UK Election 2010

[doktorb]

FPTP truely is broken. When the vast majority - if not all, I think - of MPs are elected without a majority in their seats, then we have a problem. And that's before you even begin to look at Government with a mandate...but without a majority.

Time for real reform, and that means STV for Westminster.

[Silent Hunter]

FPTP truely is broken. When the vast majority - if not all, I think - of MPs are elected without a majority in their seats, then we have a problem. And that's before you even begin to look at Government with a mandate...but without a majority.

Time for real reform, and that means STV for Westminster.

I disagree with STV. For a start it's hard to follow...

[AMOLAK MANN]

Including Labout holding on to its marginal seat in 2005!In Dorset i believe

[Harry Hayfield]

Including Labout holding on to its marginal seat in 2005!In Dorset i believe

Dorset South 2005 (and change on 2001)
Jim Knight MP (Lab) 20,231 41.64% -0.32%
Ed Matts (Con) 18,419 37.91% -3.69%
Graham Oakes (Lib Dem) 7,647 15.73% +1.33%
Hugh Chalker (UKIP) 1,571 3.23% +1.21%
Labour HOLD with a majority of 1,812 on a swing from Con to Lab of 1.70%
County Swing in Dorset: 0.5% from Lab to Con

Labour also held on in Ynys Môn as well (although that was due to Peter Rodgers standing as an Independent)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's assuming that Rodgers's vote would have largely gone for Plaid. And you can never be sure of anything on that wonderful, mad island. Well, in the '50's, '60's and '70's it was always sure that King Cledwyn would win, but other than that...

[Peter]

FPTP truely is broken. When the vast majority - if not all, I think - of MPs are elected without a majority in their seats, then we have a problem. And that's before you even begin to look at Government with a mandate...but without a majority.

Time for real reform, and that means STV for Westminster.

Interestingly a third of all MPs have the support of a 50%+ majority of the vote, and in 2001, this was nearly as high as half of all MPs.

[doktorb]

You sure of that figure? Is that a support of the VOTE or the ELECTORATE?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Vote, obviously. There's never been a time since the extension of the franchise to all adults when a majority of M.P's polled a majority of the potential electorate of their constituency - it's always been restricted to very safe seats in high turnout elections.

But FPTP (not an electoral system I actually like) will only be "broken" when it fails to do what it's supposed to do and deliever majority governments. A good argument exists that it's broken in local elections (and has been for decades), but we aren't there at Westminster level yet. They are in Canada though.

[doktorb]

I'd say parts of London are there already! Just some seats at random -

Cities of London and Westminsteer - Mark Field (Con)  - 17,260 (47.3)
Harrow West - Gareth Thomas (Lab) -  20,298 (42.5)
Uxbridge - John Randall (Con) - 16,840 (49.0)
Hornchurch - James Brokenshire (Con) - 16,355 (42.
Poplar and Canning Town - Jim Fitzpatrick (Lab) - 15,628 (40.9)
Bethnal Green and Bow - George Galloway (Respect) - 15,801 (35.9)
Twickenham - Susan Kramer (Lib Dem) - 24,011 (46.7)
Ealing, Acton, and Shepard's Bush - Andrew Slaughter (Lab) - 16,579 (41.

Not one part of London will be represented by an MP - or indeed ministers - with less than 50% support were the introduction of a fairer, stronger, more representative electoral system brought into Westminster as it has for Scotland and Wales.

I take your point about local government, too. The results in Scotland show that the one-party state situations in local councils can be broken immeidately, which can only be a good thing for democracy.

AV or AV+ is a stepping stone. STV is the desired destination.

[Jens]

Vote, obviously. There's never been a time since the extension of the franchise to all adults when a majority of M.P's polled a majority of the potential electorate of their constituency - it's always been restricted to very safe seats in high turnout elections.

But FPTP (not an electoral system I actually like) will only be "broken" when it fails to do what it's supposed to do and deliever majority governments. A good argument exists that it's broken in local elections (and has been for decades), but we aren't there at Westminster level yet. They are in Canada though.

Don't you mean that FPTP is supposed to insure that the power of the rulers never is challenged

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't you mean that FPTP is supposed to insure that the power of the rulers never is challenged

Not really - it can actually greatly exaggerate swings between different parties and can make it easier (because it brings parliamentary majorities) to run "radical" (using the term in an extremely loose sense) governments (which is why the Bennites were opposed to electoral reform). FPTP only locks things up for the rulers of the day if other tricks and abuses are used alongside it.
Of course, it does make it hard in theory for new parties to win seats, but if they have enough concentrated support they'll break through anyway. Eventually.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd say parts of London are there already!

