RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:03 am Is it worse than have a minority at the extreme end of 1 party holding that power? (see ERG in Cameron's government or DUP in May's; or that 1 senator in the US who's name I can't remember, but was the most right-wing Democrat in a 50:49 split).

IMO PR typically seems to bring a more collaborative parliamentary system, rather than combative; obviously far from completely so, especially in immature PR systems and coalitions.
I fail to see a way in which cooperation is worse than combat.

Besides, such warnings come across (to me) as a bit of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the achievable"
There is no perfect system, but whilst we have political parties, FPTP is (about?) the least representative form of representative democracy.





Earlier this year (or was it last year?) there was a suggestion here that I thought was great, an adaptation of the Kiwi system.
If I've got this right:

You have X seats for a region, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the best performing losers in such a way that total X is fully proportional (and not just flown in by the party's preference).
A party only gets into the PR portion if they ran candidates in every constituency within the region (so SNP do for Scotland, PC do for Wales, Count Binface doesn't for wherever he stands).
Sensible to add transferable vote in there as well, which would boost the representational value of the PR portion.

To take a fictional region in England, and let's call it... Central.
Central has 60 seats in Westminster, split into 30 constituencies.
Those constituencies get their seats filled by FPTP, winner takes all.

Which may end up as (figures taken from yesterday's Electoral Calculus porediction) Con 3, Lab 24, Lib 3, Reform 0, Green 0
But with a vote split of Con 23.3%, Lab 44.7%, Lib 9.2%, Reform 11.8%, Green 5.8%, Other 5.2% (this "Other" really doesn't help the maths)

The losing candidates for each party in Central, are arranged in order of vote share locally
The 12 best performing, losing Conservatives candidates, get a PR seat for 25.0% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Labour candidates, get a PR seat for 46.7% regional representation
The 3 best performing, losing Lib Dem candidates, get a PR seat for 10.0% regional representation
The 7 best performing, losing Reform candidates, get a PR seat for 11.7% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Green candidates, get a PR seat for 6.7% regional representation

Each constituency gets the most popular local MP
Each region get represented proportionately, with the MP based on the vote share of each candidate.


Of course, if you're worried that a more accurate representation of voters being a bad thing, then you can always go for 30 FPtP, and 30 straight PR - so 3+7, 24+14, 3+3, 0+4, 0+2 - still a LOT better than the current system that would give 6, 48, 6, 0, 0 under FPtP




Personally, of courses, I'm in favour of devolved power (about the same as Scotland's) to the 9 English regions anyway (and bringing Wales and NI up to the same power-level), with elections as above, and then PR representation from each regional parliament to Westminster for national issues. But that's very much me.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:48 pm My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 6:58 pm I actually like the system here in Hungary. It’s just the gerrymandering that kills it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 12:56 amYep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:05 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:59 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:52 am

agreed though not sure about your proportions there (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England).

Sounds bloody good to me.

unless you are serious....

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 9:03 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:05 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:59 am
Sounds bloody good to me.

unless you are serious....

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 9:10 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 9:03 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:05 pm

unless you are serious....

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

I meant the proportions

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:21 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 9:10 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 9:03 am
I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

I meant the proportions

It's a great deal less disproportionate than the US Senate.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:41 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 12:56 amYep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Gods, was it only 3 months ago?

Age is weird. That seems like about this time last year; but Kurt Cobain died about a decade ago (in reality, closer in time to the Beatle's debut album than today)

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:41 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 12:56 amYep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Gods, was it only 3 months ago?

Age is weird. That seems like about this time last year; but Kurt Cobain died about a decade ago (in reality, closer in time to the Beatle's debut album than today)

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:41 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 6:58 pm I actually like the system here in Hungary. It’s just the gerrymandering that kills it.

What does Hungary do?

Puja

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:43 pm Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:43 pm Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:57 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:43 pm Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:57 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:43 pm Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:05 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:57 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:43 pm Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Exactly.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:40 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:05 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:57 pm

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Exactly.

He'll win in Clacton (citation - I used to live there and it's chock-full of racists) and that gives both him and his party legitimacy. Genuinely worrying.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:57 pm On another note, I wonder if Farages decision was influenced by a certain guilty verdict? No point going to the US to be Trumps mate if he’s not going to get elected. I suspect Farage has made a decision over what’s best for Farage and he can be too busy with the UK election to be that closely associated with Trump.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:02 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:57 pm On another note, I wonder if Farages decision was influenced by a certain guilty verdict? No point going to the US to be Trumps mate if he’s not going to get elected. I suspect Farage has made a decision over what’s best for Farage and he can be too busy with the UK election to be that closely associated with Trump.

I would've said it's more likely influenced by no-one in America having the slightest bit of time for him - I'd be surprised if Trump even remembers his name, let alone is desperate for his help. I imagine he'll probably rake in more from a raised UK profile as an MP, or even just as leader of the Reform Party, than he would for 2-3 appearances on Fox News.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:14 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:02 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:57 pm On another note, I wonder if Farages decision was influenced by a certain guilty verdict? No point going to the US to be Trumps mate if he’s not going to get elected. I suspect Farage has made a decision over what’s best for Farage and he can be too busy with the UK election to be that closely associated with Trump.

I would've said it's more likely influenced by no-one in America having the slightest bit of time for him - I'd be surprised if Trump even remembers his name, let alone is desperate for his help. I imagine he'll probably rake in more from a raised UK profile as an MP, or even just as leader of the Reform Party, than he would for 2-3 appearances on Fox News.

Puja

I expect Farage's decision was at least partly because the bribe he was angling for from Sunak wasn't forthcoming.

There is a perfect scenario where Reform split the Tory vote, letting in a bunch of LibDems and Labour MPs, destroying the Tories in parliament but yielding no MPs for Reform. But that's too neat. The real horror would be Farage in parliament, the Tories in disarray, merging with Reform, Farage taking leadership. Reality somewhere inbetween I guess.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:55 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:14 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:02 pm

I would've said it's more likely influenced by no-one in America having the slightest bit of time for him - I'd be surprised if Trump even remembers his name, let alone is desperate for his help. I imagine he'll probably rake in more from a raised UK profile as an MP, or even just as leader of the Reform Party, than he would for 2-3 appearances on Fox News.

Puja

I expect Farage's decision was at least partly because the bribe he was angling for from Sunak wasn't forthcoming.

There is a perfect scenario where Reform split the Tory vote, letting in a bunch of LibDems and Labour MPs, destroying the Tories in parliament but yielding no MPs for Reform. But that's too neat. The real horror would be Farage in parliament, the Tories in disarray, merging with Reform, Farage taking leadership. Reality somewhere inbetween I guess.

I mean, the perfect scenario would be him standing in North West Essex and splitting Badenoch's vote, but we don't always get what we want.

The Tories can't merge with Reform, because they are two completely different entities - the former is a political party that is beholden to its members and has rules, traditions and principles, whereas the latter is a company acting as a political vehicle, that is beholden to no-one but the rich men who own it. Reform terrify me - we may complain about the 1822 Club, the Tory Party Conference, and the Tory Membership's perverse decisions to elect Liz Truss as leader, but they at least do vote and have some form of accountability. As seen from today, all that's needed for Reform to change leader is for the owners to will it.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:38 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:55 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:14 pm
I expect Farage's decision was at least partly because the bribe he was angling for from Sunak wasn't forthcoming.

There is a perfect scenario where Reform split the Tory vote, letting in a bunch of LibDems and Labour MPs, destroying the Tories in parliament but yielding no MPs for Reform. But that's too neat. The real horror would be Farage in parliament, the Tories in disarray, merging with Reform, Farage taking leadership. Reality somewhere inbetween I guess.

I mean, the perfect scenario would be him standing in North West Essex and splitting Badenoch's vote, but we don't always get what we want.

The Tories can't merge with Reform, because they are two completely different entities - the former is a political party that is beholden to its members and has rules, traditions and principles, whereas the latter is a company acting as a political vehicle, that is beholden to no-one but the rich men who own it. Reform terrify me - we may complain about the 1822 Club, the Tory Party Conference, and the Tory Membership's perverse decisions to elect Liz Truss as leader, but they at least do vote and have some form of accountability. As seen from today, all that's needed for Reform to change leader is for the owners to will it.

Puja

I get what you're saying, although I fear this merely makes a formal merger more difficult rather than impossible. And an informal one, where Farage (and/or Tice) gets the leadership or significant control within the Tory party is more possible. The best defence they have right now is that Farage would be a massive threat to the ambitions of any of the major Tory figures (dear god, I am genuinely considering Braverman to be a major figure here ), so they'd be mad to let him in.

But we saw in 2019 how opportunistic and short-termist the Tories were in selecting Johnson (who, as predicted, crashed and burned himself and the party). It could happen again if they saw Farage as their best hope for regaining power. And the Tory members would elect Farage as leader without a second thought.

It is scary. It would be good if the LibDems stood aside (or, more realistically, didn't try too hard) to give Labour a clear run in Clacton, while the right-wing vote is horrifically split. Labour were a distant second in 2019 but obviously will see a significant swing this time.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:12 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:38 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:55 am

I mean, the perfect scenario would be him standing in North West Essex and splitting Badenoch's vote, but we don't always get what we want.

