I agree with all of this, but we shouldn’t lose sight of Labour’s decisions regarding electoral reform being similarly self-serving. The Tories seek to dominate and have (had?) the geographic spread of voters to enable that. Labour seeks to dominate where it can, but otherwise shifts electoral systems so it can retain a voice.
I agree with all of this, but we shouldn’t lose sight of Labour’s decisions regarding electoral reform being similarly self-serving. The Tories seek to dominate and have (had?) the geographic spread of voters to enable that. Labour seeks to dominate where it can, but otherwise shifts electoral systems so it can retain a voice.
This leaves us in a strange place. The Tories are awful regarding voting systems but at least they are consistent. Labour is incoherent – and perhaps also cynical. Its efforts do often end up being more progressive than Conservative ones, but that primarily results in a reduction in Conservative dominance and more strength to the Labour position. Hence why PR is considered acceptable to Labour for Scottish and Welsh parliament/assembly elections (bolsters Labour; stops nat dominance) and why SV is preferred for mayoral elections (makes things harder for Con and – usually – easier for Lab), but local and general elections will remain on FPTP (because Labour can, sometimes, dominate on a lowish vote share). See also: the party’s attempts to eradicate crossbenchers in the Lords via PR while, astonishingly, still at the leadership level being against PR in the Commons.
What Labour offers is better than the Tory stitch-up. But let’s not forget that Labour is enacting its own little tawdry stitch-ups too. And until the party ushers in fair votes (which is could do during this upcoming parliament, and from a position of knowing to do so would cost it full control and provably 100 seats), my own support for Labour in this space will never be more than muted.
I agree about Labour, but the only reason why the Tories are consistent on the issue is that FPTP has always served them well. As the quote in the article suggests, if Refuk don't implode post- election ( always a possibility), I'd expect similar inconsistencies from the Tories.
I agree with all of this, but we shouldn’t lose sight of Labour’s decisions regarding electoral reform being similarly self-serving. The Tories seek to dominate and have (had?) the geographic spread of voters to enable that. Labour seeks to dominate where it can, but otherwise shifts electoral systems so it can retain a voice.
This leaves us in a strange place. The Tories are awful regarding voting systems but at least they are consistent. Labour is incoherent – and perhaps also cynical. Its efforts do often end up being more progressive than Conservative ones, but that primarily results in a reduction in Conservative dominance and more strength to the Labour position. Hence why PR is considered acceptable to Labour for Scottish and Welsh parliament/assembly elections (bolsters Labour; stops nat dominance) and why SV is preferred for mayoral elections (makes things harder for Con and – usually – easier for Lab), but local and general elections will remain on FPTP (because Labour can, sometimes, dominate on a lowish vote share). See also: the party’s attempts to eradicate crossbenchers in the Lords via PR while, astonishingly, still at the leadership level being against PR in the Commons.
What Labour offers is better than the Tory stitch-up. But let’s not forget that Labour is enacting its own little tawdry stitch-ups too. And until the party ushers in fair votes (which is could do during this upcoming parliament, and from a position of knowing to do so would cost it full control and provably 100 seats), my own support for Labour in this space will never be more than muted.
I agree about Labour, but the only reason why the Tories are consistent on the issue is that FPTP has always served them well. As the quote in the article suggests, if Refuk don't implode post- election ( always a possibility), I'd expect similar inconsistencies from the Tories.