Refreshing British Democracy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

I've just been asked elsewhere why I'm not angry about what's going on in the UK. Let me be clear: Deep down, I'm very angry.

I'm not especially angry at corruption. Corruption is a fact of life, because people are mostly corruptible. But I am angry that politicians repeatedly make a big thing about corruption when it suits, only to do very little about it. Overall, I'm most angry that debate around politics is so polarised; this is a situation forced by the fact we have a party political system heavily dominated by two parties more focussed on attacking each other to deflect from their own failures than really delivering programmes for quality government.

We have had many years of exceptionally poor government, driven by ever-lower standards in both main parties. For all of the talk of PPE corruption scandals, you can equally point to scandals under the last Labour government. Both parties are quick to point the finger at each other for political advantage, but slow to take real steps to truly make politicians as fully accountable as they should be. The growth of theproblem is not party-specific, but systemic.

In my opinion, the UK is on course for a complete collapse down the road if the Commons is not reformed to make it properly representative of public political views, which personally I find heart-breaking. Reports have been commissioned in the past that have found prevailing attitudes and values throughout the nations of the UK are broadly consistent, but devolution of power in Scotland and Wales, without acting to devolve powers in England has left the UK imbalanced constitutionally, and left Scottish and Welsh nationalists to 'other' Westminster as some sort of 'English' foreign body responsible for the ills of the world.

I had a read of Labour's report 'Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy'; there's a lot of truth in what the report has to say about the state of British politics and even specifically mentions the low level of trust in national politicians. It is very frustrating, however, that, as a longstanding supporter of House of Commons reform to a proportional system, the report covers every element of the constitution except the House of Commons, other than to repeatedly refer to 'maintaining the primacy of the Commons'.

Labour's report does offer some interesting ideas. Devolution in England is to be welcomed as a means to rebalance the constitution. I have no strong opinions about changes to Scotland and Wales to try and build Labour support in the bid for a Westminster majority. Personally, I don't think it will work as I think the nationalist sentiment in Scotland especially, may be too firmly entrenched to appease in the short term without another referendum or without change at Westminster that reenfranchises all of the home nations in to feeling properly represented.

The glaring ommission, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is reform of the House of Commons to a proportional system like either full PR or STV. I believe this to be the single magic bullet that will resolve many issues, in our constitution, such as:

• an end to one-party majority rule, meaning internal back room deals on policies will be replaced by deals between parties being made in a manner where parties are accountable to their members and supporters for what they achieve from the negotiations.
• Greater transparency: Multiple parties being involved in policy-making will make it more difficult for lobbyists to influence things without parties calling foul on each other
• The voices involved in debates in parliament will better represent the debate you might have in the public, representing a more diverse range of views
• Less exagerrated division between the Home nations, with Conservative, Labour Lib Dem, and Green representation coming from votes in all the home nations, unlike now where it's purely SNP in Scotland especially, helping heal the divisions in the UK
• Potentially, House of Commons reform to a proportional system could open the door to rejoining the EU if there's the appetite for it, given that most parliamentary parties are, in fact, sympathetic to the EU, and there would be no mechanism for the likes of Farage to terrorise any larger parties as is possible with First Past the Post. AC Grayling is a strong proponent of this argument .

Overall, I find Labour's proposals to be acceptable if they explicitly include support for Commons reform to a proportional system, and if they actually deliver it, which they didn't last time they included it in a manifesto. Ironically, given they propose a regional model for representation in the Lords, I think a proportional Commons would be the perfect complement to ensure that we keep a mix of regional representation in there alongside philosophies and values that make up party politics.

Most importantly, I really think public interest in this issue is way overdue given that the failings of both main parties and the disenfranchisement with both main parties is dangerously high. The UK needs real reform, not just continuing the tired cycle of Labour and the Conservatives, each complacent in the knowledge that sooner or later the only alternative that people perceive will be less attractive than them.

The most important reform possible is reform of the House of Commons, but the Conservatives benefit too much from first past the post to ever allow reform if they can stop it, and the Labour party is too afraid of losing its grip as one of the two main parties if they have no means of coercing supporters of parties like the Greens and Lib Dems into voting for them on the 'wasted vote' argument.

That said, grass roots support for Commons reform in Labour is at an all-time high, with Labour conference formally backing abolition of FPTP in the Commons in favour of a proportional system;  many constituency Labour parties formally backing Make Votes Matter, the largest campaign group for PR.

Other than a majority of constituency Labour parties being in favour, many other British parties are also formally behind it, including the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and countless other smaller parties; literally the only barrier now is Conservative and Labour self-interest, which is why it's more important than ever that the wider public take a much stronger interest in getting this important change over the line.

This is a change that has been embraced by other countries that used to use a First Past the Post system, such as New Zealand, which is often cited as a model for the way modern democratic politics should be done; it's high time the UK embraced it as well.

