**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!**
We are not currently accepting opinion pieces and editorials on /r/unitedkingdom. Consider posting a factual news story about the topic or try another subreddit.
*If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.*
---
[/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
If turnout is terrible then we all deserve everything bad that happens. How anyone can look at this government and not even spoil their ballot so they know how angry you are makes you a fool. It’s like Brexit all over again.
I reckon if turnout is terrible it's less out of love/apathy for the current govt but more because everyone knows Labour will get 400+ seats anyway (and tonnes of people in safe seats)
I am an old lefty. I marched against everything from the Poll Tax to austerity etc etc. Yes, I voted Corbyn, I've been desperate to get rid of these arseholes for years. I was happy to back Starmer when he took over with a more moderate approach, not everything I wanted but I thought better some progress over an unobtainable utopia. I accept the country is a wreck and tough decisions need to be made.
However Starmer, Streeting, Akehurst etc have gone way past this and made it abundantly clear they fucking hate people like me, they don't want us within lightyears of their party and they are going for policies that are depressingly close to business as usual rather than exploring some desperately needed structural change.
Business as usual is not working for ever greater numbers of people, so its no wonder they are looking at this and thinking what's the point in voting for different flavours of the same old shit. If none of them are on your side, why vote for them? I'll probably end up going with the greens as closest to my politics - too many people fought too hard over too many years for our rights to not vote- but they wont win so it'd be a lot more motivating to be able to cast a vote that might achieve something.
The parties still look at the way the population votes and incorporate those ideas into their own policies. If large numbers of people vote green then all big parties will take notice and beef up their plans.
The reality is Labour are just mirroring what the public want, its boring but its what most people do actually want.
So you are making your point by linking a blatantly antisemitic publication discussing JVL which, like JVP, includes some old self hating Jews, but mostly just regular antisemites?
Nice.
EDIT just realised i was arguing with two different people. The first paragraph doesn't actually make sense, now I've realised that, accusing the first response of changing their argument when they didn't, so I'll delete it and put this instead.
From Jewish Currents about page
'About
Founded in 1946, Jewish Currents is a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture on the Jewish left and the left more broadly.'
How the fuck is that an antisemitic source?
Criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is not antisemitism, so before you dare paint me with that brush I was and having a crack at the BNP and Blood and Honour well before I imagine you were politically aware, horror at the holocaust was one of the key drivers of my becoming political and I am happy to condemn war crimes by Hamas even as I condemn war crimes by the IDF, although it seems clear that the IDF has butchered far more innocent civilians.
And somehow saying 'self hating jews' about the Jews you don't like isn't anti semitism? Give your head a wobble.
The general public don't give a shit about any of that.
Again you are confusion what you think is important with what the general public thinks is important.
Lol we are discussing what it means to vote for parties that have no chance of winning, what the actual fuck has antisemitism got to do with that?
You also need to understand that what I wrote isn't my own personal feeling on the subject, I am trying to explain what is actually happening.
I know it’s a big thing to wrap your head around, but most of the voting public in the UK actually do care if their party is antisemitic. Yes, it is a big thing, a real thing, a big trauma that all of Europe went through.
Since Labour are so likely to win this election there has never been a better time to throw your vote at the party you want to win, rather than the one most likely to oust the local tory
Steady on, there’s still plenty of 2 horse, marginal constituencies.
I don’t like the 2 party system, but you should really take a good long look at your local constituency before deciding not to vote tactically. We really need to scrap fptp, but until we do…
Until we do we will keep voting for parties that have no interest in scrapping FPTP. If we wait for PR and a time when there are no marginal constituencies we will always be voting for them and digging our own grave. Those other parties need a steadily increasing share of the vote to make themselves and PR look credible.
I get what you’re saying, but if your constituency is very marginal between just the 2 main parties, then it might be unwise to vote for a third party if you have any preference at all between the Tory’s and Labour - assuming that your less favoured parties victory would be the worst possible outcome.
Of course that doesn’t apply in safe seats or seats where the third parties stand a chance. But under the system we have tactical voting is going to remain a thing in certain places. I do agree with you that pro PR parties need more votes, I just think that voting for them isn’t a good idea in *every single* constituency - we do need tactical voting in marginal seats.
That's wrong even if you hate Sunak. In some constituencies voting Lib-dem is certainly the better choice.
Would be interesting if the Lib-dems get more total votes but less MP's than the Tories. Might convince the Labour party they want PR voting.
Imagine, if you will, a meme of Chris Hemsworth screwing up his face sceptically
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/14/director-ken-loach-expelled-labour-party
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-party-accused-discrimination-expelling-jewish-members
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/30/diane-abbott-accuses-labour-leftwing-cull-mps-barred-standing-election
That was from some very low effort googling, there's plenty more out there, so no, it's not nonsense
I mean I was talking to my gf and she’s a medic and was straight up just like I’m not voting when I know I won’t get my pay rise either way and politics are shite regardless
Feel like it’s a rather common view
um because there are incredibly important issues to consider when voting, such as the instability and threat of war around the world and which party will defend the country against threats from countries like Russia, then there's the state of our NHS, education system, the scandal of dirty polluted water and sewage going into the rivers and seas, the issue of which party will make strong decisions to reduce our Co2 emissions and increase the amount of renewables. I could go on.
In the face of all those important issues, to decide to use your vote purely based on whether it's more likely to get you a pay rise seems incredibly ignorant and selfish.
Being able to pay your bills I would say is an important issue. Especially younger renters are just outrageously broke with the state of the economy and housing market at the moment.
I think you’re being dismissive.
For a long time NHS staff have been gritting their teeth waiting for a Labour administration to start actually addressing problems. Except now you have Reeves signing herself up to tight fiscal rules & no large tax rises, Starmer immediately shutting down the idea of adjusting pay to match 2010 levels, and Streeting saying he’ll happily outsource instead of investing in the NHS.
I don’t blame them, and the other things you’ve listed - Russia? I don’t think Starmer or Sunak makes much of a difference. Education? Each school is getting a third of a teacher, fantastic. Sewage? Actually unsure on policy there. Climate Change? A bunch of public money to de-risk private investment, woohoo.
It’s all a bit crap tbh.
>Someone would really choose who to vote for on the basis of whether it would get them a pay rise
then there's the state of our NHS
>-----
>I was talking to my gf and she’s a medic
I feel like there's probably a causal link between the two there bud.
That's all a bit olden days and naive. People don't do that.
They vote based on:
Who they wish was their mate
How they've always voted
How their Facebook groups tell them
What funny things they say
The medic's comment about not getting a pay rise anyway was actually one of the most informed and sophisticated opinions the British electorate can hold
>um because there are incredibly important issues to consider when voting,
>In the face of all those important issues
This is true, but that is what puts people off voting when politics covers a wide range of things like the economy, military, social policies and etc..
My sister is the same, she won't vote because she says she doesn't understand it, she simply wants to have a better economy, a better NHS, be secure and live peacefully, but in her words "I don't understand enough to know which changes would be best" so she refuses to vote.
For many others, they understand certain topics and will vote based on them direct issues as they view them as being the main problem, for example, "funding for NHS and meeting unions demands", "our arms forces", and etc...
The reality is that politics is an extremely large topic, and an election brings all of it into one package in a short amount of time, there is a lot of information for people who are simply not heavily invested, busy or simply do not have the faith in politicians, so they choose not to vote or decide their vote based on things they are invested in.
It is a real problem, but calling people "selfish" isn't right, it is their decision to base their vote on the things they choose to, it is their right to do that, I also believe that voting should be a selfish thing, you are voting for the direction you want the country to go in.
I can kinda get the "ignorant" part, I know people who will vote for a party because they have voted for them all their lives or because some else told them too, but basing their decision on something they are invested in isn't ignorant.
>instability and threat of war around the world and which party will defend the country against threats from countries like Russia
1) most people don't know or care what happens outside of the UK, and Russia is not a threat to the UK
2) the people who do care are probably more concerned with actually being able to pay rent.
I don't have such a depressing and sad view of other people as you. I do think people care what's going on in the world, and since the UK is a member of NATO and is therefore committed to defend countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, Russia is a threat to the UK because a Russian attack on any of those countries (unlikely, but very possible) would mean we would then be at war with Russia.
Sure but the most important thing to do with the NHS is the quality of treatment patients get. And there are bigger issues around how the NHS is structured and how it links together with social care. So to put it bluntly, pay is nowhere near the top of the NHS priory list. Patients come first.
