Brexit matters

[AY1975]

Except only 37% of adult British citizens actually voted for Brexit, given a number of people did not vote. You don't make radical changes based on what 37% of people wanted on a random day in June 2016, though I will say that was Cameron's fault in designing the referendum in such a simple-minded way. Also, EU citizens, who are most effected by Brexit, were denied the vote which in my view makes the whole referendum invalid. Radical changes to the UK's relationship with its neighbours should require a very substantial majority, not 13 for vs 12 against which is basically a tie. The Scottish independence referendum was designed in a much more intelligent way because it did require a substantial majority to pass.

And even if you do accept that Brexit must happen because 37% of adult British citizens wanted it, the referendum did not actually ask people whether they wanted to stop EU citizens emigrating here. This was purely something the Tories - May and Johnson - decided to do unilaterally afterwards. Many of us resent this deeply - the Conservative Party have not only taken away EU citizens' right to live here, they have taken away our automatic right to live in EU countries, a right we have had for around 30 years.

Exactly, that, together with the substantially less-than-100% turnout (only 37% actually voted for Brexit) and the denial of the vote to EU citizens, who are the ones most affected by it, means that I have never accepted the actions performed by the Tories following the result. And that's before we start questioning some of the blatant lies ('EU citizens' rights will not be affected' - if that's the case why did they require 'settled status') of the Leave campaign.

I agree; most other countries that use referendums would require some form of minimum threshold (or even a supermajority of, say, 60, 65 or 66% either of votes cast or of the total electorate) for any kind of constitutional change, and certainly for a radical change that would fundamentally alter the country's constitutional settlement and societal norms.

Public opinion is liable to change as circumstances change, so a minimum threshold ensures that there is clear evidence of a strong and permanent consensus in favour of the proposed change before implementing it. If there is a minimum threshold, it is assumed that eligible voters who don't vote are happy with the status quo.

Mind you, there is also a school of thought that says that for a referendum to be unbiased, and so that nobody's vote is worth any more or any less than anyone else's, both the status quo and the change that's being offered need to be allowed a level playing field; therefore it's only fair that only a simple majority should be required. Opponents of a minimum threshold also argue that such a threshold can be insulting to supporters of the change because it tells them that their votes are worth less than those of supporters of the status quo, that it can lead to feelings of bitterness among supporters of the change if there is a simple majority in favour of the change but the requisite threshold isn't met (as happened in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum), and that a minimum threshold can be a disincentive to vote if you support the status quo.

Those arguments do have some merit, but IMO on balance it's more important to ensure that there is a strong consensus in favour of a major constitutional change before implementing it. If you only require a simple majority and the result is close, it shows that the country is bitterly divided on the issue. Besides, even if there's no minimum threshold, complacently believing that a win for the status quo is in the bag can also be a disincentive to vote. People are psychologically more inclined to bother to vote for a change that they positively support or against something that they dislike than for a status quo that they're happy with. A minimum threshold also provides a safeguard against people using a referendum to cast a protest vote or voting for the opposite of what they really want in the hope of getting a close result.

Why were we not given a referendum on the Maestricht Treaty. I mean one; not keep voting till we get it right. It's what cost John Major his job.

I seem to recall that John Major toyed with the idea of putting the Maastricht Treaty to a referendum (and/or the Tory Eurosceptics tried to put pressure on him to hold one) but he decided against it. This may have been at least partly for fear of losing, but I also suspect that it was because he realised that such a referendum would have risked tearing the country apart. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that avoiding that risk was, on balance, more important than avoiding angering the Eurosceptics within his own party.

 

[RT4038]

It may be the law, and it may be (sadly) normal - because xenophobia is too deeply ingrained throughout the world - but I take issue with it being moral. And I don't think it's particularly kind to use terms like "squatter" to describe people living here long-term.


That shows the outcome was not implemented for good moral reasons though - doing things for the benefit of wealthy City types isn't exacly a sound reason to implement a hard Brexit on moral grounds. Just makes the outcome seem even more unacceptable, IMO.

Except if we all just put up and shut up, there will be no motivation to thaw relations with the EU later. Anti-Brexit British people need to demonstrate to the rest of Europe that we are not all in agreement about Brexit, and some of us think it was a monumentally stupid idea and still deeply resent it - otherwise the rest of Europe might consider us an isolationist country and relations will be less likely to improve.

I don't think it should be a case of 'put up and shut up' Anybody has the right to campaign to change anything (well at least many things). So rejoining or negotiating extra agreements is certainly possible. However, constant whingeing about what has happened already and is largely done and dusted is not really very helpful or useful - it is not going to change anything.