Thanks for reading. I'd encourage everyone to take an interest in what's going on on the subject, because the next election will probably be the best opportunity we've ever had to really reform British politics for the better. There's currently a campaign to send postcards on the subject to your local MP and to tweet copies of the postcard. Take a look at https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/ to get a better idea of what's going on.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The glaring ommission, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is reform of the House of Commons to a proportional system like either full PR or STV. I believe this to be the single magic bullet that will resolve many issues, in our constitution, such as:

Bravo! Wasn't difficult to post about Commons reform on an appropriately titled thread was it! 

While I'm totally in favour of PR for reasons of fairer democratic representation I think you are wildly overestimating its ability to be some kind of "magic bullet". You only need to take a look at the recent political history of the many European countries that have a system of PR (e.g. Austria) to realise it has no impact on reducing the potential for corruption. And for some reason you fail to acknowledge that the 2010 GE resulted in no single party majority and lead to a coalition of the type PR would be very likely to produce in all future elections. That coalition saw a huge number of Liberal voters who cast their vote to get rid of student fees (a cast iron guarantee in the Liberal manifesto) completely cheated in a sordid stitch up between Cameron and Clegg.

Similarly, the idea that PR would mean, "there would be no mechanism for the likes of Farage to terrorise any larger parties as is possible with First Past the Post", is frankly astonishing. The reality of PR in practice throughout Europe is precisely the opposite. Those of us who support PR can not simply pretend that it doesn't increase the power of extremist parties who often gain enough votes (and thus seats) to play powerbrokers in forming coalition governments. Had PR been in place in previous elections UKIP would have been a major player in the Commons.

So let's not be naïve; PR's primary justification is that it provides a fairer system of democratic representation; but it would certainly not be some kind of panacea leading to less corruption and greater tolerance in our political system. If anything it will standardly lead to a more complex political situation bringing with it an inherent potential  for sordid and corrupt political deal making. The collapse in trust in our political system penetrates well beyond the specifics of our electoral system and has its roots in the lack of transparency about actual government practice. The deep reforms required in getting politicians to behave with integrity and transparency have little to do with the voting system but almost everything to do with the rules of parliamentary conduct.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Bravo! Wasn't difficult to post about Commons reform on an appropriately titled thread was it! 

While I'm totally in favour of PR for reasons of fairer democratic representation I think you are wildly overestimating its ability to be some kind of "magic bullet". You only need to take a look at the recent political history of the many European countries that have a system of PR (e.g. Austria) to realise it has no impact on reducing the potential for corruption. And for some reason you fail to acknowledge that the 2010 GE resulted in no single party majority and lead to a coalition of the type PR would be very likely to produce in all future elections. That coalition saw a huge number of Liberal voters who cast their vote to get rid of student fees (a cast iron guarantee in the Liberal manifesto) completely cheated in a sordid stitch up between Cameron and Clegg.

Similarly, the idea that PR would mean, "there would be no mechanism for the likes of Farage to terrorise any larger parties as is possible with First Past the Post", is frankly astonishing. The reality of PR in practice throughout Europe is precisely the opposite. Those of us who support PR can not simply pretend that it doesn't increase the power of extremist parties who often gain enough votes (and thus seats) to play powerbrokers in forming coalition governments. Had PR been in place in previous elections UKIP would have been a major player in the Commons.

So let's not be naïve; PR's primary justification is that it provides a fairer system of democratic representation; but it would certainly not be some kind of panacea leading to less corruption and greater tolerance in our political system. If anything it will standardly lead to a more complex political situation bringing with it an inherent potential  for sordid and corrupt political deal making. The collapse in trust in our political system penetrates well beyond the specifics of our electoral system and has its roots in the lack of transparency about actual government practice. The deep reforms required in getting politicians to behave with integrity and transparency have little to do with the voting system but almost everything to do with the rules of parliamentary conduct.

 

You're correct that FPTP does throw up hung parliaments from time to time. However, because the nature of first past the post favours returning majority single-party governments more easily than hung parliaments, it means that there is far less incentive for parties to work constructively together, because there's a good chance that going to the public again will break the deadlock.

Tuition fees was one very narrow failure as a minority party in coalition in the context of a democratic history featuring countless manifesto commitments from two main parties that were abandoned. Indeed, in the context of being in partnership with the Conservatives, who were in favour of tuition fees, and the opposition of Labour who had introduced tuition fees (having promised not to) and then repeatedly increased them (having promised not to in successive general elections) it's not realistic to have expected them to have delivered anything on that score, although they did succeed in removing fees for some important fields like nursing. 

One of the benefits of coalition governments is that parties are expected to take their proposals to the table with others and seek to deliver as much as possible. In contrast, a large number of Lib Dem policies did make it into government policy, such as:

• The pupil premium
• The green investment bank
• Taking many of the poorest in society out of income tax
• Cutting tax breaks for the wealthiest
• Record numbers of apprenticeships
• Pupil premium: Extra money to the most disadvantaged children
• Restoring the link between pensions and earnings.

All of these came from the Lib Dems, not the Conservatives. Additionally, many of them were positive changes that were immediately reversed by the Conservatives once they had a majority. This is an additional problem of having a system that makes one-party governments so easy, because it's so easy for them to undo any changes made by previous governments purely in line with their own ideology rather than the interests of the public.

But the specifics of that one government are far less important than the basic principle of people of differing, but not altogether incompatible, political views working for compromises to move forward on good quality legislation on a range of subjects, against two tribal groups attempting to shout each other down in a bid to assume complete control to then do as they please for several years with little accountability in the meantime.

Additionally, coalitions do help improve accountability in the face of corruption. There is no way that Boris Johnson could have been so brazen on so many subjects if a coalition partner could simply withdraw support for his government based on his transgressions. In contrast both the Conservatives and Labour have got away with being entirely brazen in government over the years as majority governments because their support is all but guaranteed by the whip in whatever they do, short of a collapse in party discipline.

PR does neutralise people like Farage, as illustrated by AfD in Germany. Yes, they have a voice given they have about 12% of the popular vote, but they're neutralised by the fact that no mainstream parties will want to be seen to be supportive of them. In contrast, Farage's success in the UK did not come from winning votes himself, but from taking away votes from others and frightening them into pursuing his ideas, which isn't possible under PR.

Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru formally support reforming the Commons to PR, so it does have a strong value in unifying Britain in a symbolic sense as well. In my opinion, it is indefensible not to include reform of the Commons in any programme of constitutional reform, given that there is no single change that can do as much to improve trust in British politics. Abolishing the House of Lords, while symbolically popular, will do little to improve the quality of the UK's legislative process in practise given that ultimately the Commons has the final say on everything.

It has been shown that in the cases where PR has been adopted, voter engagement has gone up. There's more about this on the Make Votes Matter website linked above.

There's no question, though, that both the Conservatives and Labour are heavily invested in keeping first past the post, which is why it's all the more important for the wider public to engage with and understand why this reform would be so important and beneficial for the country. Given Labour supporters especially are increasingly supportive of abolishing First Past the Post, it's especially important that pressure is maintained on the Labour party leaderhip to get in line with other progressive parties in committing to delivering this change rather than persisting in siding with the Conservatives to prevent it. Indeed, it's bordering on laughable that it's still defended for the Commons given that literally no other assembly, be it the London Assembly, Holyrood, the senydd, Stormont, or any of the others use this antiquated system. In fact, I think it's basically just us, the US, and Belorusia that still use it.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Indy 3,323]

Brilliant posts by both, LYB again we have our different views points on some things but really have to say for second time in a day fully agree with your posts, very well made.👍

Edited December 16, 2022 by Indy

[sonyc 5,541]

46 minutes ago, Indy said:

Brilliant posts by both, LYB again we have our different views points on some things but really have to say for second time in a day fully agree with your posts, very well made.👍

I echo this Indy. Very good posts by H and LYB. Nothing to disagree with - because with any system there has to be some weaknesses. 

With my more tabloid head on I would want:

1.  A version of PR (echoing both H and LYB)

2. More consensus (multiple voices) in public policy - for the long term - so we have more of a vision that most people can accept. This may have the effect of the public supporting what the political classes are trying to do and it would hopefully translate in better societal behaviours. 

3. To raise tax for those who are very rich and implement infrastructure programmes (Horsefly's Keynsian appeal the other day). Whilst we are about tax, I would ask the richest to help pay for the likes of the nurses' wage rises (but more broadly anything to do with public services or for the wider good). The idea being that wealth is fine and good and gives privileges but also it means having more responsibility towards the broader state that must have been a factor in helping you. I would extend this idea to big companies making huge profits - a kind of ethical (or more responsible) capitalism.

4. Greater alignment with the EU (there, I've said it) but I mean really that the future has to be about cooperation and collaboration (in technology, information, scientific research, health advancements and so on). This essentially means partnerships with other countries - full stop. One world and all that (climate, security, resources...)

I wonder how many votes I might get with that manifesto? I bet close to zilch😄 as I would be seen as a nutter and an idealist worthy of  much ridicule. However, it is nice to read such long and considered posts which support some deeply held personal (and long-held) beliefs and wishes.

Edited December 16, 2022 by sonyc
more not less

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I echo this Indy. Very good posts by H and LYB. Nothing to disagree with - because with any system there has to be some weaknesses. 

