Rds1983 Posted July 6 VT Supporter Share Posted July 6 41 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: I would happily move to PR if I could see a system that 1. retains the link between constituency and MPs, 2. prevents extremists rising to power 3. was simple to understand and administer 4. produced a decisive winner more often than it produced a coalition winner But I can't come up with anything like that. I am glad that we agree on the link between MP's and their constituency. People moan about their MPs. But few people go to their surgeries and moan to them directly. We have a system where you can have face to face discussion with your MP. That's wonderful. I'm not entirely convinced that MPs do care about and are engaged with their constituencies. Whilst they will go to surgeries and answer emails, it always seems to be a hindrance to them and whenever I've engaged with one they've defaulted to the party line and not done anything unless there is a PR spin they could get from it. It seems to be very rare that an MP is actually from the area they represent and they quickly move on to other (safer) seats as they progress. Maybe I've just been unlucky with who we've had though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: I would happily move to PR if I could see a system that 1. retains the link between constituency and MPs, 2. prevents extremists rising to power 3. was simple to understand and administer 4. produced a decisive winner more often than it produced a coalition winner But I can't come up with anything like that. I am glad that we agree on the link between MP's and their constituency. People moan about their MPs. But few people go to their surgeries and moan to them directly. We have a system where you can have face to face discussion with your MP. That's wonderful. 1. Yes, I think the constituency /MP link is the best argument for FPTP. Any form of PR is going to lessen that but it can be retained to a reasonable extent. I would probably value it even more if I hadn't always been in a safe seat where I dislike our MP. 2. I understand your fear and obviously don't want extremist in charge. But on the other hand, even without MPs UKIP/Reform etc managed to exert a lot of influence. There should be enough sensible parties to form coalitions and keep the nutters out, and in parliament they should be held to account better as well. 3. I think PR is generally simpler to understand the FPTP. The more votes a party gets, the more MPs it gets. Systems like AV are an exception to that and wouldn't be my preference. You know more about administering votes and counts than I ever will so I'll have to take your word for it if you say that it would be significantly more difficult to administer PR 4. Well, there we just have a difference of opinion. I think coalition is not just acceptable but often preferable to a clear winner. Compromise and a broader range of ideas can be a good thing. Although I also accept that can lead to difficulty getting anything done or introducing real change when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 17 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: 3. I think PR is generally simpler to understand the FPTP. The more votes a party gets, the more MPs it gets. The bit you have quoted is simple. It's all the other questions that aren't. How can I become an MP if I don't belong to a party? How do you maintain the link between MPs and their constituency? What if the parties can't agree on a coalition and no-one is in power? How many crosses do I need to put in how many boxes? FPTP is easy. People who want to be your MP make themselves known to you. They try to convince you to vote for them. The person with the most votes is your MP. Those MPs decide who will be Prime Minister and Ministers. We complicate the issue by associating your vote for a person as a vote for a political party and for a Prime Minister. If there were no political parties the MPs would simply elect a Prime Minister and Ministers from their peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 9 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: And still people thinks that coalition governments are the worst thing ever. Originally the idea was that each MP should be partially independent and represent their constituency, but today MP’s mostly vote along party lines. That gives the PM more power than ever before to get his ideas and policies through parliament without any real checks and balances. Coalition governments would be a way of raining in some of that power, since it will involve more people/parties in the decision making. The only issue with coalition governments is the uncertainty it causes. When you have a hung parliament it causes some panic because no one knows whats going to happen and the pound plummets. Then you may have in house fighting between the two parties. I was suprised the coalition last a full term the lib dems and tories got on better than i expected and that takes strong leadership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted July 6 VT Supporter Share Posted July 6 Surprised this has come up........Reform being the most affected party by the existing system now want to change the rules. I can see this being Farage's new Brexit type campaign. The right wing media really do set the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: The bit you have quoted is simple. It's all the other questions that aren't. How can I become an MP if I don't belong to a party? How do you maintain the link between MPs and their constituency? What if the parties can't agree on a coalition and no-one is in power? How many crosses do I need to put in how many boxes? FPTP is easy. People who want to be your MP make themselves known to you. They try to convince you to vote for them. The person with the most votes is your MP. Those MPs decide who will be Prime Minister and Ministers. We complicate the issue by associating your vote for a person as a vote for a political party and for a Prime Minister. If there were no political parties