Local elections and UKIP

[Bromley boy]

It was horrendous seeing him marauding around the European Parliament after the referendum. He could have been diplomatic about it, but he wasn't.

I could understand the sentiment but agreed; it wasn’t his finest hour and lacked class.

I must admit he went down in my estimation when he started cosying up to the mad honey-monster of 1600 Pennysilvania Avenue.

 

[Bromley boy]

My bad. I should just lighten up as a "remoaner" about having my country changed in a way I think will affect it very negatively. Hey, £350 million extra for the NHS eh!

Yes!

Stop (re)moaning and turn that frown upside down.

 

[fowler9]

Yes!

Stop (re)moaning and turn that frown upside down.

Never you swine. Ha ha.

 

[northwichcat]

(although IIRC they attracted more votes than the SNP at the 2010 GE, so those of a left wing persuasion calling for proportional representation should be careful what they wish for!)

SNP only stand in Scotland, which is smaller in population terms than quite a few of the regions in England. UKIP got 3% of the UK vote in 2010, I don't personally want to see them in parliament but if 3% of the population vote for them I don't have an issue with them taking up 19 seats until the subsequent general election. (I realise PR isn't quite as straight forward as that.) PR would also reduce the number of seats the DUP can take, which is something I would like to personally see.

 

[furnessvale]

Elections are re run every few years. It's called democracy. Having one vote and then sticking with it forever would be a dictatorship.

If and when a Marxist government under comrade McDonnell is elected, that statement could come back to haunt you (and me).

 

[Bromley boy]

SNP only stand in Scotland, which is smaller in population terms than quite a few of the regions in England. UKIP got 3% of the UK vote in 2010, I don't personally want to see them in parliament but if 3% of the population vote for them I don't have an issue with them taking up 19 seats until the subsequent general election. (I realise PR isn't quite as straight forward as that.) PR would also reduce the number of seats the DUP can take, which is something I would like to personally see.

My mistake - I meant the 2015 GE.

From a quick look at Wikipedia they achieved 12.6% of the vote and ended up with 1 MP. The SNP achieved 4.7%* and ended up with 56, but the Lib Dem’s got 8 MPs from 7.9% of the vote. The greens ended up with 1 MP from a mere 3.6% of the vote.

UKIP were victims of first past the post. A mere single MP was an extraordinarily poor showing for such a high % of the vote, and completely misrepresents the popularity of the party (at its high water mark). They achieved the third largest share of the vote and under PR would therefore have been more significant than all parties other than Labour and the Tories.

*skewed as you say by the fact they only stand candidates in Scotland where they are likely to receive a disproportionately large share of the vote compared to national parties across many regions.

 

[northwichcat]

My mistake - I meant the 2015 GE.

From a quick look at Wikipedia they achieved 12.6% of the vote and ended up with 1 MP. The SNP achieved 4.7%* and ended up with 56, but the Lib Dem’s got 8 MPs from 7.9% of the vote. The greens ended up with 1 MP from a mere 3.6% of the vote.

UKIP were victims of first past the post. A mere single MP was an extraordinarily poor showing for such a high % of the vote, and completely misrepresents the popularity of the party (at its high water mark). They achieved the third largest share of the vote and under PR would therefore have been more significant than all parties other than Labour and the Tories.

*skewed as you say by the fact they only stand candidates in Scotland where they are likely to receive a disproportionately large share of the vote compared to national parties across many regions.

The two biggest parties (Conservatives and Labour) gain from FPTP, most of the other parties do less well than they would under PR. Although, don't forget UKIP gained two seats between the 2010 and 2015 elections by two Conservatives defecting to UKIP, that probably wouldn't have been possible under PR.

In the unlikely event that we did move to PR my guess is the most likely scenario would be to have it done by regions/areas rather than literally 10% of the national vote means 10% of the seats, which would make it practically impossible for parties to decide who does and doesn't get seats and who the people with seats represent.

 

[Bromley boy]

The two biggest parties (Conservatives and Labour) gain from FPTP, most of the other parties do less well than they would under PR. Although, don't forget UKIP gained two seats between the 2010 and 2015 elections by two Conservatives defecting to UKIP, that probably wouldn't have been possible under PR.

In the unlikely event that we did move to PR my guess is the most likely scenario would be to have it done by regions/areas rather than literally 10% of the national vote means 10% of the seats, which would make it practically impossible for parties to decide who does and doesn't get seats and who the people with seats represent.

As I have indicated above, UKIP would have done demonstrably better under PR than they did under FPTP (based on vote %), so it’s certainly not right to assume only the largest two parties would benefit.

I must say I think PR is a terrible idea. FPTP (usually) gives as a government that can get things done; admittedly, not so much when we have a minority government.

Surely a PR system needs to be purely based on % of vote. If we had regional PR it would be necessary to account for population density, therefore difficult to draw the regions without going into ridiculous levels of granularity.