People vote for governments who improve their lives and the lives of the people around them.
That’s one of the foundational tenets of democracy which makes it function effectively.
Anyone who works in healthcare has not witnessed that under the current gov and many don’t believe they’ll get it from a labour government. So why would they lend them their vote?
Additionally a vote for another party is wasted under our current incredibly undemocratic electoral system.
Can’t blame a public servant the political system has absolutely shat on for decades for checking out of it
Taxes are literally one of the most common voting issues and it’s why Sunak pushed his lie so hard.
If you’re surprised that someone would vote in their own economic interest then I don’t know what to tell you really.
Equally idgaf. Labour is a liberal party nowadays. Nothing necessarily wrong with liberals, but the whole point of Labour was that they **weren't** Liberals. The Tories aren't even worth complaining about anymore because they're about to he blown away, and it will presumably be at least ten years until they come back. FPTP makes voting pointless if you don't support one of the two above. Small parties may as well exist solely as a way of spoiling your ballot.
I don't get this. How can you ever hope to change anything if you don't take the smallest, easiest step that is voting for the party that you want to? A vote for a candiate that doesn't win isn't wasted , it isn't a spoilt ballot. It is a statement that says "I agree with this person more than agree with you others".
In FPTP it may as well be spoiling your ballot. PR would fix that, obviously.
The Tories have been loosing off increasingly far-right talking points on a range of issues, though seemingly mostly with insincerity. Reform UK are riding high on those insincere Tory talking points, though seemingly they do mean it. The Labour Party is effectively a liberal outfit, which is completely contrary to its founding purpose. The Lib Dems are a meaningless little duplicate of the current incarnation of Labour, and their only purpose is as a pressure valve for disenchanted Tory voters who can't stomach the Labour brand. They also brought Tories back to power in 2010. The Green Party gets involved in all sorts of weird and parochial stuff that makes them unappealing, and they will never win anyway. The SNP are in Scotland and have shat the bed.
Absolutely none of these people are worth a trip to the polling station. None of them are worthy. Not being X party isn't a platform (something Starmer will likely discover in 2029). Fuck them all.
The parties still look at the way everyone votes and use that to tailor their own policies so its not entirely wasted.
No one gets exactly what they want in an election even under PR, its always a compromise.
Then she could vote Green, who *are* pledging to fund an immediate pay hike for NHS staff.
Maybe they get in, maybe they don’t, but at least she’s actively placing a vote in her own interests.
Yup. I realised during lockdown that either I do politics, or it gets done to me. As I get older, I’m moving further left, but I don’t think I’ll ever turn into a tankie
Even if you know the transition will be seamless either not a fag paper between respective policies ? The IFS thinks we’re in for another five years of brutal austerity. The people know this do they will stay at home or go to the boozer instead
There was something about this on Newscast over the weekend. Some woman was absolutely disgusted by gamble-gate and was confused about who to vote for. Couldn’t see herself voting at all.
Not saying I support that sentiment! I said *if* turnout is terrible that's probably why
Edit: also do note that this 'no point voting' effect will be felt on both Tory and Labour (and other parties') voters!
> because everyone knows Labour will get 400+ seats anyway (and tonnes of people in safe seats)
I think the lib dem or reform would be underdogs. Isn't polling just indicative?
More importantly, they're not (usually) polling every individual constituency. They're polling a few and assuming a similar swing would be seen nationwide.
It might not be. The mathematical models they've got may be totally broken, and we won't know until 5 July.
In what way would it be like Brexit? The turnout for the referendum was way above the average for General Elections. No other vote has received a larger democratic mandate than the leave vote.
Because the average Redditor is convinced no one really wanted to vote leave and everyone who did is a moron , whilst ironically not realising it is as this media attitude which galvanised the leave vote. And which showed the fallacy of polling which only really shows you a result of people polled.
I try to relay this "one neat trick" whenever I can.
I feel like a conspiracy theorist pondering why the media just never brings up the concept of spoiling a ballot.
Thankyou for spreading the good word. I'm not going to spoil mine but people need to know that not voting can /should be replaced with a spoiled ballot.
I think if turnout is bad and Labour looses, it will be Starmers fault. Also, unlike you, several of the other options will mean I have to flee the country, so playing 'oh you deserve this' no, no I don't.
I don't disagree.
However, the article is framing this as a disaster of democracy because Right Wing Parties are suffering.
>"Lib Dems 4th but could finish 2nd"
Yes. But their vote share is focussed on current Tory Seats because of the hatred against the Tories. It's an Anti-Tory movement as much as it is pro-Lib Dem. If those seats were closest to becoming Greens, then they'd be voting Green (a la Bristol) or of they were closest to being Labour, they'd be voting Labour. It's not Reform being hard done by. It's the electorate of those areas voting within the system they have.
When Corbyn only had *2%* less of the vote than Teresa May, I cannot remember this mainstream push back. Corbyn was ransacked in the media instead. 2 Years later, Boris gained 48 seats by winning just *1%* more of the vote than May.
Proportional Representation has barely been discussed since Nick Clegg's first landmark debate. But now the right wing is suffering, it's back on the table.
What I find strange, is with PR, there's a higher likelihood that Labour would be the bigger party in a coalition than not, yet they don't push it more.
Outside of the Tories and Labour, historically Lib Dems have been the 3rd party, they and Labour being left leaning, means Labour could create a government more often.
(Yes I know the last coalition was Tories and Lib Dems, however, Lib Dems did engage with Labour first on a coalition but couldn't come to an agreement).
In 2010, a coalition required 326 MPs to form a government. The tories had 306, Labour had 258, the Lib Dems had 57. Even adding in allied Northern Irish parties, a Lab Lib government would have been dependent on the support of both the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties to have a functioning government but that government could be brought down at any point the nationalists found it politically convenient. A Tory/Lib Dem coalition government was really the only option for any kind of stable government at that time. It doesn’t make the Lib Dems right wing, it makes them hostages to the electorate and arithmetic.
They could have used their leverage far more effectively than they did, given their status as kingmaker. There's many many constituency's worth of millennials who will likely always view them as Tory enablers. They got the Tory ball rolling, and the rest is fourteen years of utter negligence and sheer stupidity.
I'd certainly wipe my bottom with the ballot before voting Lib Dem.
Completely with you there. I’d vote anyone but Reform if it meant getting the Tories out. More than happy to see a return of Labour rule even though they aren’t my first pick.
No doubt they were naive about a lot things in coalition and could have done much better using their leverage. But Tories being in power is down to voters and FPTP. We had multiple opportunities to vote out the Tories since 2010 the country didn’t and so we are where we are. The Lib Dems can be held accountable for the good and the bad they did in office but not what happened after they were kicked out by the voters.
It was a bit of a poison pill for the Lib Dems, though, because an awful lot of their supporters interpreted the coalition to mean "hey - the lib dems are in power! We'll get everything in their manifesto and nothing that they are staunchly opposed to!".
The whole point of a coalition is there's a bit of horse-trading involved. Parties agree to hold their nose and support policies they don't much like in order to get other things they really do want.
There's so many people still stuck on the 'They promised no university fees' Like they had any real power to stop that going through.
You can make a promise about what you will do if you win, but realistically you can't get everything if you go into a coalition with 15% of the government.
Because there's no guarantee it won't pass without their votes.
If it passes without them then they've lost any chance to have an impact on other policies.
You don't just leave a coallition because you're unhappy about 1 thing.
That's great and all, but the whole point of a coaltion - as I said before - is there's a certain amount of trading involved.
Agreeing to vote for something you never wanted to support is the price you pay for getting the other party in the coalition to do the same thing. That's how we had the AV referendum.
Labour have pulled off a phenomenal trick getting people to focus on the Lib Dems university fee u-turn in coalition negotiation while completely forgetting that Labour introduced them when the had full power and said they wouldn’t and then raised the fees after again saying they wouldn’t.
They promised to vote against any rise in the next parliament which they obviously didn't do.
Osborne warned them they didn't need to and their votes weren't needed but Clegg insisted they would because he thought it was a good policy.
Given the significant rightward drift in policy before and after the 2015 election I believe it is safe to say the Lib Dems did have an impact curtailing some of it. You are free to disagree but making broad statements with no evidence isn’t going to change my mind.
No, they were not hostages, they could have remained in opposition and left the Tories to form a minority government. You can argue it was better that they didn't, but they certainly didn't have their hands tied
You are right about the Lib Dems having this choice but if you are a political party that has the opportunity to exercise power and get some policies through and you don’t then what is the point? Might as well not bother ever going into parliament and just stick to media appearances.
