|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 0:41:46 GMT
At many points in British history major poltical parties have considered reforming the voting system. Even the Tories did consider advocating for Single Transferrable Vote Proportional Representation when it looked like the Liberals might be in power for decades around the time of the Great War.
Based on the multi-party politics of our near neighbours in Europe I think if the UK had adopted STV, Open List or MMP-PR in 1918 with a 4% threshold for representation, I predict that our party system would have evolved to now resemble this list of hypothetical parliamentary parties ordered subjectively from left-wing to right-wing: with pan-European party, global federation, broad Ideology, EU stance, & current leader listed for reference.
Left Alliance (PEL, NGL, PI, SI)- Democratic Socialism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Jeremy Corbyn MP
GreenRadicals (EGP, GG) - Green Progressivism, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Layla Moran MP
Social Democrats (PES, PA)- Social Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Andy Burnham MP
Progressives (ALDE, LI) - Social Liberalism, Eurofederalism. Leader: Chuka Umunna MP
Popular Democrats (EPP, CDI) - Progressive Conservatism/Christian Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Tom Tugendhat MP
Free Democrats (ECR, IDU) - Free Market Liberal Conservatism, Soft Euroscepticism. Leader: Liz Truss MP
United Patriots (I&D, The Movement) - National Conservatism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Kemi Badenoch MP
Do you agree? Feel free to submit your own ideas as to what parties we would now have, what their history would be, which politicians would be in them, where they would stand on various issues
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Sept 6, 2022 3:37:14 GMT
At many points in British history major poltical parties have considered reforming the voting system. Even the Tories did consider advocating for Single Transferrable Vote Proportional Representation when it looked like the Liberals might be in power for decades around the time of the Great War. Based on the multi-party politics of our near neighbours in Europe I think if the UK had adopted STV, Open List or MMP-PR in 1918 with a 4% threshold for representation, our party system would have evolved to now resemble this list of hypothetical parties ordered subjectively from left to right: (with pan-European party, global federation, broad Ideology, EU stance, & current leader listed for reference)
Left Alliance (GUE, NGL, PI, SI)- Democratic Socialism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Jeremy Corbyn MP GreenRadicals (EGP, GG) - Green Progressivism, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Layla Moran MP Social Democrats (PES, PA)- Social Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Andy Burnham MP Progressives (ALDE, LI) - Social Liberalism, Eurofederalism. Leader: Chuka Umunna MP Popular Democrats (EPP, CDI) - Progressive Conservatism/Christian Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Tom Tugendhat MP Free Democrats (ECR, IDU) - Free Market Liberal Conservatism, Soft Euroscepticism. Leader: Liz Truss MP United Patriots (I&D, The Movement) - National Conservatism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Kemi Badenoch MP Do you agree? Feel free to submit your own ideas as to what parties we would now have, what their history would be, which politicians would be in them, where they would stand on various issues I would classify the Free Democrats as 1/2 Hard Eurosceptic 1/2 Soft Eurosceptic as a decent chunk of them are Hard Eurosceptics. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 9:16:04 GMT
I would classify the Free Democrats as 1/2 Hard Eurosceptic 1/2 Soft Eurosceptic as a decent chunk of them are Hard Eurosceptics. I imagine the soft Eurosceptic position coming about as a compromise between a mildly Pro-European wing being made up of right wing LibDems & very socially liberal free-market Tories like Jeremy Browne, David Laws, George Osborne & Alan Duncan, & the varying between mild and hard Euroscepticism of most ASI/IEA classical liberals & free-market conservatives in British politics. Note that there are many supposedly free-market Tories whose insular anti-immigration nationalism, occasional indulgence of Protectionist policies & hardline Euroscepticism is ultimately their overriding chracteristic & I'd put them in the United Patriots, in particular people like John Redwood, Peter Bone & Andrea Jenkyns clearly belong with the likes of Nigel Farage & more economically centre-left National Populists like Patrick O'Flynn, regardless of them sharing Classically Liberal goals like cutting taxes with the Free Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Sept 6, 2022 9:21:27 GMT
