Likely breakdown of seats under a PR system

[claig]

We are very likely to get some form of real proportional representation in the coming years. The Establishment is unlikely to be able to prevent it after the large percentage of the population that votes UKIP and Green resulting in so few seats for those parties.

When it comes in our national politics will be completely transformed. In future all party leaders will be desperate to appear in debates as safe seat majorities will decline in number.

Here is what the Telegraph says would be the likely breakdown of seats under a PR voting system.

"Campaign Calculus: Under PR, Ukip would have 99 seats and the Greens could be kingmakers"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11491399/Campaign-Calculus-Under-PR-Ukip-would-have-99-seats-and-the-Greens-could-be-kingmakers.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM7411&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_03_24&utm_campaign=DM7411

The people's insurgency continues!

[PrincessOfChina]

I don't believe we will now see proportional representation in our lifetime.

Neither Labour nor the Tories are backers and will not implement. The Lib Dem's had their chance with the referendum and it failed largely due to voter ignorance

[claig]

Princess, the system is so unfair because about 34% and rising of the population does no vote for the two main Establishment parties with their all in it together Oxbridge leadership.

If the people's voice is not listened to, people will just turn off politics in their droves. Millions of voters are unlikely to just go back to voting for TweedleDee and TweedleDum ever again, especially now that Farage is on the political scene and available as a choice.

[meditrina]

It's only 4 years since the AV (PR lite?) referendum, where 2/3 of those who voted said 'no', so I disagree with the premise that it's on it's way.

But if it happened, as things stand now, there would already be BNP and UKIP MPs.

[claig]

The voices for PR are beginning to grow. The elite Oxbridge set will probably try to kick it in the long grass with one of their endless commissions etc but the whole populace will be murmuring that it is a farce and the Establishment will probably panic as their credibility declines even further and the Greens and UKIP and the LibDems demand change.

"Labour must embrace Proportional Representation

Britain no longer has a natural party of government. Yesterdays Ashcroft poll giving Labour and the Tories a combined vote share of 59% is an all time record low for the two main parties."

labourlist.org/2014/10/labour-must-embrace-proportional-representation/

[claig]

'It's only 4 years since the AV (PR lite?) referendum, where 2/3 of those who voted said 'no', so I disagree with the premise that it's on it's way.'

But do you think the Establishment can just sit back and ignore the result of the polls and not put forward another vote on the matter? And if it does put it up for another vote then the vast majority of Green, LibDem and UKIP voters are likely to vote for it as they will probably feel cheated by the number of seats they gained under FPTP.

[meditrina]

Yes, I think they can. Especially as the 'voices' are so far away from the mainstream that they are barely perceptible.

[AuntieStella]

If there had been PR in 2010, Parliament would have looked much like this (obvs some variation depending on exact type of PR)

Conservatives 248 seats
Labour 199 seats
Lib Dems 158 seats
UK Independence Party 21 seats
British National Party 13 seats
Scottish National Party 12 seats

I can't see the Greens voting for their extinction. Not to mention the other smaller parties, esp in Wales and NI.

[claig]

"The reaction of the orthodox political class, as their power has slipped away, has been to grip the old levers even tighter. And their grip, up until now, was sealed by our first past the post-electoral system. This meant that what power remained in the system could be attained by targeting all your efforts on a few swing voters in a few swing seats while ignoring the rest. Because the rest had nowhere else to go.

But so dismal and disconnected has our politics become that anything is now better than voting for the status quo for millions of people. Staying at home is better than what’s on offer. Voting Green, UKIP or SNP is better than what’s offer. Inventing your own party like Save the NHS or Yorkshire First is better than what’s on offer. And the more the system splinters the less workable the old two party duopoly becomes. And so the spiral of decline continues and will do so until we change not just the politicians but the system itself."

labourlist.org/2014/10/labour-must-embrace-proportional-representation/

Democracy is about the people, it is not their for the benefit of a handful of privileged Etonians and Oxbridge graduates promoted by an out of touch elite. I don't think they can stop the people's will however much they try.

It is not just Farage who has cried "the Emperor has no clothes", it is nearly everybody and they are laughing, jeering and booing just as the OAPs did when Cameron addressed them as they cried "rubbish", "lies", "answer the question".

The decline of the elite has been dramatic, trust has deterirorated dramatically, all the King's Oxbridge horses and all the King's Etonian men won't be able to put it back together again.

[claig]

'If there had been PR in 2010, Parliament would have looked much like this'

Yes, but look how much it has changed in just 5 short years. There has been an earthquake caused by a people's insurgency. The people are not amused and even Boris Johnson, the arch joker, won't be able to save the Tories longterm.

[claig]

"The arguments against proportional representation have melted away

First Past the Post was designed for a previous era. We must change all of our politics - but the voting system first.

Close your eyes and imagine a democratic dystopia in which no one gets what they want. Now open them. Welcome to the politics of Britain in 2015."

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/neal-lawson/arguments-against-proportional-representation-have-melted-away

This is the biggest crisis the Etsablishment have faced in our lifetimes.

All the think tanks and Oxbridge bigwigs must have been tasked with coming up with a solution. And yet here is a report by some learned people saying essentially that the crisis is not that big.

"Conclusion: Is there a crisis of democracy in Britain?

On certain measures, Britain does, indeed, appear to be facing something of a crisis in its political system. Levels of trust in government and confidence in the political system are lower than they were little more than a decade ago. Electoral turnout has fallen sharply, most noticeably at the 2001
general election. Meanwhile, the introduction of new political institutions since 1997, designed in part to restore people’s trust and confidence, appears to have had little impact.