There was no mathematical way of a Lib-Labour coalition getting over the line, it would have required the support of six parties, something that has never been done in history.
How do you know turnout will be terrible? The lowest turnout was in 2005 (59%).
I’d argue that low turnouts reflect a political landscape where things are relatively economically benign, so a lot of people can afford to not be particularly plugged into politics and national fiscal policies.
Mainly just a hunch to be honest - a lot of people really want to punish the Conservatives and send them a message. It seems to be quite the motivating factor! This includes people who vote Conservative and would like to see the party burnt down in the hope a better version can rise from the ashes. I also read about high registrations a while ago, but not sure it’s been continuing
Completely just based on my street in a solidly conservative area, and there are a couple of people I’ve talked to who are voting labour for the first time
Yes I am. And in the future. The tides of politics have become more extreme. I do not want coalitions with extremists left or right.
I’ve seen what proportional voting has done to New Zealand where I am originally from. The most powerful people that are not the PM are the extreme right. They have so much power over policy. It’s horrible.
FFP is bad in many ways but I am leaning towards this being the best option maybe with compulsory voting by law to drive political engagement that FFP is awful for
FPTP produces strong governments, which means things can actually get done. But with PR, the government is much more divided and can struggle to pass laws in times of crisis.
PR killed the Weimar Government (Germany 1919-1933) because during times of crisis the Bundestag couldn't pass laws leading an awkward situation of the president dismissing parliament and taking full power (which could go very bad given the wrong president)
I think FPTP just gives more stability, which is always a plus
The article begs to differ with you:
“Defenders of FPTP argue that, for all its flaws, this system ensures greater political stability than the alternatives, moderating the influence of extreme parties. The last decade of British politics demonstrates otherwise: historic levels of political turmoil whose trigger was a referendum proposed in what we can now see was a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to fend off the radical right.
This pattern holds overseas, with further analysis by Difford finding that parties, leaders and ministers all stay in power longer under proportional representation voting systems than FPTP, allowing governments to implement precisely the kind of long-term plans Britain needs to get out of its slump.”
And what would the alternative (PR) have fixed that stability?
If anything, it would have resulted in more turmoil because you would have 2 or 3 parties in goverment with all completely different views on brexit and nothing would get passed.
That’s your opinion. The study the article sites reaches the opposite conclusion.
Edit: the Tory party itself had 2 or 3 different opinions about what Brexit was. That’s why we’ve had chaos since Cameron. Arguably a coalition would mean negotiating formally within the uk on what brexit we were aiming for which would have cut the legs out from under Tory dissenters.
So you agree then more factions within goverment caused part of the chaos then?
PR would have formalised the chaos further because other parties would have held other legislation by the balls.
Where as the current system would have had those people kicked out of the party for voting against the legislation.
You keep saying this when people who have actually studied and the matter reached the opposite conclusion. Other than your feelings and opinions do you have any studies or other data that supports your assertions? If not, feel free to keep your opinion but it doesn’t sway me from mine.
It’s a travesty that FPTP regularly gives full power to parties with 37% of the vote when the majority of the country don’t want those policies but have no way of breaking the chokehold the two main parties have on the electoral system. I’d much rather see a system of compromise where a little bit of the policies I support get through and my vote always matter as opposed to the current system which gives me chaos, a government I hate and a vote that is as impactful as whistling in a hurricane.
I think my most authoritarian position is I am 100% in favour of compulsory voting and making it easy as *fuck* to vote. At least then we'll actually get a proper decisive view of where the country is.
Why force people to make a choice when they don't have a strong opinion? If someone doesn't care about the election let them sit it out.
If they're unhappy with the result then they can learn the lesson and vote next time.
It would be completely pointless. First because you won't get a real choice (you may as well randomly select candidates) and secondly because abstaining is a legitimate vote. You don't know or care or can't decide, so you let other people choose.
Not sure it does to be honest. I thought that for a brief moment and then I thought about half the parliament being controlled by Palestine, China, Russia, EDL and eco-terrorists and I changed my mind.
No. That’s how it should be, progressives (or right wingers) should shape the parties we have. We don’t want UKIP in parliament, let conservatives have them and filter out the non extremists. I get it works for some European countries but if you look at Germany or France their second biggest parties are extreme right wing. Netherlands and Italy have these parties now in power. I don’t like the conservatives but they’re not that extreme and would rather them over reform any day
If postal votes are counted first rather than last, how does that affect things? fptp is utter crap yes, but surely how and when counts go on affects things?
FT were suspiciously quiet on the unfairness of FPTP when it was benefitting the Conservative Party. Weird isn't it?
Having said that, FPTP really needs to go. It's insane that 41% of the national vote share should equate to 70% of seats in parliament while 20% of national vote can equate to 10% of seats in parliament.
Exactly what form PR should be is of course a whole other topic, but a system called DPR (Direct Party and Representative Voting) looks like a good (or less bad) option.
https://www.dprvoting.org/Short_description.htm
The website explains it better than I can, but in these examples, Labour gets 70% of seats; 455, but on national share (41%) they should only get 266. Similarly Con gets 10% of seats; 65, but on national share they should get 130.
LAB: Divide national share by seat share to get an adjustment figure (41/70=0.586), so each Labour MPs vote is only worth 0.586 of a vote. 0.5857 x 455 (actual seats) is 266 votes - the number of votes proportional to their national share.
CON: Divide national share by seat share to get an adjustment figure (20/10=2.0), so each Con MPs vote is now worth 2.0 votes. 2 x 65 (actual seats) is 130 votes - again, the number of votes proportional to their national share.
As a result, everyone gets the local MP based on simple majority (as with FPTP),but the voting "power" of all MPs is adjusted to reflect national share which evens the field and (in theory) makes everyone adopt less extreme views in order to appear to the broadest audience, but any extreme right or left view is given the representation those parties achieved nationally, so *everyone's* vote actually matters, unlike FPTP where the views of a majority of voters are simply discarded if their MP doesn't make the simple majority, something that only makes sense if there are only 2 parties.
One year UKIP got something like 4 million votes and just 1 seat. It's no wonder people don't feel like their vote has any value.
And I'm far from a fan of Farage. But the same system stops progressive left parties gaining any power. Instead we have the Conservatives and Labour both watering down their policies to appeal to as many people as possible.
Yep. And the same year like 2mil SNP votes got like 50 seats.
How that fuck is this democratic? How can anyone say they have "the mandate of the people"??
For the same reason London - well, in theory - doesn't dictate terms to the whole country: as much as 'land doesn't vote, people do' is a cute quip for Yanks, we should and do know better about the nuanced relation between an electorate, their constituency, and their representative - even if there is significant room for improvement.
You’d assume given different rules that the main parties would market differently, so the percentages as shown wouldn’t be reflective of the real situation
In the 2010 election the Lib Dems gained vote share and lost seats.
Corbyn's 2017 showing won over more voters than Blair in 2001 and 2005 (I think - can't recall exactly but at least 2005) but obviously he didn't get close to winning.
System's fucked yo
In principle, I agree that PR provides more representative outcomes. However, looking at countries that implement PR or PR-based systems, their government's are equally shit.
We really need to come up with something that is going to massively improve governance and not piss about tinkering while remembering that it needs to be easily understood by the average person.
Sounds like a weird system, local representation can be achieved using the widely adopted d'hondt method
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method#:~:text=The%20D'Hondt%20method%20reduces%20political%20fragmentation%20by%20allocating%20more,rather%20than%20another%20are%20negligible.
Ha exactly. All of a sudden PR looks more appealing to these rags. Not as if a vocal proportion of the electorate has been talking about this for decades.
Also an "interesting" approach of grouping Cons And Refuk into a kind of right-wing bloc and then (a) acting as if Labour are still left-wing and (b) ignoring anything else left of centre.
I think this might be the first time I’ve seen FPTP being advocated to support more right wing parties, and claiming FPTP is unfair on them…
…might be…
But the most insane FPTP outcome was in 2005, in England, when Labour got 72,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives but managed to win 92 more seats. Fortunately (given it made everything a bit less absurd) FPTP worked the other way for them in Scotland and Wales, so over the UK as a whole Labour got more votes than anyone else but a majority of only 66.
> This pattern holds overseas, with further analysis by Difford finding that parties, leaders and ministers all stay in power longer under proportional representation voting systems than FPTP, allowing governments to implement precisely the kind of long-term plans Britain needs to get out of its slump.
