General Election July 2024

[p1stonhead]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords.

That is bloody genius.

I'm opposed to a elected HoL but an "accidentally" elected HoL sounds ideal. And you get better candidates because second place has value. And you HoL is packed with opponents of the winners. (Who hopefully are sane.)

Like it.

No doubt someone will point out the flaw or the perverse incentive, but until then...

I know they’re not supposed to hold things up unnecessarily, but I’d imagine they’d never pass anything if they were made up with a majority of the opposition.

[CraigyMc]

BikeBikeBIke said:

No doubt someone will point out the flaw or the perverse incentive, but until then...

Well, for a start, Lord Galloway and Lady Truss would now be in the Lords.

fk. That.

[E63eeeeee...]

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

[MiniMan64]

A lot being made of Labour winning on a reduced vote share, only 34% of votes meaning they’re not that popular.

Doesn’t that rather miss the point that ALL winning parties from now into the future are going to do so with continually reducing vote shares?

The UK is no longer a 2 party (plus a few Lib Dem’s) state, we are now much more European in political nature with multiple parties winning seats and spreading the winning vote a lot more thinly.

The corks out the bottle, it’s not going back in.

[Catweazle]

p1stonhead said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords.

That is bloody genius.

I'm opposed to a elected HoL but an "accidentally" elected HoL sounds ideal. And you get better candidates because second place has value. And you HoL is packed with opponents of the winners. (Who hopefully are sane.)

Like it.

No doubt someone will point out the flaw or the perverse incentive, but until then...

I know they’re not supposed to hold things up unnecessarily, but I’d imagine they’d never pass anything if they were made up with a majority of the opposition.

The answer is to introduce legislation that is acceptable to a majority of people. Anything too mad will simply be revised and sent back. Of course the Parliament Act would still be applicable.

[Catweazle]

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

[p1stonhead]

CraigyMc said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

No doubt someone will point out the flaw or the perverse incentive, but until then...

Well, for a start, Lord Galloway and Lady Truss would now be in the Lords.

fk. That.

Assume it would only be for an election period though. On the whole seems better than the current system!

[Sway]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

It's a matter of opinion that it's a fairer system.

Some, including me, think very minor parties gaining king maker status and a disproportionate amount of power, is a bad idea.

That applies if it's Cons/Reform or Labour/Greens.

Even worse is the bd muddle of 2nd/3rd party governments.

Then there's the fact that whatever the makeup, no one actually gets what they want. No party in government can be held to a manifesto that's had to be negotiated day one.

So in that instance, what exactly are people voting for under such a system?

It's fairer because it makes everyone's votes more equal in value. What meaning of fairness do you have in mind where FPTP wins? That's not really what happens with minority parties, their power is proportional to the votes they get, plus have you forgotten the DUP in 2017? Relying on mandate theory as an argument for FPTP is a bit of a joke, no government can be held to a manifesto in any case. And if you think that nobody gets what they want under PR, explain how that's worse than unfettered power going to a party that fully 67% of voters didn't choose.

Everyone's vote is equal in value - in your constituency.

You've used a very rare outcome as your exemplar - that wasn't a coalition it was a minority government with supply and confidence, and was incredibly weak!

Policies don't get redefined under PR. They get horse traded. I'll keep this on health, you get that on schools. That's not reflecting the will - especially when major policies can be defined (with the same absolute power) and implemented based on well under 10% of the vote.

All those not in the coalition are still just as 'valueless' for votes as FPTP.

[Randy Winkman]

MiniMan64 said:

A lot being made of Labour winning on a reduced vote share, only 34% of votes meaning they’re not that popular.

Doesn’t that rather miss the point that ALL winning parties from now into the future are going to do so with continually reducing vote shares?

The UK is no longer a 2 party (plus a few Lib Dem’s) state, we are now much more European in political nature with multiple parties winning seats and spreading the winning vote a lot more thinly.

The corks out the bottle, it’s not going back in.

Yes - the same way we dont get 29million people watching one TV programme anymore. Not on one channel anyway.

(29m watched the 2020 Euro football final but not on the same channel.)

[E63eeeeee...]

Catweazle said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

Allowing for something isn't the same as delivering it.

[crofty1984]

the-photographer said:

Very interesting, the re-built conservatives should absolutely aim for the centre in terms of leader and policy

Yes, keep Reform as the soft play areas for the trouble makers and get back to being a sensible party.

[MiniMan64]

Randy Winkman said:

MiniMan64 said:

A lot being made of Labour winning on a reduced vote share, only 34% of votes meaning they’re not that popular.

Doesn’t that rather miss the point that ALL winning parties from now into the future are going to do so with continually reducing vote shares?

The UK is no longer a 2 party (plus a few Lib Dem’s) state, we are now much more European in political nature with multiple parties winning seats and spreading the winning vote a lot more thinly.

The corks out the bottle, it’s not going back in.

Yes - the same way we dont get 29million people watching one TV programme anymore. Not on one channel anyway.

(29m watched the 2020 Euro football final but not on the same channel.)

Good comparison.

Point seems to be missed somehow though and instead it’s Labours fault for not being as strong as predicted.

Greens are getting drowned out by all the Reform noise and all those independents in the HoC now too…

[E63eeeeee...]

Sway said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

It's a matter of opinion that it's a fairer system.

