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.
As an aside, I long suspected that my local PCC is using that role as a stepping stone to being an MP, given the amount of PR she does. Sure enough I've just discovered that she did apply to be the Tory candidate in the constituency next to mine last year. I don't think that the Police Service should be accountable to ambitious politicians from a single party and prefer the previous system of a committee. Another unsuitable piece of legislation introduced by the Tories.
A particularly egregious example of the impact of the change is last year’s mayoral election in Bedford. The Tory candidate beat the incumbent LibDem mayor by 145 votes. In the four previous elections the LibDem had come first with less than 50% of the vote, so the supplemental votes were counted and broke significantly in favour of the LibDem. Had the supplemental vote applied in 2023, the LibDem would have been elected.
It seems profoundly undemocratic for the ruling party unliterally to change the electoral system to its own advantage. The Tories’ pretexts were:
1. That voters were accustomed to FPTP.
2. That in 2011 voters voted in a referendum against changing the electoral system for general elections to the alternative vote system.
These are specious reasons. In Bedford there had been six mayoral elections using the supplemental vote, so voters were very much accustomed to it. In London there had also been six mayoral elections using the supplemental vote, plus there is PR for the GLA. A referendum in 2011 on a different voting system (AV) for general elections is no basis for over 10 years later changing the supplemental vote system for mayoral elections.
Ouch if a Maccy D breakfast isn't working you must be pretty worse for wear you poor bastard. Haha the defectors to Reform are just glorious aren't they the panic as the far right have a far right off is just super entertaining, Labour have not covered themselves in glory this week but the way things are going I am not sure what they could do now to stop the onslaught of Tory obliteration.
You’re clearly an expert in this field, given your reliance on the unparalleled restorative powers of a McD breakfast, but I used to find that a bottle of full fat coke and a bag of salted peanuts was at least as effective
As a Smith, I quite like the Smith criterion in voting systems, but I digress. We appear to have idiots on both sides, and it's no more than we deserve. Living outside the UK since 1974 I have no right to comment on "local" elections, but it is odd that the party in power may well get the underdog vote, poor things. Nice topic, and perhaps the lesson is that a bing brings focus, and focus makes for short, sharp commentary. I must start drinking, but I fear it's too late.
It's fundamental flaw - having the country run by a political party. Everything the government does is with one eye on the next GE. And the one after that. And so it goes on.
How can important votes in parliament follow party lines? Hundreds of highly-paid, supposedly intelligent adults, taking decisions over diametrically-opposed policies A or B purely on the colour of their rosette?
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.
As an aside, I long suspected that my local PCC is using that role as a stepping stone to being an MP, given the amount of PR she does. Sure enough I've just discovered that she did apply to be the Tory candidate in the constituency next to mine last year. I don't think that the Police Service should be accountable to ambitious politicians from a single party and prefer the previous system of a committee. Another unsuitable piece of legislation introduced by the Tories.
A particularly egregious example of the impact of the change is last year’s mayoral election in Bedford. The Tory candidate beat the incumbent LibDem mayor by 145 votes. In the four previous elections the LibDem had come first with less than 50% of the vote, so the supplemental votes were counted and broke significantly in favour of the LibDem. Had the supplemental vote applied in 2023, the LibDem would have been elected.
It seems profoundly undemocratic for the ruling party unliterally to change the electoral system to its own advantage. The Tories’ pretexts were:
1. That voters were accustomed to FPTP.
2. That in 2011 voters voted in a referendum against changing the electoral system for general elections to the alternative vote system.
These are specious reasons. In Bedford there had been six mayoral elections using the supplemental vote, so voters were very much accustomed to it. In London there had also been six mayoral elections using the supplemental vote, plus there is PR for the GLA. A referendum in 2011 on a different voting system (AV) for general elections is no basis for over 10 years later changing the supplemental vote system for mayoral elections.
Ouch if a Maccy D breakfast isn't working you must be pretty worse for wear you poor bastard. Haha the defectors to Reform are just glorious aren't they the panic as the far right have a far right off is just super entertaining, Labour have not covered themselves in glory this week but the way things are going I am not sure what they could do now to stop the onslaught of Tory obliteration.
You’re clearly an expert in this field, given your reliance on the unparalleled restorative powers of a McD breakfast, but I used to find that a bottle of full fat coke and a bag of salted peanuts was at least as effective
It's one of the irob rules of politics. Try to fix the electoral system to suit yourself and it inevitably comes back to bite you.
Is it not the case though that almost everything this government has done has backfired, even their attempts at gerrymandering?
Also the particulars of the breakfast are not provided: sausage and egg, double, hash browns, beverage? It’s all in the details.
You can have a bit of my liver should you need it 😆
I sincerely hope Labour will reintroduce preferential voting at local level. Once people get used to it, it would be nice for Westminster too
As a Smith, I quite like the Smith criterion in voting systems, but I digress. We appear to have idiots on both sides, and it's no more than we deserve. Living outside the UK since 1974 I have no right to comment on "local" elections, but it is odd that the party in power may well get the underdog vote, poor things. Nice topic, and perhaps the lesson is that a bing brings focus, and focus makes for short, sharp commentary. I must start drinking, but I fear it's too late.
It's fundamental flaw - having the country run by a political party. Everything the government does is with one eye on the next GE. And the one after that. And so it goes on.
How can important votes in parliament follow party lines? Hundreds of highly-paid, supposedly intelligent adults, taking decisions over diametrically-opposed policies A or B purely on the colour of their rosette?