What PR would have given

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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 MP...now 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 ...how 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

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.

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.

Interesting!

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.

We should be careful for what we wish for!

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

Thanks for this