Sir Ed Davey - Lib. Dem Leader
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
It's a question of degrees, not absolutes. As I already said, I'm sure it does 'work'. I'm just not persuaded it will 'work better'. There are upsides, and downsides.
I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
I assume like many you have zero knowledge of Belgium politics. If you did you would understand why this occurred. However, how about all the other countries that operate a PR system. Many do take a few days to form a new government but it's likely the government will represent at least 50% of voters. I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
The UK was discribed to me as a ship with two captains. One always steers starboard and the other port. Every five years the captain is changed. The result if the ship never goes any where.
2xChevrons said:
SpeckledJim said:
Plenty of rather unfair dog-whistles in there!
Apologies if I am being unfair, but just laying it out as it comes across - I would take a more directly representative but 'weak' government over a less representative 'strong' one. I'd take a representative and strong government, but a) that's not likely to happen unless the electorate is unnaturally unified in its political views and b) 'strong government' (maybe, more accurately, powerful government) isn't something I'm very keen on as a point of principle. Your main concern about PR seems to be the loss of government strength (ability to enforce a programme) and stability. But if a PR system delivered a government with, say, 80% of the votes then it deserves all the parliamentary power that comes with it. The issue with FPTP in the UK is that you can wield virtually unlimited legislative power with a minority of the votes, or even when your main opponent got more votes than you. 
I'm on-board with the principles. We're all democrats in this conversation. But I anticipate practical problems. If the government is composed of parties representing 80% of the people, then that's a massive spread of opinion in the room. It'll rightly have lots of power, but it won't be able to agree on how to direct it.
Parties C & D will have a huge die-on-a-hill falling-out over Policy 6 and that'll stop Parties A, B, & C, who for once agree about Policy 3 getting it actually agreed and done. Time passes. More time passes.
Or if one of the parties has a dominant say-so, then it'll steam-roller the others and it won't matter whether they're nominally in government or actually in opposition, except their supporters will get to witness them standing at lecturns backing things they don't believe in.
SpeckledJim said:
It's a question of degrees, not absolutes. As I already said, I'm sure it does 'work'. I'm just not persuaded it will 'work better'. There are upsides, and downsides.
I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
Belgium, like NI, two very different tribes forced together. I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
SpeckledJim said:
No problem.
I'm on-board with the principles. We're all democrats in this conversation. But I anticipate practical problems. If the government is composed of parties representing 80% of the people, then that's a massive spread of opinion in the room. It'll rightly have lots of power, but it won't be able to agree on how to direct it.
Parties C & D will have a huge die-on-a-hill falling-out over Policy 6 and that'll stop Parties A, B, & C, who for once agree about Policy 3 getting it actually agreed and done. Time passes. More time passes.
Or if one of the parties has a dominant say-so, then it'll steam-roller the others and it won't matter whether they're nominally in government or actually in opposition, except their supporters will get to witness them standing at lecturns backing things they don't believe in.
Bad phrasing on my part - I meant (as per my "unnaturally unified electorate" comment a couple of sentences before) that in PR there's nothing stopping a strong stable government. One party could get 80% of the votes and hold virtually unchallenged parliamentary power, just like a majority government under UK FPTP does. The difference being that under PR that party would have the direct backing of an overwhelming majority of the voters, unlike our present system where Tony Blair was able to get similar power with just 35% of the vote. I'm on-board with the principles. We're all democrats in this conversation. But I anticipate practical problems. If the government is composed of parties representing 80% of the people, then that's a massive spread of opinion in the room. It'll rightly have lots of power, but it won't be able to agree on how to direct it.
Parties C & D will have a huge die-on-a-hill falling-out over Policy 6 and that'll stop Parties A, B, & C, who for once agree about Policy 3 getting it actually agreed and done. Time passes. More time passes.
Or if one of the parties has a dominant say-so, then it'll steam-roller the others and it won't matter whether they're nominally in government or actually in opposition, except their supporters will get to witness them standing at lecturns backing things they don't believe in.
And I can't fault the logic of your foreseen problem...except that it generally doesn't seem to exist (or, if it does, to be as problematic as you suppose) in the many countries that use PR systems. We're not continually hearing about our peer nations across the Channel having governing coalitions collapse, legislative programmes disrupted and party leaders disgraced due to PR. They seem to function - as political systems and as nations - perfectly well. Better than we do, much of the time, I would argue.
Fascinating discussion being had and has prompted me to investigate how Germany operate...
''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
German elections take place every four years. Each voter in Germany gets two votes. The first vote is a direct vote for a constituency MP. This determines 299 parliamentary seats, with MPs being the candidates with overall majorities in the 299 German constituencies.
The second vote is from a party list. Voters choose which party they want to vote for. The remaining 299 MPs are determined by the overall share of votes. MPs elected via the first vote are taken into consideration. So, for example, if a party’s share of the second vote gives them 12 MPs and they win 9 constituency seats through the first vote, they can fill the remaining 3 seats with their top candidates from a pre-published list.
In addition to this, there are currently 111 overhang or so-called balance seats. This is to redress any imbalances where a party’s overall share of the vote entitles them to fewer MPs than they won directly through the first vote. For example, if a party has 10 candidates that win in individual constituencies through the first vote but they only win 8 MPs in total through second vote PR, they get two overhang seats to ensure that they have the minimum number of directly elected MPs.
To prevent too much fragmentation and too many smaller splinter parties from entering parliament, each party must win at least 5% of the vote to gain a parliamentary seat.''
From here...
https://www.expatica.com/de/living/gov-law-admin/g...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
German elections take place every four years. Each voter in Germany gets two votes. The first vote is a direct vote for a constituency MP. This determines 299 parliamentary seats, with MPs being the candidates with overall majorities in the 299 German constituencies.
The second vote is from a party list. Voters choose which party they want to vote for. The remaining 299 MPs are determined by the overall share of votes. MPs elected via the first vote are taken into consideration. So, for example, if a party’s share of the second vote gives them 12 MPs and they win 9 constituency seats through the first vote, they can fill the remaining 3 seats with their top candidates from a pre-published list.
In addition to this, there are currently 111 overhang or so-called balance seats. This is to redress any imbalances where a party’s overall share of the vote entitles them to fewer MPs than they won directly through the first vote. For example, if a party has 10 candidates that win in individual constituencies through the first vote but they only win 8 MPs in total through second vote PR, they get two overhang seats to ensure that they have the minimum number of directly elected MPs.
To prevent too much fragmentation and too many smaller splinter parties from entering parliament, each party must win at least 5% of the vote to gain a parliamentary seat.''
From here...
https://www.expatica.com/de/living/gov-law-admin/g...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
pequod said:
Fascinating discussion being had and has prompted me to investigate how Germany operate...
''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
German elections take place every four years. Each voter in Germany gets two votes. The first vote is a direct vote for a constituency MP. This determines 299 parliamentary seats, with MPs being the candidates with overall majorities in the 299 German constituencies.
The second vote is from a party list. Voters choose which party they want to vote for. The remaining 299 MPs are determined by the overall share of votes. MPs elected via the first vote are taken into consideration. So, for example, if a party’s share of the second vote gives them 12 MPs and they win 9 constituency seats through the first vote, they can fill the remaining 3 seats with their top candidates from a pre-published list.
In addition to this, there are currently 111 overhang or so-called balance seats. This is to redress any imbalances where a party’s overall share of the vote entitles them to fewer MPs than they won directly through the first vote. For example, if a party has 10 candidates that win in individual constituencies through the first vote but they only win 8 MPs in total through second vote PR, they get two overhang seats to ensure that they have the minimum number of directly elected MPs.
To prevent too much fragmentation and too many smaller splinter parties from entering parliament, each party must win at least 5% of the vote to gain a parliamentary seat.''
From here...
https://www.expatica.com/de/living/gov-law-admin/g...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
Similar to New Zealand ''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
German elections take place every four years. Each voter in Germany gets two votes. The first vote is a direct vote for a constituency MP. This determines 299 parliamentary seats, with MPs being the candidates with overall majorities in the 299 German constituencies.
The second vote is from a party list. Voters choose which party they want to vote for. The remaining 299 MPs are determined by the overall share of votes. MPs elected via the first vote are taken into consideration. So, for example, if a party’s share of the second vote gives them 12 MPs and they win 9 constituency seats through the first vote, they can fill the remaining 3 seats with their top candidates from a pre-published list.
In addition to this, there are currently 111 overhang or so-called balance seats. This is to redress any imbalances where a party’s overall share of the vote entitles them to fewer MPs than they won directly through the first vote. For example, if a party has 10 candidates that win in individual constituencies through the first vote but they only win 8 MPs in total through second vote PR, they get two overhang seats to ensure that they have the minimum number of directly elected MPs.