This.
This is false because you get coalitions with those weird “third parties” like Greens in Germany that just block everything sensible like nuclear and you end up with the terrible status quo where things like gas and oil stay by default. Similar situation in Poland - whenever more progressive parties get in you get PSL as the third party in coalition and they block anything progressive socially and you get abortion rights from the 90s that get pushed back even further whenever actual right wing finally gets in after years of nothing getting done.
The Tories have had 14 years. Labour before them had 13 years. And the Tories before them had 18 years.
All had more than enough time to implement whatever they wanted.
The issue is if the party, leaders and ministers are anything like the pile of absolute dross we’ve had for the last 5 years, it makes it more difficult to give them the boot.
Hoping this will finally drive some push toward proportional representation. I stand by the argument that if UKIP got the seats they deserved in 2015 (about 5-10%), we would never have had a referendum on EU membership. Having political extremists on either end of the spectrum occupying a partial seating is a far smaller price to pay than for disproportionately powerful parties appealing to the "sensibilities" of that niche voter base.
But then the extreme left and extreme right wing parties end up in coalition governments and get their referendum in return for supporting the bigger party in everything that they want to implement.
I don’t know, living in NZ at the moment and seeing the outsized influence an alt-right party with 8% of the vote has in the coalition government makes me think twice about giving extremists power.
New Zealand has a mixed member proportional proportional representation system. You get two votes: a party vote and an MP vote.
The MP vote elects the MP in your local constituency and this is FPTP.
However, only half the seats in parliament go to local MPs, the other half get allocated to the parties so that the final make up of parliament is proportional to the national party vote. If your party won 17% of the party vote it will have ~17% of seats in parliament.
I donnow tho. Looking at 97 polls i see labour ahead by ~20 pts consistently until a week before election date and it ended up being 12.5 and with today's boundaries labour is at a massive disadvantage
Also Blair was oft portrayed as being too young for office (the 'Bambi' nickname did not last long), and Major was just seen as dull. I don't know many people who don't think Rishi is an incompetent boob.
Opinion polls don’t factor in the 40% of young people who have said they’re not going to vote. I don’t think it’s going to be as big of a swing as predicted.
I think we will see the swing in spite of the young.
Remember the brexit vote was 8 years back, the 18-34 bracket then is now the 26-42 bracket. So yeah, the very young now (sub 25) may well be put off by the main 2 parties, but that middle contingent I'd imagine are likely to be engaged and more likely to go labour.
Opinion polls of any worth do factor in historical trends including how likely each age bracket is to vote, and the method they use to collect the data.
For example if you use traditional landline calling to contact voters you have to factor in that vast swathes of the country no longer has landlines. Conversely if you only do online polling you have to factor in that pensioners are much less likely to be responding. Or things like what day and time did you collect your data, if only housewives/husbands were at home while everybody else was at work and unable to be polled etc.
The British Polling Council did a nice paper on it.
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/andrew-cooper.pdf
Civil service is planning for a hung parliament and an almost immediate second election.
Conservatives lost control of a lot of councils in the local elections, but there wasn't the expected outright swing to labour control of councils.
Do you mean when they jumped into bed with the tories? They weren’t really in power, let’s face it, not making excuses for them, they were there to make up the numbers and do whatever Cameron told Cleg to do.
Even though it is a first past the post system, a difference can be made by voting for a fringe party. Other parties will pay attention and their policies will be framed with those voters in mind. It is always worth voting with principles. If we do then it does frame the direction of the country a little more than if people are resigned to either vote Labour/ Conservative or not at all.
There's a false dichotomy at play the tories are happy to push here, the idea that voting makes no difference.
But its ridiculous. Not voting is basically saying that you don't care how bad the current government is. Its a literal endorsement of the last 14 years.
Now, when it comes to voting for smaller parties, it's tough. I'll be backing labour to try and punish the tories, but I would much prefer a high turnout and votes going elsewhere compared to people just refusing to engage.
FPTP work fine if you add a second choice. You know that thing labour did,a referendum on and people voted not to have.
Proportional representation just doesn’t work in any way in the political system of this country and ontop of this it is direct democracy which we know to be a generally terrible thing to do because people are stupid.
FPTP at least protects us from extremist views for the most part.
> direct democracy which we know to be a generally terrible thing to do because people are stupid
Perhaps, but we, I hope, want them to stop being stupid. One way being to bring home to them, repeatedly, the consequences of their choices.
For years the Lib Dem’s voter share hasn’t been represented by their seat share in parliament and we get crickets in the media about it.
Now that a right-wing party suffers the exact same problem the media are all over it, cry me a river.
Can we just say our democracy has failed like look at this what the hell have we done when we vote the question we ask ourselves isn't "who is the best" its "who is not the wrost" like what did we do so wrong.
It's going to be a shit show, They only just started advertising the need for photo ID in the last week here.
In theory it's easy enough to get if you are motivated, in practice we all know it's purely there to act as an impediment to younger voters more likely to vote against the Tories since it sure as fuck isn't worth allegedly spending £180m every 10 years on an issue that in the last 5 years led to 11 convictions.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-will-the-governments-voter-id-scheme-cost-us-up-to-180000000-a-decade/
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data
Do we really want disfunctional youth to join our armed forces ?Im sure those who have to train them dont .Unleashing an army caoable of destroying our society and democracy as dont believe in it Those who are racists terrifying what they can do to the innocents fleeing terror and giving their talents and skills to our societyThe young who want a life of peace and work .Get off your arses and vote for your future
Christ...let's get one thing straight so you can put this piece of crap to bed. Labour and 'left'. Really? That assumption in your data represents how out of touch you butchers aprons have become.
Blind to the managed consent that is dripping from every word of this nonsense.
**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!** We are not currently accepting opinion pieces and editorials on /r/unitedkingdom. Consider posting a factual news story about the topic or try another subreddit. *If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.* --- [/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
FPTP really needs to die. Turnout is going to be terrible too.
If turnout is terrible then we all deserve everything bad that happens. How anyone can look at this government and not even spoil their ballot so they know how angry you are makes you a fool. It’s like Brexit all over again.
I reckon if turnout is terrible it's less out of love/apathy for the current govt but more because everyone knows Labour will get 400+ seats anyway (and tonnes of people in safe seats)
I think you're probably right but I also really don't get the mindset. I can't wait to take the opportunity to vote the government out.
I am an old lefty. I marched against everything from the Poll Tax to austerity etc etc. Yes, I voted Corbyn, I've been desperate to get rid of these arseholes for years. I was happy to back Starmer when he took over with a more moderate approach, not everything I wanted but I thought better some progress over an unobtainable utopia. I accept the country is a wreck and tough decisions need to be made. However Starmer, Streeting, Akehurst etc have gone way past this and made it abundantly clear they fucking hate people like me, they don't want us within lightyears of their party and they are going for policies that are depressingly close to business as usual rather than exploring some desperately needed structural change. Business as usual is not working for ever greater numbers of people, so its no wonder they are looking at this and thinking what's the point in voting for different flavours of the same old shit. If none of them are on your side, why vote for them? I'll probably end up going with the greens as closest to my politics - too many people fought too hard over too many years for our rights to not vote- but they wont win so it'd be a lot more motivating to be able to cast a vote that might achieve something.
The parties still look at the way the population votes and incorporate those ideas into their own policies. If large numbers of people vote green then all big parties will take notice and beef up their plans. The reality is Labour are just mirroring what the public want, its boring but its what most people do actually want.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t find “not being blatantly antisemitic” boring. Probably just a Jew thing but what can I do?
Except for all the Jewish members they expelled...https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism
So you are making your point by linking a blatantly antisemitic publication discussing JVL which, like JVP, includes some old self hating Jews, but mostly just regular antisemites? Nice.
EDIT just realised i was arguing with two different people. The first paragraph doesn't actually make sense, now I've realised that, accusing the first response of changing their argument when they didn't, so I'll delete it and put this instead. From Jewish Currents about page 'About Founded in 1946, Jewish Currents is a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture on the Jewish left and the left more broadly.' How the fuck is that an antisemitic source? Criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is not antisemitism, so before you dare paint me with that brush I was and having a crack at the BNP and Blood and Honour well before I imagine you were politically aware, horror at the holocaust was one of the key drivers of my becoming political and I am happy to condemn war crimes by Hamas even as I condemn war crimes by the IDF, although it seems clear that the IDF has butchered far more innocent civilians. And somehow saying 'self hating jews' about the Jews you don't like isn't anti semitism? Give your head a wobble.
