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

[JeremyVineyard]

There is a very real likelihood that Farage will win the next election Partly because of this countries outdated, first past the post election system.

Under PR(Proportional Representation) parties will usually get the same percentage of seats as their percentage of the vote.

With the electorate split 3 or 4 ways and a lot of people too disillusioned to vote, he could become PM with as little as 20% or 25% of the vote under first past the post.

Under PR Reform would get 20/25% of the vote and therefore get 20/25% of the seats.

If the Tories and Labour support a referendum on PR it will likely be passed as the other smaller parties will support it.

It may mean that the Tories and Labour need to form a coalition after the next election and while this may be hard to swallow, it would be for the greater good to stop the far right getting into power.
The Tories and Labour are both fairly centrist parties anyway so it makes more sense than the Tories and Reform getting into bed together.

Should say through school not helped

PR has merits, but also demerits. Depending on which system is used it can cut a local link to an MP. And it also tends to produce more unstable government and to hand power to extremist parties.

So far as extremists go, operating a minimum vote threshold destroys any argument that PR is a fairer system.

Do you honestly think Starmer has the slightest intention of holding a General Election in the next decade? he’s already prevented several local council elections from taking place this time round ( with the full cooperation of the ‘Opposition’ who also thought they would be ousted).

Just look at what’s going on in Germany, Romania, France to get a hint about our future ‘democracy’ 🤡

Goodness me. Of course they shouldn't! If the British people elect Reform by fptp then Reform should be the government. That's how it's always worked, it's been good enough for us for centuries. I'm amazed that the idea of rigging the system is getting discussed (and not just here).

If we had PR and Reform won more seats then that's democracy in action surely ?

I'd like PR and voted for it in the referendum. Imo it's the fairest way, gives everyone more of a voice (so hopefully they're more invested in politics) and it stops the nonsense that is safe seats.

Yes, I support PR. I was just pointing out that PR would probably result in more seats for Reform than FPTP.

@marmaladeandpeanutbutter The majority of the voting turnout in enough areas may well be sufficiently racist. You just need more votes than everyone else in enough constituencies. 30% of the vote overall will probably be enough. Starmer has 33.7%. It’s obviously not a system recognising the majority!

New Zealand has the best PR system. You get two votes, one for your local MP and one Party Vote.

The local MP wins FPTP style and ensures that there is local representation in parliament for local areas. The party vote means that even if you are in a safe local seat for a particular party, your vote still counts for the country as a whole because you can impact the total % of votes a party gets.

The combined proportion of local MP and Party Vote votes that a party gets, roughly translates to their proportion of seats in parliament.

So a party will get all their winning local MPs in and then additional seats in parliament to make up the total % of the vote they have. These MPs are drawn from a closed list of MPs in the order they are given.

So if you got 15% of the vote and 1 local MP, then you’d get however many additional MPs off your list into parliament too until you have roughly 15% of the seats in parliament.

MUCH better than SVT as lots of people don’t have a second choice in a party!

PR may very well mean that reform gets representation (which is fine by me as we are a democracy after all!) however under a Mixed Member Proportional System, parties like the Greens and Lib Dems will also do well - highly likely that Labour, Greens and Lib Dems will be able to form a coalition against Reform. Better for Tories as they can maintain their conservative stance rather than try to out right Reform, if in future they need to form a coalition with Reform, they can work together on some issues but Tories will still be in charge!

But they are winning via media manipulation and the vast sums being poured into it by oligarchs who want even more power, control and money.

No they aren't! They're winning because everyone can see the current philosophy of government is defunct. Can't you feel it?

Reform have caught on because their ideas (such as they are) at least are different from everyone else. It might be a massive protest vote but that's exactly why it should take its course. Gerrymandering to keep the expounders of the current philosophy in place is the worst possible thing that could happen from here.

But they are winning via media manipulation and the vast sums being poured into it by oligarchs who want even more power, control and money.

@BurntBroccoli how would you prevent media manipulation?

@Sskka Downright lying is manipulation too. Falsely making claims you cannot carry out is a Farage specialism. Protest votes lead to mess and anarchy. Only the civil service will keep things sane. Some elements in society are easy to manipulate - remember Brexit lies? Doesn’t take much and now it’s Farage lies mk2.

Also protesting against what? A rich privately educated man leading a political party? One who supports a private health service and job losses? One who will trim state handouts to the bone? You might get a few less potholes but beware the big ticket items that will go. The uk is looking like a nation of duped fools.

It’s also people reacting to the Labour party, who have managed to alienate a fair few.

Against flatlined productivity, public squalor, mass immigration, niche favouritism, selective policing, decision paralysis, suffocating third sectorism, expanding costs against a narrowing tax base, ever-more individualism, a sense of decline while nobody in power shows any sign of wanting to change course. That sort of thing.

I'm not convinced that's isn't how Labour and the Conservatives operate as well tbh !!

I've read this post three times and still can't make head nor tail of it. Your subsequent post was barely any clearer. Some punctuation might help.

This is how all political Parties act!!

Look at Starmer and the Lord Ali scandal -he took 20,000 from him for clothes, and gave other MP's money as well (below).
Lord Ali gave 1.2m loan to Labour MP to buy a flat for her sister

Ed Milliband appointed Rachael Kyte who has links to Quadrature Capital, a company which has donated £4 million to the Labour Party.
Ed Milliband linked to Mega donor

Labour raised £9537,058 in campagne donations and In total, more than £8m of Labour’s donations came from 10 sources. They included: two unions, the former Autoglass boss Gary Lubner, hedge fund managers Martin Taylor and Stuart Roden, the sculptor Antony Gormley, the production company Toledo Productions, tech investor Danny Luhde-Thompson and former professional poker player Derek Webb, who founded the Campaign for Fairer Gambling.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3j131327yo

They’re not getting the backing of the likes of Musk.

They have 5 MPs and 4% of local councillors
What we need is more balanced reporting around all parties and less Reform hysteria

No, but they have the backing of other very rich men with their own agenda.

Olddemdykye sounds like a teacher above as long as some people get what I'm saying it's ok with me Mumsnet is open to all isn't it

Even people with poor punctuation hopefully

I didn't get what you're saying, that's the whole point. There are some interesting opinions on this thread but from that post I couldn't work out which side of the fence you're on.

You're proposing gerrymandering the system just to avoid a single outcome that you don't like.

All the PR arguments assume that the parties would remain the same under a PR system. They wouldn't. Each side would fragment in to a number of smaller parties, each attacking and gaming each other. FPTP means poltiticians have to stay within their chosen party and work to change them for the better - it makes for more stable parties. More importantly, it ensures that extremist parties are locked out of government. Whereas, under PR, those parties can exercise vastly disproportionate influence if they hold the balance of power.

As for coalition government - we always have a coalition under FPTP. How so? Our broad church mainstream parties are effectively coalitions. The advantage of the present system is that you get to see the coalition before you elect it. With PR, it pretty much guarantees no overall majority and no-one knows what form of government they're voting for.

People imagine that the parties work together harmoniously under PR - they don't. Look at the dysfunctional way the German government recently fell apart.

And Scotland isn't exactly a great advert for PR if you've been paying attention.

There's no evidence that PR elects better governments.