Some, including me, think very minor parties gaining king maker status and a disproportionate amount of power, is a bad idea.

That applies if it's Cons/Reform or Labour/Greens.

Even worse is the bd muddle of 2nd/3rd party governments.

Then there's the fact that whatever the makeup, no one actually gets what they want. No party in government can be held to a manifesto that's had to be negotiated day one.

So in that instance, what exactly are people voting for under such a system?

It's fairer because it makes everyone's votes more equal in value. What meaning of fairness do you have in mind where FPTP wins? That's not really what happens with minority parties, their power is proportional to the votes they get, plus have you forgotten the DUP in 2017? Relying on mandate theory as an argument for FPTP is a bit of a joke, no government can be held to a manifesto in any case. And if you think that nobody gets what they want under PR, explain how that's worse than unfettered power going to a party that fully 67% of voters didn't choose.

Everyone's vote is equal in value - in your constituency.

You've used a very rare outcome as your exemplar - that wasn't a coalition it was a minority government with supply and confidence, and was incredibly weak!

Policies don't get redefined under PR. They get horse traded. I'll keep this on health, you get that on schools. That's not reflecting the will - especially when major policies can be defined (with the same absolute power) and implemented based on well under 10% of the vote.

All those not in the coalition are still just as 'valueless' for votes as FPTP.

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

[Mr Penguin]

E63eeeeee... said:

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

The 2017 parliament was a bad one for FPTP but it would be every other election under PR.

[Leithen]

Catweazle said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

The standard of debate in the current HOL is generally regarded as much better than the HOC. It’s partially about respect and better behaviour, but expertise and experience also contributes.

Not sure a second place chamber would get anywhere near this.

The HOL needs to be smaller with shorter terms and IMHO ought to be drawn from the best the country has.

[p1stonhead]

The absolute state of this. It’s not even been a day.

[E63eeeeee...]

Mr Penguin said:

E63eeeeee... said:

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

The 2017 parliament was a bad one for FPTP but it would be every other election under PR.

And yet more or less every other democracy seems to somehow make it work. Many advanced democracies have moved from FPTP. Iirc the only recent example of a country going the other way was basically a deliberate attempt to introduce the kind of dictatorship based on minority support that it more or less guarantees. But yeah, it's much better that Labour get two thirds of the representatives with one third of the vote, or a 55%ish leftish country elects right of centre governments two thirds of the time.

[Sway]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

It's a matter of opinion that it's a fairer system.

Some, including me, think very minor parties gaining king maker status and a disproportionate amount of power, is a bad idea.

That applies if it's Cons/Reform or Labour/Greens.

Even worse is the bd muddle of 2nd/3rd party governments.

Then there's the fact that whatever the makeup, no one actually gets what they want. No party in government can be held to a manifesto that's had to be negotiated day one.

So in that instance, what exactly are people voting for under such a system?

It's fairer because it makes everyone's votes more equal in value. What meaning of fairness do you have in mind where FPTP wins? That's not really what happens with minority parties, their power is proportional to the votes they get, plus have you forgotten the DUP in 2017? Relying on mandate theory as an argument for FPTP is a bit of a joke, no government can be held to a manifesto in any case. And if you think that nobody gets what they want under PR, explain how that's worse than unfettered power going to a party that fully 67% of voters didn't choose.

Everyone's vote is equal in value - in your constituency.

You've used a very rare outcome as your exemplar - that wasn't a coalition it was a minority government with supply and confidence, and was incredibly weak!

Policies don't get redefined under PR. They get horse traded. I'll keep this on health, you get that on schools. That's not reflecting the will - especially when major policies can be defined (with the same absolute power) and implemented based on well under 10% of the vote.

All those not in the coalition are still just as 'valueless' for votes as FPTP.

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

Both systems have flaws - and rare examples where each shows the benefits or flaws of the other.

There is no absolute right or wrong here. I acknowledge the appeal of PR - I'm just far more focussed on outcomes rather than an impossible to definitively define ideal of 'most fair'.

I believe the FPTP system has helped enable our success as a nation, rather than being dully average and run by committees.

[Mortarboard]

p1stonhead said:

The absolute state of this. It’s not even been a day.

Bashing labour's not going to do it- it's reform keeping the Tories out

M.

[JNW1]

Sway said:

JNW1 said:

Who have been rewarded with over 70 seats in the House of Commons compared to just 4 for Reform. The Greens have the same number of seats as Reform having attracted less than half the number of votes.

And according to the BBC website Labour polled just under 34% of the vote nationally but now holds 64% of the seats in the HoC - can't remember an election in my lifetime where a party's gained an overall majority with such a small proportion of the vote, never mind one on the scale Labour's secured!

I fully understand the mechanics of how all this has come about but (IMHO) these results make our current electoral system very difficult to defend....

If we took this outcome as unchanged under a PR system (yes, I know, but it's all we can do) - the outcome there is just as difficult to defend!

Under PR the seats in the House of Commons would more closely reflect the votes cast which is surely fairer?

Whether the outcome in terms of votes cast for the various parties would have been unchanged under PR is another issue. However, if you're confident your vote is going to be reflected in seats in the House of Commons regardless of how you vote I'd have thought there's less reason to vote tactically just to try to keep someone out - that being the case the outcome may well have been different under PR.