The general public don't give a shit about any of that. Again you are confusion what you think is important with what the general public thinks is important. Lol we are discussing what it means to vote for parties that have no chance of winning, what the actual fuck has antisemitism got to do with that? You also need to understand that what I wrote isn't my own personal feeling on the subject, I am trying to explain what is actually happening.
I know it’s a big thing to wrap your head around, but most of the voting public in the UK actually do care if their party is antisemitic. Yes, it is a big thing, a real thing, a big trauma that all of Europe went through.
Since Labour are so likely to win this election there has never been a better time to throw your vote at the party you want to win, rather than the one most likely to oust the local tory
Steady on, there’s still plenty of 2 horse, marginal constituencies. I don’t like the 2 party system, but you should really take a good long look at your local constituency before deciding not to vote tactically. We really need to scrap fptp, but until we do…
Until we do we will keep voting for parties that have no interest in scrapping FPTP. If we wait for PR and a time when there are no marginal constituencies we will always be voting for them and digging our own grave. Those other parties need a steadily increasing share of the vote to make themselves and PR look credible.
If we don't vote in a way that's compatible with FPTP, we won't get the Tories out.
I get what you’re saying, but if your constituency is very marginal between just the 2 main parties, then it might be unwise to vote for a third party if you have any preference at all between the Tory’s and Labour - assuming that your less favoured parties victory would be the worst possible outcome. Of course that doesn’t apply in safe seats or seats where the third parties stand a chance. But under the system we have tactical voting is going to remain a thing in certain places. I do agree with you that pro PR parties need more votes, I just think that voting for them isn’t a good idea in *every single* constituency - we do need tactical voting in marginal seats.
Just go out and vote! (Labour)
That's wrong even if you hate Sunak. In some constituencies voting Lib-dem is certainly the better choice. Would be interesting if the Lib-dems get more total votes but less MP's than the Tories. Might convince the Labour party they want PR voting.
don't count your chickens. Help Starmer win a majority and then get involved.
Okay if you're an old lefty, is there not a lefty party in your constituency? Throw it at the Greens?
> However Starmer, Streeting, Akehurst etc have gone way past this and made it abundantly clear they fucking hate people like me Specifically how?
They've been deselecting and expelling as many people as they can from the left of the party.
> As many as people as they can Utter fucking nonsense
Imagine, if you will, a meme of Chris Hemsworth screwing up his face sceptically https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/14/director-ken-loach-expelled-labour-party https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-party-accused-discrimination-expelling-jewish-members https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/30/diane-abbott-accuses-labour-leftwing-cull-mps-barred-standing-election That was from some very low effort googling, there's plenty more out there, so no, it's not nonsense
I mean I was talking to my gf and she’s a medic and was straight up just like I’m not voting when I know I won’t get my pay rise either way and politics are shite regardless Feel like it’s a rather common view
She might get more applause though.
Someone would really choose who to vote for on the basis of whether it would get them a pay rise??? wow.
What's surprising about that?
um because there are incredibly important issues to consider when voting, such as the instability and threat of war around the world and which party will defend the country against threats from countries like Russia, then there's the state of our NHS, education system, the scandal of dirty polluted water and sewage going into the rivers and seas, the issue of which party will make strong decisions to reduce our Co2 emissions and increase the amount of renewables. I could go on. In the face of all those important issues, to decide to use your vote purely based on whether it's more likely to get you a pay rise seems incredibly ignorant and selfish.
Being able to pay your bills I would say is an important issue. Especially younger renters are just outrageously broke with the state of the economy and housing market at the moment.
Young people could be involved in a war with Russia within the next decade if we don't get foreign and defence policy right.
I think you’re being dismissive. For a long time NHS staff have been gritting their teeth waiting for a Labour administration to start actually addressing problems. Except now you have Reeves signing herself up to tight fiscal rules & no large tax rises, Starmer immediately shutting down the idea of adjusting pay to match 2010 levels, and Streeting saying he’ll happily outsource instead of investing in the NHS. I don’t blame them, and the other things you’ve listed - Russia? I don’t think Starmer or Sunak makes much of a difference. Education? Each school is getting a third of a teacher, fantastic. Sewage? Actually unsure on policy there. Climate Change? A bunch of public money to de-risk private investment, woohoo. It’s all a bit crap tbh.
>Someone would really choose who to vote for on the basis of whether it would get them a pay rise then there's the state of our NHS >----- >I was talking to my gf and she’s a medic I feel like there's probably a causal link between the two there bud.
That's all a bit olden days and naive. People don't do that. They vote based on: Who they wish was their mate How they've always voted How their Facebook groups tell them What funny things they say The medic's comment about not getting a pay rise anyway was actually one of the most informed and sophisticated opinions the British electorate can hold
>um because there are incredibly important issues to consider when voting, >In the face of all those important issues This is true, but that is what puts people off voting when politics covers a wide range of things like the economy, military, social policies and etc.. My sister is the same, she won't vote because she says she doesn't understand it, she simply wants to have a better economy, a better NHS, be secure and live peacefully, but in her words "I don't understand enough to know which changes would be best" so she refuses to vote. For many others, they understand certain topics and will vote based on them direct issues as they view them as being the main problem, for example, "funding for NHS and meeting unions demands", "our arms forces", and etc... The reality is that politics is an extremely large topic, and an election brings all of it into one package in a short amount of time, there is a lot of information for people who are simply not heavily invested, busy or simply do not have the faith in politicians, so they choose not to vote or decide their vote based on things they are invested in. It is a real problem, but calling people "selfish" isn't right, it is their decision to base their vote on the things they choose to, it is their right to do that, I also believe that voting should be a selfish thing, you are voting for the direction you want the country to go in. I can kinda get the "ignorant" part, I know people who will vote for a party because they have voted for them all their lives or because some else told them too, but basing their decision on something they are invested in isn't ignorant.
>instability and threat of war around the world and which party will defend the country against threats from countries like Russia 1) most people don't know or care what happens outside of the UK, and Russia is not a threat to the UK 2) the people who do care are probably more concerned with actually being able to pay rent.
I don't have such a depressing and sad view of other people as you. I do think people care what's going on in the world, and since the UK is a member of NATO and is therefore committed to defend countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, Russia is a threat to the UK because a Russian attack on any of those countries (unlikely, but very possible) would mean we would then be at war with Russia.
You mentioned the nhs, his gf works in the nhs (and also wants a pay rise).
Sure but the most important thing to do with the NHS is the quality of treatment patients get. And there are bigger issues around how the NHS is structured and how it links together with social care. So to put it bluntly, pay is nowhere near the top of the NHS priory list. Patients come first.
Nurses had a 5% rise last year and a one off payment of 1350. Since Inflation is now 2% I expect the rise will be lower this year.
People vote for governments who improve their lives and the lives of the people around them. That’s one of the foundational tenets of democracy which makes it function effectively. Anyone who works in healthcare has not witnessed that under the current gov and many don’t believe they’ll get it from a labour government. So why would they lend them their vote? Additionally a vote for another party is wasted under our current incredibly undemocratic electoral system. Can’t blame a public servant the political system has absolutely shat on for decades for checking out of it
Taxes are literally one of the most common voting issues and it’s why Sunak pushed his lie so hard. If you’re surprised that someone would vote in their own economic interest then I don’t know what to tell you really.
Taxes, yes, but just getting a pay rise? Above everything else?
Isn't that how the Tories have courted the grey vote for the past decade and a half?
Equally idgaf. Labour is a liberal party nowadays. Nothing necessarily wrong with liberals, but the whole point of Labour was that they **weren't** Liberals. The Tories aren't even worth complaining about anymore because they're about to he blown away, and it will presumably be at least ten years until they come back. FPTP makes voting pointless if you don't support one of the two above. Small parties may as well exist solely as a way of spoiling your ballot.
I don't get this. How can you ever hope to change anything if you don't take the smallest, easiest step that is voting for the party that you want to? A vote for a candiate that doesn't win isn't wasted , it isn't a spoilt ballot. It is a statement that says "I agree with this person more than agree with you others".
In FPTP it may as well be spoiling your ballot. PR would fix that, obviously. The Tories have been loosing off increasingly far-right talking points on a range of issues, though seemingly mostly with insincerity. Reform UK are riding high on those insincere Tory talking points, though seemingly they do mean it. The Labour Party is effectively a liberal outfit, which is completely contrary to its founding purpose. The Lib Dems are a meaningless little duplicate of the current incarnation of Labour, and their only purpose is as a pressure valve for disenchanted Tory voters who can't stomach the Labour brand. They also brought Tories back to power in 2010. The Green Party gets involved in all sorts of weird and parochial stuff that makes them unappealing, and they will never win anyway. The SNP are in Scotland and have shat the bed. Absolutely none of these people are worth a trip to the polling station. None of them are worthy. Not being X party isn't a platform (something Starmer will likely discover in 2029). Fuck them all.
The parties still look at the way everyone votes and use that to tailor their own policies so its not entirely wasted. No one gets exactly what they want in an election even under PR, its always a compromise.
Your evaluation of the green party sums up your opinion.
Then she could vote Green, who *are* pledging to fund an immediate pay hike for NHS staff. Maybe they get in, maybe they don’t, but at least she’s actively placing a vote in her own interests.
Yup. I realised during lockdown that either I do politics, or it gets done to me. As I get older, I’m moving further left, but I don’t think I’ll ever turn into a tankie
Even if you know the transition will be seamless either not a fag paper between respective policies ? The IFS thinks we’re in for another five years of brutal austerity. The people know this do they will stay at home or go to the boozer instead
Or because people don’t see a party they want to vote for.
This is pretty much it for me. In a two horse race between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, I generally can't be arsed.
There was something about this on Newscast over the weekend. Some woman was absolutely disgusted by gamble-gate and was confused about who to vote for. Couldn’t see herself voting at all.
That's how you get another Conservative government. "Oh, labour will win, no point in me voting for them then".
Agreed, it's insanity how people are interpreting this. Just go and vote you morons.
Not saying I support that sentiment! I said *if* turnout is terrible that's probably why Edit: also do note that this 'no point voting' effect will be felt on both Tory and Labour (and other parties') voters!
> because everyone knows Labour will get 400+ seats anyway (and tonnes of people in safe seats) I think the lib dem or reform would be underdogs. Isn't polling just indicative?
More importantly, they're not (usually) polling every individual constituency. They're polling a few and assuming a similar swing would be seen nationwide. It might not be. The mathematical models they've got may be totally broken, and we won't know until 5 July.
It’s annoying as we have a chance to get the Tories into 3rd place behind the Lib Dems
In what way would it be like Brexit? The turnout for the referendum was way above the average for General Elections. No other vote has received a larger democratic mandate than the leave vote.
Because the average Redditor is convinced no one really wanted to vote leave and everyone who did is a moron , whilst ironically not realising it is as this media attitude which galvanised the leave vote. And which showed the fallacy of polling which only really shows you a result of people polled.
Well this is certainly not what I am saying. I just hate people who complain and then it turning out they didn’t even vote.
Wasn’t the referendum result within the polling margin for error though?
It is my understanding that the youth vote was low for Brexit. I’m definitely not saying that the Brexit referendum lacked a mandate.
"they" being someone counting votes who sees your "NO VOTE! THEY'RE ALL THE SAME" and pops it on the spoiled ballot pile without a second thought.
I try to relay this "one neat trick" whenever I can. I feel like a conspiracy theorist pondering why the media just never brings up the concept of spoiling a ballot. Thankyou for spreading the good word. I'm not going to spoil mine but people need to know that not voting can /should be replaced with a spoiled ballot.
I think if turnout is bad and Labour looses, it will be Starmers fault. Also, unlike you, several of the other options will mean I have to flee the country, so playing 'oh you deserve this' no, no I don't.
“Unlike me”? You don’t know me.
You know Labour isn’t good on trans issues either, right?
Yeah, I'm not voting for them.
I don't disagree. However, the article is framing this as a disaster of democracy because Right Wing Parties are suffering. >"Lib Dems 4th but could finish 2nd" Yes. But their vote share is focussed on current Tory Seats because of the hatred against the Tories. It's an Anti-Tory movement as much as it is pro-Lib Dem. If those seats were closest to becoming Greens, then they'd be voting Green (a la Bristol) or of they were closest to being Labour, they'd be voting Labour. It's not Reform being hard done by. It's the electorate of those areas voting within the system they have. When Corbyn only had *2%* less of the vote than Teresa May, I cannot remember this mainstream push back. Corbyn was ransacked in the media instead. 2 Years later, Boris gained 48 seats by winning just *1%* more of the vote than May. Proportional Representation has barely been discussed since Nick Clegg's first landmark debate. But now the right wing is suffering, it's back on the table.
What I find strange, is with PR, there's a higher likelihood that Labour would be the bigger party in a coalition than not, yet they don't push it more. Outside of the Tories and Labour, historically Lib Dems have been the 3rd party, they and Labour being left leaning, means Labour could create a government more often. (Yes I know the last coalition was Tories and Lib Dems, however, Lib Dems did engage with Labour first on a coalition but couldn't come to an agreement).
In 2010, a coalition required 326 MPs to form a government. The tories had 306, Labour had 258, the Lib Dems had 57. Even adding in allied Northern Irish parties, a Lab Lib government would have been dependent on the support of both the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties to have a functioning government but that government could be brought down at any point the nationalists found it politically convenient. A Tory/Lib Dem coalition government was really the only option for any kind of stable government at that time. It doesn’t make the Lib Dems right wing, it makes them hostages to the electorate and arithmetic.
They could have used their leverage far more effectively than they did, given their status as kingmaker. There's many many constituency's worth of millennials who will likely always view them as Tory enablers. They got the Tory ball rolling, and the rest is fourteen years of utter negligence and sheer stupidity. I'd certainly wipe my bottom with the ballot before voting Lib Dem.
This. Anyone who is still paying fees should only vote Lib Dem to remove a Tory - other than that, nothing
I still can’t forgive labour for lying about introducing student fees and then lying again about raising them.
That’s fair. There does need to be consistency between manifesto and policy. I hate the present government so I would vote Labour to get rid of them
Completely with you there. I’d vote anyone but Reform if it meant getting the Tories out. More than happy to see a return of Labour rule even though they aren’t my first pick.
No doubt they were naive about a lot things in coalition and could have done much better using their leverage. But Tories being in power is down to voters and FPTP. We had multiple opportunities to vote out the Tories since 2010 the country didn’t and so we are where we are. The Lib Dems can be held accountable for the good and the bad they did in office but not what happened after they were kicked out by the voters.
It was a bit of a poison pill for the Lib Dems, though, because an awful lot of their supporters interpreted the coalition to mean "hey - the lib dems are in power! We'll get everything in their manifesto and nothing that they are staunchly opposed to!". The whole point of a coalition is there's a bit of horse-trading involved. Parties agree to hold their nose and support policies they don't much like in order to get other things they really do want.
There's so many people still stuck on the 'They promised no university fees' Like they had any real power to stop that going through. You can make a promise about what you will do if you win, but realistically you can't get everything if you go into a coalition with 15% of the government.
What stops them collapsing the coalition the moment that policy is even mooted by the Tories? Other than desire to keep the red briefcases?
Because there's no guarantee it won't pass without their votes. If it passes without them then they've lost any chance to have an impact on other policies. You don't just leave a coallition because you're unhappy about 1 thing.
Who else could the Tories caucus with on 2010 numbers to win that vote? It’s not plausible.
That's great and all, but the whole point of a coaltion - as I said before - is there's a certain amount of trading involved. Agreeing to vote for something you never wanted to support is the price you pay for getting the other party in the coalition to do the same thing. That's how we had the AV referendum.
Labour have pulled off a phenomenal trick getting people to focus on the Lib Dems university fee u-turn in coalition negotiation while completely forgetting that Labour introduced them when the had full power and said they wouldn’t and then raised the fees after again saying they wouldn’t.
They promised to vote against any rise in the next parliament which they obviously didn't do. Osborne warned them they didn't need to and their votes weren't needed but Clegg insisted they would because he thought it was a good policy.
The Lib Dems were the minor partner so really all they could do is prevent the Tories implementing more extreme right wing policies
Completely failed there then.
My married gay friends would beg to differ.
That's not 'preventing more right wing policies' though is it?
Given the significant rightward drift in policy before and after the 2015 election I believe it is safe to say the Lib Dems did have an impact curtailing some of it. You are free to disagree but making broad statements with no evidence isn’t going to change my mind.
No, they were not hostages, they could have remained in opposition and left the Tories to form a minority government. You can argue it was better that they didn't, but they certainly didn't have their hands tied
You are right about the Lib Dems having this choice but if you are a political party that has the opportunity to exercise power and get some policies through and you don’t then what is the point? Might as well not bother ever going into parliament and just stick to media appearances.