To prevent too much fragmentation and too many smaller splinter parties from entering parliament, each party must win at least 5% of the vote to gain a parliamentary seat.''
From here...
https://www.expatica.com/de/living/gov-law-admin/g...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
pequod said:
Fascinating discussion being had and has prompted me to investigate how Germany operate...
''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
I make no bones about being a big fan of the entire German system (political, social, economic) and that includes their way of going about elections. ''Germany uses an Additional Member System (AMS) to elect its Bundestag MPs. Essentially, this is a mix of First Past The Post (FPTP) that the UK uses and proportional representation (PR).
...
The statement I highlighted is key in preventing 'extremists' getting voted into Parliament and their system being a mixture of FPTP and PR plus a so-called balance seats is something we might consider as a option to our FPTP system. Maybe this is something our electorate could support?
It's particularly appealing in that it maintains the constituency link, which is not inherent to FPTP but much easier to incorporate into an FPTP system but hard to to do in a pure PR system where the geography of votes is more abstracted. Hence, in the German case, an FPTP system for constituencies in parallel with a PR one to determine the further distribution of representatives.
The 5% threshold is there for unfortunate (but obvious) historical reasons in Germany. The Weimar republic used PR with no (or very low, I can't remember now) thresholds which allowed for extremist parties to enter the Reichstag and led to a proliferation of extremist, single-issue and factional parties. Governing coalitions had to be stitched together from dozens of small parties, which elevated fringe politicians with very small electoral bases to prominent government ministerial or representative positions, giving them both platforms and legitimacy beyond what they deserved. It also meant that one or two single representatives could withdraw support and break the coalition, enabling them to wield disproportionate legislative power.
These are all potential issues with PR, as raised by SpeckledJim.
In the Weimar Republic's case, they were backed by a flawed constitution that enabled the Nazis to seize power and dismantle democracy from within once they had that initial toehold. That's a case for constitutional politics, not necessarily against PR.
Ironic, innit, that we, the UK and our allies, essentially built a far superior system for Germany (political and social - including education etc) after WWII, and yet we, the UK, left our own constitution to take its chances with the future, because of British exceptionalism mainly. Fools.
Hey ho.
Hey ho.
Bannock said:
Ironic, innit, that we, the UK and our allies, essentially built a far superior system for Germany (political and social - including education etc) after WWII, and yet we, the UK, left our own constitution to take its chances with the future, because of British exceptionalism mainly. Fools.
Hey ho.
It has been noted many times....Hey ho.
"It couldn't work here", though, is the refrain.
British exceptionalism indeed.
SpeckledJim said:
No problem.
I'm on-board with the principles. We're all democrats in this conversation. But I anticipate practical problems. If the government is composed of parties representing 80% of the people, then that's a massive spread of opinion in the room. It'll rightly have lots of power, but it won't be able to agree on how to direct it.
Parties C & D will have a huge die-on-a-hill falling-out over Policy 6 and that'll stop Parties A, B, & C, who for once agree about Policy 3 getting it actually agreed and done. Time passes. More time passes.
Or if one of the parties has a dominant say-so, then it'll steam-roller the others and it won't matter whether they're nominally in government or actually in opposition, except their supporters will get to witness them standing at lecturns backing things they don't believe in.
You say this as if this isn't already happening in the UK. It is, it's just made opaque because in theory there are 2 or 3 parties.I'm on-board with the principles. We're all democrats in this conversation. But I anticipate practical problems. If the government is composed of parties representing 80% of the people, then that's a massive spread of opinion in the room. It'll rightly have lots of power, but it won't be able to agree on how to direct it.
Parties C & D will have a huge die-on-a-hill falling-out over Policy 6 and that'll stop Parties A, B, & C, who for once agree about Policy 3 getting it actually agreed and done. Time passes. More time passes.
Or if one of the parties has a dominant say-so, then it'll steam-roller the others and it won't matter whether they're nominally in government or actually in opposition, except their supporters will get to witness them standing at lecturns backing things they don't believe in.
None of them are ideologically unified.
gregs656 said:
You say this as if this isn't already happening in the UK. It is, it's just made opaque because in theory there are 2 or 3 parties.
None of them are ideologically unified.