the MPs would simply elect a Prime Minister and Ministers from their peers. But in reality most people are voting for a party, which doesn't work under FPTP. Yes, PR would probably get rid of independents, IMHO that's no great loss. It's up to parties how to put lists together, ballots can be made straightforward with clear information about how many crosses you need to put and in the very rare case that parties can't form a coalition, you either have a minority govt or another election. I don't see any of these being good reasons not to have PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 55 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: The only issue with coalition governments is the uncertainty it causes. When you have a hung parliament it causes some panic because no one knows whats going to happen and the pound plummets. Then you may have in house fighting between the two parties. I was suprised the coalition last a full term the lib dems and tories got on better than i expected and that takes strong leadership In my view all arguments against coalition government are cases that have been done better/worse under a single party government. Plummet the pound - Truss government In house fighting - Any conservative government. If coalition governments become the norm, and our politicians behave like adults, like Cameron and Clegg did to a degree, nobody will panic if there is a hung parliament. If you look around Europe, most countries have a hung parliament, and they have no issue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 34 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said: In my view all arguments against coalition government are cases that have been done better/worse under a single party government. Plummet the pound - Truss government In house fighting - Any conservative government. If coalition governments become the norm, and our politicians behave like adults, like Cameron and Clegg did to a degree, nobody will panic if there is a hung parliament. If you look around Europe, most countries have a hung parliament, and they have no issue with that. In my life time the only coalition was Cameron-clegg. Im not sure if labour have ever had a coalition government before but you would imagine they would do a deal with greens/SNP Not sure if the lib dems would go into another coalition with anyone after last time. Tories you would imagine would with reform if they had more seats Truss was the worst leader in my life time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 6 Moderator Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: FPTP is easy. People who want to be your MP make themselves known to you. They try to convince you to vote for them. The person with the most votes is your MP. Those MPs decide who will be Prime Minister and Ministers. Yes, obviously that’s right. But as we’ve seen just now it’s also profoundly unrepresentative of the overall view of the electorate. That a party can get ⅔ of the seats with ⅓ of the votes cast is in the view of many nations “undemocratic” and unconstitutional and essentially unlawful in their nation (eg Germany). That said, how you come up with a system that is both simple to explain and understand and transparent AND which is much fairer is a head scratcher. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 This thread has talked mostly about PR vs FPTP rather than the other reform needed, an elected 2nd chamber. I feel one compromise here could be 2 elected chambers, one under PR and the other under FPTP. That obviously needs a lot more detail about the division of responsibilities between them but think it could be a starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 6 Moderator Share Posted July 6 29 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: This thread has talked mostly about PR vs FPTP rather than the other reform needed, an elected 2nd chamber. I feel one compromise here could be 2 elected chambers, one under PR and the other under FPTP. That obviously needs a lot more detail about the division of responsibilities between them but think it could be a starting point. It also doesn’t mention removal of the monarchy and disestablishment of the church both of which are also needed and should go hand in hand with democratic reform 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 13 minutes ago, bickster said: It also doesn’t mention removal of the monarchy and disestablishment of the church both of which are also needed and should go hand in hand with democratic reform Absolutely, although I'm not holding my breath for any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 6 Moderator Share Posted July 6 Just now, Danwichmann said: Absolutely, although I'm not holding my breath for any of it. Me neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 6 Administrator Share Posted July 6 56 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: This thread has talked mostly about PR vs FPTP rather than the other reform needed, an elected 2nd chamber. I feel one compromise here could be 2 elected chambers, one under PR and the other under FPTP. That obviously needs a lot more detail about the division of responsibilities between them but think it could be a starting point. For me, electoral reform should also consider electing a quarter or a fifth of the house every year instead of these stupid all or nothing elections. Reform of the second house especially if there is an elected rather than jury service approach should be longer term but not life (no appointments for anything should be for life including monarchy) I want a committee of professionals from appropriate fields working on this, not politicians. But i want to see consensus politics instead of in-group, out-group bickering and kicking down. I want to see cross-house policies and an end of policies based on messaging for the next election. We need to find a way for being an MP to be a service, not a career. All of this won't happen, but some parts would be nice. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts