refer to Reform UK. Surely a little too strong? Which of their policies are repugnant to you?
‘
No true valuation can be given on a 60% voter turnout.. sure you can find better content for your informative blogs 🤔🤔😎
Nige can try again in 5 years time.
Reform now needs to really ramp up membership and become the next main party. I and my family voted for Reform because the future for our children and grandchildren is at stake.
Im a reform voter.I wish the far left had your sense of justice.Well spoken
He should have 100. Instead he got 5.
I'm happy with this injustice if it stops Reform taking over half of Parliament.
How democratic of you lol
@@kevinrobb86 did you enjoy the democracy in Germany when the Nazis came to power?
So, exclude 80% of the voters views to make you happy.
@@johnlightfoot9967 I'd have thought avoiding a fascist takeover in Parliament would make you happy. Apparently not.
The people of the country are not being represented.
No voice should be silenced, but not all should be encouraged and promoted. Concepts such as free speech, free markets, and democracy should be a means to an end, not an end in themselves. What's the end goal? The well-being of the country. Free speech, democracy, and other concepts should serve the country, not vice versa. Unfortunately, America is an excellent example of where they got it wrong. The country must bow down to and serve free speech, free markets, etc. As a result, someone like Donald Trump, who is a traitor, has violated the Constitution, and is generally unfit to be president, is allowed to run for office again. Anyone who argues that he shouldn't be allowed to run is shut down as "anti-democratic". Likewise, when the country is expected to prioritise free speech, there is no choice but to turn a blind eye to extremist British Muslims spreading intolerance and inciting hatred against their own country, all under the guise of free speech. Similarly, when the country is supposed to prioritise the free market, any attempt to address imbalances in the market, such as a small group of people having significantly more wealth than the rest of the country, is portrayed as being against the principles of the free market or labelled as socialist.
You are sounding like the Austrian funny mustache man.
First-past-the-post means some people get what they voted for. Proportional representation means nobody gets what they voted for, because under PR governments must be coalitions, and parties in a coalition must alter or abandon their policies for the coalition to work. Pure PR breaks the link between constituency and Parliament, which is a problem because different constituencies have different wants and priorities. Look at nations that use PR, and see that their governments are strange, bogged-down, and brittle. Therefore, it is no good to simply say 'we need PR'. First, you must find a form of PR that overcomes the problems I identified. In my opinion, the electoral system should be made fairer, but representation should remain disproportional, to enable strong governments.
In any constituency where there are more than two candidates FPP is likely to deliver power to the minority, who usually represent minority opinion . PR delivers the least disliked to power.
@@theotherandrew5540Yes - In FPTP, it is always a minority of the sum total - 34.5% of 59% is in fact only about 20.5% - but in terms of the active split, it is the greater number. (Applying the same process to the Tory Party gives about 14.5%) However, that still means that both the government and the official opposition were elected by just 35% of the total. In theory, the least disliked usually have to form a compromised bloc to get anything done - so PR will alway be lacklustre in any case.
@@JohnnyHague It may be lacklustre but it would be much more representative of the democratic values of the voters.
Labour should appoint Farage to the House of Lords for services to their vast majority.
@stephfoxwell4620
If you did your research before posting you should know the Tories offered Farage a peerage years ago. He quite rightly told them to get stuffed.
Can't argue with the figures.
It's the same system we have had since time immemorial though.
It's called the British constitution.
It's called the will of the people .
If we wanted PR or any other voting system it would have happened by mow.
Well said.