Is the old two party system coming to an end?

paddyann54

Nothing. Makes me angrier than that statement valdavi “we,ll need to LET the Scot’s have another one*!!Just what kid of democracy insists on their neighbour getting their permission on howto run their country? Scotland was an independent nation long before 1707 and should be again.When all the unionistsbleatabout how badly Scotland has done maybe think about what they are actually saying…..The union has not been a union that benefitted us in any way shape or form.WE CAN do better..let’s face it we can’t do any worse.We are ignored derided or dismissed in Westminster quite frankly I can’t see any reason why we are there except for the fact they need to have access to all our recourses as they have done for 300 years.We are a. Colony in all but name .

I think you could do worse actually, and anyway the Scottish people have spoken, they don’t want to be independent with the SNP in charge.

First Past post, FPP .aargh fat fingers!!!!

The vote was for AV. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/.
PR is not the same as AV, which was the proposed system we voted for, or not. I wonder why as only us America and India have FPA system. Not really good, when those with fewer votes get more seats. Seems mad to me.

Nothing. Makes me angrier than that statement valdavi “we,ll need to LET the Scot’s have another one*!!Just what kid of democracy insists on their neighbour getting their permission on howto run their country? Scotland was an independent nation long before 1707 and should be again.When all the unionistsbleatabout how badly Scotland has done maybe think about what they are actually saying…..The union has not been a union that benefitted us in any way shape or form.WE CAN do better..let’s face it we can’t do any worse.We are ignored derided or dismissed in Westminster quite frankly I can’t see any reason why we are there except for the fact they need to have access to all our recourses as they have done for 300 years.We are a. Colony in all but name .

The PR referendum was 2011, the Scottish independence referendum 2014. If we have another referendum to alter the voting system, we'll also need to let the Scots have another won't we? & after Brexit, I can't see either of the main parties keen to go to the country/ies on either of those issues.

Thanks for this OldFrill. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any change, but will remind people as with the badly thought out Brexit vote, 'be careful what you wish for.'

A UK referendum in 2011 on PR achieved a 42% turnout of registered voters and 67% voted against.

No of course we don’t have a fptp system. It is unfair. Votes are distributed from minor and independent candidates to their party of choice if they don’t win the seat themselves. I can’t understand why that doesn’t happen in the uk. On second thoughts I suppose it is vested interest from the two major parties - otherwise you might get someone the people really want.

Casdon

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.

What would your suggested penalty be for not voting? How could you ensure any penalty was fair? Some people don't vote on religious grounds - would you excuse them? What about people who weren't mentally fit to vote, would they have to prove it? How?

Do any of the countries with compulsory voting operate a fptp system like us? I suspect not.

Good choice.😀😃🥳

I know that Rosie51, of course. The country is as different now as it was 100 years before suffrage though. Quite a few countries do have compulsory voting without any ‘none of the above’ option, so it is clearly possible, if unpalatable to some. We must agree to differ in our views here I think.

I don’t pretend to have the answer, but nor do I think that we should be harking back to 100 years ago, so much has changed. If it wasn't for the past we wouldn't have universal suffrage, that seems an odd argument to me. Without an answer to the dilemma of the compulsory casting of votes with reference to 'none of the above', no government could ethically bring in compulsory voting. Would everybody voting for a particular candidate have to justify why they had? Just my opinion, which is perfectly valid.

Rosie51

Casdon People sometimes vote for the least worst option, often recommended when they don't actually endorse any of the parties. No party has ever said they believe their candidate succeeded because they were 'the least worse option' they take every vote as a ringing endorsement. If there was compulsory voting how on earth would you break down the 'none of the above' votes? Far from being a meaningless count they have in common that they couldn't bring themselves to endorse any of the standing candidates. Universal suffrage confers a right to vote, I'd argue those that fought for that right never, ever expected it become a compulsion.

We all have our own opinions Rosie51, and I think everybody who is eligible to vote should vote. I’d prefer a system where everybody votes for one of the available options, but given that that won’t, the dissatisfied have no voice if they are all lumped together, do they? I don’t pretend to have the answer, but nor do I think that we should be harking back to 100 years ago, so much has changed. Maybe in the future we’ll be voting online and a more nuanced way of voting will be developed.

There are now 101 cross party MP's in favour of PR.. I have hopes for a more progressive future..

It only needs Labour to mess up, big time, - and they are making a sterling effort to do so - for voters to flock to vote for the Conservatives, not because they support them but because tey think they are the best way of getting rid of Labour. and we are back to the 2 party system again.

Reform, the Greens and Lib Dems are parties of protest, that is why they did well this time, but it will not last.

Casdon People sometimes vote for the least worst option, often recommended when they don't actually endorse any of the parties. No party has ever said they believe their candidate succeeded because they were 'the least worse option' they take every vote as a ringing endorsement. If there was compulsory voting how on earth would you break down the 'none of the above' votes? Far from being a meaningless count they have in common that they couldn't bring themselves to endorse any of the standing candidates. Universal suffrage confers a right to vote, I'd argue those that fought for that right never, ever expected it become a compulsion.

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.

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.

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.

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%)

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.

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."

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.

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.