There’s a danger it would start to look like the constituency voting as we currently have, with equal potential for gerrymandering.

 

[EM2]

Surely a PR system needs to be purely based on % of vote. If we had regional PR it would be necessary to account for population density, therefore difficult to draw the regions without going into ridiculous levels of granularity.

Ireland, Germany and France all seem to manage perfectly well, as well as many other countries. PR is the most widely used electoral system for national legislatures in the world.

 

[Bromley boy]

Ireland, Germany and France all seem to manage perfectly well, as well as many other countries. PR is the most widely used electoral system for national legislatures in the world.

Do they?

Many countries manage perfectly well under dictatorships, religious theocracies etc. That doesn’t mean I’d want those systems here.

The U.K. is one of the world’s most mature democracies and is (largely) a benign and pleasant land in which to live.

If it ain’t broke....

 

[EM2]

If it ain’t broke....

Except that it clearly is. Just as an example, Labour polled more votes than the Conservatives in Wandsworth this week, yet have seven fewer councillors.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If and when a Marxist government under comrade McDonnell is elected, that statement could come back to haunt you (and me).

If that be the case, with he then be the representative of the Hayes and Harlington Momentum Oblast?

 

[Bromley boy]

Except that it clearly is. Just as an example, Labour polled more votes than the Conservatives in Wandsworth this week, yet have seven fewer councillors.

Do you have a source for that? I can’t easily find one...

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Do they?

Many countries manage perfectly well under dictatorships, religious theocracies etc. That doesn’t mean I’d want those systems here.

The U.K. is one of the world’s most mature democracies and is (largely) a benign and pleasant land in which to live.

If it ain’t broke....

If it ain't broke don't fix it, right? I would agree, but the UK system of voting is very much broken. The fact that in 2015 the Conservatives were able to secure 37% of the vote yet gain 51% of the seats in Parliament, which is basically 100% of the power, is mathematically ludicrous. It gets worse too. In 2005, Labour were able to secure 35% of the vote yet gain 55% of the seats in Parliament, which of course again was giving them 100% of power in government. Coalition governments may be inefficient in terms of getting things done, but it makes sure extremist backwards policies can't be just steamrollered into law without any shouts from opposition.

At worse you had the 1951 election where Clement Attlee gained nearly 49% of the vote, resulting in around 47.5% of the seats in Parliament, yet still lost to Winston Churchill despite getting less than Attlee at 48% of the vote but gained around 51.5% of the seats in Parliament, and thus as you guessed it, 100% of the power. That was obviously a close call, but when the voting system allows minority rule I don't see how that could be called anything but broken really. First Past the Post was not designed for more than two parties, and it is outdated in even a mature democracy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As did many of my aquaintances, close friends and family members. I have no issue at all with well informed people (as I’m sure you and your wife are) educating themselves on the relevant issues and voting based on a reasoned view.

To such a kind reply, all that I can say is "Ego te absolvo"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At worse you had the 1951 election where Clement Attlee gained nearly 49% of the vote, resulting in around 47.5% of the seats in Parliament, yet still lost to Winston Churchill despite getting less than Attlee at 48% of the vote but gained around 51.5% of the seats in Parliament, and thus as you guessed it, 100% of the power.

This was a period only six years after the end of the Second World War with the country still making a slow recovery from the lasting infrastructural damages caused by it, where your figures above show over 96% per cent of the vote being won by those two parties, with less than 1% separating the vote share. I cannot envisage a similar occurrence in the foreseeable future.

 

[EM2]

Do you have a source for that? I can’t easily find one...

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/992815176431874048

Wandsworth local election result:
Lab: 38.7% (+6.4) Con: 38.3% (-1.5) LDem: 8.5% (+0.8) Grn: 7.9% (-4.7)
Seats: Con: 33 (-8) Lab: 26 (+7) Ind: 1 (+1)
Chgs. w/ 2014

 

[fowler9]

If and when a Marxist government under comrade McDonnell is elected, that statement could come back to haunt you (and me).

I really don't follow. I was just saying people should be able to vote every now and again so they can change their mind.

 

[Bromley boy]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/992815176431874048

I will reply later.

Off to enjoy the sunshine now over a pint or two - it’d be rude not to - 6 days off work coming up.

 

[northwichcat]

If it ain’t broke....

Out of the last 7 general elections there's only been 2 elections where one party has got a comfortable majority - the 1997 and 2001 elections where Labour led by Tony Blair won. 1992 and 2015 the Conservatives scraped a victory (meaning only a few back benchers have to rebel to prevent them getting a policy the opposition doesn't support through), the same was true of Labour in 2005, while in 2010 and 2017 no party had a majority.

We currently have a government where a party which got around 200,000 votes can effectively hold the country to ransom - if that's not a broken system I don't know what is! Rember the almost comical Brexit negotiations where Theresa May reached an agreement with the EU, only to get a phone call from Arlene Foster saying the DUP would withdraw their support if that agreement went in to the final Brexit deal?