With my more tabloid head on I would want:

1.  A version of PR (echoing both H and LYB)

2. More consensus (multiple voices) in public policy - for the long term - so we have more of a vision that most people can accept. This may have the effect of the public supporting what the political classes are trying to do and it would hopefully translate in better societal behaviours. 

3. To raise tax for those who are very rich and implement infrastructure programmes (Horsefly's Keynsian appeal the other day). Whilst we are about tax, I would ask the richest to help pay for the likes of the nurses' wage rises (but more broadly anything to do with public services or for the wider good). The idea being that wealth is fine and good and gives privileges but also it means more responsibility to the elements of the broader state that must have been a factor in helping you. I would extend this idea to big companies making huge profits - a kind of ethical (or more responsible) capitalism.

4. Greater alignment with the EU (there, I've said it) but I mean really that the future has to be about cooperation and collaboration (in technology, information, scientific research, health advancements and so on). This essentially means partnerships with other countries - full stop. One world and all that (climate, security, resources...)

I wonder how many votes I might get with that manifesto? I bet close to zilch😄 as I would be seen as a nutter and an idealist worthy of  much ridicule. However, it is nice to read such long and considered posts which include some deeply held (and long-held) beliefs and wishes.

Thanks! The only comment I'd make in response is that I think it's really important not to muddle the conversations about the systems and processes by which parties have to operate with the actual issues that the parties might seek to tackle. Taxation and foreign policy are subjects for democratic bodies to tackle and seek solutions over; they're not questions that relate to how the bodies are chosen or public confidence in the overall function of the bodies.

Edit: In spite of that, I'd happily vote for a party manifesto along those lines.

Edited December 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,541]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks! The only comment I'd make in response is that I think it's really important not to muddle the conversations about the systems and processes by which parties have to operate with the actual issues that the parties might seek to tackle. Taxation and foreign policy are subjects for democratic bodies to tackle and seek solutions over; they're not questions that relate to how the bodies are chosen or public confidence in the overall function of the bodies.

Edit: In spite of that, I'd happily vote for a party manifesto along those lines.

Yes, I accept that and agree - I was just getting carried away developing the ideas on systems into a manifesto for action. It was always my trouble at work...full of ideas and enthusiasm for a new programme (often the result of a successful funding bid)  but then I would have to face our legal team and persuade them and after that our HR team (to calm their fears). Finally, the battle with the finance team (who always thought about things differently). It was the worse part of my job - i.e. in dealing with the reality of things 😄. But I would get there.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Obviously d'Hondt is always likely to harm a Government who would have a huge majority via FPTP.

And very probably would have led to a coalition in 2019. The LibDems would no doubt benefit massively. But would appear to have more in common with Labour under SKS than the Tories but would likely need a third party for a house majority.

It clearly would not signal an end to politics rather than governance.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

29 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yes, I accept that and agree - I was just getting carried away developing the ideas on systems into a manifesto for action. It was always my trouble at work...full of ideas and enthusiasm for a new programme (often the result of a successful funding bid)  but then I would have to face our legal team and persuade them and after that our HR team (to calm their fears). Finally, the battle with the finance team (who always thought about things differently). It was the worse part of my job - i.e. in dealing with the reality of things 😄. But I would get there.

 

Sounds like a good skillset for a worthwhile political career!

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

PR does neutralise people like Farage, as illustrated by AfD in Germany. Yes, they have a voice given they have about 12% of the popular vote, but they're neutralised by the fact that no mainstream parties will want to be seen to be supportive of them. In contrast, Farage's success in the UK did not come from winning votes himself, but from taking away votes from others and frightening them into pursuing his ideas, which isn't possible under PR.

There's much I can agree to in your entire post but I'm afraid I find this paragraph completely baffling. The AfD in Germany has had a massive recent presence in the German parliament, and malign influence in German political life generally, "After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments by October 2017, AfD won 94 seats in the 2017 German federal election and became the third largest party in the country as well as the largest opposition party" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany). A party with extremist far right views like theirs wouldn't gain a single seat under our FPTP system.

Had PR been in operation in the last GEs in this country Farage would certainly have won a seat and be leading a significant caucus that would be holding the government to ransom on a daily basis. We wouldn't just be trying to mitigate the damage done by a bad Brexit deal, but be mitigating the absolute disaster of a no deal Brexit. Johnson "neutralised" the threat to the Tories presented by Farage's mob by promising to get "Brexit done". Once he had achieved that he was able to ignore the extreme rantings of Farage and his loons as they had no more power to assert. However, the presence of Farage and his party in the Commons voting on every issue would undoubtedly have pushed the Tories much further to the right than has currently been the case. 

It doesn't help the cause of those of us who support PR to ignore this inconvenient reality.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

57 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks! The only comment I'd make in response is that I think it's really important not to muddle the conversations about the systems and processes by which parties have to operate with the actual issues that the parties might seek to tackle. Taxation and foreign policy are subjects for democratic bodies to tackle and seek solutions over; they're not questions that relate to how the bodies are chosen or public confidence in the overall function of the bodies.