On the other hand, people do not seem more disengaged from the political system. Participation outside the ballot box has increased somewhat over the last fifteen or so years.
...
These conclusions suggest that the remedies for any ‘crisis’ largely lie in the hands of politicians themselves. Trust is acquired when words and actions accord with one another. And only a closely fought and clear competition between the parties appears to prompt many citizens to cast their vote. Meanwhile constitutional change should not be regarded as a quick fix. British democracy—and especially its politicians—certainly face a ‘challenge’. But talk of a ‘crisis’ is premature."

www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/112.pdf

This is dreaming, avoiding facing reality. Of course people care about politics - that is why the OAPs shouted at Cameron "answer the question", "rubbish" and "lies", but that shows how dissatisfied people are with our leadership.

The report above concludes

"These conclusions suggest that the remedies for any ‘crisis’ largely lie in the hands of politicians themselves."

Laughable. Left in the hands of the home flippers and bath plug claimants? The solution should be placed in the hands of the people via proportional representation,local democracy and direct democracy, not left to the out of touch elite political class.

[claig]

Katie Ghose is the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society and she writes in today's Telegraph in favour of changng our voting system.

"Voting Ukip? Our electoral system doesn’t want to know

Britain's 'first past the post' voting system will practically disenfranchise one in five people this May. It must be reformed
...
People want to see multiple voices competing for their votes. Having more parties at the top table would lead to greater transparency and scrutiny, not least when it comes to power-sharing deals.

But our electoral system isn’t designed to handle that. It’s holding us back – and turning people off democracy. It’s time we changed it so that Parliament truly reflects the voice of the British people."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11496173/Voting-Ukip-Our-electoral-system-doesnt-want-to-know.html

[MonstrousRatbag]

I could not accept any PR system that didn't have a threshold parties had to surmount to get any seats at all. That's the system in Germany-less than 5%? No seats! I think it works well. It excludes the truly fringe and avoids an outcome where there could be quite a few single MPs from odd or extremist parties who would never compromise or negotiate on anything.

[claig]

Yes, I think some level of threshhold makes sense.

[STIDW]

Nothing wrong with PR, it is used here for Scottish Parliamentary elections. I suspect it is only a matter of time before PR is introduced to other parts of the UK. However as the British Social Attitudes Report and You Gov found supporters of UKIP are predominately older I think by then it is likely the support will dwindle.

[Want2bSupermum]

I think we first need to cut down on the number of MPs. No need for so many of them!

[Toadinthehole]

PR as a system is wrong, because it removes the ability of voters to choose the individuals that collectively make the laws. Instead, it forces a delegation of that choice to back room party goons.

It also makes commits the fallacy that the only fair result is that seats should be distributed according to party vote. In fact, the fallacy is contained in the term "PR". It should be "PPR", or "party proportional represntation. The whole thing is a nonsense. There are MPs up and down the country who gain and hold their seats because of their personal vote.

AV was a perfectly sensible option, and it should have been taken. It's wrong to describe it as "PR-lite". It isn't PR at all. What AV means is that whichever candidate wins a constituency must have the support of at least 50% of voters.

No one ever really thought what adopting PR would have meant to British politics. It was vaguely thought that it would entrench the Lib Dems. Actually no - it would have made them more vulnerable to UKIP and the Greens than they are now, even if they had kept more support. This is because their supporters could have deserted them for those two parties, perhaps voting for one of the big two as a second choice. As it is, the Greens will win 1 seat, UKIP win 3, and the Lib Dems win 20+ leaving them able to fight another day with a new leader. It would also have made the Tories very vulnerable across their heartlands across the south of England, where they tend to hold most of the seats on a vote of only around 40%.

[Seeker33]

Yes Claig, if Coalition become too much of a mess; we could give PR a run within the next 10 years

I am not a Liberal, but the Liberals once had 6 million votes for very few seats (FPTP)

Big 7 on TV tonight, I dont envy Julie Etchingham

[JackSkellington]

I would prefer PR, seems fairer to me.

[claig]

'Big 7 on TV tonight'

Yes, looking forward to it. Unforunately Cameron has spoilt it for us by making sure that time is limited for the opposition parties. But still better than nothing.

'PR as a system is wrong, because it removes the ability of voters to choose the individuals that collectively make the laws. Instead, it forces a delegation of that choice to back room party goons.

I think the "individual" thing is overhyped. The majority of people vote for parties and their policies and philosohy, not for Fred Bloggs. In reality, Fred Bloggs is whipped to do as the party bigwigs want in most cases. One individual going against the whips makes no difference to major policies.

I never voted Conservative because of candidate Fred Bloggs and in 1997 I didn't vote Labour because of Freda bloggs, I voted based on party policies.

If you really want a George Galloway individual to win, he can still do so under PR if he wins enough votes.

PR would show us and the elite what the people really think and who they really want. It will shake up the whole system, eliminate the safe seats and make politicians fight for the public vote and make them listen to and serve the people.

With recall, the public can always get rid of a really useless MP.

[Toadinthehole]

I live in NZ, which has PR. All it has really done is create a class of MPs who have no constituents to answer to.

Given that most UK politicians are out of touch anyway, PR would be a disaster there.

In the UK one votes for a candidate. One cannot vote for a "party". This is a very good thing.