UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The real beneficiary of proportional representation would be non-straightforwardly-Labour-liking parts of the Left, which is not an interest group that it suits Labour to favor.

[Silent Hunter]

Yeah the average length of party control, post war is just under a decade averaging out 'one' term governments with long stretches in power.

And of course we've had recent spells of 18 years of government, then 13 and now a likely 14 years.

Between 1945 and 1979, the Conservatives and Labour were in power for a total of 17 years a piece.

It's 32 vs. 13 since then.

[Zinneke]

I didn't mention pure PR, I still believe Labour or really any centre left force is massively disadvantaged by the fact that swathes of the population would like to vote against Tories but cannot do so. Johnson had a huge majority in seats and yet did not win a majority of the vote. He pushed through a massive constitutional change on the basis of this false mandate

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I didn't mention pure PR, I still believe Labour or really any centre left force is massively disadvantaged by the fact that swathes of the population would like to vote against Tories but cannot do so. Johnson had a huge majority in seats and yet did not win a majority of the vote. He pushed through a massive constitutional change on the basis of this false mandate

Well that and a popular referendum on it.

[Blair]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

Haven’t a fair few people said the best test would be PR or AV at council level? That’s imho where the soviet style majorities end up leading to problems

[Хahar 🤔]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

[TheTide]

I thought AV is the system used in Australia which lost a referendum here in 2011?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

SV (the system used in mayoral elections until recently) was the electoral equivalent of everybody pulling a silly face in the first wedding picture, and the bored photographer saying "ok, now that you people have got that out of your system, let's take a real one".

[afleitch]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

Haven’t a fair few people said the best test would be PR or AV at council level? That’s imho where the soviet style majorities end up leading to problems

Problem with AV is that when modelled, it sometimes led to less proportionality and over rewarded electoral landslides. Or in the case of 1997, the Lib Dems leapfrogging the Tories.

There's a great paper on every election under STV and Droop LR  from 1945 by Dylan Difford worth a look.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

I don't understand this cirticism towards AV, you don't get a second vote. It's just that you vote counts even if your top choice is eliminated.

[Хahar 🤔]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

I don't understand this cirticism towards AV, you don't get a second vote. It's just that you vote counts even if your top choice is eliminated.

I'm referring to, as CrabCake says, the system formerly used in England for mayoral and police elections. Whether voters were counted in the second round depended on whether they correctly guessed which candidates would make it to the second round.

[YL]

I’m very boring and always just liked AV where you got a 1st and 2nd.

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

I don't understand this cirticism towards AV, you don't get a second vote. It's just that you vote counts even if your top choice is eliminated.

I'm referring to, as CrabCake says, the system formerly used in England for mayoral and police elections. Whether voters were counted in the second round depended on whether they correctly guessed which candidates would make it to the second round.

This system is called "Supplementary Vote".  It is equivalent to proper AV if there are three candidates but if there are more it requires a guessing game as you say.

[Alcibiades]

Problem with AV is that when modelled, it sometimes led to less proportionality and over rewarded electoral landslides. Or in the case of 1997, the Lib Dems leapfrogging the Tories.

There's a great paper on every election under STV and Droop LR  from 1945 by Dylan Difford worth a look.

You’re absolutely right about AV potentially being even less proportional than FPTP, but I still think, at least given the logic of single-member district elections, it’s definitely more democratic; it makes more votes count.

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

It’s true that it is not ideal; my suspicion is it was introduced because there was a worry voters in a country not accustomed to ranked voting would have found full STV too confusing. That said, I think it’s clearly preferable to FPTP, coming much closer to reflecting the ‘true’ preferences of the electorate. For instance, the Tories would have won the most recent Cambridgeshire ‘mayoral’ election under FPTP, but Labour actually ended up winning off the back of Lib Dem preferences. The system’s replacement by FPTP is in my opinion highly regrettable, and little more than a nakedly partisan Tory power grab.