Edit: In spite of that, I'd happily vote for a party manifesto along those lines.

Erm! you did precisely that when you listed what you considered to be the policy advantages of the LibDems being in coalition with the Tories.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

52 minutes ago, horsefly said:

There's much I can agree to in your entire post but I'm afraid I find this paragraph completely baffling. The AfD in Germany has had a massive recent presence in the German parliament, and malign influence in German political life generally, "After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments by October 2017, AfD won 94 seats in the 2017 German federal election and became the third largest party in the country as well as the largest opposition party" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany). A party with extremist far right views like theirs wouldn't gain a single seat under our FPTP system.

Had PR been in operation in the last GEs in this country Farage would certainly have won a seat and be leading a significant caucus that would be holding the government to ransom on a daily basis. We wouldn't just be trying to mitigate the damage done by a bad Brexit deal, but be mitigating the absolute disaster of a no deal Brexit. Johnson "neutralised" the threat to the Tories presented by Farage's mob by promising to get "Brexit done". Once he had achieved that he was able to ignore the extreme rantings of Farage and his loons as they had no more power to assert. However, the presence of Farage and his party in the Commons voting on every issue would undoubtedly have pushed the Tories much further to the right than has currently been the case. 

It doesn't help the cause of those of us who support PR to ignore this inconvenient reality.

 

Bottom line is AfD haven't been involved in forming a government.

Regarding your assertions about Farage under PR there's no way of testing your theory as to how he might have done under PR, but we know without doubt that he successfully turned the establishment upside down under FPTP without ever winning a seat, illustrating a critical failure with FPTP.

Edited December 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Erm! you did precisely that when you listed what you considered to be the policy advantages of the LibDems being in coalition with the Tories.

That was making a reasoned response to you introducing a point about the Lib Dems delivering policies as part of a coalition. If there's a problem with balancing your point about policy failures with policy successes then you need to chastise yourself for bringing up details of the Lib Dem record in coalition in the first place.

Edited December 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Obviously d'Hondt is always likely to harm a Government who would have a huge majority via FPTP.

And very probably would have led to a coalition in 2019. The LibDems would no doubt benefit massively. But would appear to have more in common with Labour under SKS than the Tories but would likely need a third party for a house majority.

It clearly would not signal an end to politics rather than governance.

Yes. And if there had been a left of centre coalition in 2019, which by proportions of the votes cast in 2019, would have been the case, our article 50 notification would have been, more likely than not, revoked and we'd still be members of the EU.

Edited December 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

Incidentally, if you're not familiar with the details of the voting systems we're talking about, these videos on the subject are brilliant.

This one explains beautifully why First Past the Post is the worst system of all for choosing representatives in a supposed representative democracy.

The next one is my personal favourite, STV (used in Stormont and the Republic of Ireland.

The next one is the one used in Holyrood, the Senedd, and the London Assembly (Mixed member/Additional member). Also Germany.

Finally, here's D'Hondt, which was what we used to use for MEP elections.

There's obviously also pure PR, but that's very straightforward: You just have party lists and you get the number of MPs proporitional to your vote share. The big criticism most make is there's no regional association in there at all, which is why MMP and STV tend to dominate.

[dylanisabaddog 5,016]

I'm not sure that our electoral system causes corruption. We have had the same system for years but corruption has only been a significant problem recently. I'm straight down the middle politically but I've recently joined the Labour Party such is my dislike of the current regime. Having said that, I'm quite certain that there are talented and decent Conservative politicians out there but they have been silenced and sideline, many because of Brexit but there also seems to be a problem with background and education. 

I'm wholly in favour of PR, mainly because it forces politicians to work. A good friend of mine who is an extremely moderate Labour MP tells me that what shocks her most about the current Conservative MP's is that a group of about 100 of them are stupid and bone idle. PR would force them to do their job or force them out. 

If we want to solve the problem of corruption the place to start is funding of political parties. We are currently led by a party that has received funding from all sorts of dubious sources but it doesn't take a genius to work out that very few people hand money over to politicians out of the goodness of their hearts. That applies across the board. The major parties should therefore be funded centrally. 

The major issue in my mind is the quality of politicians on both sides. They're not particularly bright are they? I can live with that fact when they are just an MP but we need better quality people in Government. For the last few years the Civil Service has used an online reasoning test as a first step to direct entrance at Grade 7 level. That is a job that eventually pays around £60k a year. Surely anyone in Government should be able to pass? My aforementioned Labour MP friend cheerfully admitted to me that she failed it. That's not really a problem because she has no ambition but to represent her constituency (which she does very well) but her view is that Labour would struggle to find many who would pass and her opinion of the ability of those on the other side of the House is even worse. The answer to that problem is to pay a lot more but in return we should expect a lot more. 

