Should the Tories and Labour agree to implement PR to stop Farage becoming PM in the next election?

Probably as Farage is a snake oil salesman and Reform are a far right 'party', that will sell the NHS in a heartbeat. They claim to lower taxes for millionaires, have no belief in the welfare state, and the majority of their MPs/representatives are idiotic clowns. Their idea of repairing public services is throwing them away. I'm sick enough of the existing partial sell off of health care to private interests. I can barely afford dental care, and I sure as hell can't afford to fix my body when it eventually goes to complete shit. And as for the bogey man of immigration, that's the least of Britain's problems - just a bullshit scapegoat. The best British people I know are first and second generation immigrants. And Brexit has been nothing but a disaster. Plus they'll be a disaster for the environment as they are pro-fracking and oil drilling. They don't have any respect for our geographical island. They'll just sell out the UK and normal working people will be even worse off.

It will probably allow the stupid people to vote him in. Reform are the British magas.
Ignorance and hate is what drives them, not the love of country.
Labour have totally screwed up. They should tax the elite, not the people struggling through hard times.

@Tomatotater Only in some forms of PR vote systems. There’s quite a few to choose from. Our issue is wanting constituency MPs and not wanting huge constituencies. So we have traditionally liked FPTP as it delivers this. We don’t get seats allied to votes because we like a stable government and not horse trading a coalition entails. We know, generally, how we stand after voting.

My LA now has 4 Reform seats out of 97. The big swing is to Lib Dems and independents. So Reform isn’t making huge inroads in this SE home counties LA. I was really surprised it wasn’t a bigger number.

I traditionally vote Labour but I'm actually happy for Reform to have a go. Life for working people has been fucking shit for the past decade or so.
I don't trust any of the main parties to improve it anymore. I certainly don't trust any of them to tackle immigration. Labour in particular has wandered so far away from it's traditional line in this regard.

So why not?

Exactly. Its absolutely ridiculous! If they had an election this year, then the councils were abolished and we had to have another election next year, it would be a humungous waste of time and money. I wonder how many people complaining about their vote being taken away have voted in their local government elections, because the turnout is sometimes 25%!

The thing is with FPTP the reason it is unfair is that it doesn't matter what your share of the vote is. If its all built up in a few places, you wont get the seats, so 25% doesn't matter if its made up of the whole of Clacton ( for example) because they will only get one or two seats. Reform is more likely to hold the balance of power under PR because they then will be more likely to get 25% of the seats on 25% of the vote. You need a breadth of support under FPTP which doesn't have to be deep, as Labour benefitted hugely from this time. They lost under Corbyn because the support was deep but not wide. Also, I wouldnt bet on them not implementing a terrible form of PR!

Isn't it the case that the Lib Dems wanted a fairer STV proportional representation system and they effectively got stitched up by the Conservatives by choosing AV, that not many wanted or could even understand. Face it, many of the electorate don't even understand the existing system. They don't comprehend where the local authority and national responsibility lies. And even council elections are hideously misunderstood. Anyway don't worry Labour said they would abolish the upper house or replace it with something better... Even if the upper house had PR the electorate might feel a little better about it. The existing system is rotten.

The Tories have been bullied by a small gaggle of idiots into moving right, and the electorate still reject them. Now Labour are parroting the same kind of cringe. The electorate won't be swayed even if you saw Starmer taking pot shots at refugees crossing the Dover straight.

Farage and Truss aren't miles apart, Truss made quick work of killing the economy. The Tories don't ever own this. Farage has made most households poorer with the Brexit referendum.

The Brexit referendum never gave the people a choice of path for Brexit. And from what we learn now, the Government weren't prepared at all. Johnson was even famously undecided which side he'd support.

The public have poor memories. Immigration has always been a hot emotive topic. Nothing like a good dose of xenophobia to boil the blood. The Tories had 14 years to do something about immigration, and yet Sunak was still there trying to get re-elected on that same ticket.