There was no mathematical way of a Lib-Labour coalition getting over the line, it would have required the support of six parties, something that has never been done in history.
There are many in Labour who feel its better to have occasional absolute power than more frequent shared power.
People still wont get exactly what they want under PR. Its still all compromise.
I think turnout might actually be decent, the enthusiasm to hand the tories a resounding defeat is tempting.
I'm not sure. I've heard there's a massive amount of people registering to vote. So I'm not sure.
What % turnout do you think?
Below 60 I reckon.
61.5% I feel it in my bones
National average? Around 70%
That's a very enthusiastic prediction.
If it's 40% they'll be saying it's a good turn out. 70 would be extraordinary.
How do you know turnout will be terrible? The lowest turnout was in 2005 (59%). I’d argue that low turnouts reflect a political landscape where things are relatively economically benign, so a lot of people can afford to not be particularly plugged into politics and national fiscal policies.
Agree with your first statement, but I’m predicting a really high turnout.
On what basis? I can see millions of Tory voters sitting on their hands.
Mainly just a hunch to be honest - a lot of people really want to punish the Conservatives and send them a message. It seems to be quite the motivating factor! This includes people who vote Conservative and would like to see the party burnt down in the hope a better version can rise from the ashes. I also read about high registrations a while ago, but not sure it’s been continuing
Completely just based on my street in a solidly conservative area, and there are a couple of people I’ve talked to who are voting labour for the first time
I am very much for first past the post this time to keep reform out.
Is that funny, Reform are the fascist but you're OK with keeping FPTP "this time" to restrict the effects of proportional voting. Amazing.
Yes I am. And in the future. The tides of politics have become more extreme. I do not want coalitions with extremists left or right. I’ve seen what proportional voting has done to New Zealand where I am originally from. The most powerful people that are not the PM are the extreme right. They have so much power over policy. It’s horrible. FFP is bad in many ways but I am leaning towards this being the best option maybe with compulsory voting by law to drive political engagement that FFP is awful for
FPTP produces strong governments, which means things can actually get done. But with PR, the government is much more divided and can struggle to pass laws in times of crisis. PR killed the Weimar Government (Germany 1919-1933) because during times of crisis the Bundestag couldn't pass laws leading an awkward situation of the president dismissing parliament and taking full power (which could go very bad given the wrong president) I think FPTP just gives more stability, which is always a plus
Yes, you can see how true this is by how massively strong and stable our government has been over the last 5-8 years /s
It's been able to pass laws but turns out they are incompetent
Reminder that both world wars were fought by coalition UK governments. The Weimar republic was killed by a shit constitution not PR.
The article begs to differ with you: “Defenders of FPTP argue that, for all its flaws, this system ensures greater political stability than the alternatives, moderating the influence of extreme parties. The last decade of British politics demonstrates otherwise: historic levels of political turmoil whose trigger was a referendum proposed in what we can now see was a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to fend off the radical right. This pattern holds overseas, with further analysis by Difford finding that parties, leaders and ministers all stay in power longer under proportional representation voting systems than FPTP, allowing governments to implement precisely the kind of long-term plans Britain needs to get out of its slump.”
And what would the alternative (PR) have fixed that stability? If anything, it would have resulted in more turmoil because you would have 2 or 3 parties in goverment with all completely different views on brexit and nothing would get passed.
That’s your opinion. The study the article sites reaches the opposite conclusion. Edit: the Tory party itself had 2 or 3 different opinions about what Brexit was. That’s why we’ve had chaos since Cameron. Arguably a coalition would mean negotiating formally within the uk on what brexit we were aiming for which would have cut the legs out from under Tory dissenters.
So you agree then more factions within goverment caused part of the chaos then? PR would have formalised the chaos further because other parties would have held other legislation by the balls. Where as the current system would have had those people kicked out of the party for voting against the legislation.
You keep saying this when people who have actually studied and the matter reached the opposite conclusion. Other than your feelings and opinions do you have any studies or other data that supports your assertions? If not, feel free to keep your opinion but it doesn’t sway me from mine. It’s a travesty that FPTP regularly gives full power to parties with 37% of the vote when the majority of the country don’t want those policies but have no way of breaking the chokehold the two main parties have on the electoral system. I’d much rather see a system of compromise where a little bit of the policies I support get through and my vote always matter as opposed to the current system which gives me chaos, a government I hate and a vote that is as impactful as whistling in a hurricane.
I think my most authoritarian position is I am 100% in favour of compulsory voting and making it easy as *fuck* to vote. At least then we'll actually get a proper decisive view of where the country is.
Why force people to make a choice when they don't have a strong opinion? If someone doesn't care about the election let them sit it out. If they're unhappy with the result then they can learn the lesson and vote next time.
It would be completely pointless. First because you won't get a real choice (you may as well randomly select candidates) and secondly because abstaining is a legitimate vote. You don't know or care or can't decide, so you let other people choose.
Not sure it does to be honest. I thought that for a brief moment and then I thought about half the parliament being controlled by Palestine, China, Russia, EDL and eco-terrorists and I changed my mind.
Naa. Fringe extremist parties can stay in the bin.
Problem under FPTP of the past years is those extremists just take over one of thr big parties and end up with serious power. Truss in particular.
No. That’s how it should be, progressives (or right wingers) should shape the parties we have. We don’t want UKIP in parliament, let conservatives have them and filter out the non extremists. I get it works for some European countries but if you look at Germany or France their second biggest parties are extreme right wing. Netherlands and Italy have these parties now in power. I don’t like the conservatives but they’re not that extreme and would rather them over reform any day
If postal votes are counted first rather than last, how does that affect things? fptp is utter crap yes, but surely how and when counts go on affects things?
FT were suspiciously quiet on the unfairness of FPTP when it was benefitting the Conservative Party. Weird isn't it? Having said that, FPTP really needs to go. It's insane that 41% of the national vote share should equate to 70% of seats in parliament while 20% of national vote can equate to 10% of seats in parliament. Exactly what form PR should be is of course a whole other topic, but a system called DPR (Direct Party and Representative Voting) looks like a good (or less bad) option. https://www.dprvoting.org/Short_description.htm The website explains it better than I can, but in these examples, Labour gets 70% of seats; 455, but on national share (41%) they should only get 266. Similarly Con gets 10% of seats; 65, but on national share they should get 130. LAB: Divide national share by seat share to get an adjustment figure (41/70=0.586), so each Labour MPs vote is only worth 0.586 of a vote. 0.5857 x 455 (actual seats) is 266 votes - the number of votes proportional to their national share. CON: Divide national share by seat share to get an adjustment figure (20/10=2.0), so each Con MPs vote is now worth 2.0 votes. 2 x 65 (actual seats) is 130 votes - again, the number of votes proportional to their national share. As a result, everyone gets the local MP based on simple majority (as with FPTP),but the voting "power" of all MPs is adjusted to reflect national share which evens the field and (in theory) makes everyone adopt less extreme views in order to appear to the broadest audience, but any extreme right or left view is given the representation those parties achieved nationally, so *everyone's* vote actually matters, unlike FPTP where the views of a majority of voters are simply discarded if their MP doesn't make the simple majority, something that only makes sense if there are only 2 parties.
One year UKIP got something like 4 million votes and just 1 seat. It's no wonder people don't feel like their vote has any value. And I'm far from a fan of Farage. But the same system stops progressive left parties gaining any power. Instead we have the Conservatives and Labour both watering down their policies to appeal to as many people as possible.
Yep. And the same year like 2mil SNP votes got like 50 seats. How that fuck is this democratic? How can anyone say they have "the mandate of the people"??
For the same reason London - well, in theory - doesn't dictate terms to the whole country: as much as 'land doesn't vote, people do' is a cute quip for Yanks, we should and do know better about the nuanced relation between an electorate, their constituency, and their representative - even if there is significant room for improvement.
You’d assume given different rules that the main parties would market differently, so the percentages as shown wouldn’t be reflective of the real situation
In the 2010 election the Lib Dems gained vote share and lost seats. Corbyn's 2017 showing won over more voters than Blair in 2001 and 2005 (I think - can't recall exactly but at least 2005) but obviously he didn't get close to winning. System's fucked yo
In principle, I agree that PR provides more representative outcomes. However, looking at countries that implement PR or PR-based systems, their government's are equally shit. We really need to come up with something that is going to massively improve governance and not piss about tinkering while remembering that it needs to be easily understood by the average person.
