EnglishEdward
Deity
Well now, there is the system for electing the members of the Scottish Parliament.
UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?
- Thread starter Arakhor
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uk politics
Well now, there is the system for electing the members of the Scottish Parliament.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I might have been unclear, but I'm mainly wondering if it's actually a significant subject in the electorate, or more of a background noise.
I wonder if the choice of a proportional system rather than AV would have been more popular, or if it's just a sign that the majority simply prefer (either due to habit, or because they like it) the FPTP.There was a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011.
2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I voted for the change.
But the majority voted to keep the existing arrangement.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
PR was/is the generally preferred option among electoral reformists, but it wasn't offered as a choice in that referendum, which was binary between FPTP and AV -- with the (generally right-wing) tabloid media shilling for the status quo, and in at least one case, flat-out lying about how AV works ("the loser's vote gets counted twice").
EnglishEdward
Deity
It is difficult to say.
Historically people in the UK wanted to elect an MP to represent where they lived,
and also to have some choice in selecting their preferred party's candidate.
That is arguably, in these days, of the delocalising Internet, and nationalised parties,
assessed as less important by younger electors.
So there is probably a trend towards more support for PR.
But having nationalised parties top down managed by the leader hardly encourages that.
And yes, regarding habit, I think that there is a tendency to want to stick to the status quo.
Senethro
Overlord
The offer of a bad choice or status quo and taking it as endorsement of the status quo was deliberate.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The liberal democrats wanted proportional representation and were so
disappointed that the coalition government specified AV as the alternative
to the existing FPTP, and some even seemed to convince themselves that
AV would preclude PR for ever, so they didn't really bother to campaign for it.
In my opinion, that was a major strategic mistake.
Because I rather think that many voters took the view that if the liberal democrat
party, that supposedly wanted electoral reform, wasn't itself prepared to actively
campaign for it, they certainly couldn't be bothered to vote for it.
And I think that was more significant than the right wing tabloid nonsense.
The turnout in 2011 was only 42.2%
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Yes
No
EnglishEdward
Deity
The liberal democrats took the view that simple PR calculated on a national vote
would give them the third largest number of MPs and put them permanently in a
coalition government playing the conservatives off against labour to be their partner.
AV would have given them more MPs but not enough to be certain of that.
Rather than accepting that David Cameron had out-manoeuvred Nick Clegg and
campaigned for AV as better that FTP, and if successful benefit from it, and use that
as an intermediary position to press for more electoral reform, they went into a sulk.
And that didn't do them much good with the UK electorate in 2015.
would give them the third largest number of MPs and put them permanently in a
coalition government playing the conservatives off against labour to be their partner.
AV would have given them more MPs but not enough to be certain of that.
Rather than accepting that David Cameron had out-manoeuvred Nick Clegg and
campaigned for AV as better that FTP, and if successful benefit from it, and use that
as an intermediary position to press for more electoral reform, they went into a sulk.
And that didn't do them much good with the UK electorate in 2015.
For reference the UK introduced PR-STV in the Government of Ireland act 1920.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-11/67/section/14/enacted
104 years later it doesn't seem any closer to being implemented for UK general elections.
The vote went ahead in 1921 using PR-STV but, other than a few unionists, the elected members met as the 2nd Dáil rather than as the house of Commons of Southern Ireland. The were all elected unopposed so PR wasn't actually used.
The same act also created Northern Ireland.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-11/67/section/14/enacted
104 years later it doesn't seem any closer to being implemented for UK general elections.
The vote went ahead in 1921 using PR-STV but, other than a few unionists, the elected members met as the 2nd Dáil rather than as the house of Commons of Southern Ireland. The were all elected unopposed so PR wasn't actually used.
The same act also created Northern Ireland.
Half of them pay lip service to "detoxifying the party and reclaiming the Tory vote", whilst Badenoch and Patel seem convinced that they lost because they weren't sufficiently lunatic to capture the Farage vote.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Neither approaches will work.
Nigel Farage captured nearly half the conservative vote in 2024.
I suspect he stands a good chance of capturing even more in 2029.
Nigel Farage captured nearly half the conservative vote in 2024.
I suspect he stands a good chance of capturing even more in 2029.
Senethro
Overlord
If Farage is able to sink the Conservatives at will, how will their donors react? Jump ship? Split donations to both?
EnglishEdward
Deity
First off I am not sure that Nigel Farage can sink the conservatives at will.
But that is hardly necessary as they appear to be self destructing.
Most of the conservative donors already jumped ship, and that was to Labour.
But that is hardly necessary as they appear to be self destructing.
Most of the conservative donors already jumped ship, and that was to Labour.
Senethro
Overlord
See, I wasn't sure about that. Farage was getting a lot of what he wanted and very little of the blame when he could make the Tory party adopt his positions in exchange for him not stealing their voters. What is his plan now?
I think he can do that more effectively now. If they go "left" he runs in all constituencies and guarantees their loss. If they go right he does not run in constituencies where it would hurt them but does where it would help them, and so helps them win. If they let him in he gets even more power.
EnglishEdward
Deity
There is no benefit to Nigel Farage in getting the conservative party to adopt his policies now because:
(a) the conservatives are in opposition now and until 2029
(b) such adoption would reduce support for voting Reform.
I am not sure what his plan is now.
Probably to wait the outcome of the US election and events in the UK and the world.
I would put money on it involving a substantial amount of graft.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Are you thinking in terms of Nigel Farage bribing sitting conservative MPs to defect to Reform ?
I do not know what different ways he can use his wealth to subvert democracy and/or leverage the various parliamentary privileges for personal profit, but I am sure he does.