Europe is well aware that not everyone in the UK agrees with Brexit. A 52:48 vote showed that. Europe is no doubt acutely aware of the issues which caused Brexit and that they were unable and/or unwilling to deal with for various reasons. Not that the EU is any more or less to blame than the UK.

If a referendum was held now about rejoining the EU, what would be the result? I don't think it could be accurately predicted [ my own prediction would be a No vote] and I do not think it would be a good idea at this point. Maybe try in 10 years' time?

 

[nw1]

I don't think it should be a case of 'put up and shut up' Anybody has the right to campaign to change anything (well at least many things). So rejoining or negotiating extra agreements is certainly possible. However, constant whingeing about what has happened already and is largely done and dusted is not really very helpful or useful - it is not going to change anything.

Europe is well aware that not everyone in the UK agrees with Brexit. A 52:48 vote showed that. Europe is no doubt acutely aware of the issues which caused Brexit and that they were unable and/or unwilling to deal with for various reasons. Not that the EU is any more or less to blame than the UK.

If a referendum was held now about rejoining the EU, what would be the result? I don't think it could be accurately predicted [ my own prediction would be a No vote] and I do not think it would be a good idea at this point. Maybe try in 10 years' time?

OK fair points. I don't think it need even be about rejoining the EU - and I say that as a remainer.I'd be quite happy to see freedom of movement restored (even if in a slightly more bureaucratic way than previously, as in, immigrants have to register or something - but as long as they are not a wanted criminal or security threat then they can stay) and rejoining the customs union - but accept we need to move on from Johnson before that will happen.

Do something like that rather than go for a full rejoin, and I suspect things could start moving back in that direction rather sooner than 10 years (though it will depend on who is PM after 2024, which could be Johnson, a moderate Cameronite Tory, Starmer, or someone else, who knows right now...)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2022 ==

Didn't answer why we were not given a referendum.

I was contesting that as a reason for John Major losing in 1997; I gave other reasons based on my observation of the political scene at the time (and I did follow politics quite closely in the 90s).

 

[Doppelganger]

OK fair points. I don't think it need even be about rejoining the EU - and I say that as a remainer.I'd be quite happy to see freedom of movement restored (even if in a slightly more bureaucratic way than previously, as in, immigrants have to register or something - but as long as they are not a wanted criminal or security threat then they can stay) and rejoining the customs union - but accept we need to move on from Johnson before that will happen.

This was already in place. Other countries chose to do exactly that.

You register, the authorities do background checks on you and only then are you given the all clear to freely move.

The fact the UK chose not to do this and that the British public were quite clueless about the whole thing, just shows why Brexit succeeded.

 

[ainsworth74]

The fact the UK chose not to do this and that the British public were quite clueless about the whole thing, just shows why Brexit succeeded.

See also blue (which are clearly black but moving on) passports. Burgundy was a recommendation but not a requirement. Croatia have black passports for instance. We didn't need to leave the EU just to get a different colour passport.

As seems to be often the case the problem was not the EU. The problem was UK Governments of various stripes blaming the EU for their own failings or desires (either to act or not act in a certain way). Of course not on everything. But a lot of the totemic issues always seem to boil down to the UK Government had the power to change things or do things to address whatever the issue was. But didn't.

 

[MattRat]

As seems to be often the case the problem was not the EU. The problem was UK Governments of various stripes blaming the EU for their own failings or desires (either to act or not act in a certain way). Of course not on everything. But a lot of the totemic issues always seem to boil down to the UK Government had the power to change things or do things to address whatever the issue was. But didn't.

I don't like either Government. But at least the UK Government is on the same island I am, not across the water in a foreign country I need a passport to get to.

Of course I had also hoped when we removed the EU as something to blame, the politicians would get their act together, but I see now that was extremely naive. The moral is, when you want something done, do it yourself, which as I explained above, Brexit has made easier.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course it is my view, and I'm not speaking for all who voted for leave. But then neither are you speaking for those who do not want to be in the EU ...

I never claimed to be, merely surmising that even if a small proportion of Leave voters didn't like the agreed deal then that means it can't claim majority support (as indeed confirmed by numerous opinion polls).

You, on the other hand, are saying:

To Brexiteers, Brexit was not Brexit if it wasn't out of observing EU laws, ...

So you appear to be presuming to speak for everyone and to assert that they all have the same view as you.