I would classify the Free Democrats as 1/2 Hard Eurosceptic 1/2 Soft Eurosceptic as a decent chunk of them are Hard Eurosceptics. I imagine the soft Eurosceptic position coming about as a compromise between a mildly Pro-European wing being made up of right wing LibDems & very socially liberal free-market Tories like Jeremy Browne, David Laws, George Osborne & Alan Duncan, & the varying between mild and hard Euroscepticism of most ASI/IEA classical liberals & free-market conservatives in British politics. Note that there are many supposedly free-market Tories whose insular anti-immigration nationalism, occasional indulgence of Protectionist policies & hardline Euroscepticism is ultimately their overriding chracteristic & I'd put them in the United Patriots, in particular people like John Redwood, Peter Bone & Andrea Jenkyns clearly belong with the likes of Nigel Farage & more economically centre-left National Populists like Patrick O'Flynn, regardless of them sharing Classically Liberal goals like cutting taxes with the Free Democrats. I agree about Bone and Jenkyns being a part of UP, but Redwood should probably be in the FD ,as at least for me he is an economic dry first. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 6, 2022 10:00:09 GMT
In such a scenario, other parties would have existed and gained representation for periods of time, either over critical issues (e.g. an NHS Supporters' Party under Richard Taylor during the 2000s) or splinter groups of other parties; we would likely end up with a scenario similar to that experienced by Germany and Denmark in parliamentary terms.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 6, 2022 10:38:05 GMT
At many points in British history major poltical parties have considered reforming the voting system. Even the Tories did consider advocating for Single Transferrable Vote Proportional Representation when it looked like the Liberals might be in power for decades around the time of the Great War. Based on the multi-party politics of our near neighbours in Europe I think if the UK had adopted STV, Open List or MMP-PR in 1918 with a 4% threshold for representation, our party system would have evolved to now resemble this list of hypothetical parties ordered subjectively from left to right: (with pan-European party, global federation, broad Ideology, EU stance, & current leader listed for reference)
Left Alliance (GUE, NGL, PI, SI)- Democratic Socialism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Jeremy Corbyn MP GreenRadicals (EGP, GG) - Green Progressivism, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Layla Moran MP Social Democrats (PES, PA)- Social Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Andy Burnham MP Progressives (ALDE, LI) - Social Liberalism, Eurofederalism. Leader: Chuka Umunna MP Popular Democrats (EPP, CDI) - Progressive Conservatism/Christian Democracy, Pro-Europeanism. Leader: Tom Tugendhat MP Free Democrats (ECR, IDU) - Free Market Liberal Conservatism, Soft Euroscepticism. Leader: Liz Truss MP United Patriots (I&D, The Movement) - National Conservatism, Euroscepticism. Leader: Kemi Badenoch MP Do you agree? Feel free to submit your own ideas as to what parties we would now have, what their history would be, which politicians would be in them, where they would stand on various issues Good god, even worse choice than now. I wouldn't fit anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 10:52:00 GMT
Good god, even worse choice than now. I wouldn't fit anywhere. Pro-Europeanism doesn't mean pro Integration monomaniacism & given that you support the overwhelmingly Bregretful LibDems then in this timeline I suspect you could still fit in anywhere between GR & FD as all of these parties have elements that would attract liberals of various strains. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 11:34:37 GMT
In such a scenario, other parties would have existed and gained representation for periods of time, either over critical issues (e.g. an NHS Supporters' Party under Richard Taylor during the 2000s) or splinter groups of other parties; we would likely end up with a scenario similar to that experienced by Germany and Denmark in parliamentary terms. I'm a bit perturbed by your grouping together of Denmark (which has a very low 2% representation threshold & endless new parties entering parliament either through elections & breakaways, getting to almost Dutch levels of fragmentation) & Germany, which thanks to its 5%/3 district seat threshold has enjoyed a very stable party system since the late 1950s & only seen three new parties entering the Bundestag at elections since then, all of which represent relatively broad & unchanging swathes of the electorate (Social-Ecological Movements, East German regime enjoyers & Eurosceptic Nationalists). As to weather we'd have seen Health Concern become a durable National scale political party rather than a very local movement with one or two MPs elected from specific districts, I remain unconvinced: nor do I see a long-term future for Pensioners parties & other non-ideological special interest movements: Dutch 50Plus is marginal & the Slovene Greys recently dropped out of parliament there. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 6, 2022 11:54:52 GMT
This is really interesting, and I think I broadly agree with your landscape. But there are two more parties that I think could be viable under this system that you don't have.