No, because the point isn't for M.P's to poll a majority of the vote - the point is for it to be easy to form majority governments.

As far as local government goes, my point was the existence of so many hung councils, despite FPTP. The best example of FPTP failure at local government level is Kirklees.

[doktorb]

Well, yes, the point of a general election is to form a government, but how can any Government have a valid mandate when so decreasing numbers of members are returned without a majority from their constituencies? "First past the post" was always described to me as "winner takes all". If 60% of votes are cast for candidates other than the "winner", that ain't a democractic mandate!

[Silent Hunter]

Well, yes, the point of a general election is to form a government, but how can any Government have a valid mandate when so decreasing numbers of members are returned without a majority from their constituencies? "First past the post" was always described to me as "winner takes all". If 60% of votes are cast for candidates other than the "winner", that ain't a democractic mandate!

That's a fundamental problem with every system bar Second Ballot. STV you can win with only 20% of first preferences.

There have been two post-war elections where a party won most seats, but came second in the popular vote- 1951 and February 1974. February 1974 delivered a Hung Parliament and the election in October was narrowly won by Labour.

[Silent Hunter]

Request that UK Election 2009 is merged with this, please.

[Harry Hayfield]

Elections where votes did not equal seats
1951
% Vote Share: Con 47.83% Lab 49.31% Lib 2.60%
Seats Won (GB) Con 313 Lab 294 Lib 6

February 1974
% Vote Share: Con 38.77% Lab 38.09% Lib 19.78%
Seats Won (GB) Con 297 Lab 301 Lib 14

[Jens]

Don't you mean that FPTP is supposed to insure that the power of the rulers never is challenged

Not really - it can actually greatly exaggerate swings between different parties and can make it easier (because it brings parliamentary majorities) to run "radical" (using the term in an extremely loose sense) governments (which is why the Bennites were opposed to electoral reform). FPTP only locks things up for the rulers of the day if other tricks and abuses are used alongside it.
Of course, it does make it hard in theory for new parties to win seats, but if they have enough concentrated support they'll break through anyway. Eventually.

My point exactly. Any new movement needs strong local presence. That made sense in the old more regionalised world, but today groups of opinion are not formed at the local shop and the old party thereby effectively eliminate the chance of new political movements to rise to importance.
I don't like that Danish People's Party has risen to power in the last decade, but the party represent an idea (some might call it a fear) that is supported by 10-15 % of the population. These people have zero chance of getting a political voice in a FPTP-system.

[Хahar 🤔]

AV or AV+ is a stepping stone. STV is the desired destination.

AV is worse than FPTP, IMO.

[Smid]

I rather like how we've got it over here (requires an elected Upper House). We use IRV for the Lower House, resulting in majority governments (usually), but we use STV for the Upper House, allowing smaller parties to hold seats and have their voices heard. It creates a good balance, I think, between stable government and minority representation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, the Australian system is rather good, though the Senate ought to be based on population.

[Harry Hayfield]

My personal feelings is that we should have the following rules

* Voting is compulsory (with a fine set at 1% of the annual income of the elector)
* A "none of the above" box (which if greater than the majority of the leading candidate launches a second round of voting a week later between the top two candidates with non votes recorded as a seperate piece of data)
* If a person feels that their vote is worthless, they should be able to (without proscution) be able to transfer it to a "worthless vote" box to be located on Westminster Green to remind MP's that the electorate do not have complete confidence in them.

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Published on Tuesday
http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/426473/Greg-Callus%3BIain-Dale%3BAndrew-Hawkins/Guide-to-the-2010-General-Election

Ooooh.  To t'bookshop here I come.

Worth a look.

Publication date has apparently been postponed to 2.10.10.

[Harry Hayfield]

Following Nick Clegg's speech today where he called on both disaffected Con and Lab voters to vote Lib Dem, do members think he wants to aim for a result as in 1983?

Change in % Votes Cast 1979 - 1983
Conservatives -1.48%
Labour -9.26%
Liberal / SDP Alliance +0.43%
SDP / Liberal Alliance +11.92%
Alliance +12.36%

And if he is aiming for that, should he say "Yes, we will challenge the Speaker in Buckingham!"

[doktorb]

"If you want a country that is different, vote for the party that is different"

That'll do me...

[Silent Hunter]

Digging through some old emails, I found something related to the British Election Study for last time around, where it concluded that Labour was only saved from a hung parliament by a strong economy and wouldn't be able to avoid one this time if the economy went bad.

Of course, it's gone spectacularly bad.