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

[Theemeperorsnewclothes]

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. It’s always been this way. The Tories have really f upped because the middle classes are feeling the pinch of their disgraceful profiteering from covid. Labour won’t be much better as they are still too far right to make it right. Linda on the council estate is not your enemy. The big corporations who are using the Russian/Ukraine war are. Until a government steps in and actually advocates for the individual we are all f…ed. There is no political knight in shining armour coming to rescue us anytime soon. We need to change the political system in the UK. We need better representation, who actually stand a chance of winning.

Maybe?
But I don't want the thread to derail, which it would...

Ahhh OK. Thank you.

And thank you @JudyWinagain that makes perfect sense

I don't think you're stupid at all!
In fact I think you're far from stupid as you're clever enough to ask if you don't know. People who are really stupid are the ones who don't ask, and just carry on not understanding something important.

AW thanks @Kendodd I would love to understand politics properly. But my brain can't quite get its self around it! Now admin... that's my area of expertise!

Remember, this is the level of desperation to cling to power that comes out when the topic of any sort of vote reform is remotely on the table.
Says it all.

First Past The Post encourages broad-church parties which are effectively coalitions. The strength of our system is that you get to see the form of the coalition before you vote,

I would prefer some variety of PR but that is an interesting point.

The problem with our system is that if the candidate you didn’t vote for becomes the mp for your constituency then you can feel unrepresented and that can lead to so many people feeling disengaged. People feel their vote counted for nothing.

I agree.

Also, fptp can lead to some real anomalies. Can't remember the year but one election Labour actually got more overall votes than the Tories but the tories won the most seats so formed the government !

I agree with PR. FPTP, in spite of its many vociferous advocates has had its day.

However, I won't sign the petition.

Nobody ever changed anything with an on-line petition.

If you want PR. Vote Lib-Dem. Hopefully with that fool Clegg gone, next time they won't fuck it up.

Brexit, George Galloway, Nick Griffin are a few names that spring to mind.

The referendum should have had a threshold figure I.e. 70% before it's allowed. (I say this as a Brexiteer but feel the marginal win wasn't good enough to make such a huge decision.)

George Galloway getting a seat and Nick Griffin as a MEP- both extreme ideologies. Just imagine the chaos.

Then you have Labour wanting to give 16 year olds the vote, again it should be a referendum, not just change the voting system to what makes your party more likely to win.

I do understand that people are sick to death of the same mediocre choices but the reality of minority parties having a bigger presence, seems worse in my opinion.

If PR existed we would have had 80 UKIP MP’s in 2015 and about 24 Green MP’s. Just let that sink in.

The new voting system that was offered was, if anything, even worse than FPTP. People clearly don't even understand the drawbacks of FPTP - which, for example, gave Johnson a 80-seat majority based on the votes of just 30% of the electorate - so it is no surprise that they didn't understand the alternative being proposed.

There are several voting systems that are used across the Western world that are better alternatives, but in the UK there seems to be very limited knowledge that other systems successfully exist, what these systems are and how they might be better than FPTP. People in the UK seem to be totally unaware that only one of the 27 countries in the EU does not have some sort of proportional representation and are seemingly happy to accept that FPTP is the only system for the UK "because that's how we've always done it." The major political parties have no interest in PR because it would mean losing control of the cosy two-party duopoly.

It is interesting for of all the assemblies and parliaments founded in recent years - none have gone for FPTP.

London has a party vote as well as a constituency for GLA members (we used to have single transferrable vote for the mayor until the Tories got rid of it this year). So you get three votes - a vote for the mayor, a vote for the candidate for your constituency and a vote for a party.

The parties with the biggest proportions of the third vote get to nominate cross London assembly members.

I'd be staggered if the Lib Dems were in any position to make demands any time soon. More to the point, regardless of what their historical stance was, their current electoral strategy is geared around a ruthless exploitation of the FPTP system, and targeting specific seats.

That's why they're probably going to get ten times as many seats as Reform, conceivably even more than the Conservatives with far fewer votes. I can't see them making a big push for PR while the opposite is working so well for them.

But in a PR scenario that would have been impossible to resolve. We would have a 50/50 split.

Just let it sink in that all people would be represented - even ones I strongly disagree with

It's arrogant to try and prevent some people from having their opinions heard by manipulation of the voting system - and actually probably leads to a growing support for reform who trade on the hard done by narratives

Society divided isn't a functioning happy society even if we have to talk to reform people we need a country that works for all.

For people moaning about the two party system, how many parties do we need? One centre-left and one centre-right. Unless you're an extremist that's all we need. Smaller parties don't need to govern to get their policies implemented. Their more popular policies effectively get adopted by the main parties because the policies enjoy popular support. I'm referring to things like sensible green policies which presumably everyone supports - and Brexit, which you prefer to conveniently ignore even though it falls in to the same category! Let's remember that UKIP would have almost certainly been in government under PR - perhaps even the biggest party - or are we overlooking that because it doesn't fit the argument? Perhaps you've all forgotten how well UKIP did in the EU elections. Presumably everyone here welcomed that result because it was conducted using a PR system and that makes it good, right?

I agree with all of this.

And referendums should be set with the need for a fairly large majority - at least 65% - before a massive change is imposed.

But an even bigger percentage didn't want each of the other Parties to win - the Tories still Win whichever way you look at it!

Not the Mike Drop that you think it is. 🙄

George Galloway has managed to get a seat under FPTP, but not (since his expulsion from Labour) with a party that would get close to 5% so under PR he'd still be a lone voice. The BNP under Nick Griffin didn't break through 2% of the national vote, so would be excluded by a 5% minimum threshold.

Brexit is the perfect example of why FPTP is such a bad idea. A Yes/No vote could not reflect the broad range of views of the electorate. Before the vote it was all soft, hard, Norwegian option, etc. Afterwards a slender 52:48 majority was not interpreted as inconclusive but rather taken as a mandate for an extreme hard Brexit and all talk of soft/compromise options or attempting to renegotiate the UK-EU relationship whilst remaining in the EU was discarded

Your comment assumes that under PR people would vote the same way as they do under FPTP. There are other important factors that could affect the parliamentary make-up should FPTP be replaced by something else such as PR.

Firstly, some voters vote tactically. They don't particularly like Party A, but under FPTP they vote for them rather than for Party B in order to keep B out. Given the choice under PR, these voters might now vote for C, D or E if they felt that their votes would now result in their preferred party being represented. They would have the opportunity to vote for a party, rather than against a party. (In the last GE, barely 50% of those who voted actually voted for one of the two major English parties).

Secondly, almost one-third of the registered electorate does not actually vote. There may be several reasons for this; for example, in a "safe" seat a voter might not bother to vote for any of the other parties because there is no chance of their vote having any influence on the outcome; in a constituency with a two-party split, the voter who supports neither party might likewise abstain, being unwilling to be seen to endorse either candidate; or simply, even where there are several candidates a voter might not vote because their preferred choice is still "none of the above."

Thirdly, it is estimated that around 5 million people who are eligible to vote are not actually registered to do so. Adding these to the electoral roll would add over 10% to the registered electorate. Similar to the abstainers above, there are various reasons why this might be the case, but PR would perhaps encourage more people to register and vote by dispelling the doubts of those who feel that "my vote doesn't count anyway" or "politicians are all the same"

First Past The Post encourages broad-church parties which are effectively coalitions. The strength of our system is that you get to see the form of the coalition before you vote.

I direct my learned friend to the state of the Conservative party over the last 16 years to indicate that this is not the case. Their factions and divisions over Europe lead to a disastrous referendum, and the increase failure if party cohesion has lead to an equally disastrous succession of short-term and ineffectual party leaders/prime ministers.

I am in favour introducing some form of PR. However it will solve much on its own. We also need a reformed second chamber. We need to look at how politicians are remunerated - to ensure they are sufficiently rewarded and sorting out the expenses issues (which is still a huge mess) and prevent them from taking the piss regarding second homes.

also, the whole way that parliament operates needs to be reexamined - from the hours they work to the physical infrastructure. Currently most things remain archaic.

perhaps a Royal Commission?

I'd deal with a lot of the expenses/second home issues with a couple of fixes:

1. Make the constituency offices permanent with a civil service office manager. There's no need to have new MPs set up their own office when there's a change of party. Much of the constituency office work is admin rather than political. This would maintain continuity over changes of MP and during election periods. It would also keep campaigning separate from constituency office duties.
2. Provide accommodation (one bedroom flat with an office) for all MPs as part of the parliamentary estate.

"I am in favour introducing some form of PR. However it will solve much on its own. We also need a reformed second chamber."

One of the features of a parliament elected using PR is that there is no need for a second chamber. Where second chambers exist (the majority of countries do not have them) they were originally created to accommodate the "problem" of the landed gentry, clergy and other economically powerful groups who threatened to undermine the government, or they were created to mitigate against the sort of "elected dictatorship" that can result from FPTP.