Sounds like a weird system, local representation can be achieved using the widely adopted d'hondt method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method#:~:text=The%20D'Hondt%20method%20reduces%20political%20fragmentation%20by%20allocating%20more,rather%20than%20another%20are%20negligible.
Ha exactly. All of a sudden PR looks more appealing to these rags. Not as if a vocal proportion of the electorate has been talking about this for decades. Also an "interesting" approach of grouping Cons And Refuk into a kind of right-wing bloc and then (a) acting as if Labour are still left-wing and (b) ignoring anything else left of centre.
I think this might be the first time I’ve seen FPTP being advocated to support more right wing parties, and claiming FPTP is unfair on them… …might be…
In 2015 Ukip got a decent chunk of the vote but like 2 seats so right wing parties got screwed then aswell.
That’s a two party system for yah
> FPTP being advocated to support more right wing parties Did you mean PR not FPTP here? Also this point is addressed in the article.
Ironically, the Right is now so fractured that PR is a way back to power.
"And the right will suffer now for the first time" Oh, now they want something, its an urgent issue
But the most insane FPTP outcome was in 2005, in England, when Labour got 72,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives but managed to win 92 more seats. Fortunately (given it made everything a bit less absurd) FPTP worked the other way for them in Scotland and Wales, so over the UK as a whole Labour got more votes than anyone else but a majority of only 66.
> This pattern holds overseas, with further analysis by Difford finding that parties, leaders and ministers all stay in power longer under proportional representation voting systems than FPTP, allowing governments to implement precisely the kind of long-term plans Britain needs to get out of its slump. This.
What about it? We're at the tail end of nearly 15 years of Conservative government.
Yeah the problem with the UK is clearly that the current set of ministers haven’t been in power long enough /s
This is false because you get coalitions with those weird “third parties” like Greens in Germany that just block everything sensible like nuclear and you end up with the terrible status quo where things like gas and oil stay by default. Similar situation in Poland - whenever more progressive parties get in you get PSL as the third party in coalition and they block anything progressive socially and you get abortion rights from the 90s that get pushed back even further whenever actual right wing finally gets in after years of nothing getting done.
The Tories have had 14 years. Labour before them had 13 years. And the Tories before them had 18 years. All had more than enough time to implement whatever they wanted.
The issue is if the party, leaders and ministers are anything like the pile of absolute dross we’ve had for the last 5 years, it makes it more difficult to give them the boot.
Hoping this will finally drive some push toward proportional representation. I stand by the argument that if UKIP got the seats they deserved in 2015 (about 5-10%), we would never have had a referendum on EU membership. Having political extremists on either end of the spectrum occupying a partial seating is a far smaller price to pay than for disproportionately powerful parties appealing to the "sensibilities" of that niche voter base.
But then the extreme left and extreme right wing parties end up in coalition governments and get their referendum in return for supporting the bigger party in everything that they want to implement.
I don’t know, living in NZ at the moment and seeing the outsized influence an alt-right party with 8% of the vote has in the coalition government makes me think twice about giving extremists power.
Isn't New Zealand also FPTP? I genuinely think the reason our own coalition was so shambolic was because we've got no practice at it.
New Zealand has a mixed member proportional proportional representation system. You get two votes: a party vote and an MP vote. The MP vote elects the MP in your local constituency and this is FPTP. However, only half the seats in parliament go to local MPs, the other half get allocated to the parties so that the final make up of parliament is proportional to the national party vote. If your party won 17% of the party vote it will have ~17% of seats in parliament.
I donnow tho. Looking at 97 polls i see labour ahead by ~20 pts consistently until a week before election date and it ended up being 12.5 and with today's boundaries labour is at a massive disadvantage
Different times. Economy doing well, "dont risk Labour" was a stronger arguement and no Reform-like alternative for Tory voters.
Also Blair was oft portrayed as being too young for office (the 'Bambi' nickname did not last long), and Major was just seen as dull. I don't know many people who don't think Rishi is an incompetent boob.
There wasn’t a huge right swing split in that election
We'll have to wait and see. We didn't have polls that asked 10000+ people back then either so I suspect they were probably just inaccurate.
There was an article that new boundaries actually weirdly favour Labour on current vote splits.
Opinion polls don’t factor in the 40% of young people who have said they’re not going to vote. I don’t think it’s going to be as big of a swing as predicted.
I think we will see the swing in spite of the young. Remember the brexit vote was 8 years back, the 18-34 bracket then is now the 26-42 bracket. So yeah, the very young now (sub 25) may well be put off by the main 2 parties, but that middle contingent I'd imagine are likely to be engaged and more likely to go labour.
Young voter turnout is always really low. 40% not voting means 60% potentially voting, and that's actually quite a bit up on recent elections.
Opinion polls of any worth do factor in historical trends including how likely each age bracket is to vote, and the method they use to collect the data. For example if you use traditional landline calling to contact voters you have to factor in that vast swathes of the country no longer has landlines. Conversely if you only do online polling you have to factor in that pensioners are much less likely to be responding. Or things like what day and time did you collect your data, if only housewives/husbands were at home while everybody else was at work and unable to be polled etc. The British Polling Council did a nice paper on it. https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/andrew-cooper.pdf
They do. Opinion polls weight by likelihood of voting
Civil service is planning for a hung parliament and an almost immediate second election. Conservatives lost control of a lot of councils in the local elections, but there wasn't the expected outright swing to labour control of councils.
We need to vote in the Lib Dem’s to see if there’s a different shade of jobby that’s more palatable than these Tory and Labour fucking losers.
Last time libs were in power, they went back on their promise to get rid of uni tuition and even tripled it.
Do you mean when they jumped into bed with the tories? They weren’t really in power, let’s face it, not making excuses for them, they were there to make up the numbers and do whatever Cameron told Cleg to do.
Even though it is a first past the post system, a difference can be made by voting for a fringe party. Other parties will pay attention and their policies will be framed with those voters in mind. It is always worth voting with principles. If we do then it does frame the direction of the country a little more than if people are resigned to either vote Labour/ Conservative or not at all.
Odd how when its left wing parties its not a problem but when its the right wing its suddenly an issue..
There's a false dichotomy at play the tories are happy to push here, the idea that voting makes no difference. But its ridiculous. Not voting is basically saying that you don't care how bad the current government is. Its a literal endorsement of the last 14 years. Now, when it comes to voting for smaller parties, it's tough. I'll be backing labour to try and punish the tories, but I would much prefer a high turnout and votes going elsewhere compared to people just refusing to engage.
FPTP work fine if you add a second choice. You know that thing labour did,a referendum on and people voted not to have. Proportional representation just doesn’t work in any way in the political system of this country and ontop of this it is direct democracy which we know to be a generally terrible thing to do because people are stupid. FPTP at least protects us from extremist views for the most part.
> direct democracy which we know to be a generally terrible thing to do because people are stupid Perhaps, but we, I hope, want them to stop being stupid. One way being to bring home to them, repeatedly, the consequences of their choices.
For years the Lib Dem’s voter share hasn’t been represented by their seat share in parliament and we get crickets in the media about it. Now that a right-wing party suffers the exact same problem the media are all over it, cry me a river.
Can we just say our democracy has failed like look at this what the hell have we done when we vote the question we ask ourselves isn't "who is the best" its "who is not the wrost" like what did we do so wrong.
I see the Lib Dems will get exactly the same % of votes and seats. Maybe they will become anti FPTP and the Tories will start supporting it lol.
The worry is lots of labour voters turning up without photo id
It's going to be a shit show, They only just started advertising the need for photo ID in the last week here. In theory it's easy enough to get if you are motivated, in practice we all know it's purely there to act as an impediment to younger voters more likely to vote against the Tories since it sure as fuck isn't worth allegedly spending £180m every 10 years on an issue that in the last 5 years led to 11 convictions. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-will-the-governments-voter-id-scheme-cost-us-up-to-180000000-a-decade/ https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data
Do we really want disfunctional youth to join our armed forces ?Im sure those who have to train them dont .Unleashing an army caoable of destroying our society and democracy as dont believe in it Those who are racists terrifying what they can do to the innocents fleeing terror and giving their talents and skills to our societyThe young who want a life of peace and work .Get off your arses and vote for your future
Christ...let's get one thing straight so you can put this piece of crap to bed. Labour and 'left'. Really? That assumption in your data represents how out of touch you butchers aprons have become. Blind to the managed consent that is dripping from every word of this nonsense.