I think you need to look at this from a Brexiteers viewpoint: they wanted Brexit without EU Bureaucracy etc. They were not looking for anything less, so any scheme would have to get that and nothing the EU had on offer would (understandably) give the UK that kind of freedom. All of your suggestions might have taken Brexit from their grasp, so there was no way they were going to go that route. There was only a small window of opportunity. 'Get it done' and quickly, otherwise the opportunity would pass in this generation. Vote them out if you want, but they have done their job which won't be easily reversed for quite some time.

Or to put it another way, they were prepared to ride roughshod over everyone who didn't agree with them. And they have inflicted lasting damage on the UK for no obvious benefit. I find it impossible to move on and let the perpetrators get away with that sort of injustice.

 

[Doppelganger]

don't like either Government. But at least the UK Government is on the same island I am, not across the water in a foreign country I need a passport to get to.

I wonder how the people of Northern Ireland feel then as they don't share that same island.

Furthermore, you didn't have to have a passport to travel across the EU or into Schengen, as an ID card sufficed. The UK did trial such a thing for a good few years, but ditched it. Trust me travel across Schengen is a joy compared to the hostile environment at every British airport and port.

Malta, Cyprus and Ireland all have to travel across water to a foreign country but clearly see the benefits of being part of something bigger

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't like either Government. But at least the UK Government is on the same island I am, not across the water in a foreign country I need a passport to get to.

Of course you only needed a passport because the UK Government decided not to join Schengen. EU Citizens don't need a passport to visit Brussels or Strasbourg. Plus depending on where you are in the UK, Brussels might actually have been easier to get to than some parts of the UK. A direct train in some cases!

But I do at least have some sympathy for such a point of view in general. Though as I was alluding to above the actual influence always seems very limited compared to how Brussels and the EU were portrayed. The totem of "the EU stopped us having blue passports!" was false. The totem of "the EU meant that we had no controls over our boarders!" was also false. Etc etc.

Of course I had also hoped when we removed the EU as something to blame, the politicians would get their act together, but I see now that was extremely naive. The moral is, when you want something done, do it yourself, which as I explained above, Brexit has made easier.

I'm not quite sure how Brexit helps get us competent Governments nor am I sure that removing an excuse for them to hide behind was worth the pain that Brexit has inflicted! But whilst I agree it would be nice to have Governments that were competent I'm afraid that I cannot see such a thing happening. At least not for as long as we have the distorting effects of First Past the Post as our electoral system!

 

[RT4038]

This was already in place. Other countries chose to do exactly that.

You register, the authorities do background checks on you and only then are you given the all clear to freely move.

The fact the UK chose not to do this and that the British public were quite clueless about the whole thing, just shows why Brexit succeeded.

Are these countries where their ordinary citizens have to register their residence as well?

See also blue (which are clearly black but moving on) passports. Burgundy was a recommendation but not a requirement. Croatia have black passports for instance. We didn't need to leave the EU just to get a different colour passport.

As seems to be often the case the problem was not the EU. The problem was UK Governments of various stripes blaming the EU for their own failings or desires (either to act or not act in a certain way). Of course not on everything. But a lot of the totemic issues always seem to boil down to the UK Government had the power to change things or do things to address whatever the issue was. But didn't.

However, to be fair, this does rather highlight the difference between the UK and European countries. Many EU directives were translated into UK law in a very literal and restrictive manner (because that is the way our culture and legal system works compared to that prevalent in Europe]. Likewise, our welfare and health service systems differ very much to European countries, both in scope/value [ particularly Eastern Europe] and in eligibility (pseudo-insurance schemes which effectively shut out immigrants). The Government could have tried to change to the European model, but not without considerable opposition from voters.

 

[Doppelganger]

Are these countries where their ordinary citizens have to register their residence as well?

So what if they are?

Nothing was stopping having a system in place to register EU, EEA and Swiss immigrants.

The UK government have outsourced all the responsibility to employers and landlords. If they were serious and indeed really wanted to have more secure borders they would have done it. Because they didn't is mainly down to their incompetence as well as allowing the UK to continue to use the EU as a scapegoat.

To be on the system and be paid and have access to the NHS, you need an NI number. These numbers don't magically materialise, they have to be generated, so somewhere is a list of all the people who have applied for one. I'll let you work the rest out.

 

[JamesT]

So what if they are?

Nothing was stopping having a system in place to register EU, EEA and Swiss immigrants.

The UK government have outsourced all the responsibility to employers and landlords. If they were serious and indeed really wanted to have more secure borders they would have done it. Because they didn't is mainly down to their incompetence as well as allowing the UK to continue to use the EU as a scapegoat.