[EastAnglianLefty]

*I suspect that even during periods of labour government, labor members dispraporinately live in conservative/non-swing seats.

Your suspicions are incorrect.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yeah the average length of party control, post war is just under a decade averaging out 'one' term governments with long stretches in power.

And of course we've had recent spells of 18 years of government, then 13 and now a likely 14 years.

Between 1945 and 1979, the Conservatives and Labour were in power for a total of 17 years a piece.

It's 32 vs. 13 since then.

Indeed, but by about 2040 that *could* look rather different again.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The biggest “benefit” of fully Australian style AV with compulsory voting and preferencing is the ultimate pure democratic mandate. An absolute majority of the constituency begrudgingly agree that one candidate is less bad than the alternative, and therefore they can’t deflect blame if they turn out to be sh**t.

[Хahar 🤔]

This seems like a substantially worse system than FPTP, seeing as that whether you get a second vote depends on whether you accurately guess who will finish in the top two. It's good that it's gone now.

It’s true that it is not ideal; my suspicion is it was introduced because there was a worry voters in a country not accustomed to ranked voting would have found full STV too confusing. That said, I think it’s clearly preferable to FPTP, coming much closer to reflecting the ‘true’ preferences of the electorate. For instance, the Tories would have won the most recent Cambridgeshire ‘mayoral’ election under FPTP, but Labour actually ended up winning off the back of Lib Dem preferences. The system’s replacement by FPTP is in my opinion highly regrettable, and little more than a nakedly partisan Tory power grab.

That was a three-candidate election, in which case SV is exactly the same as AV. No voter in that election had to guess which candidates would make the top two, because by ranking their top two choices they were guaranteed to have their preference considered in the second round. I am not arguing against AV.

In the Wiltshire police by-election two years ago, 36% of votes were cast for a candidate who did not make the top two. Out of those votes, only 45% transferred to either candidate in the second round: this excludes, for instance, anyone who voted for the Labour candidate first and the Liberal Democrat second or vice versa. In total, fully 20% of votes were not counted at all in the second round for basically arbitrary reasons. Given that what votes did transfer flowed heavily to the independent and given that the Conservative candidate won by four percentage points, the result certainly would have been different if each voter had been able to express an opinion between the Conservative and the independent.

With FPTP, at least the perceived need to vote tactically would be obvious and voters who wished to vote tactically would have an obvious incentive to unite behind one candidate to do so. More to the point, with FPTP every vote counts equally. Under this system, any voter who casts their ballot for an invalid candidate has their vote in the second round excluded, and there is no way to know ahead of time which candidates will be valid. A system that requires voters to make a guess and then disenfranchises any that guess wrong is exceptionally defective.

[oldtimer]

Yeah the average length of party control, post war is just under a decade averaging out 'one' term governments with long stretches in power.

And of course we've had recent spells of 18 years of government, then 13 and now a likely 14 years.

Between 1945 and 1979, the Conservatives and Labour were in power for a total of 17 years a piece.

It's 32 vs. 13 since then.

If you have noticed it's a semi-generational or generational switch.

Almost no one born after 1970 votes Conservative, while in the last election almost no one born before 1970 voted Labour.

It takes time for people to acknowledge their mistakes in public and each generation is affected differently in it's younger years.

It usually takes 15 or 30 years and a try of both sides of the same coin before choosing another coin.

In Britain that means 15 years of one party dominating and 30 years of one ideology dominating.

[oldtimer]

There is pretty robust empirical evidence that PR leads both to more frequent left-wing governments, and to more left-wing policy being passed. As Cassius says, though, there are pretty obvious self-interested reasons why Labour would want to keep FPTP. On the whole, I suspect PR would mean that Labour would lead government more frequently, but of course they would never (and nor would any party) win a majority again.

From my Greek experience, I think what matters is the power and independence of individual MP's rather than the type of voting.

If PR or AV or whatever, results in MP's being appointed by party leaders rather than selected by the local parties would simply result in power flowing to party leaders.

