Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 18:01:25 GMT
It's clogging up the main thread and I'm guilty of that so I'll kick off the Issue Specific thread for further discussion for those that want to. I'll use the two YG polls that somewhat contradict. Folks prefer 'single party' govt but also prefer PR (which is much less likely to generate a single party govt) Also from the YG poll Which of the following best reflects your view?
Coalition government is normally better than single- party government, as it is more inclusive and makes parties compromise and work together: 19%Single party government is normally better than coalition, as it provides a strong government that can get things done without having to do deals with other: 53%
So majority and net 34% prefer 'single party' to 'coalition' govt X-breaks I hear you ask? CON: 82% (net 74%) picked single party govt LAB: 49% (net 26%) also picked single party govt d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8n5qzx468z/TheTimes_Results_191104.pdfNot sure if anyone has posted any other actual polling but whilst the above actual polling shows folks prefer 'single party' govt it is worth a follow up with YG's tracker: Should we change our current British voting system?
PR, where the number of MPs parties win will more closely match their share of the vote: 42% FPTP, more likely to give one party an overall majority: 28% Not a majority but net 14% prefer PR and no surprises in the x-breaks (CON prefer FPTP by 52% to 25%) yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-systemPossible reasons for the difference? 1/ Salience. How big a priority is it for most people given the likely amount of political bandwidth changing the system would take up? I appreciate that it would be a huge priority for LDEM if they are given a 2nd chance to change the system to something that would benefit them. I'd prefer whichever party is in power focuses on more important issues myself. 2/ Wording. PR sounds nicer and fairer and folks have perhaps not considered the consequences (ie the result would more likely be coalitions/other form of agreement rather than single party govt). The tricky thing then being whether or not the small party(ies) propping up the big party are 'doormats' (LDEM 2010-15) or 'tail wagging the dog' (DUP 2017-19, although that backfired on them in the end and we ended up with a Cleaner Brexit for GB rather than BrINO for UK) |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Feb 20, 2022 18:08:23 GMT
Yeah, must be hard for cabinet ministers with all their civil servants to do more than one thing at a time.
PR is more democratic as all votes count.
Coalitions work in plenty of countries and might make our politicians grow up and work together more. Could stop the backhanders that politicians seem to like (Russian money).
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Feb 20, 2022 19:18:09 GMT
Think the big weakness of pure, totally proportionate, PR is that a party with a few % can become king makers.
The FDP actually switched sides mid term in Germany 40 years or so ago and we have seen how much power minor religious parties seem to hold in Israel.
A less disproportionate system than FPTP which gives too big a winners bonus and actual majorities on modest vote shares ('05 and '15) would seem to be sensible.
Also the constituency link is valued in the UK so the choice is STV or a top up system and both have drawbacks.
Personally I don't like the AMS as it can be gamed and the bar imo is too high for a party to be able to govern on their own.
I can live with either STV or MMP if they are set up with workable parameters.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 20, 2022 20:39:56 GMT
I've copied over my previous post on why I prefer STV and my view that the constituency link is overrated:
"I am for Single Transferable Vote as it removes the need for party lists and so weakens rather than strengthens the tyranny of party machine politics. I accept this means multi-member constituencies but would contend these have three advantages: (a) constituencies can be based on natural communities (counties, whole cities, etc.) rather than the often arbitrary and artificial constructs we have now; (b) most voters will have a decent chance of being represented by an MP they actually support; (c) it removes the need for separate list members with an even vaguer geographical link, such as in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
There is a great tendency in this country to praise the constituency link under FPTP and try to reproduce it under PR systems, but is it all that wonderful? My MP is sat in a rock solid safe seat and has no incentive to work hard on representing his constituents, certainly not those who don't agree with him politically. I don't bother to contact him much as I know it is a waste of time, but on the couple of occasions I have all I got is a standard email reply, which made no effort to address the point raised."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 9:19:43 GMT
jimjam For the benefit of having the info in one place can I recheck LAB's current position on Electoral Reform with you When is LAB's UK-wide constitutional commission supposed to start? The can was kicked at conf last year and not sure if the intention is to try to get other parties involved or try to kick the can past GE'24 (ie mention 'constitutional commission' in GE'24 manifesto and the need for x-party agreement but not commit to any specific change until after GE'24). FWIU then the Unions effectively blocked the motion this year and many in the PLP might want to keep HoC as FPTP but Unions are changing their views and majority of CLPs and LAB voters (see x-breaks in opinion polling) want to move to PR labourlist.org/2021/12/how-labours-electoral-reform-shift-this-year-happened-and-whats-next-for-pr/I appreciate you can't speak for the whole of LAB and that the future is not set but please correct any of the above and add your thoughts on whether or not Starmer can kick the can past GE'24 (at which point it might well be LDEM who force the agenda)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 12:10:34 GMT