I'm reminded of the words of Ken Livingstone (not my cup of tea politically) who once said that if you replaced the House of Commons with the first 600 people to walk past outside no one would notice any difference. 

Reading this thread and many similar ones over the years suggests to me that the Pinkun forum could quite easily come up with a group of 20 people with mixed views who could do a better job of running this country than those in power. Sounds ridiculous but unfortunately it's true. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[horsefly 4,318]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That was making a reasoned response to you introducing a point about the Lib Dems delivering policies as part of a coalition. If there's a problem with balancing your point about policy failures with policy successes then you need to chastise yourself for bringing up details of the Lib Dem record in coalition in the first place.

It wasn't me who said that was a problem, it was YOU in your response to Sonyc. I merely pointed out that you "chastised" him for something that you yourself had done only a few posts earlier. But I really don't want to waste the whole point of another thread in useless badinage so let's please agree to discuss the issues that have genuine import.

[Van wink 2,994]

I’ve always been in favour of more regionalised power and welcome the ideas coming from Labour. The more powers that are devolved to these democratically elected bodies then the less the ultimate impact of the moving disaster zone that the House of Commons has become.The problem with electoral reform, particularly boundary change is it is generally seen by the party in power as an opportunity to gerrymander rather than provide a fairer and more representative system, the options for PR are so wide ranging and seemingly complex it will be hard to sell any particular system to an already sceptical public, but I do hope it can be done. There is a risk of course of devising a system to try and address the failings not only of the current system but also the incumbents, any debate really has to be in the context of what is in the long interest of democracy and not a quick fix. 
My ideal would see much stronger Regional government with the strategic direction for big departments such as the DOH being set for the long term and then allowed to move forward run as an executive agaency rather than it being used and constantly abused as a political football.With a more stable political system, which I hope PR would deliver,  it may just be possible to avoid the constant policy swings which are so costly and always seem to result in huge waste and the loss of front line resource.

[horsefly 4,318]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Bottom line is AfD haven't been involved in forming a government.

Regarding your assertions about Farage under PR there's no way of testing your theory as to how he might have done under PR, but we know without doubt that he successfully turned the establishment upside down under FPTP without ever winning a seat, illustrating a critical failure with FPTP.

Sorry, but that's very complacent and somewhat naïve. In 2017 they won 94 seats in the German parliament and formed the largest opposition party. Are you seriously suggesting that makes them an irrelevance in German politics? If so then all the opposition parties in the UK are irrelevant too. That is an extraordinary view of the nature of political culture and the influence parties gain by occupying seats in parliament. Parties with members of parliament get to speak in parliament and to the nation and directly influence public discourse. You don't have to peer very far back in history to remind yourself of an obscure far-right political party in Germany that managed to turn a handful of parliamentary seats into the greatest crisis the world has seen.

As for your claims about Farage under PR, the facts are there for you to see if you wish to look. The UK elections to the EU parliament (under a proportional system) saw a tidal wave of UKIP MEPs elected to parliament. Those seats gave UKIP a massively influential political platform that made the news on an almost daily basis. Under a PR system in previous UK elections UKIP garnered enough votes to have ensured several seats in the Commons; the idea Farage would not have been a shoe-in for one of those seats is pushing credulity to the limits.

I'm afraid the claim that Farage turned the "establishment upside down" is a sop Farage himself loves people to promulgate to venerate his Trumpian ego but is way off the mark. It was very obviously the ERG that wrecked May's premiership, caused her downfall, and put Johnson into power. I.e. it was a small caucus of MPs elected to parliament who wielded extraordinary power (way beyond what their small number merited) who "turned the establishment upside down". Once Johnson declared his intention to "get Brexit done" UKIP and Farage became an irrelevance.

In fact there is much to learn about PR by imagining the ERG to be a separate party itself during that period. Indeed, they were effectively UKIP's representatives in the commons far more than they were Tories. The vast majority of MPs of all sides were remainers, yet this very small group of MPs was able to exploit the particular circumstances of parliament at that time to wield extraordinary unwarranted levels of power. In many ways the ERG represented the primary concern expressed by opponents of PR, that a small group of extremists can hold the balance of power in ways that far exceed what their number warrants. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yes. And if there had been a left of centre coalition in 2019, which by proportions of the votes cast in 2019, would have been the case, our article 50 notification would have been, more likely than not, revoked and we'd still be members of the EU.

I'm not sure about that. Corbyn would still have been Labour leader.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not sure about that. Corbyn would still have been Labour leader.

