General Election July 2024

[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.

[hidetheelephants]

Mortarboard said:

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.

Reform stole the tories' lunch. If Sunak had waited a month or so longer Farage would have been in the US coining it in talking st on FOX etc.

[tamore]

p1stonhead said:

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

he will put himself up as the way for a blue wave back into power. don't dismiss it easily.

[Derek Smith]

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.

I largely agree. This might well be a change of voting habits. I wonder if it is more along the lines of abandoning traditional allegiances? The 2019 election was a one-factor election, and crossed party lines. A considerable number of people became floating voters. I've voted for all three 'big' parties and for independents over the years and there's no way I'd ever follow one party's dictates. Yesterday I voted libdem. Whatever happens in the next election or elections, the change of party, from 100% tory to libdem, will mean that the present incumbent will be nervous and will probably have to take notice of what her voters want. There's a change for a start. If a tory is returned in the future, the same will go for them.

Whether the bottle will be resealed is another matter. Popularism is popular. Farage and Johnson, both wasters, secured followings, the latter more so. I hope that cork can be returned. On the other hand, Galloway was imperialistic when voted in. Not so much now I assume.

Perhaps, though, things are looking up. No more safe seats. You want it? You'll have to graft for it.

[Murph7355]

Sway said:

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.

It might have done 60yrs ago.

But now the bickering and bullst just means more of the same cobblers. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

I think 2010 was one of the better governments we've had recently (everything's relative) and that relied on horse trading policy and compromise. It also had two parties tempering each other's excesses.

Reform should not be just one element (GE outcome) changing. It needs the lot doing.

National govt governs nationally (duh) so focusing too heavily on local representation is flawed.

Use the other house more effectively for checks and balances and also, maybe, devolve more power locally if the boys in the centre can't do it.

As noted before, times have changed. We're not a two party electorate and haven't been for ages. But the two big parties cling to our antiquated system. It needs changing.

As other examples, I do think we'd be far, far better off with some of the big ticket issues being cross-party handled. NHS and pensions being good examples. At present they are political footballs and will never, ever be addressed properly while that remains.

[MiniMan64]

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

[JNW1]

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.

The point is share of the vote not being translated into representation in Parliament. You may well be correct about the UK no longer being a two party state but doesn't that make the case for PR stronger so those different views are represented fairly?

[MC Bodge]

bhstewie said:

I was looking at that earlier.

It's actually fascinating how utterly consumed Reform voters are with immigration and how backward they are when it comes to cultural attitudes.

It is disappointing, but not surprising.

[swisstoni]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

It’s come up but, rightly imho, it’s been pointed out that people would likely vote differently with PR.

Having said that, some clearly don’t know the difference so will vote the same whatever the system. But what’s the proportion?

[Solocle]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Using a 3.25% vote threshold:

(In order: SNP, LAB, CON, GRN, LIB, RFM, PLD, SNF, IND)
Labour-Lib Dem coalition most likely, scraping through to a majority of 8 at 329 seats.

[Murph7355]

JNW1 said:

The point is share of the vote not being translated into representation in Parliament. You may well be correct about the UK no longer being a two party state but doesn't that make the case for PR stronger so those different views are represented fairly?

Yes it does make the case stronger.

It's the whole point really. We are not a two party electorate, but we have a system designed to give results as a two party system.

The big parties cry foul and insist on pretending to be two big parties because it suits them.

[CraigyMc]

p1stonhead said:

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!

Chucking the losers into a woodchipper would be better than putting them into the only part of our government that actually works on detailed stuff.

[OutInTheShed]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Every PR enthusiast is wanting a different system, which one did you have in mind?

The major flaw in your question is assuming firstly that people would have voted the same way under PR and secondly that politicians would align with parties in the same way.

Obviously under some versions of PR, we might have had a lot of Reform and Green MPs
I suspect more people would have voted LD.
But then, many of the politicians who want to get elected would have joined parties which might do better under PR?

[Sway]

Murph7355 said:

Sway said:

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.

It might have done 60yrs ago.

But now the bickering and bullst just means more of the same cobblers. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

I think 2010 was one of the better governments we've had recently (everything's relative) and that relied on horse trading policy and compromise. It also had two parties tempering each other's excesses.

Reform should not be just one element (GE outcome) changing. It needs the lot doing.

National govt governs nationally (duh) so focusing too heavily on local representation is flawed.

Use the other house more effectively for checks and balances and also, maybe, devolve more power locally if the boys in the centre can't do it.

As noted before, times have changed. We're not a two party electorate and haven't been for ages. But the two big parties cling to our antiquated system. It needs changing.

As other examples, I do think we'd be far, far better off with some of the big ticket issues being cross-party handled. NHS and pensions being good examples. At present they are political footballs and will never, ever be addressed properly while that remains.

2010 is a great example - it was indeed exactly the sort of horrifically dull and visionless government we needed at the time.

However, let's not forget that the horse trading that got them there pissed off their voter base such that they were utterly humiliated for over a decade. That's exactly what I dislike about coalitions. Very clearly, the Lib Dem voters did not feel like they were represented.

The post referendum elections under PR would have been immeasurably worse than they were. Nothing would have happened - which would have given those that lost the referendum what they wanted, but not those who won.

I agree with taking more out of politics, and into national level collaborative discussion. That's the sort of technocratic stuff I can get behind.

But for creating and delivering a vision for the country's (near term) future, it sucks.

The bit that's sticking out for me with reform is that everyone is focusing on their views on immigration as the sole reason people moved there. Ignoring actually reasonable policies such as elimination of IR35, support for SMEs, etc. - I know a few who held their nose at the fortress UK ste because they wanted a small government, SME supporting party.

[FMOB]

Solocle said:

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Using a 3.25% vote threshold:

(In order: SNP, LAB, CON, GRN, LIB, RFM, PLD, SNF, IND)
Labour-Lib Dem coalition most likely, scraping through to a majority of 8 at 329 seats.

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

[OMITN]

FMOB said:

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

Start of a work call this afternoon and we were shooting the breeze about the election result. One of the guys on the call lives in Belgium so we joked about whether there is currently a government there.

His answer was “Not sure. Probably. To be honest when there is no government it does stop them raising taxes.”

[Sway]

The Belgians are probably one of the best countries suited to PR. So bland they don't even use anything with flavour for their chips, but mayo instead.

For me, the biggest argument for FPTP is that out of the G7, none of them are full PR. Closest is Germany (but still has FPTP constituency representatives) or Italy (similar weird mix of FPTP and PR). That says something to me - that FPTP systems, despite their flaws, tend to produce more successful nations.