Couple of quick points: 1/ AMS = hybrid of FPTP and PR It can be gamed (see Holyrood, although obviously the SNATs refute that as they like the result) but in Senedd then it meant WLAB won 50% of the seats with 39.9%/36.2% of the vote en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Senedd_election2/ MMP could create the kind of tactical 'Sister of CON' voting that was claimed to help FDP in Germany. Might well mean we end up with CON forming a coalition with someone like RUK? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation#Tactical_voting3/ AV was the approach rejected 68% to 32% in 2011 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum#Proposed_AV_system4/ STV is a simpler version of AV and could be considered as an 'optimised' version of tactical voting (note that a lot of folks have already worked out how to vote tactically for ABCON in England or ABSNP in Scotland - see plenty of examples posted previously on main thread or back on UKPR) 5/ The modest boost CON currently get over LAB from FPTP is due to LAB 'vote stacking' in ultra safe seats (eg the People's Socialist Republics of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and London) where as CON have slightly broader geographic appeal. If LAB broaden their geographic appeal rather than 'vote stack' then that difference would disappear (and note pre GE'15 then the 'boost' benefited LAB not CON) Using Electoral Calculus: %, seats CON: 38%, 289 LAB: 38%, 272 ... www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=38&LAB=38&LIB=9&Reform=2&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.3&SCOTLAB=20.2&SCOTLIB=6.6&SCOTReform=0.9&SCOTGreen=3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllMajoritySorted®orseat=%28none%29&boundary=2019base6/ CON and LAB would both benefit in Scotland from a PRish system and depending on the design of the PRish system (eg see how LAB can win 50% of seats in Wales with less than 40% of the vote) then does anyone have any 'illustrative' predictions of what results we'd get back if we changed to a PRish system. SNP would certainly lose seats and depending on the thresholds set then Greens and LDEM would probably gain seats (and certainly those Greens/LDEM who tactically vote LAB as the best placed ABCON party in specific seats could stop voting LAB and vote for Green/LDEM instead). Depending on the thresholds then CON would lose some seats in England for sure but those would be partially offset by gains in Scotland. IMO the biggest losers would be LAB as IMO they currently benefit the most from tactical ABCON voting in E+W and wouldn't recoup that via some gains in Scotland. 7/ There are other ways to deal with the 'Scottish' problem. If Scots keep electing Indy MPs then, even if SNP/Scot.Gov keep kicking the can, then Unionist parties and voters in rUK can rid of the 'separatist' problem by making them 'Leave as friends' and stop them being able to vote in UK HoC. 8/ Is the 'plan' to hold a referendum or simply say 'Bollocks to FPTP' LDEM'19 style? If the latter then is that democratic given I expect LAB manifesto to be a 'vague' on even scrapping FPTP let alone being specific on the exact fine details of 'new' system. 9/ If there is to be a referendum then might I suggest those who want to Leave FPTP word the referendum as: Remain with FPTP Leave the FPTP As that avoids the issue of what 'Leave' FPTP means and if Leave did win then we might get 3.5yrs of HoC political bandwidth being absorbed with trying to overturn the referendum or failing to agree on what Leave means and ultimately requiring a Final Say, People's vote to eventually 'Get (some form of) PR Done' or maybe overturn the ref and we Remain with FPTP  10/ Perhaps a better suggestion is to start with HoL and see how that goes. Those who want to discuss the fine details and pros/cons of exactly what should replace FPTP in HoC will hopefully agree that HoL is far less democratic and should see reform first (although that also opens up the possibly to 'Abolish HoL' and have a unicameral system of government). Also we could discuss having a President (although the de facto tricameral system of US is not one I'd like to see UK copy). Swiss canton approach might be worth considering though? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Feb 21, 2022 15:41:41 GMT
Trevor,
The Constitutional Convention would be after the GE; although it might make it to the manifesto.
Also, I think support from CLPs for PR should not be over-stated.
Much 'support' is for the idea of a review and agreeing the the current system can be unfair.
There was a coordinated campaign by pressure groups to get 'PR' on the agenda for conference and many CLPs went along with it absent any other motions to send.
The sense I get is that it is a priority for few but that we will get there in the end.
Also interesting that once a discussions starts support falls as the imperfections in the alternative systems get raised.
I suspect that this would occur if the UK had a referendum.
I think it might be like the Republican debate in Australia, less than half the people wanted to continue with the Queen as HoS but it was still the most popular option.
FPTP may well be in the UK when the time comes.
Personally, I think STV is the least flawed but can live with MMP.
I doubt most supporters of PR in the Labour Party know the difference, certainly was the experience in our CLP when the issue was raised.
Perhaps members in Scotland and Wales have a better idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Feb 21, 2022 15:46:43 GMT
BY the way that Labour List article is factually incorrect in 2 regards.
