18
More than 60 Labour MPs call for review of UK voting system (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As far as I can tell, this is referring to this proposed amendment of the Representation of the People Bill:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4080/stages/20676/amendments/10035247

So, not quite a petition for getting rid of FPTP per-se, but proposing an independent body is set up to determine the fitness for purpose of the current system, and suggest ways to make it fairer.

There's a little reading-between-the-lines needed.

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 5 months ago (5 children)

This might be a bit harsh but, there isn't time to setup a body to investigate the change, if Labour what to avoid a reform landslide they they need to just dust off the Jenkins report or better yet adopt STV.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Labour’s current unpopularity is largely down to Starmer’s combination of rightward-pivoting Blairism and negative charisma. If Burnham with his popular “Manchesterist” programme takes over, that should reverse some of the expected Faragist gains and possibly buy Labour a term, in which they better get cracking and push through a fairer voting system (especially if Burnham wins Makerfield due to the Greens holding back, with the expectation that electoral reform would be prioritised).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    STV is like putting a plaster on a gaping wound. It won't make the situation worse but it won't make the situation better.

    In simulated voting you still end up swinging between a left-wing party and right-wing party with no subtlety in between. Single transferable vote works best when you have lots of small parties with genuine differences between them. People then have an actual choice on who to vote for. We have lots of small parties but they're all essentially one of the two big parties under a different name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    We have lots of small parties but they’re all essentially one of the two big parties under a different name.

    Not only is this wrong, the libdems & greens are different parties to Labour, but it's also treating a symptom of having FPTP as some immutable attribute, when the political landscape is shaped by the voting system.

    Also STV is particularly well suited to restoring trust in democracy when there is a lack of trust in the establishment parties as it gives voters a direct say in their MPs rather than being controlled by the party as they are with list based PR or effectively are with FPTP.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Reform are literally the Tories, the Lib Dems side with whoever they think they can align with in order to get power so they're useless, and the Greens are just Labour without Blair. Oh and then there Your Party who have no real identity at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    That's still 4 distinct parties + your party, and that's under a system that favours 2 parties and doesn't allow for much nuance between or with the parties.

    STV would:

    • Allow people to vote for who they want
    • Allow parties to differentiate themselves behind a simple left/right spectrum
    • Allow people to vote for different factions within a party
    • Not punish independents

    All of which would help differentiate the parties, which even by your own description are not the same unless you don't think Blairism has had any effect on the Labour party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Wasn't this literally in labour's manifesto? Along with a bunch of other things that completely failed to implement.

    It's really weird, Starmer seems to understand what is actually wanted by the people, and what he needs to promise in order to win a vote, but then doesn't seem to understand that he needs to actually implement any of it in order to retain power. I am genuinely confused by how he's playing this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Because as in most political establishments, they did a deal with the devil. The ghouls in the background who are amassing power and collaborating with the media. And once they are elected they are owned. They were placed there...they can be as easily removed.

    And really why should they do whats right for the people? we have let them backtrack and backtrack. If you tolerate this...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago

    I know Starmer used electoral reform as a platform when campaigning to become party leader, but I don't think it was in the actual manifesto when elections rolled around.

    But you're right - he definitely seems to know what people want, and I'm as baffled by you by some of the choices he's made once in power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent