Is the old two party system coming to an end?

We’ll have to wait and see.
The CP were never going to be elected again, much the same as the LP, both when the CP took over and at the 2015/17 elections.
However, given the small number of voters which gave the LP their majority this year, and the large number of votes for other parties, you could be right.

I think it’s way too soon to predict what’s going to happen in five years time, a lot changes in politics in a week, never mind five years.

I think there is a big shift away from the two old parties and voters seem far less tribal than they used to be. Most people I speak to don't like Labour or the Tories.

Which is not surprising at the moment. However, the national mood changes all the time, so there could very easily be a big resurgence from one or both parties before the next election. There isn’t going to be PR in this parliament, and even if it’s a coalition next time, it could well end up as a two party coalition, which has happened before and won’t rock the status quo, we’ll see, no doubt,

Too early to tell. PR attracts some people but isn't a perfect solution: coalitions often have problems reconciling conflicting policies and pre-election promises to their supporters. Some conflciting policies are irreconcilable. This usually eventually results in horsetrading which does not satisfy supporters.

It's possible Labour could bounce back from a terrible start and win next time, or the Conservatives could destroy Reform by taking on most of their policies, but if not, the old two party system could fall apart.

There isn’t going to be PR here. Parties only talk about PR being a good idea when they aren’t in power.

I agree. Imperfect though FPTP is, it does make for decisive government especially if they have a large majority.

Coalitions, as we learned a few years ago, are not the way to get decisive legislation passed. Nobody gets anything done in a hung parliament either.

I might vote for STV, but even that has its downsides. PR won't ever work in this country because no party wants it, not even the LibDems would if they got a majority government.

I hope so! About time some of the other parties got a look in. Most of my friends who voted labour are looking at another party 😌

Mt61

I hope so! About time some of the other parties got a look in. Most of my friends who voted labour are looking at another party 😌

If any of the other parties ie LibDems or even Reform (heaven help us) got in they wouldn't promote PR because it would have been FPTP that got them in! Turkeys for Christmas springs to mind (though that reminds me of Brexit!)

We would be living in perpetual stalemate without any meaningful legislation.

But... if that's what people want then... they may well get it and then wish they hadn't.

There was only a Tory, Labour or Green candidate to choose between in my area, so I had a cup off tea and a slice of cake instead.

I can never understand why someone is put in charge of a 'department', knows nothing about what they are in charge of. Why cant 'Fred Smith', no matter what party he affiliates with, who is a whizz with Education be put in charge of that department. Jane Jones, again no matter what party, who is awesome with finance and accounts, be Chancellor the Exchequer. Our current system of one party 'in charge' doesn't work, this has been proved time and time again. A prime example was Jeremy Hunt, in his 'career' he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. Foreign Secretary. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Secretary of State for Culture. Shadow Minister for Disabled People. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Chairman of Health and Social Care Select Committee. How can one man have the necessary knowledge to lead all of these 'Departments' successfully?

keepingquiet

I agree. Imperfect though FPTP is, it does make for decisive government especially if they have a large majority.

Coalitions, as we learned a few years ago, are not the way to get decisive legislation passed. Nobody gets anything done in a hung parliament either.

I might vote for STV, but even that has its downsides. PR won't ever work in this country because no party wants it, not even the LibDems would if they got a majority government.

But is 'decisive legislation' a good thing? Whether Conservative or Labour. Both tend to legislate according to party dogma, as opposed to the good of the people. Neither party, when in Government, has had the support of the majority of the electorate for many years. The early years of Government tend to concentrate on undoing the legislation of the previous incumbents; for good or ill. Surely consensual Government would be preferable to the current adversarial system that we have now.

About 20% of the electorate voted Labour yet they got a massive majority and feel they can do whatever they like, even if it wasn't in their manifesto. Far too few of us have a meaningful vote. The current system doesn't work. I won't be voting in a general election again unless the system is changed. If PR is best for Northern Ireland, why not the rest of the UK?

RSALLAN2002

About 20% of the electorate voted Labour yet they got a massive majority and feel they can do whatever they like, even if it wasn't in their manifesto. Far too few of us have a meaningful vote. The current system doesn't work. I won't be voting in a general election again unless the system is changed. If PR is best for Northern Ireland, why not the rest of the UK?

I agree. The current system is not representative of the views of the voting population. IMO it needs changing to reflect the views of the nation. A huge overall majority for any party on so few votes is a recipe for disaster. Just look back at the last 14 years old Tory rule. How many people did they represent?