325 CLPs did not vote for PR - some may have done but mine, for example, voted to ask the commission to seek members views or some such.
We got included in that list as did many other CLPs who did the same.
Secondly, the Brown Commission was set up to buy time for the Scottish Question but had other matters included to make it less obviously so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 16:35:44 GMT
BY the way that Labour List article is factually incorrect in 2 regards. It did seem to put a very 'pro-PR' spin on what I thought you'd said before. Thank you for both your replies. No system is perfect and whilst I'd fully support reform for HoL, then I'm less keen on tinkering with HoC. FPTP is far from perfect but I'm not convinced other approaches would result in a 'better' govt (I prefer 'single party' outcomes as then you get what you vote for rather than some compromises in some form of coalition/other arrangement that you didn't vote for) although clearly certain approaches are 'better' for parties who would gain more MP seats (ie LDEM) and hence LAB might find the decision is somewhat forced upon them if the GE'24 MP 'maths' results in LDEM being 'kingmakers' It's tricky to run the numbers for so many hypothetical scenarios with different thresholds etc. Beyond SNP losing some Scottish seats you're into huge guesswork of how much tactical voting currently exists (eg I reckon Greens would probably get 10%ish (+6ish) in a PRish system and most of that would come from LAB) However, if you/anyone else has seen any hypothetical numbers from different scenarios then can you/they please post (ideally with the methodology contained to see if it is just a '1st order' estimate or whether unwinding of any tactical voting is included). CON effectively destroy and then swallow up the remains of anyone on the RoC side of the fence (a chunk of LDEM after 2010-15, UKIP after 2015, UKIP/BXP into/after GE'17 and 19). DUP during 2017-19 was a bit of an exception and the problem with 'devolved nation niches' is now larger due to SNP being so dominant in Scotland. As an ENAT then you know my views on the Scottish and NI 'questions' and at some point those questions will need to be asked and answered - by whom and with what wording TBC |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Feb 21, 2022 17:56:02 GMT
The big problem with FPTP is that the large majority will not get the Government they voted for or any say in the make up of the Government
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 19:01:16 GMT
The big problem with FPTP is that the large majority will not get the Government they voted for or any say in the make up of the Government Q: How many people vote for any form of post election 'coalition-C&S-agreement' that is almost always required in a PRish system: ZEROTo win as a single party with an OM in FPTP you have to win plurality of votes in majority of seats which is a lot more votes than zero |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Feb 21, 2022 19:35:08 GMT
PR type voting systems mean more people get more of what they want, not all of what they want of course.
FPTP means a minority get all of what they want. Although of course with the breaking of manifesto promises they may not even get that.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Feb 21, 2022 19:59:48 GMT
It's clogging up the main thread and I'm guilty of that so I'll kick off the Issue Specific thread for further discussion for those that want to. I'll use the two YG polls that somewhat contradict. Folks prefer 'single party' govt but also prefer PR (which is much less likely to generate a single party govt) Also from the YG poll Which of the following best reflects your view?
Coalition government is normally better than single- party government, as it is more inclusive and makes parties compromise and work together: 19%Single party government is normally better than coalition, as it provides a strong government that can get things done without having to do deals with other: 53%
So majority and net 34% prefer 'single party' to 'coalition' govt X-breaks I hear you ask? CON: 82% (net 74%) picked single party govt LAB: 49% (net 26%) also picked single party govt d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8n5qzx468z/TheTimes_Results_191104.pdfNot sure if anyone has posted any other actual polling but whilst the above actual polling shows folks prefer 'single party' govt it is worth a follow up with YG's tracker: Should we change our current British voting system?
PR, where the number of MPs parties win will more closely match their share of the vote: 42% FPTP, more likely to give one party an overall majority: 28% Not a majority but net 14% prefer PR and no surprises in the x-breaks (CON prefer FPTP by 52% to 25%) yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-systemPossible reasons for the difference? 1/ Salience. How big a priority is it for most people given the likely amount of political bandwidth changing the system would take up? I appreciate that it would be a huge priority for LDEM if they are given a 2nd chance to change the system to something that would benefit them. I'd prefer whichever party is in power focuses on more important issues myself. 2/ Wording. PR sounds nicer and fairer and folks have perhaps not considered the consequences (ie the result would more likely be coalitions/other form of agreement rather than single party govt). The tricky thing then being whether or not the small party(ies) propping up the big party are 'doormats' (LDEM 2010-15) or 'tail wagging the dog' (DUP 2017-19, although that backfired on them in the end and we ended up with a Cleaner Brexit for GB rather than BrINO for UK) Given what happened with the EU referendum, why would you expect public opinions as shown by polls to be rational and consistent? Your reason 2 is a fair summary of reality.
A more pertinent question is whether you would expect a change of electoral system to make any significant difference to the way the country is run and to our future prosperity. Ask yourself whether devolution has really made any difference.
|
|