Now the higher in the political foodchain you go the more it is dominated by the Establishment, by virtue of personal income (like you see in Congress)

So party leaders having all the power means a Dutch version of governance by a small number of establishment leaders.

In Australia you still have individual MP's having lots of power so it still resembles a classic British 2 party system despite the type of voting.

Now the Establishment at present is social liberal-fiscal conservative, but there is no guarantee that the wheel wont turn again.

[CumbrianLefty]

And to the extent the right does dominate UK elections, its arguably more due to their having most of the press in their pocket* rather than British Labour being innately crap at them.

(*people usually object to this by saying "but the broadcasters are more influential these days" - the ones who so often take their cues from said skewed newspapers, you mean?)

[Zinneke]

Yes, which going back to the original post that kicked this off I also cited Starmer is weak on that issue. PR was just taken up by what Harpal Brar once called the Enemy Within because it's the most controversial. Starmer won't change the status quo. He could for example ban people who have their money in tax havens from owning papers...but he won't because he's now firmly in the "I must look like an establishment stooge to please parts of the right-wing press" mode, as evidenced by his remarks about him being a real conservative and now the hating tree huggers story. He's been and is going to be an abject disappointment given the expectations of ending the Westminster mess are sky high...and you have people like that well known lover of the Labour Left Alistair Campbell calling for HoL reform and banning private schools but Starmer keeps his mouth shut on the issue...again, very disappointed given a Labour majority is a given. He can afford to be much more ambitious and exploit the brazen corruption of the Tories to push through significant institutional reform.

I've always maintained the omnishambles of the past few years wasn't because of Brexit but because British institutions are rotten and need an update. Brexit merely precipitated their rotting.

[EastAnglianLefty]

If Labour does ever change the rules on media ownership, I can guarantee it won't do so by announcing that is its policy whilst in opposition and with an election more than a year away.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1680270306294874114?s=20

[Blair]

Yes, which going back to the original post that kicked this off I also cited Starmer is weak on that issue. PR was just taken up by what Harpal Brar once called the Enemy Within because it's the most controversial. Starmer won't change the status quo. He could for example ban people who have their money in tax havens from owning papers...but he won't because he's now firmly in the "I must look like an establishment stooge to please parts of the right-wing press" mode, as evidenced by his remarks about him being a real conservative and now the hating tree huggers story. He's been and is going to be an abject disappointment given the expectations of ending the Westminster mess are sky high...and you have people like that well known lover of the Labour Left Alistair Campbell calling for HoL reform and banning private schools but Starmer keeps his mouth shut on the issue...again, very disappointed given a Labour majority is a given. He can afford to be much more ambitious and exploit the brazen corruption of the Tories to push through significant institutional reform.

I've always maintained the omnishambles of the past few years wasn't because of Brexit but because British institutions are rotten and need an update. Brexit merely precipitated their rotting.

In SKS defence on both these topics the party has a policy it's being shouting about for the last year; HOL reform & taxing the fees for private schools.

I actually don't even see making the second chamber a fully elected body as something a social democratic government should be rushing to do; there are plenty of ways to fix the excesses of the current body- cap the numbers, scrap the heredities & tighten up the appointment rules & make say 50% elected on a regional PR basis.

The interesting thing you points touch upon is what the energy & focus of a Labour Government will be; on paper they have committed to the biggest reform of Trade Union laws since the 1980s (in the direction of Labour)

Some people would disagree with me and say you need the political reform but after the last 13 years I very much hope that Labour will focus on their own coalition & specifically fixing the economy rather than burning a lot of energy on political reform.

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

In Australia you still have individual MP's having lots of power so it still resembles a classic British 2 party system despite the type of voting.

This is really because Alternative Vote/Instant-Runoff Voting is a majoritarian system rather than a proportional one. It still collapses almost all support into 2 parties because you need to win 50%, but it does allow some local/regional parties to win support whereas in FPTP they would've split the vote and possibly thrown an election to another party.