General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
The best system looks to be Mixed Member PR. Like Germany and New Zealand. Keeps a form of local MPs lost with raw PR, while dealing with the democratic failing of raw FPTP.
I disagree, but expect Labour to push for STV eventually. STV still gives Labour and Tories an edge. My preference is to remove that totally with PR.
I think lack of local MPs is a legitimate criticism of pure PR.
I call BS. Many MPs are parachuted into areas just because it is a safe seat. I currently have a MP who I really think is nothing more than a grifter, and yet I will be forced to vote for her as the alternative is a Tory win.
Safe seats and Gerrymandering absolutely do undermine the concept of local MPs and FPTP. But I have written to my local MP a number of times and yes, mostly it's political stuff that gets a generic response. BUT the one time it was about an unjust parking ticket, she did successfully cancel it. The big bad beast of politics do make a mockery of it, but there are plenty of hardworking MPs who do their job for their constituencies.
If we only had national MPs, who do you write to about local matters? I've never been to a local MP surgery, but if I was in some kind of trouble I might.
I have written to mine twice in the 13 years she has been in post. It was not a good experience with both events. She is as local as you can get, she used to live in my street till she moved out of the city. The problem with MPs is there is no accountability. You only have to look at how Dorries took the piss. There would be no loss by having an MP from further afield. Having one from your local area is not a guarantee they will be any better either.
Yer, we need systems for locals to get rid of shit local MPs without having to wait for an election.
most are probably happy with mine. Not many have anything to do with their MPs. Most are happy that their tribal party is in the seat.
You could easily argue PR is about tribal voting. Part of me would like parties to disappear all together. But your always going to get groups forming. So I'd losen them by outlawing things like three line whip.
MPs should represent all of those in the constituency. Regardless of their voting. Mine in her letters is clearly trying to win people round. I'd never vote for her, but I still expect her to do her job as a local MP.
You could never outlaw a 3 line whip when a party runs on a manifesto. When an MP stands on a manifesto then it is reasonable to expect them to vote for that pledge.
You will always get tribal voting. Even now with the shambles that the Tories are, you will still see 25% who support them. The reverse would be true with Labour. The problem we have atm is that there is no real choice but to vote tribally. Tactical voting should never be a thing. How can it be a good thing to vote for what you do not want.
When the party goes against the manifesto, I don't MP should be forced to go with the party. It makes a mockery of the whole system.
It's a significant criticism to me. Our FPTP parliamentary system isn't great for representing the majority of people's views, but having fixed sized constituencies with local MPs is a bit advantage.
Ideally power should be devolved to be as close to the citizens as possible. Having a single person responsible for representing your community is much better in my opinion than having some group of people who represent a party who never visit your part of the country.
The surgeries MPs do in their local areas are a really powerful way for people to raise their issues and get heard. Plenty of national campaigns and law changes have been brought about by passionate people getting their MP on board.
There are obvious failings with this (Dories. Johnson. Etc) so some form of recall would be welcome.
STV for local representatives is an easy win without any major reforms to get candidates who represent their constituency as ideally as possible.
I'm for PR, but figuring out the best way to set up PR alongside local MPs is going to be a large debate and very tricky to get right. Much like abolishing the monarchy, it's a large constitutional change that we'd have to trust to the people in charge who it affects, and if done poorly could be very destabilising.
A few years ago in a former life I actually spent a lot of time developing a democratic model and it's hard to get right. One of the things we set up that worked really well actually aligns with what that glittery knob head's group advocates for.
A jury style system where people are randomly and fairly selected to be representatives of the people (age, gender, race, sec, etc) and get paid to serve a term of x amount of time, hear debates from proponents and opposition to policies, and form a consensus on issues would be pretty great. If we ever decide to get rid of the house of Lords I'd like to see it replaced by something like that.
Apologies for the really long reply, you raise great points and it's a topic I'm interested in discussing.
Edit: conditional - constitutional. Damn autocorrect.
Good post. I also think citizen assemblies need to be used more. Also majors.
We clearly now need a way of dealing with local MPs when they go rogue. No just when they don't do the job, but also when they change party or get kicked out.
I'd also get rid of the whole three line whip thing. Least for local MPs. Free them for complete compliance with the party. Put a tension between them and party.
The reason I like Mixed Member PR is the keeping of local MPs. It's used in Germany and New Zealand.
The monarchy I'd deal with separately. Let a proper democratic bed in first. The monarchy is always one bad monarch away from reform anyway.
I used to agree. But over the years i have seen any value totally troubced by party politics.
Few local citizens have any real representation willing to listen under fptp today of much in the last 20 or so years.
STV or others may improove that with multi MPs. But its hard to see we are lossing anything real with the current system.
Any improovement need different pilitical motive then we have now. MPs think of representation as soldiers in a war. Ready to be sacrificed for the party line. Or there ow. Career. We need politicians who stand for local ideals first. Then party based on those local voters will.
Sorry late rant got me there
I'm not sure that argues against MMPR that I'm advocating.
Given the comment I replyed to.
I think lack of local MPs is a legitimate criticism of pure PR.
I have no idea why you would think it was. I was arguing local representation dose not really exist in FPTP as it is envissanged,
I'm arguing that local MPs are worth having, but FPTP is unrepresentative. With MMPR you get the best of both worlds.
PR all the way. My country has PR and we laugh at every other system and their lack of democracy. Especially all the systems with districting because of all the problems that it creates. "But what about local representation?" It's simple: You don't need it, turns out
Local MP is just a scaremonger stunt to keep the two parties in power in the UK. I have yet to hear a good validation for it.
Which country are you from?
Not really, it all depends on the election results. It's going to take a larger swing than 97 for Labour just to get into power.
If it's tight, a progressive coalition with PR being the price for power, might be the best outcome
Polling suggests a victory on par with 97. GE will always differ from midterm polling, but it does not look like a coalition.
Polling today, which is why Sunak isn't calling a snap election. I'd bet the polls will close up over the next 12 months.
Toeies are hoping inflation is back to 2% so they can juice the economy before then.
I’d bet the polls will close up over the next 12 months.
This is cuckoo land politics Covid inquiry, tighter EU rules which will hamper any inflation drop, higher energy costs look like they are returning, they have just told all schools that they messed up the figures on school budgets and schools will get substantially less than predicted. There is in fighting within the party, which would make running government after the next budget very difficult. This is not including the way Labour will attack Sunak when the public realise all these new transport links are lined up with the Freeports, which is another way of funding his mates.
Polling is only ever going to get worse because of the continuous line of events that are stacking up against Sunak. Sunak doesn't care. He is chasing that last pay out with the India deal.
I support PR, but I remember telling people on the left about how PR would have meant UKIP getting a bunch of seats in 2015.
Suddenly, they weren't so keen on it.
Getting UKIP into parliament would have been great! First, the numpties who votes for them would feel represented. That is a good thing. Second, we could have ignored them instead of the tories feeling threatened by them to a point of swinging towards Brexit. Thirdly, their lack of platform (other than “EU bad”) would have been made public.
This is how extreme, fringe parties die - sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Well, quite.
Remember when Nick Griffin of the BNP went on Question Time? Obviously more extreme than UKIP, but after he got completely trounced, the BNP ceased to be a political force.
You don't defeat ideas by banning or "cancelling" or whatever. You do it by arguing the other side and highlighting the inadequacies of your opponent's ideas. Trying to silence them gives them more credence.
Yeah our UKIP is called One Nation in Australia and they have never gotten enough of the vote to wield any significant power.
Instead we got the Tories. FPTP has allowed a fascist government in. There is no getting away from that.
Leftie here
I'm for it, regardless
I really hate the claim that PR will mean we wont see the tories again.
Honestly it will mean we will see less tory only govs. But greater the. None. And likely many tory lead mixed governments.
I stronly support PR. But lets not make non valid claims about the end of tory rule.
Absolutely. Same is true of any thing too far left too. PR keeps things more centred. Sure far right and far left may acturally get some seats, but their power will only ever be proportional. Right now, with Conservatives and FPTP, we have far right in power. Yet the country's majority are progressive.
agreed.
It's also a deeply unprincipled argument. If you support PR on principle then you should support it even if it means Tory governments for the rest of time. If you only support it because it means "your side" gets in power more often then that's no different from Starmer supporting FPTP because it means "his side" gets into power more often.
You would not see a batch of Tories like the current one. The whole push behind PR atm is the current corruption in the Tories. For the Tories to have any power base they would have to change. Their extreme right factions would not be tolerated. Hence:
I do not want to see their likes again.
PR voting is an empowerment. People take a lot more interest when they feel their vote matters. Lying to your voter base would be highlighted a lot more.
Disagree. PR means no local support. PR means city, particularly London, centred politics. That's already bad enough - look at HS2 which was supposed to be for the north, but has ended up being an upgrade between London and Birmingham only.
The fairest system is some sort of ranked choice, you can vote for the party you agree with most, without risking 'wasting' your vote and still get local representation.
London currently has 73 MPs out of 650 (11.2%) when they have 9mil out of 67million people (13.2%).
So guess you're right that they'd get stronger representation.
However on the other hand, people like the Green party got 2.7% of the vote in 2019 while only getting 0.15% of the seats.
Some voices get stronger, but it's not just cities.
The current system, which has local representation has not prevented SE centric policy, so why do you believe that maintaining that element needs to remain? Local MP's given the illusion of local support, but why should that be a function of central government? HS2 is adding example of why local MP's don't work IMO. A significant part of why it's over budget is wealthy NIMBYS and their pet MP. Local issues are just bargaining chips in Westminster.
I'd argue the role played by local MP'S would be better served by the local authority.
Parties couldn't have dedicated MPs to types of area?