Anyone feel PR is now inevitable in the uk?
Discussion
Sorry to answer a question with a question but why would PR happen? Why would the 2 main parties agree to do that? It's not going to happen.
And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
I've always been a supporter of PR - and have always been skeptical of the way FPTP hands total control to a party with less than an actual majority of votes.
Why? Because it hands total control to one party, who can then dominate parliament. There's actually then often little need for MPs to actually vote on matters, as the party whip has already instructed them which way to vote. Which sort of makes the debates rather pointless too.
It also means we have to keep the lords - a FPTP system combined with a winner takes all model means an upper house to keep a lid on their power is essential. With PR it may even be possible to reform the lords.
When PR was being discussed and voted on the last time, the argument against it that I heard the most was that it would often lead to a "hung parliament" on a lot of issues - frankly I can't see that as a bad thing, because the lack of overall control by one party means they are forced to debate and amend things in order to get it through - and just because one particular party won't dominate overall doesn't mean that, spread out between all the parties, there wouldn't be enough votes to get a majority on all sorts of issues.
Why? Because it hands total control to one party, who can then dominate parliament. There's actually then often little need for MPs to actually vote on matters, as the party whip has already instructed them which way to vote. Which sort of makes the debates rather pointless too.
It also means we have to keep the lords - a FPTP system combined with a winner takes all model means an upper house to keep a lid on their power is essential. With PR it may even be possible to reform the lords.
When PR was being discussed and voted on the last time, the argument against it that I heard the most was that it would often lead to a "hung parliament" on a lot of issues - frankly I can't see that as a bad thing, because the lack of overall control by one party means they are forced to debate and amend things in order to get it through - and just because one particular party won't dominate overall doesn't mean that, spread out between all the parties, there wouldn't be enough votes to get a majority on all sorts of issues.
t I can't see it happening.
The only outside shot would be this outgoing Labour government deciding it's in their interest. I think that's unlikely unless they look like they might poll below the LibDems. It's certainly not in Reform's interest and there's nothing the Conservatives can do about it.
The only outside shot would be this outgoing Labour government deciding it's in their interest. I think that's unlikely unless they look like they might poll below the LibDems. It's certainly not in Reform's interest and there's nothing the Conservatives can do about it.
Bill said:
We had a vote and decided against IIRC. So that's settled...
No we didn't. I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
E63eeeeee... said:
No we didn't.
I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
2011. The LDs are unlikely to fall for that again.I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
Doofus said:
PR is only ever supported by those who didn't win, so no.
It would allow me to vote for a party that hasn't a chance, but not waste my vote because if they didn't win my second vote would go to someone who did have a chance. My own sister stood for Parliament some years ago in North Wales for the Liberal Democrats. Got nearly 800 votes. My mum didn't vote for her, because she wanted to stop plaid cymru getting in and the only way to do that was vote Labour. The difference between plaid and Labour was less than the LD vote. If all those voters has a second vote what would the outcome have been?
Yahonza said:
Sorry to answer a question with a question but why would PR happen? Why would the 2 main parties agree to do that? It's not going to happen.
And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
Why? Because labcon will get more seats than what is currently projected And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
Pit Pony said:
It would allow me to vote for a party that hasn't a chance, but not waste my vote because if they didn't win my second vote would go to someone who did have a chance.
My own sister stood for Parliament some years ago in North Wales for the Liberal Democrats. Got nearly 800 votes. My mum didn't vote for her, because she wanted to stop plaid cymru getting in and the only way to do that was vote Labour. The difference between plaid and Labour was less than the LD vote. If all those voters has a second vote what would the outcome have been?
? Isn't that STV, not PR?My own sister stood for Parliament some years ago in North Wales for the Liberal Democrats. Got nearly 800 votes. My mum didn't vote for her, because she wanted to stop plaid cymru getting in and the only way to do that was vote Labour. The difference between plaid and Labour was less than the LD vote. If all those voters has a second vote what would the outcome have been?
The Australian system I like - allows for constituencies, and produces centrist results (because you vote for who you really want, then for who you don't mind)
Bill said:
E63eeeeee... said:
No we didn't.
I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
2011. The LDs are unlikely to fall for that again.I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
budgie smuggler said:
The No To AV campaign was absolute scum. A picture of a baby crying with the tag "she needs an incubator, not a new voting system". The total cost was a couple of hundred million or something, absolutely peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
That campaign was Dominic Cummings’ dry run for Brexit. It was a stunning example of what can be achieved if you’re willing to embrace your inner Goebbels. The Brexit campaign was no less scummy.E63eeeeee... said:
Bill said:
We had a vote and decided against IIRC. So that's settled...
No we didn't. I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
I’ll have a substantial bet its less than 200
milesgiles said:
Yahonza said:
Sorry to answer a question with a question but why would PR happen? Why would the 2 main parties agree to do that? It's not going to happen.
And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
Why? Because labcon will get more seats than what is currently projected And - just to repeat from the other thread where I brought this up, extrapolating local authority results to general election projections is fanciful to say the least. The English LA results for Reform are pretty seismic though. The 2 party system / first past the post electoral system for Westminster is well out of date.
The only way it can happen realistically would be via a conditional coalition, as mentioned above, or the highly unlikely projection you have posted in the OP coming true, with Reform winning an overall majority.
milesgiles said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Bill said:
We had a vote and decided against IIRC. So that's settled...
No we didn't. I suspect the answer to the OP is also no.
There's no chance of Starmer unilaterally going for PR with a massive majority, why would he? The only plausible scenario would be either the Libdems or Reform making it a condition of a coalition or similar if 2029 is a hung parliament.
I’ll have a substantial bet its less than 200
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff