Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Labour are the ones to convince. LD doesn't have the power to bring it to fruition.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Didn't they play this game when Nick Clegg ran the party? After which they gave up on it as soon as they entered into a coalition with the Tories?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    LD have been asking for PR voting at least since the 70's. They have never took it away from their manifesto AFAIK. They could not get Cameron to accept it. There is a huge difference between negotiation and removal. @theinspectorst@feddit.uk answered this properly https://feddit.uk/comment/2961968

    Labour and Conservative are happy with FPTP because it is easy to bribe the small amount of people in the swing vote areas. The rest of the country gets ignored. Smaller parties cannot compete in the funds to do this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No, they actually got a vote through for a referendum for the UK to adopt the AV+ alternative vote system system. It's flawed, but I thought it was an improvement on first past the post and voted for it. Not enough other people agreed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    There was never a need for a referendum, Parliament has the absolute authority to change how its elections are run.

    They should have insisted it was part of the coalition agreement, but didn't.

    Like student loans, it was ultimately less important than being in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So the minority party, should have forced through a major constitutional change, which voters hadn’t voted for - in the name of democracy? And the idea of the referendum was bad.

    Interesting take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Well when you put it that way....

    The reality though is that both Labour and the LibDems had electoral reform in their manifestos - see Labour's 2010 manifesto here, page 92 - and as their votes combined were more than the Tories (approx 15 million, versus 10) you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons.

    Now that obviously didn't happen, and I'm not even saying it would be a successful option in negotiation, but what did happen was that the LibDems thought - and Clegg has said this himself - that having governmental stability was more important. Even if that meant passing a lot of pretty nasty shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons.

    In my opinion The LD clearly thought it was the will of the people and persuaded the Tories to run the referendum to prove this and give the change political legitimacy

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago

    Unfortunately the Tories pushed hard against it "being too complicated" and "would result in more hung parliaments" and people bought that bullshit, and we ended up with another Tory government nobody wanted at the next election, which almost certainly wouldn't have happened under AV.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    The Coalition agreed on a referendum on AV as a compromise. The Lib Dems' (and most electoral reform campaigners') preferred voting system is Single Transferrable Vote, which is effectively AV but with multi-member constituencies instead of single-member. STV is used in the Republic of Ireland and delivers proportional results whilst maintaining the existence of geographic constituency links - generally considered two desirable features of a voting system (along with preferentialism, a feature AV and STV both have).

    If we could have made the switch to AV then it would have been only a short step from there to STV a few years later. But the Tories campaigned heavily against it, and Labour were highly divided on electoral reform so were officially neutral but in practice a majority of Labour MPs backed the 'no' campaign. So the referendum failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne I support PR, but I am concerned about keeping a constituncy link so everybody has a named MP. A modified form of STV would seem to be the way, with ATV for by-elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Having larger constituencies of five mps keeps the link and also makes the mps compete with each other to provide support. The current system can lead to people who need help due to bad laws being forced to go to their MP, the minister who introduced it and is responsible for that law. They won't get help it'll be too embarrassing.

    Also I see elsewhere someone complaining of lists of MPs. We already have that in safe seats! They just put one name of the list in each constituency. Have five MPs in each area is an inporvement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne
    Exactly, which is why I voted for it in 2011. It deserved to succeed, but the degree of apathy was high. People didn't bother to get off their backsides to vote, and it was lost. A great pity in many ways. It was a Lib-Dem red line for joining the coalition, together with the raising of the income tax threshold. The Tories now pretend that was their idea. It wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

    Neither are proportional. If STV was used as multimember then constituencies would have around quarter of a million voters instead of 90k and parties would get list candidates, either regional, national or UK wide and they wouldn't be elected by anyone.

    Things not talked about by PR promoters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The Republic of Ireland has 39 multi-member constituencies electing 160 members in total (so an average of four per constituency). That achieves almost perfectly proportional results. They have no party lists - each party nominates multiple candidates and you can (for example) choose to rank the individual candidates in whatever order you prefer.

