I strongly believe we need a new political system in the UK.

I'm not one who can claim to understand politics greatly. Can one someone explain what first past the post means in simple terms please?

I think it was Billy Bragg (of all people) who I think came up with a good solution.
Keep fptp (or winner take all as I prefer to call it) in the HoC. Use PR in the HoL. After each election, count all the votes and let parties appoint people to the HoL in proportion to what % of the votes they got. This could then be balanced across both houses so if the Greens (for example) got 20% of the votes, they would have 20% of the seats combined in both houses. So even if they only got one seat in the HoC (or none) over both houses, they would still have 20% of the seats. This would obviously mean clearing out the HoL each election as well.

I agree. I’d sooner leave things as they are.

The problem with the 2011 referendum was that it asked the wrong question and offered an alternative voting system that not even those that wanted an alternative liked. The question should have been far more open-ended - Are you satisfied with the current FPTP system? - and a No vote taken as the basis for a Royal Commission to investigate the options and present alternatives.

I'm strongly in favour of electoral reform and proportional representation. It would be an earthquake under UK politics though. I very much doubt either the Conservative or Labour parties could survive intact. Their built-in coalitions and factions would splinter. Both the UK electorate and UK politicians would have to deal with coalition governments based on communication, cooperation and compromise. Which would not be a bad thing given the usual bad temper, bickering, and childish antics the current FPTP arrangement encourages.

The system proposed in 2011 was a massive compromise. But PR systems all seem to fall into one of two categories - simple but awkward, or, complex but practical. My preferred choice is the German system which is simple but awkward. Simple in that you cast two votes, one for your constituency representative (so the local MP is always represents the constituency majority), and a second vote for the national party (which could be the same or different to your choice of MP). The complex bit is the maths to make this work and the number of MPs in parliament is not fixed.

Wouldn’t this make it more likely parties like Reform would get seats?

If that’s who a proportion of the population want to represent them then that’s what they should get. It’s democratic. Just because you don’t like a party doesn’t mean they shouldn’t represent those that do.

Now we’re in the ridiculous situation where the government represent the choice of a minority of voters. Most voters voted for someone other than the current government. It’s absolutely absurd.

(Edit: ps I’m not a Reform supporter!)

First past the Post is undemocratic and always has been. Very often more people vote against the winning candidate then for. That cannot be right.

First past the post is deeply flawed but PR is also deeply flawed in other ways. So is every other alternative. Perfect and fkawless political systems do not exist.

Minority parties campaign for PR because PR gives them disproportionate power when the support for the two main parties is evenly balanced. If Red have 295 seats and Blue have 300 or 290 seats then an obscure party with 6 members of parliament can wield enormous power.

Closed list PR means that party croneys can be sure of keeping their seats even if the public hates them, and mavericks who are regularly balancing on the line between staying in the party and making a difference vs being booted out for disobedience can be demoted down the list and lose their seat even if the people like them.

There are many other models of government whivh all have their flaws but it would be foolish to make major changes while the level of education and engagement with politics among the general population is so low. Much better to pushfor more efforts to increase political education and engagement first because with current levels any major change would be siezed on by a canny operator who spots an opportunity to exploit the inherent flaws in whatever new system gets adopted.

Interestingly, when we had the chance in a referendum to vote for a more proportional (admittedly not perfect) system, nobody cared and nobody voted for it.

There are some exceptions but there is a dearth of talent in the people who go into politics. I work with some very educated, brilliant, professionals and not one of them would touch politics with a bargepole. Not worth the hassle, and the death threats, and the work/life balance (or lack of one). The genuinely sensible politicians are sidelined by lightweight populists; the tone of political debate rarely gets beyond name-calling and shit-stiring because hey, if someone disagrees with you, they must be scum or evil, mustn’t they?

We ultimately get the politicians we deserve. The spoiled ballot paper crew and those not voting because there’s no-one who exactly fits their views, need to reflect. Vote for the least worst option, no-one gives a shit that you wrote “none of the above” on the ballot. Literally no-one. Have an actual say in who gets elected, even if they aren’t the dream ticket.

What actually constitutes "the rich". And exactly how are big corporations, most of which are not based in the UK, using Putins' invasion of the Ukraine against the people of this country ?.

We have PR in Scotland and it's delivers exactly the same thing.

The SNP have been in government since 2007 without a majority a voters supporting them.

They've committed crimes, destroyed the NHS, moved Scotland to the bottom of every league table. Yet PR props them up every single time.