 

[158756]

Out of the last 7 general elections there's only been 2 elections where one party has got a comfortable majority - the 1997 and 2001 elections where Labour led by Tony Blair won. 1992 and 2015 the Conservatives scraped a victory (meaning only a few back benchers have to rebel to prevent them getting a policy the opposition doesn't support through), the same was true of Labour in 2005, while in 2010 and 2017 no party had a majority.

We currently have a government where a party which got around 200,000 votes can effectively hold the country to ransom - if that's not a broken system I don't know what is! Rember the almost comical Brexit negotiations where Theresa May reached an agreement with the EU, only to get a phone call from Arlene Foster saying the DUP would withdraw their support if that agreement went in to the final Brexit deal?

Under a PR system the government would always be dependent on smaller parties, potentially several for them, all capable of bringing everything to a halt if they want to. Remember Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the people who voted for the DUP as their largest party are probably quite pleased they have influence in Westminster for once.

 

[The Ham]

The problem with PR is that you have to have larger areas so as to be able to be able to be able to have multiple MP's depending on the spilt of the vote.

This works in urban areas, but I live in a more rural area (which has its own MP) with two large urban areas (each with their own MP), if these three areas merged to be able split the vote then the candidates would focus on the urban areas as that's where they will pick up the most votes.

As such the rural area would likely feel that they've lost their MP.

 

[northwichcat]

Under a PR system the government would always be dependent on smaller parties, potentially several for them, all capable of bringing everything to a halt if they want to. Remember Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the people who voted for the DUP as their largest party are probably quite pleased they have influence in Westminster for once.

I'm sure a large part of Northern Ireland will be very unhappy with the current arrangement. The DUP have helped put Northern Ireland under direct rule from Westminster meaning due to Sinn Fein refusing to sit in the House of Commons, a large part of the population aren't being represented by anyone either in Belfast or London. I also doubt the DUP will be spending much of their bribe money in predominately Catholic areas.

Under PR yes the government would be dependent on smaller parties but there would be more smaller parties so they might work with one party on an education policy and another on a health policy and be able to get both voted through without needing the same party to agree to both.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem with PR is that you have to have larger areas so as to be able to be able to be able to have multiple MP's depending on the spilt of the vote.

This works in urban areas, but I live in a more rural area (which has its own MP) with two large urban areas (each with their own MP), if these three areas merged to be able split the vote then the candidates would focus on the urban areas as that's where they will pick up the most votes.

As such the rural area would likely feel that they've lost their MP.

You'd likely have different MPs from different parties, which would have advantages depending on what you needed to contact an MP about.

 

[Domh245]

I dare say that if we went to a PR system, the parties would react accordingly (probably splintering into more, smaller parties, and being somewhat more open to collaborative working). Jacob Rees Mogg and Anna Sourby shouldn't be in the same party, ditto John McDonnell and Chukka Umunna - PR would help to break up the "broad churches" that are the modern day political parties and

 

[Mojo]

Out of the last 7 general elections there's only been 2 elections where one party has got a comfortable majority - the 1997 and 2001 elections where Labour led by Tony Blair won. 1992 and 2015 the Conservatives scraped a victory (meaning only a few back benchers have to rebel to prevent them getting a policy the opposition doesn't support through), the same was true of Labour in 2005, while in 2010 and 2017 no party had a majority.

In the 2017 election, which didn't even secure them a majority, the Conservatives secured more votes, both as a percentage share and in the actual number of votes, than Labour's landside in 1997.

It is also worth possibly pointing out that the Conservatives in 1992 obtained more actual votes than any other party in a general election before or since; and similarly the percentage share of the vote was higher then than the 2001 vote share for Labour.

 

[AlterEgo]

Under a PR system the government would always be dependent on smaller parties, potentially several for them, all capable of bringing everything to a halt if they want to. Remember Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the people who voted for the DUP as their largest party are probably quite pleased they have influence in Westminster for once.

They’re just getting used for their votes. The DUP haven’t actually delivered anything other than “additional funding” which cannot be spent as there isn’t an Executive.

 

[The Ham]

You'd likely have different MPs from different parties, which would have advantages depending on what you needed to contact an MP about.

Based on the last election results we'd likely end up with 2 Tory and one Labour rather than three Tory. Given that there'd be a broadly 55% Tory vote, 30% Labour, 10% Lib Dems with the rest made up of others.

 

[St Rollox]

Glad to see the back of Ukip.
The strangest thing was they only got a serious platform because of the EU elections and the change in the voting system years back. The Greens got a couple of million votes and ended up with nothing in 1989 at the EU elections.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed. And the fact UKIP, and the BNP before them, gained reaction precisely because of PR makes me wary.

I think FPTP is broken. I think PR is still the best alternative. But there are pitfalls. Really you'd need a floor, say 15% of the popular vote, to thin out the, er, 'niche' parties.