The Tories can't merge with Reform, because they are two completely different entities - the former is a political party that is beholden to its members and has rules, traditions and principles, whereas the latter is a company acting as a political vehicle, that is beholden to no-one but the rich men who own it. Reform terrify me - we may complain about the 1822 Club, the Tory Party Conference, and the Tory Membership's perverse decisions to elect Liz Truss as leader, but they at least do vote and have some form of accountability. As seen from today, all that's needed for Reform to change leader is for the owners to will it.

Puja

I get what you're saying, although I fear this merely makes a formal merger more difficult rather than impossible. And an informal one, where Farage (and/or Tice) gets the leadership or significant control within the Tory party is more possible. The best defence they have right now is that Farage would be a massive threat to the ambitions of any of the major Tory figures (dear god, I am genuinely considering Braverman to be a major figure here ), so they'd be mad to let him in.

But we saw in 2019 how opportunistic and short-termist the Tories were in selecting Johnson (who, as predicted, crashed and burned himself and the party). It could happen again if they saw Farage as their best hope for regaining power. And the Tory members would elect Farage as leader without a second thought.

It is scary. It would be good if the LibDems stood aside (or, more realistically, didn't try too hard) to give Labour a clear run in Clacton, while the right-wing vote is horrifically split. Labour were a distant second in 2019 but obviously will see a significant swing this time.

I just looked up the MRP polls to see about the chances of a Labour win and got very depressed as it looked pretty bad for Labour unless there was a 50/50 split of votes (and it's the kind of seat where the Tory vote will peel straight over to Reform if given a start to vote for). However, I then read the small print and realised I was looking at the old seat and the boundaries have since changed to this, where Labour were already predicted to win 40.2% to 39.7% before Farage ever got involved! The seat has been extended inland to cover Great Bentley, Frating, and Little Oakley, all much more affluent, less deprived, and higher educated (not an insult - the coastline has some of the worst educational outcomes in the country) areas than the coastline. It's still a strong right constituency, but it's not the same demographic mix as that which elected UKIP in 2015. I don't think the Lib Dems would be trying very hard in that seat any which way; it's not their natural territory.

Hopefully Farage will peel more of the Conservative vote who despise the Tories but can't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn and Communism, than he will the people who were considering LAbour because they wanted to vote for change, and he'll end up humiliated for an 8th time.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:12 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:38 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:55 am

I mean, the perfect scenario would be him standing in North West Essex and splitting Badenoch's vote, but we don't always get what we want.

The Tories can't merge with Reform, because they are two completely different entities - the former is a political party that is beholden to its members and has rules, traditions and principles, whereas the latter is a company acting as a political vehicle, that is beholden to no-one but the rich men who own it. Reform terrify me - we may complain about the 1822 Club, the Tory Party Conference, and the Tory Membership's perverse decisions to elect Liz Truss as leader, but they at least do vote and have some form of accountability. As seen from today, all that's needed for Reform to change leader is for the owners to will it.

Puja

I get what you're saying, although I fear this merely makes a formal merger more difficult rather than impossible. And an informal one, where Farage (and/or Tice) gets the leadership or significant control within the Tory party is more possible. The best defence they have right now is that Farage would be a massive threat to the ambitions of any of the major Tory figures (dear god, I am genuinely considering Braverman to be a major figure here ), so they'd be mad to let him in.

But we saw in 2019 how opportunistic and short-termist the Tories were in selecting Johnson (who, as predicted, crashed and burned himself and the party). It could happen again if they saw Farage as their best hope for regaining power. And the Tory members would elect Farage as leader without a second thought.

It is scary. It would be good if the LibDems stood aside (or, more realistically, didn't try too hard) to give Labour a clear run in Clacton, while the right-wing vote is horrifically split. Labour were a distant second in 2019 but obviously will see a significant swing this time.

I just looked up the MRP polls to see about the chances of a Labour win and got very depressed as it looked pretty bad for Labour unless there was a 50/50 split of votes (and it's the kind of seat where the Tory vote will peel straight over to Reform if given a star to vote for). However, I then read the small print and realised I was looking at the old seat and the boundaries have since changed to this, where Labour were already predicted to win 40.2% to 39.7% before Farage ever got involved! The seat has been extended inland to cover Great Bentley, Frating, and Little Oakley, all much more affluent, less deprived, and higher educated (not an insult - the coastline has some of the worst educational outcomes in the country) areas than the coastline. It's still a strong right constituency, but it's not the same demographic mix as that which elected UKIP in 2015. I don't think the Lib Dems would be trying very hard in that seat any which way; it's not their natural territory.

Hopefully Farage will peel more of the Conservative vote who despise the Tories but can't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn and Communism, than he will the people who were considering LAbour because they wanted to vote for change, and he'll end up humiliated for an 8th time.

Puja