To be on the system and be paid and have access to the NHS, you need an NI number. These numbers don't magically materialise, they have to be generated, so somewhere is a list of all the people who have applied for one. I'll let you work the rest out.

The EU don't allow a system that only registers those classes of people. If you're an EU country, you have to treat EU citizens the same as your own.
As a country we appear to be very suspicious of government overreach when it comes to systems where they hold data on us, even though they probably do hold quite a bit already in a fragmented way. So anything that ends up with the right data to be able to pull out everyone who is an immigrant would probably also meet stiff resistance.

I wonder how the people of Northern Ireland feel then as they don't share that same island.

Furthermore, you didn't have to have a passport to travel across the EU or into Schengen, as an ID card sufficed. The UK did trial such a thing for a good few years, but ditched it. Trust me travel across Schengen is a joy compared to the hostile environment at every British airport and port.

Malta, Cyprus and Ireland all have to travel across water to a foreign country but clearly see the benefits of being part of something bigger

Note that only one of those three countries is in Schengen...

 

[Doppelganger]

Note that only one of those three countries is in Schengen.

My point was about traveling across water to get to the EU decision making body, rather than them being in Schengen as I was to responding to MattRat's aversion to such a concept which not everyone has.

 

[RT4038]

I never claimed to be, merely surmising that even if a small proportion of Leave voters didn't like the agreed deal then that means it can't claim majority support (as indeed confirmed by numerous opinion polls).

You, on the other hand, are saying:

So you appear to be presuming to speak for everyone and to assert that they all have the same view as you.


Or to put it another way, they were prepared to ride roughshod over everyone who didn't agree with them. And they have inflicted lasting damage on the UK for no obvious benefit. I find it impossible to move on and let the perpetrators get away with that sort of injustice.

No presuming - I am referring to 'Get it done' brexiteers - you'll have to move on from all this injustice stuff and how 'they' can't claim majority support. If the people were that incensed about it they would not have given the 'Get it done' party such support in the 2019 election. They simply outwitted their opponents.

They may or may not have inflicted lasting damage on the UK - this remains to be seen and anyway may never be apparent for sure due to circumstances following. 'Riding roughshod over everyone who didn't agree with them' is just politics.

If there was a referendum now to go back into the EU what would the result be?

 

[AM9]

No presuming - I am referring to 'Get it done' brexiteers - you'll have to move on from all this injustice stuff and how 'they' can't claim majority support. If the people were that incensed about it they would not have given the 'Get it done' party such support in the 2019 election. They simply outwitted their opponents.

So Jeremy Corbyn campaigning as a prospective PM didn't play any part in the 2019 election result then?

 

[RT4038]

So Jeremy Corbyn campaigning as a prospective PM didn't play any part in the 2019 election result then?

That was a bit of luck for the 'Get it done' party, wasn't it! Must be a conspiracy theory there somewhere. As I said, if the people were that incensed about Brexit they would have voted for an anti-Brexit party; but they didn't - perhaps they didn't care about Brexit as much as other issues?

The remainers can cry 'We wuz robbed' as much as they like - the results are not going to be re-visited; the 'Get it done-rs' simply outmaneouvred their opponents.

So the Remainers are now in a similar position as the Brexiteers were 10 years ago, faced with the inertia of moving from the current position; although in a worse position because they will have to renegotiate entry into the EU too. I suspect that the political, cultural and economic landscape on both sides of the Channel will have to change quite considerably before that becomes a possibility.

 

[Doppelganger]

As I said, if the people were that incensed about Brexit they would have voted for an anti-Brexit party; but they didn't - perhaps they didn't care about Brexit as much as other issues?

Because the UK electoral system is so broken, the country doesn't really get what it voted for.

Btw, more people voted for either an anti-Brexit party or one that promised a 2nd referendum.

The sooner FPTP is ditched the better

 

[RT4038]

Because the UK electoral system is so broken, the country doesn't really get what it voted for.

Btw, more people voted for either an anti-Brexit party or one that promised a 2nd referendum.

The sooner FPTP is ditched the better

So, if you don't like the result, next criticise the voting system.

 

[Doppelganger]

So, if you don't like the result, next criticise the voting system.

If you think FPTP is democratic, then you are in a minority.

What is wrong with PR? You cannot be a true democracy without it

 

[Revilo]

If you think FPTP is democratic, then you are in a minority.