    If you translate this into UK terms, it would be the equivalent of merging four neighbouring constituencies into one and then having that elect four MPs. There might be a handful of unusual cases where you choose to take a different approach for reasons of geographic common sense (for example, Orkney and Shetlands or the Isle of Wight would probably remain as they are) but for most parts of the country that hardly seems particularly egregious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

    You can't translate it into UK terms, there's around 4M voters in Ireland, 41M in the UK across 4 countries with greater disparity in density of populations and geographical size.

    The average size of constituencies is 73k, so you agree with me that the future size would be around 250k. How is that local representation to a National Parliament?

    There would have to be party lists to fudge it into a general proportional result across the Union.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You must be young.

    The tactics that were played out with Brexit, all the false adverts and claims were first played out with the Voting Reform.

    There were things like

    This child needs a ventilator, not a different form of voting

    And

    This soldier needs a bullet proof vest, not a different form of voting

    They were literally claiming that if you voted for AV, then you are killing babies and our military.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not, but I don't live in the UK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    @jonne @Syldon
    They had no option, as the Junior Party in the coalition. They didn't win the election. The Tories did effectively. Reality is a bitch, ain't it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    One of the most fascinating stats coming out of that period is that, with the Lib Dems having only 9% of the MPs in Parliament, Clegg still delivered 70% of the Lib Dem manifesto including all four of the 'priority' policies promoted on the front cover of the manifesto. They also achieved other good things that weren't even in the manifesto, like Lynne Featherstone's same-sex marriage legislation.

    Cameron by contrast, with 47% of the MPs, failed to deliver many of his signature manifesto promises such as abolishing the Human Rights Act, reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands, introducing the Snoopers Charter, etc.

    Objectively, Clegg's 57 MPs were a pretty effective parliamentary unit, and yet it's fascinating how the Tory media helped shape a narrative that it was the Lib Dems who were facilitating a Tory government and not the other way around. I remember in 2010 after the coalition agreement was first published, a lot of the discussion was about how successful the Lib Dems had been - it's interesting how that perception evolved after five years of the media hammering voters with a different message.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

    Yes. Clegg has been much maligned for going into the coalition, and it was a gamble, but one he had to take. If he had failed to take the opportunity when offered, the Lib-Dems would have been sneered at for ever more and dismissed as not being a serious Party. He was right to do it, and the ignorant blinkered electorate treated the Lib-Dems disgracefully in 2015. That is my view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne @kennethb Cameron did manage to commit the UK to allowing a minority of the electorate (37%) to force the UK to leave the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Not during the Coalition years - that came after the Tories won a majority in 2015. The difference between the 2010-15 and the post-2015 government is perfect evidence of the outsized role that the Lib Dems had in government.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    There's a solid chance Labour won't get a majority and will rely on either confidence and supply, or a full coalition. There are very few precedents for a party going from as low as 202 seats at one election to a majority government at the next (it happened in 1945, but only because the last election in that case was 1935 and rather a lot had happened in between).

    Labour have been very clear where they stand on electoral reform. If we're going to get a change to the voting system, it will only be because Labour were forced into it by the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Labour is not going to fall into hung territory at the next GE. Sunak keeps making things worse on each week he is around. It keeps looking more and more like those double digit tory fears will come to fruition. I could easily see the Tory party collapse after the GE, which in turn could push LD to being the second main party in the UK. That would be interesting to watch the donors bail on the Tories. Cummings attempt to make a new party could exacerbate the Tory demise even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    There’s a solid no chance Labour won’t get a majority

    Fixed that for you.

    Labour have a massive lead and are on track for a crushing landslide victory just by keeping their mouths shut. It's a pity but such a win means they have no incentive to change the system. It'll likely be a couple of elections down the road until the numbers get tight.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I didn't think I'd love long enough to see the UK leave the EU but it happened..... I'll be long dead before the king maker here (Labour) supports PR. They're the issue here, Tories were never going to agree Labour might have had a chance to push it through with support from Greens and LD but they choose to support the Tory policy instead. 🥹

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›