‘Proportional representation will lead to better politics’, Labour conference told
‘Proportional representation will lead to better politics’, Labour conference told
Voting reform is ‘not just about who the system will allow us to care for but what the system allows us to care for’
The only justification for not doing this is protectionism. Starmer is placing party above country. We can see how damaging the Tories are. I do not want to see their likes again.
The best system looks to be Mixed Member PR. Like Germany and New Zealand. Keeps a form of local MPs lost with raw PR, while dealing with the democratic failing of raw FPTP.
12I disagree, but expect Labour to push for STV eventually. STV still gives Labour and Tories an edge. My preference is to remove that totally with PR.
4
PR all the way. My country has PR and we laugh at every other system and their lack of democracy. Especially all the systems with districting because of all the problems that it creates. "But what about local representation?" It's simple: You don't need it, turns out
7Local MP is just a scaremonger stunt to keep the two parties in power in the UK. I have yet to hear a good validation for it.
3Which country are you from?
1
Not really, it all depends on the election results. It's going to take a larger swing than 97 for Labour just to get into power.
If it's tight, a progressive coalition with PR being the price for power, might be the best outcome
4Polling suggests a victory on par with 97. GE will always differ from midterm polling, but it does not look like a coalition.
2
I really hate the claim that PR will mean we wont see the tories again.
Honestly it will mean we will see less tory only govs. But greater the. None. And likely many tory lead mixed governments.
I stronly support PR. But lets not make non valid claims about the end of tory rule.
4It's also a deeply unprincipled argument. If you support PR on principle then you should support it even if it means Tory governments for the rest of time. If you only support it because it means "your side" gets in power more often then that's no different from Starmer supporting FPTP because it means "his side" gets into power more often.
3Absolutely. Same is true of any thing too far left too. PR keeps things more centred. Sure far right and far left may acturally get some seats, but their power will only ever be proportional. Right now, with Conservatives and FPTP, we have far right in power. Yet the country's majority are progressive.
3agreed.
2
You would not see a batch of Tories like the current one. The whole push behind PR atm is the current corruption in the Tories. For the Tories to have any power base they would have to change. Their extreme right factions would not be tolerated. Hence:
I do not want to see their likes again.
PR voting is an empowerment. People take a lot more interest when they feel their vote matters. Lying to your voter base would be highlighted a lot more.
1
"Willie hears ya Willie don't care"
1I support PR, but I remember telling people on the left about how PR would have meant UKIP getting a bunch of seats in 2015.
Suddenly, they weren't so keen on it.
1Getting UKIP into parliament would have been great! First, the numpties who votes for them would feel represented. That is a good thing. Second, we could have ignored them instead of the tories feeling threatened by them to a point of swinging towards Brexit. Thirdly, their lack of platform (other than “EU bad”) would have been made public.
This is how extreme, fringe parties die - sunlight is the best disinfectant.
24Well, quite.
Remember when Nick Griffin of the BNP went on Question Time? Obviously more extreme than UKIP, but after he got completely trounced, the BNP ceased to be a political force.
You don't defeat ideas by banning or "cancelling" or whatever. You do it by arguing the other side and highlighting the inadequacies of your opponent's ideas. Trying to silence them gives them more credence.
6Yeah our UKIP is called One Nation in Australia and they have never gotten enough of the vote to wield any significant power.
1
Instead we got the Tories. FPTP has allowed a fascist government in. There is no getting away from that.
10Leftie here
I'm for it, regardless
7
Disagree. PR means no local support. PR means city, particularly London, centred politics. That's already bad enough - look at HS2 which was supposed to be for the north, but has ended up being an upgrade between London and Birmingham only.
The fairest system is some sort of ranked choice, you can vote for the party you agree with most, without risking 'wasting' your vote and still get local representation.
0London currently has 73 MPs out of 650 (11.2%) when they have 9mil out of 67million people (13.2%).
So guess you're right that they'd get stronger representation.
However on the other hand, people like the Green party got 2.7% of the vote in 2019 while only getting 0.15% of the seats.
Some voices get stronger, but it's not just cities.
4The current system, which has local representation has not prevented SE centric policy, so why do you believe that maintaining that element needs to remain? Local MP's given the illusion of local support, but why should that be a function of central government? HS2 is adding example of why local MP's don't work IMO. A significant part of why it's over budget is wealthy NIMBYS and their pet MP. Local issues are just bargaining chips in Westminster.
I'd argue the role played by local MP'S would be better served by the local authority.
2Parties couldn't have dedicated MPs to types of area?
1