What is wrong with PR? You cannot be a true democracy without it

PR results in weak coalition government being more likely. Plus the outcome is determined by closed-doors negotiations between the losing parties. How’s that democracy?

 

[Doppelganger]

PR results in weak coalition government being more likely. Plus the outcome is determined by closed-doors negotiations between the losing parties. How’s that democracy?

You're right, it's much better to have a party who wins 43% of the vote and then gain an 80 seat majority.

On no planet that makes sense, apart from planet Britain.

 

[adrock1976]

Because the UK electoral system is so broken, the country doesn't really get what it voted for.

Btw, more people voted for either an anti-Brexit party or one that promised a 2nd referendum.

The sooner FPTP is ditched the better

So, if you don't like the result, next criticise the voting system.

If you think FPTP is democratic, then you are in a minority.

What is wrong with PR? You cannot be a true democracy without it

PR results in weak coalition government being more likely. Plus the outcome is determined by closed-doors negotiations between the losing parties. How’s that democracy?

You're right, it's much better to have a party who wins 43% of the vote and then gain an 80 seat majority.

On no planet that makes sense, apart from planet Britain.

Although the above posts may warrant a new thread, I started a thread a few years ago regarding progressive federalism. The text from my opening post is below (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/progressive-federalism-is-now-the-time.178437/).

Although I have focussed on voting patterns in Scotland for General Elections from 1979 onwards, I believe similar could be applied to Tyne & Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and the West Midlands (all former metropolitan County Council areas from 1974-86), West Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, and Gwent for Wales, in that most of the electorate did not get the government that they voted for. Over time, this obviously leads to a democratic deficit in that the government that is in charge may not properly take the concerns of the constituencies that did not vote for the government that is in charge that may be raised, and also can lead to disenfranchisement, as can be seen with the recent rise of Scottish nationalism with former solid Labour (both the red and blue versions) constituencies giving the SNP a go, but to no avail as it did not affect the outcome of the result of Scotland getting a government it did not vote for.

What I believe is that the governance of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland gets returned to the Irish, but maybe for a new thread especially when viewed in context of the upcoming events on 29 March 2019) needs to be radically overhauled. I would start with bringing back the Metropolitan County Councils that were abolished by Thatcher in 1986, plus create a few new ones too for areas which did not have them back in 1974. New ones would be Glamorgan & Gwent (covering Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport - it seems an injustice that at least one of Wales's three largest cities did not get one in 1974), North Somerset (covering Bristol, Weston-super-Mare (maybe), and Bath Spa), Exeter & Torbay (simple enough), and possibly Kingston & Grimsby (former Humberside CC, which would use the the first name of the port city of its full name, similar as to how the telephone network is Kingston Communications). These are just examples that could be refined and added to, and is not exhaustive.

Secondly, for the non-metropolitan areas, I would have regional devolution, with those regions being broadly based on the existing European Parliament regions, with proportional representation being used for elections. The local councils can use the single transferrable vote system as that is how councillors are elected in Scotland, with multi-member wards.

Thirdly, for General Elections, I would trim the number of MPs down and create larger constituencies, with the number of MPs each region sends to the Federal Parliament (relocated from Westminster to Birmingham, so as to make it more easily accessible to the whole of Great Britain) being based on one MP per X amount of population. For example, if West Midlands region has a population of 3.5 million (arbitrary figure), and the value of X is 250,000, this would mean West Midlands Region would have 12 MPs - a big chop from the present many there (maybe a lower value of X is needed?). The Federal Parliament would be elected using proportional representation, which would better reflect the voting patterns across the regions, with the regions and councils having greater powers than is presently the case, and would enable local (and maybe regional) tax raising for local needs (and maybe regional needs).

On a final point (apologies for the lengthy post), I would like to see that anybody who is standing for election must have been residing in the area for a minimum of five years. This would get rid of careerists standing for election that have no connection with the area, such as the likes of Tristram Hunt (never resided in Stoke-on-Trent before being elected) and Esther McVey (who got the boot in 2017 in West Wirral, and re-emerged in Tatton recently, despite not having any connections with that area). Any members that are voted out are to miss standing again for one election of Council, County, Regional, and Federal so as to prevent them from popping up again in another elected capacity (Frank "Sorry I was running late to cast my vote and almost missed doing so, as I was in the canteen scoffing all the pies" McAveety take note, as the electorate of Shettleston keep giving you the boot). I will end with that for MPs, Regional Members, and anybody who is elected, to pledge their allegiance to the electorate rather than the monarchy.

Any further thoughts?