But internally each party has systems of command and control (and coercion and blackmail). Once you're in coalition with The Nutter Party, and The Party of Nutters, and The Nutt Case, and The People's Nutters Front, you've handed each of them permission to say 'if you don't agree that we all paint our bottoms blue on Thursdays, then we're off to the beach and you can't pass the Budget.' Which is sort-of how Arlene Foster extorted £1bn (of our money) from Theresa MayNone of them are ideologically unified.
Any one of your own nutter MPs, if you've been careless enough to have any, can also say that, but you can then hit them with your party disciplinary machine and they're toast at the next cycle, or before.
SpeckledJim said:
But internally each party has systems of command and control (and coercion and blackmail). Once you're in coalition with The Nutter Party, and The Party of Nutters, and The Nutt Case, and The People's Nutters Front, you've handed each of them permission to say 'if you don't agree that we all paint our bottoms blue on Thursdays, then we're off to the beach and you can't pass the Budget.' Which is sort-of how Arlene Foster extorted £1bn (of our money) from Theresa May
Any one of your own nutter MPs, if you've been careless enough to have any, can also say that, but you can then hit them with your party disciplinary machine and they're toast at the next cycle, or before.
I think you’re over egging it to be honest. Any one of your own nutter MPs, if you've been careless enough to have any, can also say that, but you can then hit them with your party disciplinary machine and they're toast at the next cycle, or before.
And underplaying the other side, all the parties are pulled ideologically in different directions but for the most part put up with the factions because they need all the factions to win elections so people keep their seats.
I wondered why the LibDems never mention anything other than PR, including the German/Kiwi (et al) mode as was previously mentioned, which would appear to be a fairer system of selecting MP's, so I had a further excavation of the matter!
Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
pequod said:
I wondered why the LibDems never mention anything other than PR, including the German/Kiwi (et al) mode as was previously mentioned, which would appear to be a fairer system of selecting MP's, so I had a further excavation of the matter!
Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Labour may suffer the most, but Labour have been almost perpetually in opposition, other than (mostly!) under Blair anyway. Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
MC Bodge said:
pequod said:
I wondered why the LibDems never mention anything other than PR, including the German/Kiwi (et al) mode as was previously mentioned, which would appear to be a fairer system of selecting MP's, so I had a further excavation of the matter!
Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Labour may suffer the most, but Labour have been almost perpetually in opposition, other than (mostly!) under Blair anyway. Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Quelle surprise!!!
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
glazbagun said:
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
Remember, they got elected under the relatively damp and boring Tory banner. When they can cut loose and really be themselves under PR the nutter voters will go berserk for the Champions League Nutters on offer.
2xChevrons said:
I'd take "it won't work any better, but will be more democratic", thanks. Even if I actually believe it would provide better outcomes. Personally I'd also take the occasional political ding-dong over a system that perpetually produces strong governments that most of the electorate didn't vote for.
+1I've had quite a few chats with non-Tory voters and they quite liked the Tory-LD
coalition.
At very least, it prevented the more extreme Tory policies being enacted and brought
a wider group to the table to sort out what's right.
Getting the politicos to sit around a table and make them reach a consensus
seems a better way to go. Certainly helps keep the politicos out of running the
country, which is mostly a good thing.
NB Belgium ran quite happily for years without a functioning government, as a few posters have noticed.
pequod said:
MC Bodge said:
pequod said:
I wondered why the LibDems never mention anything other than PR, including the German/Kiwi (et al) mode as was previously mentioned, which would appear to be a fairer system of selecting MP's, so I had a further excavation of the matter!
Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Labour may suffer the most, but Labour have been almost perpetually in opposition, other than (mostly!) under Blair anyway. Lo and behold, it will be Labour who will suffer the most ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep...
The ambition is to be applauded, yet, if they expect the 'probable' next Govt to change the system, then they are barking mad and are simply a Party of protest.
Shame really.
Quelle surprise!!!
SpeckledJim said:
glazbagun said:
SpeckledJim said:
JagLover said:
OutInTheShed said:
The LDs like the sound of PR because they think it would make them very powerful.
What they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
YepWhat they don't realise is that if we had PR, a) people would vote differently and b) wannabe politicians would have a wider choice of party to join.
FPTP entrenches the old establishment parties.
Remember, they got elected under the relatively damp and boring Tory banner. When they can cut loose and really be themselves under PR the nutter voters will go berserk for the Champions League Nutters on offer.
precisely this. The Tory party has always been an absurdly broad church, but if we had PR, the factions would simply coalesce into smaller parties. Same with the Labour factions. It would be chaos. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff