Gransnet forums

News & politics

What PR would have given

(39 Posts)
Cindersdad Sat 10-Jun-17 07:56:47

This is not a totally accurate as tactical voting is not a factor with PR.
Vote % Seats PR
CON 42.4 318 276
LAB 40.0 262 260
L/D 7.4 12 48
SNP 3.0 35 20
UKIP 1.8 0 12
GRN 1.6 1 10

The Tories would still be the largest party but parliament would reflect the views of the people. True a majority government under PR would rarely be possible. but that would prevent unpopular or ill advised decisions being taken. The result in theory would be more stable government better connected to the people.

As for Brexit I feel there is a good case for parliament to think long and hard about this. If there was to be a second referendum I really think that REMAIN would win.

Sorry about the columns but posts don't close up spaces when you do not want them to.

MaizieD Sat 10-Jun-17 08:07:29

Thanks for this smile

Riverwalk Sat 10-Jun-17 09:14:11

We should be careful for what we wish for!

PR in the 2015 GE would have resulted in 83 UKIP MPs.

Cindersdad Sat 10-Jun-17 11:42:32

Point taken Riverwalk - The only problem with PR is that it can allow parties like UKIP and even BNP to get a foothold. However the electorate will tend to sort them out over time. I forgot about DUP and Plaid Cymru which have a lower share of the overall vote but a higher share in their own geographical areas as with SNP.

My preferred option is a hybrid of FPTP and PR. This would have say 400 constituencies elected on the FPTP system with ballot papers listing all parties who put forward at least 25 candidates nationwide. After the count the overall totals would be added up for each party and the PR balance made up from the most popular loosers. The German system I think is similar to this.

mostlyharmless Sat 10-Jun-17 12:42:49


Riverwalk Sat 10-Jun-17 12:50:23

I suppose it all depends on where you are on the political spectrum.

I wouldn't want one, never mind 83 UKIP MPs whereas am sympathetic to the Green Party spokesman who said that their votes on Thursday resulted in just one MP but the DUP got 10 with half as many votes.

Cindersdad Sat 10-Jun-17 14:35:09

I agree with you Riverwalk in that I wouldn't want a single UKIP or BNP MP but if they have enough support in the country do they not have a right to be represented. I find some individual members of the traditional parties almost as bad as those of UKIP etc. My sympathies too are with the Greens and Liberal Democrats.

It is all but impossible to find a perfect electoral system. There has to be some element of PR for the government to more representative. If you happen to live in a solid Tory area but like Labour, L/D, Green or even UKIP your vote will never count except as a figure in the statistics. That is why so many of us feel so disconnected with government and for democracy that is not healthy.

paddyann Sun 11-Jun-17 00:22:32

I think most decent folk will feel disconnected now ,knowing the tories are in cahoots with the DUP .Rumours of the Deputy PM being a DUP that shocks me .The British government is SUPPOSED to be neutral towards BOTH sides in NI ,clearly thhey're not ..and thats apart from the bigoted ,sexist, anti all things 21st century they spout.Ruth (the mooth) Davidson says she has confirmation from T May that having the DUP onboard wont change the LGBT situation here can that be when they as part of Britain have their archaic policies in place just across the Irish sea ....Can somebody help me out here ,I feel as if I'm in a parallell universe

Baggs Sun 11-Jun-17 08:17:03

I find it interesting that so few people seem to see the similarities between a Tory/DUP 'alliance' and the Corbyn Tribe's "friendship" with Hizbullah, Hamas, and the IRA.

MaizieD Sun 11-Jun-17 08:30:03

I suppose that depends on who you mix with, Baggs. My twitter feed is full of comments pointing out the similarities.

GracesGranMK2 Sun 11-Jun-17 08:53:36

Thank you for this Cindersdad. I really hope that PR will come to the fore again. I certainly would rather parties I don't like have the representation that reflects their support than the recent attempt to destroy all opposition. If we are offered PR at any time I wonder what system. Most people like the link with their constituency MP - or at least like to think they do.

Baggs there is no similarity - that maybe why no one is commenting on here. Simple minds may be able to find one but talking to people in the hope of a peaceful solution is rather different to going into government with a party.

varian Mon 12-Jun-17 14:13:20

The reason we still have the ludicrously undemocratic FPTP system is that both the Conservative and Labour Parties know that sooner or later they will get an undeserved majority of seats on the basis of a minority of votes.

Although they constantly criticise each other, they always put the interests of their party ahead of the interests of the country and so they choose to allow their opponents free rein, knowing that their time will come by a process of "buggins turn"

Each time one of these parties get in they impose their policies on the country, and often reverse the policies of the previous government and move further and further to the extremes.

PR tends to result in coalitions and in other countries co-operation between parties is seen as a good thing.

Does anyone think it likely that either of these parties will ever voluntarily give up FPTP ?

M0nica Mon 12-Jun-17 16:55:17

I support PR (I belong to the LDs, so I am bound to) However, I am not sure that it would lead to stable government.

With no party with a majority and with several smaller, and more polarised parties with significant blocks of seats, it could lead to chaos, with smaller parties holding the bigger parties to ransom for party reasons, hog-barrel politics of the worst kind and also fighting and scheming among themselves.

Look at the instability there has been in the past in countries like, Italy (how many prime minsters since the war?), Israel (where the extreme orthodox parties often have the government over a barrel, even though they make up a very small proportion of the electorate) or like France in the 50s. It needed General de Gaulle and the proclamation of a new republic to sort that out.

There is not a simple solution to developing a 'fairer' voting system, nor to having effective government and a more representative House of Commons

varian Mon 12-Jun-17 17:08:57

Although the 2010-2015 government has been the only peacetime coalition to run the UK, there have been many instances of successful cross party co-operation in district councils, county councils and in the devolved administrations.

I think that having to work with others who have different views is a grown-up and responsible thing to do. Like you, MOnica, I am also a LibDem member and I believe very strongly that PR would deliver a much, better, fairer and successful government in the UK.

In spite of the way the Tories treated our party which some see as evidence that it is not going to happen again, there is no doubt that period of coalition government was much better that the one-party rule we've seen in the last two years.

M0nica Mon 12-Jun-17 17:41:18

It depends on how many parties are involved. At local government you are talking about cross party co-operation between two parties, plus the odd independent. At national level it would be very different, because there would be (on OP's figures), 2 other parties with very opposing agendas with between 20 and 50 votes each and another two, also with very different and polarised agendas with around 10 each plus a smattering of parties with a handful of votes each.

Getting a majority on any subject by either of the main parties would depend on them getting LD and UKIP to agree or get one of them plus three or four smaller so UKIP and SNP, and Greens, plus a couple of welsh nationalists, several DUP MPs.

It would end up with pork barrel politics of the worst sort, with the smaller parties calling the tune on significant issues, where their views are not representative of most of the electorate. Let us say some agreement on the forcible repatriation of all released prisoners who are not British citizens to get UKIP on side.

varian Mon 12-Jun-17 19:08:41

I believe that if we had PR people would vote for positive and not negative reasons and that would affect the overall numbers. Everyone knows that the smaller parties are seriously handicapped by FPTP, especially the LIbDems who have always had a pretty even spread of support geographically and demographically and lack the clout of billionaire backers, trade unions or the vested interests of the MSD.

I can remember a poll just before the 1979 general election when voters were asked "If you thought the Liberals could win, would you vote for them?" An astonishing 42% said "yes" and yet shortly after we saw Thatcher elected with a substantial majority and look what damage was done over the following years.

mcem Mon 12-Jun-17 19:30:55

PR in my ward (local elections) returned 1 Libdem..2 SNP and 1 Tory. Pretty representative i'd say.

M0nica Mon 12-Jun-17 21:44:43

There is no evidence what so ever that in any situation parties would vote for the common good. Most would do as they always do and do in other countries that are in this situation and that is vote for their own narrow interests or to do down another party.

Take a look at how the Knesset works in Israel.

I would never take any notice of any poll asking 'what if'. Look how wrong some political polls have been, which ask people their actual voting intentions when an election is only days away.

Jalima1108 Mon 12-Jun-17 22:02:44

First past the post resulted in two Labour, two Conservative and one Lib Dem councillor for our County Council.

M0nica Tue 13-Jun-17 11:11:17

But no doubt as part of a larger County Council. I seem to remember there being a three way split in a Council some years ago, and while there were a limited range of issues the parties could agree on, on many issues they were completely split and in disarray.

I cannot remember what happened, County Councils seem to have some members up for re-election every year, so possibly the problem was solved a year later.

GracesGranMK2 Tue 13-Jun-17 12:03:20

I agree with Varian. Although it is interesting to look at the 'what if we had had PR' figures but I think people would vote differently if we did.

Cindersdad Tue 13-Jun-17 15:56:17

I agree with most of what has been said. If we had PR there would no need for tactical voting and we could all vote for whichever party we believed in. There would almost certainly be minority governments for ever more. That need not necessarily be a bad thing as MP's would have to learn to legislate by consensus. Other countries with PR can manage this so why can't we. No more swings from left to right and back each undoing what the previous lot has done; all very expensive.

daphnedill Tue 13-Jun-17 16:08:42

I don't like the link with my MP. She's a Maybot minibot, who thinks (amonst other things) that fox hunting is a legitimate and humane form of vermin control, while boasting about her role in stopping illegal dog fights when a London Assembly member. angry. I'd rather have a local team with some balance to represent me.

daphnedill Tue 13-Jun-17 16:14:02

MOnica I agree with you about the Knesset. So why does PR work in Germany? Merkel has never led a majority government. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who was Foreign Minister for decades and oversaw the reunification process and thawing of relations with Russia, was a member of the FDP (the equivalent of the LibDems), which has only ever had a handful of delegates. Germany has had the most stable and consistent policies since the end of WW2, mainly as a result of PR.

LumpySpacedPrincess Tue 13-Jun-17 16:49:56

So many people voted tactically, we can't tell how people would have voted if they were voting for a party instead of their local candidates.