And

I the UK we already had a referendum on PR and the country voted No.

I'd vote to ditch PR in Scotland and return to FPTP

PR would have us veering very sharply to the far right.
That's not something that I want.

Agreed. Fist past the post is not the ideal system. Here in Scotland we have a form of proportional representation. Trust me the idea is good but the last 13 years have seen a one party state and recently a minority government propped up by the Green patty. This has lead to a concentration of laws which are unpopular, hard to enforce and challenged by all. It is likely to see a great reduction on the SNP presence at Westminster and probably a similar effect at the next Holyrood election.

Pr should and can dilute the gargantuan power if the big parties. The problem is a presumption that the wee parties will add some sense to the mixture. The example of the Greens in Scotland suggest otherwise.

There’s a couple of points coming to mind.
Surely a PR type system requires mandatory voting?
Otherwise the representation part isn’t wholly accurate.

FPTP has clarity, both at the constituency level and at the government level.

'The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. It’s always been this way.'

It has not always been this way. We have had periods in very recent history were the wealth gap has closed rather than widened.

I actually think we need global cooperation on some of this. Its not right we have CEOs in space while their workers, creating all their wealth are in receipt of tax payer hand outs because they can't afford to feed their children. We need a global wealth tax so billionaires can't just move money to escape it.
Never going to happen though, countries seem locked into a race to the bottom and the only winners are the super rich.

I suspect if the Tories do as badly as predicted we'll be getting PR soon.

Vote for one of the parties that are proposing a move to proportional representation. The change in our democratic process is more important than any party’s policies when they’ll likely only be in power for 5 years anyway. FPTP DOES NOT WORK

I voted yesto reform in the 2011 referendum, not necessarily because I really liked the proposed system but to keep the debate open. My constituency was one of four in the whole country that voted in favour. 🫠

I think a major part of the problem is voter apathy. If young people voted more they woukd get more representation. If we didn't have people who were almost proud to not vote ' because there all the same' as if that is a profound statement they have made after reading all the manifestos we would have far more representation. We may also have a variety of MP's from different parties, more Green MP's ( even though I dislike what they have become) People need to see voting as a civic duty.

I accept that FPTP is less than ideal. I have lived in constituencies where my vote doesn't "count". But the alternative would open the door to the likes of far right parties like Reform. I'd rather stick to what we've got than go down that route, personally.

There is nothing to stop parties from working together under FPTP to get a more representative parliament, but I'm not interested in having a parliament full of fringe parties and single issue MPs.

You are absolutely right OP.
The problem I see is that the unfairness of the wealth distribution is an international issue. UK government can implement measures to protect UK citizens, but for it to work effectively, the international arena needs to address it and push for money to be put back at the bottom of the graph. Which I think will happen, if we can find strong inspiring leaders to take the government.
I am hoping that once the tories are gone, we start getting the political standards off the ground and getting some leadership and real politics back.

FPtP is unfair and undemocratic. We need more proportional representation to allow all people to have a meaningful vote and stop the awful two party politics we currently have.

MPs would be forced to work together and any extreme views that may garner more seats than currently would be smoothed and held to account. Unpopular opinions and votes are still valid opinions and votes

No way, the thought of extreme left& right parties and religious ones getting seats, makes my hair curl. How can you expect anything to get done, when there all coming out with some crackpot ideas and not agreeing on anything unless their policies are agreed too.

Although in principle I am in favour of PR, I have lived in a country hat had this, and in practice it can mean ending up with an unstable coalition of a major plus several minor parties.

A major party leader who is desperate to stay in power can form a coalition with other single issue parties and be held to ransom by them, because otherwise they could just withdraw support and topple the government.

It also means that an election could be held and yet a coalition can't be formed. And that when a coalition is formed, decision making is strangled by the coalition so there is no progress.

Yes. We need a change to proportional representation - mixed member proportional or standard transferable vote. NZ managed the switch 30 odd years ago. It had a massive publicity campaign - wall to wall tv coverage - until even the most apathetic or hard of thinking could grasp the options. MMP isn’t perfect but it is much more democratic than the current system..

I think, if it's too much of a trauma to have PR we should at least have a House of Lords elected on party list- so one election ( because voters are so apathetic who knows who will vote twice) then the commons elected on fptp but the Lords elected by party list according to share of the vote. I have been up since 4am though and I've just thought of this system, so I'm open to it having multiple flaws!