 

[Revilo]

You're right, it's much better to have a party who wins 43% of the vote and then gain an 80 seat majority.

On no planet that makes sense, apart from planet Britain.

But the alternative under PR is that a party with a very small % of the vote gets some power in Government. If the 2019 election had been determined under the modified D’Hondt method, a coalition of Labour, LDs and Greens (or the SNP) could have had more seats that the Conservatives.

Why should the Greens, a tiny minority with only 2.7% of the vote, have a say in Government? It risks extremist parties getting their hands on power eg the BNP in the 2009 European elections.

 

[MattRat]

I wonder how the people of Northern Ireland feel then as they don't share that same island.

Furthermore, you didn't have to have a passport to travel across the EU or into Schengen, as an ID card sufficed. The UK did trial such a thing for a good few years, but ditched it. Trust me travel across Schengen is a joy compared to the hostile environment at every British airport and port.

Malta, Cyprus and Ireland all have to travel across water to a foreign country but clearly see the benefits of being part of something bigger

Well, I believe in a united Ireland, so I'm still consistent.

 

[Doppelganger]

But the alternative under PR is that a party with a very small % of the vote gets some power in Government. If the 2019 election had been determined under the modified D’Hondt method, a coalition of Labour, LDs and Greens (or the SNP) could have had more seats that the Conservatives.

Why should the Greens, a tiny minority with only 2.7% of the vote, have a say in Government? It risks extremist parties getting their hands on power eg the BNP in the 2009 European elections.

But if people knew the system was different it would change voting habits.

So what if a small party had a small say? It wouldn't be the majority view, but at least some minority may think they have some input. Batter that than the current UK system which just bulldozers its way through everything and anything which isn't them.

 

[brad465]

So, if you don't like the result, next criticise the voting system.

The voting system has been as much a pain for right wing voters as left wing; UKIP in 2015 got nearly 4 million votes but only 1 seat to show for it, which is arguably the most extreme example of wasted votes this country has ever seen.

Also, among the many reasons people voted for Brexit, one reason was people thinking voting for it finally meant something, after not having a voice for many elections before. One such reason for this, even if many weren't fully aware of why their voices were not achieving anything, would have been a flawed voting system.

PR results in weak coalition government being more likely. Plus the outcome is determined by closed-doors negotiations between the losing parties. How’s that democracy?

There is no perfect voting system. But I think FPTP is about as bad as they come. Also, 2010 and 2017 were elections that delivered coalitions/agreements despite being FPTP led, so there's no guarantee of "stable government" even with that system. 2017 in particular with the DUP bung was even worse because not only was this an arrangement bought by bribe, but the overwhelming majority of voters could not vote in a way that expressed an opinion about the DUP, because they were only standing in 18/650 seats.

 

[Revilo]

But if people knew the system was different it would change voting habits.

So what if a small party had a small say? It wouldn't be the majority view, but at least some minority may think they have some input. Batter that than the current UK system which just bulldozers its way through everything and anything which isn't them.

I for one would not be happy with the BNP or similar having a say, nor hard-left wing parties either.

 

[Cloud Strife]

But the alternative under PR is that a party with a very small % of the vote gets some power in Government. If the 2019 election had been determined under the modified D’Hondt method, a coalition of Labour, LDs and Greens (or the SNP) could have had more seats that the Conservatives.

Why should the Greens, a tiny minority with only 2.7% of the vote, have a say in Government? It risks extremist parties getting their hands on power eg the BNP in the 2009 European elections.

You might ask yourself why the Conservatives have any say in Scotland. It's a party that won only 6 out of 59 seats in Scotland, and at least two of those six were the result of tactical voting.

It's certainly a good sign that something is very wrong with the UK political system when the largest parties in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not participate in government. IMO, it's time to reform the House of Lords into a genuine federal upper chamber, with England holding half the votes and the other nations holding the other half.

 

[Doppelganger]

I for one would not be happy with the BNP or similar having a say, nor hard-left wing parties either.

But you are happy with an 80 seat Tory majority based on only 43% of the vote?

I think this argument will just go in circles.

Incidentally, not that I want the BNP to have a say, but shutting down any opposing views has its own consequences.

After all, the fear of UKIP was enough to motivate the Tories to try and stem their influence and look how that turned out? Indeed, I think that we need moderate and sensible politics, but trying to shut down a particular stance isn't always the solution.

 

[AlterEgo]

What is wrong with PR? You cannot be a true democracy without it

Says who?

One could argue you can't be a true democracy unless you have referenda in issues and pass them by simple majority, but that would be equally facile.