I too feel we are missing constructive debate. How could the UK improve? Reform and the Tories always negatively campaign. Farage swans around bleeding the system for himself and his mates and points his finger elsewhere.

I'm surprised the politicians don't just say, it's fine to arm yourself and kill your neighbours as long as they are plebs (like you) as they are to blame for all your ills. Look over there! Meanwhile the fat cats can get their heads stuck into the troughs - the plebs are too bilious with one another and other poor folk to even notice. They are told to basically put the boot into anyone less fortunate than themselves. And to throw any compassion out the window, as it's kind of a nuisance. Don't forget to kick any one else that dares to climb the ladder after you.

People could vote differently under PR. Consensus politics may be boring - but it can at least be positive.

@C8H10N4O2 You just said Islington. Do you get irony?

Labour need to remember that not all their voters live in Islington

I’m not sure how you get from that comment to assuming I want policy driven by Islington’s best known MP (or more accurately Milne and Lansdowne).

@C8H10N4O2Labour cannot afford policies not driven by the more academic side of the party. Islington ? Jeremy Corbyn is Islington North. We definitely cannot afford his version of Labour! I want the right of Labour and the left of the Cons. The middle ground. Extremes are dangerous.

Changing the long term electoral system on account of one individual in one moment of time is ridiculous.

We had a referendum on PR only 12/13 years ago and it was rejected by a notable majority. That was the LibDem’s 30 pieces for enabling the Tories to take power, they had a say of the variety of PR and the wording on the questions and the majority required (only a simple majority, IMO constitutional change should need at least 2/3). They wanted a form of PR which would simmply turn a 2 party system into a 3 party system and give them the permanent balance of power - very Liberal and high minded I’m sure.

PR discussions also assume that people will vote the same way under PR that they do under FPTP. That flies in the face of experience. It also assumes that the parties remain the same. In reality FPTP historically has forced the two main parties to be broad coalitions up until the last few years. There is no reason to assume that won’t return over time.

I supported PR back in 2012 but was not in favour of the system the Liberals wanted.
I also have some sympathy for Barbara Castle’s argument - the two party system wasn’t perfect but it gave the winning party a real chance to implement a programme and real accountability for it. It also meant that with either party winning there would be a reasonably representative consensus on the winning side rather than extreme ends taking the balance and gaining disproportionate power.

If the two main parties want to take back power from Farage under any system then the Tories need to get their act together and revert to broad right coalition and Labour need to remember that not all their voters live in Islington and their older voters don’t all have generous final salary pensions.

I'd be happier if political parties came up with decent policies that would attract public support, and won the argument against Reform, rather than trying to fiddle the rules to make them unelectable. A point that Farage would not be slow to make, of course. There too much of "I don't like it, therefore let's ban it" going on. The same could probably be said about the 'ban' on the AfD in Germany.

Sounds like she's saying she will vote tory or reform and hopes they will stop employing disabled people because we don't contribute much. Along with other diversity hires which I guess includes women and ethnic minorities?

I actually can't abide this mindset. So if you don't want disabled people to have jobs, what does she propose the gov do? Pay them a living wage in benefits? I doubt it. So what's the outcome, they're homeless? What a worrying sentiment and a quite concerning look into the minds of tory/reform voters.

I'd still vote Labour, not because I like their policies, but because I feel if I don't, then that allows another of the parties to get in by proxy. Other parties that I think will do a worse job. I guess it's the best of a bad bunch. Awful.

What?

Who is still voting Labour anyway? Absolutely hopeless. And the Tories wrecked everything.

This is interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/06/welsh-labour-first-minister-says-she-is-losing-patience-with-starmers-policies?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I admit I thought breakfast clubs were going to be free though and I think it's reasonable If it's paid for by parents

I m not heartless as mentioned above I ended up as a single parent I just don't believe there is really much need for breakfast clubs just my opinion I don't think there are many children whose parents can't afford breakfast If it is the case what about tea time and holidays ?I do though remember a girl who went through primary and secondary school smelling so bad others couldn't stand to sit next to her Why is that an issue for some children and no effort made to help I don't think there is any chance she would ever have got a job since

I agree about the system used for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd in Wales.