That is a fair point; there is some question about whether he personally might have held out against the wishes of most of the wider Labour party, which I'm pretty confident would have liked to have seen it revoked.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not sure that our electoral system causes corruption. We have had the same system for years but corruption has only been a significant problem recently. I'm straight down the middle politically but I've recently joined the Labour Party such is my dislike of the current regime. Having said that, I'm quite certain that there are talented and decent Conservative politicians out there but they have been silenced and sideline, many because of Brexit but there also seems to be a problem with background and education. 

I'm wholly in favour of PR, mainly because it forces politicians to work. A good friend of mine who is an extremely moderate Labour MP tells me that what shocks her most about the current Conservative MP's is that a group of about 100 of them are stupid and bone idle. PR would force them to do their job or force them out. 

If we want to solve the problem of corruption the place to start is funding of political parties. We are currently led by a party that has received funding from all sorts of dubious sources but it doesn't take a genius to work out that very few people hand money over to politicians out of the goodness of their hearts. That applies across the board. The major parties should therefore be funded centrally. 

The major issue in my mind is the quality of politicians on both sides. They're not particularly bright are they? I can live with that fact when they are just an MP but we need better quality people in Government. For the last few years the Civil Service has used an online reasoning test as a first step to direct entrance at Grade 7 level. That is a job that eventually pays around £60k a year. Surely anyone in Government should be able to pass? My aforementioned Labour MP friend cheerfully admitted to me that she failed it. That's not really a problem because she has no ambition but to represent her constituency (which she does very well) but her view is that Labour would struggle to find many who would pass and her opinion of the ability of those on the other side of the House is even worse. The answer to that problem is to pay a lot more but in return we should expect a lot more. 

I'm reminded of the words of Ken Livingstone (not my cup of tea politically) who once said that if you replaced the House of Commons with the first 600 people to walk past outside no one would notice any difference. 

Reading this thread and many similar ones over the years suggests to me that the Pinkun forum could quite easily come up with a group of 20 people with mixed views who could do a better job of running this country than those in power. Sounds ridiculous but unfortunately it's true. 

Good points Dylan.

Topically -

I'd also add a hair sample for all MPs every year (as well as these highly paid civils servants) to check fpr cocaine use amongst others. Instant dismissal / recall if positive. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

18 hours ago, horsefly said:

There's much I can agree to in your entire post but I'm afraid I find this paragraph completely baffling. The AfD in Germany has had a massive recent presence in the German parliament, and malign influence in German political life generally, "After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments by October 2017, AfD won 94 seats in the 2017 German federal election and became the third largest party in the country as well as the largest opposition party" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany). A party with extremist far right views like theirs wouldn't gain a single seat under our FPTP system.

Had PR been in operation in the last GEs in this country Farage would certainly have won a seat and be leading a significant caucus that would be holding the government to ransom on a daily basis. We wouldn't just be trying to mitigate the damage done by a bad Brexit deal, but be mitigating the absolute disaster of a no deal Brexit. Johnson "neutralised" the threat to the Tories presented by Farage's mob by promising to get "Brexit done". Once he had achieved that he was able to ignore the extreme rantings of Farage and his loons as they had no more power to assert. However, the presence of Farage and his party in the Commons voting on every issue would undoubtedly have pushed the Tories much further to the right than has currently been the case. 

It doesn't help the cause of those of us who support PR to ignore this inconvenient reality.

 

The significance of any caucus Farage may or may not have run would be fairly in proportion to how the proportion of the electorate casting votes for those in the caucus, so the point seems moot.

Equally, it's helpful to put numbers to things rather than vague terms like 'massive'. What percent of seats did AfD have? What was their vote share? What policy successes have they had?
What evidence is there that their participation in the German democratic process has weakened German trust in their democratic institutions?

If you want to use AfD as an argument against PR, you need to start bringing in specifics, ideally citing sources to better understand the basis of your argument.

Edited December 17, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

It wasn't me who said that was a problem, it was YOU in your response to Sonyc. I merely pointed out that you "chastised" him for something that you yourself had done only a few posts earlier. But I really don't want to waste the whole point of another thread in useless badinage so let's please agree to discuss the issues that have genuine import.

Sony C understands the distinction, even if you can't.

You clearly thought your point about the Lib Dem record in coalition was relevant because it was a coalition that is a common feature under PR. By raising that, you clearly asserted yourself that it was relevant, which by association means their successes in coalition are also relevant to the discussion in balancing your argument that it was a negative; case studies of parties delivering policies in coalition relates very well to the wider discussion.

In contrast, Sony C was making his own policy proposals, which while interesting, aren't to be muddled with the democratic process within which parties argue for these policies. Sony C understood and graciously accepted my observation, which begs the question what you're upset about?

Edited December 17, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That is a fair point; there is some question about whether he personally might have held out against the wishes of most of the wider Labour party, which I'm pretty confident would have liked to have seen it revoked.