But is 'decisive legislation' a good thing? Whether Conservative or Labour. Both tend to legislate according to party dogma, as opposed to the good of the people. Neither party, when in Government, has had the support of the majority of the electorate for many years. The early years of Government tend to concentrate on undoing the legislation of the previous incumbents; for good or ill. Surely consensual Government would be preferable to the current adversarial system that we have now.

Well put Dayvidg.

Casdon

Which is not surprising at the moment. However, the national mood changes all the time, so there could very easily be a big resurgence from one or both parties before the next election. There isn’t going to be PR in this parliament, and even if it’s a coalition next time, it could well end up as a two party coalition, which has happened before and won’t rock the status quo, we’ll see, no doubt,

I'm hoping Labour will get in again, the media including the BBC is very anti Labour cos it tends to be billionaires who own most of the press so they have a harder time as the press turn the public against them.
Labour will fix the NHS & keep it free, Tories & Farage both want a France style health services where those who can pay pay and those who can't don't. Reform voters have no idea into which category they will fall and are just hoping that 'Nige' will want to spend his money contributing to someone else's health bill and I very much doubt it.

If the alternative to decisive decision making is a political system frozen and unable to make any decisions at all, such as happened for a prolonged period at Stormont very recently, then I’d think very carefully indeed about the consequences of PR. I’d prefer politicians to put energy into making voting compulsory.

In Canada our federal government at the moment is comprised of 4 major parties and a couple of independents.

No party holds a majority of the total seats to form a majority government.

The Liberal party holds more seats than the other parties. This is called a 'minority government'. It means that the Liberals need to work with the other parties in order to pass legislation.

It's GREAT since no party can run rough shod and just pass anything they want to pass.

It seems like on the whole, the two party system is always adversarial and they spend more time trying to insult and put each other down than working for the good of the electorate.

Long ago some famous fellow said that the party system will be the downfall of democracy since a politician's loyalty is first to the party which helped elect them, and they are obligated to vote the 'party line' even if their constituents are not in favour.

I could go on... but I always remember what my husband [born and raised in England] used to say, "With politicians, you come first...... Right behind them and their party. The party in power gets all the perks."

Grantanow

Too early to tell. PR attracts some people but isn't a perfect solution: coalitions often have problems reconciling conflicting policies and pre-election promises to their supporters. Some conflciting policies are irreconcilable. This usually eventually results in horsetrading which does not satisfy supporters.

I agree, and it would be too easy to end up with short term coalition governments as happens in Italy.

RSALLAN2002

About 20% of the electorate voted Labour yet they got a massive majority and feel they can do whatever they like, even if it wasn't in their manifesto. Far too few of us have a meaningful vote. The current system doesn't work. I won't be voting in a general election again unless the system is changed. If PR is best for Northern Ireland, why not the rest of the UK?

Labour got 33.7% of the vote

The reason that it was such a big majority was that the Conservatives and Reform basically competed against each other for the same votes.

However if you look back at the history of UK elections it is not that unusual for the winning party to have a share of vote in the 30%s. Tony Blair formed a majority government with 35.2% in 2005.

In fact no government has been formed with more than 45% of the vote since Edward Heath in 1974 (46.4%)

cc

Grantanow

Too early to tell. PR attracts some people but isn't a perfect solution: coalitions often have problems reconciling conflicting policies and pre-election promises to their supporters. Some conflciting policies are irreconcilable. This usually eventually results in horsetrading which does not satisfy supporters.

I agree, and it would be too easy to end up with short term coalition governments as happens in Italy.

Not all coalitions are short term and unstable - the Scandi countries often have coalitions that result in stable government.

I'm not sure that the UK is an epitome of stability after 4 Conservative Prime Ministers in less than 5 years.

Casdon

If the alternative to decisive decision making is a political system frozen and unable to make any decisions at all, such as happened for a prolonged period at Stormont very recently, then I’d think very carefully indeed about the consequences of PR. I’d prefer politicians to put energy into making voting compulsory.

I’d prefer politicians to put energy into making voting compulsory.
Would this compulsion include a category 'none of the above' and the total number of votes cast this way recorded? If not then I object strenuously to being forced to vote for a candidate or spoil my ballot paper. I've voted at every election, national and local, since I got the vote, but compulsion does not sit well with me.

I fundamentally disagree with not voting at all Rosie51, so I’m probably not the right person to ask. I’ve thought about the option to vote for ‘none of the above’, and I think that would be meaningless too because it would lump all who voted that way into one category, which they clearly aren’t. People need to vote to make their wishes known, so maybe a ‘none of the above’ vote could be broken down into some detail.