The system used for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail Eireann in the Republic of Ireland keeps the constituency link, and also you can indicate a preference for one person in a party instead of another.

I live in Scotland. The system here is a mixture of First Past the Post and a more proportional system (not quite PR but closer). I think it works well up here.

The problem I have with pure PR is it removes the link between MPs and particular constituencies.

You do realise breakfast clubs give working parents the opportunity to drop there kids off at school early so that can go to work ..most ask for a small contribution. Otherwise those parents might not have joined jobs. The toast comment is just plain and simple heartless ....

@1dayatatime You are not correct. It was never equal job. Remember the Ford car seat makers case? Women workers got equal pay because their seat making work was of equal value to the men working in similar skilled roles elsewhere in the factory. Men didn’t make the seats so the women were considered to be of less value and paid less. The skills don’t need to be identical, they need to be of equal value.

Birmingham lost because they didn’t evaluate the jobs. They knew they needed to evaluate women’s and men’s roles to ensure they met the requirements of the legislation. Everyone else did - so why didn’t Birmingham? Of course there are techniques to compare. How do you think the Ford women won their case? The legislation has always been clear - it’s equal value, not identical skills or job. You don’t pay women less for “women’s work”. You evaluate the skills and then the value of the skills when compared within the workforce. You don’t pay women less who do work of equal value to men.

Hope that clears it up for you.

@TizerorFizz

"Equal pay for equal work is hardly new. That Birmingham Council were asleep and didn’t evaluate jobs is entirely their fault! Everyone else did respect equal pay legislation and not pay women less for work of equal value to men’s work. Saying the legislation is wrong is unbelievable! Are you a dinosaur?"

The legislation is very clear that women and men should be paid the same salary for doing the same job. Equal pay for the same job.

What is different and new in the legal case that Birmingham City Council lost is the concept of "equal value " which is very subjective. Refuse collectors (or Bin men) the overwhelming majority of which were male were paid more than office cleaners and Teachers Assistants the majority of which were female.

The case was that Office Cleaners and Teachers Assistants were jobs of "equal value" to Bin Men despite clearly being different jobs.

This ruling took no account of the differences in the roles for example Bin Men is an outdoors role, physically more strenuous and has a greater danger risk to it than office cleaners or TAs. It also doesn't take into account whether it would be more difficult to recruit and retain Bin Men if they were paid the same as office cleaners.

It also brings into question the subjective decision on what is "equal value ". For example it could be argued that a cancer nurse working for the NHS is of "more value" than a legal professional in HR or an accountant working for the NHS, despite getting paid much less.

Equal pay for the same job is clear. Equal pay for different jobs that are subjectively viewed as "equal value" is far from clear.

But that's what we have, or have had. The Tories had a great majority under Johnson / Sunak, and Labour were a very weak opposition, and frequently voted alongside the Government. We now have a majority Labour government, that aren't making bold choices. Starmer was very weak and pathetic in opposition, and appears pretty weak in Government - and to me this feels like a Tory/Labour government anyway. Which ironically it doesn't have to be, because the Government could legislate and move quite fast if necessary. Even if we had a real Labour government given media opposition and support for Reform (that to me aren't even a serious political party) I doubt they would last two terms. The press would be much more critical. And any semi-radical change would likely see reversal. Corbyn wasn't even that radical but at least had the populace at heart. Reform is hardly a protest vote, it would be turkeys voting for Christmas. The Johnson years might even look tame by comparison, and that's a pretty bleak episode in the UK's political history. In terms of numbers it's wholly unfair that Reform don't get more representation. I've had the luck of voting for one MP I liked in one general election. Other times I've just had to hold my nose. I loathe FPTP with a passion. And as the Brexit vote and the US's 2024 shows you can be very close to the wire and end up dividing the entire populace down the middle. Coalition politics is suggested to be weaker, but just look at the UK for the last 15 years. Even majority governments are weak as piss.