He was a sceptic. Which would just have meant more prevarication.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The significance of any caucus Farage may or may not have run would be fairly in proportion to how the proportion of the electorate casting votes for those in the caucus, so the point seems moot.

Equally, it's helpful to put numbers to things rather than vague terms like 'massive'. What percent of seats did AfD have? What was their vote share? What policy successes have they had?
What evidence is there that their participation in the German democratic process has weakened German trust in their democratic institutions?

If you want to use AfD as an argument against PR, you need to start bringing in specifics, ideally citing sources to better understand the basis of your argument.

I think the far 'religious' right in Israel is better example of how it can go wrong. There are solutions to these issues though (it doesn't need to be directly proportional etc - there could be cut off.)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think the far 'religious' right in Israel is better example of how it can go wrong. There are solutions to these issues though (it doesn't need to be directly proportional etc - there could be cut off.)

Any system can deliver undesirable results from someone's perspective, but ultimately, if a system fairly reflects the views of the people in the society and has widespread support of the society, which is the case for Germany and Israel, how can it be 'wrong'?

Our problem in our society is diminished trust in the systems as a whole, largely stemming from the fact that many people don't feel their views are represented anywhere by their supposed representatives in the Commons under the status quo, which is first past the post, which is widely discredited and used very rarely in modern democracies.

Edited December 17, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Any system can deliver undesirable results from someone's perspective, but ultimately, if a system fairly reflects the views of the people in the society and has widespread support of the society, which is the case for Germany and Israel, how can it be 'wrong'?

Our problem in our society is diminished trust in the systems as a whole, largely stemming from the fact that many people don't feel their views are represented anywhere by their supposed representatives in the Commons under the status quo, which is first past the post, which is widely discredited and used very rarely in modern democracies.

And then we have the problem of apathy. 27% turnout for an important by-election is disgraceful. And they had the cheek to blame the cold.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

Full Swiss is my preference, with PR as a base (I'd probably favour MMR - PR as in Germany or New Zealand with an ability to pick a candidate and then one for a party), and the ability to call referendums / put a recently passed law to referendum powered by the populace at large. That's what the Swiss do very well, and it's been proven for over a century.

I do accept the counterargument that this makes the pace of reform almost glacial on occasion, but the whole damned point of politics, from my perspective, is that politicians actually work together on behalf of those they purport to represent. And that means taking their time, genuinely working through what opposing sides have to say, and actually trying to work out acceptable compromises.

I'm more than happy to accept far slower reform if far better decisions, far fairer decisions, are the outcome.

[horsefly 4,318]

45 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The significance of any caucus Farage may or may not have run would be fairly in proportion to how the proportion of the electorate casting votes for those in the caucus, so the point seems moot.

Equally, it's helpful to put numbers to things rather than vague terms like 'massive'. What percent of seats did AfD have? What was their vote share? What policy successes have they had?
What evidence is there that their participation in the German democratic process has weakened German trust in their democratic institutions?

If you want to use AfD as an argument against PR, you need to start bringing in specifics, ideally citing sources to better understand the basis of your argument.

I'm afraid the claim that a group's political significance is simply proportionate to their number is obvious nonsense. The ERG had an impact way beyond the numbers who were members. The influence a minority grouping can have is determined by many complex factors, not just their physical number. Had May had a huge majority she could have ignored the (relatively small)  ERG. She didn't and they became the powerbrokers. There were far more members of parliament in opposition to the ERG position on Brexit yet nonetheless it was the ERG that prevailed in getting rid of May and anointing Johnson to do their bidding. There is nothing remotely controversial about that fact. Indeed, it has always been true of every parliamentary political system that governments with a fragile grip on power are vulnerable to the disproportionate influence of a small number of individuals they depend upon to keep them in power.

I simply can't make sense of your complaint that you need to put "numbers to things rather than vague terms like massive". I stated very clearly that the AfD gained 94 seats in the 2017 German parliament and formed the largest opposition party. Please explain what "numbers" are lacking there. Are you seriously claiming that gaining 94 seats in the German parliament is irrelevant? If so you've just contradicted everything you have said about the importance of PR in giving a genuine voice to different minority political viewpoints.

I think I could hardly be clearer that I am pro-PR. All I have said is that it is unwise and disingenuous of those of us that are in favour of it to ignore the evidence that it brings with it serious dangers of giving a platform to extremists, and potential disproportionate power to their causes. I am very surprised you are unaware of the growing problem of extremist right wing influence and activity in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. There have been plenty of news reports and documentaries precisely on that issue. 

What is needed is a serious discussion of what kind of system of PR would enable greater democratic representation of different voices while at the same time denying a platform to extremist hate groups who would persecute other minorities. Without seriously addressing that issue those supporting FPTP will retain the momentum in resisting electoral reform.