Firstly, while a 4% national threshold means specific national movements like the SNP or Plaid Cymru are unlikely to gain representation, a more general pro-devolution party advocating for a more federal system might be better placed to do so. If they could gain 15-20% support in Scotland and Wales and 5-10% in the more peripheral English regions they'd probably hit the 4% national threshold. I'm not sure who their leader would be - in practice they would struggle to choose one because it might make them only appeal to one specific region, and might have co-leaders to get around this issue.
Secondly, there seems to be a gap in the market on the populist side of politics, with no party between the Left Alliance and United Patriots. Perhaps the UP would tack left on some economic issues to pick up economically centre-left Eurosceptics and social conservatives, but if they didn't, there might be room for a party in that space too. Again it's difficult to pick out a leader - probably Frank Field would have been a previous leader but I'm not sure who would be best placed now.
|
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 12:21:44 GMT
This is really interesting, and I think I broadly agree with your landscape. But there are two more parties that I think could be viable under this system that you don't have. Firstly, while a 4% national threshold means specific national movements like the SNP or Plaid Cymru are unlikely to gain representation, a more general pro-devolution party advocating for a more federal system might be better placed to do so. If they could gain 15-20% support in Scotland and Wales and 5-10% in the more peripheral English regions they'd probably hit the 4% national threshold. I'm not sure who their leader would be - in practice they would struggle to choose one because it might make them only appeal to one specific region, and might have co-leaders to get around this issue. Secondly, there seems to be a gap in the market on the populist side of politics, with no party between the Left Alliance and United Patriots. Perhaps the UP would tack left on some economic issues to pick up economically centre-left Eurosceptics and social conservatives, but if they didn't, there might be room for a party in that space too. Again it's difficult to pick out a leader - probably Frank Field would have been a previous leader but I'm not sure who would be best placed now. Two great points! I think a Nordic Agrarian style Centre party would be quite similar to what you suggest: Decentralist, Communitarian, Localist, Ecological, Moderate on Social Issues, Keyneisan Non-Socialist, Fiscally Responsible , Pro Small Business, even Soft Eurosceptic perhaps? As for the left-populist question, I would indeed imagine UP tacking towards the centre-left on several specific issues in order to pick up the "economic progressive, social conservative vote", but I can also imagine, being flanked by two more socially liberal parties to its immediate economic left & right (GR & Progs), that the Social Democrats would feel freer to move towards a mild, non-Eurosceptic, law & order, immigration restrictionist working-class core-vote populism comparable to the Danish Social Democrats. The Left Alliance wouldn't emphasise liberal social policy particularly either, thus picking up plenty of socially apathetic/mildly culturally conservative voters with a strongly socialist stance on economics & welfare. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 6, 2022 13:03:04 GMT
Too many parties with a narrow AB appeal there. They wouldn't even appeal to the C1s. That is under any electoral system a recipe for them splitting about 20% of the vote between them and ending up performing as well as Change UK (at worst) or the Lib Dems (at best).
|
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 13:14:12 GMT
Too many parties with a narrow AB appeal there. They wouldn't even appeal to the C1s. That is under any electoral system a recipe for them splitting about 20% of the vote between them and ending up performing as well as Change UK (at worst) or the Lib Dems (at best). Based on analogous parties in Northern & Central Europe I would suggest that the Social Democrats, Left Alliance & United Patriots would appeal disproportionately to C2DE voters, GreenRadicals, Progressives & Free Democrats to ABC1s & the Popular Democrats would have a relatively even/vertical class profile. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Sept 6, 2022 13:33:33 GMT
Too many parties with a narrow AB appeal there. They wouldn't even appeal to the C1s. That is under any electoral system a recipe for them splitting about 20% of the vote between them and ending up performing as well as Change UK (at worst) or the Lib Dems (at best). Yes, decent argument to be made that GreenRadicals should go half to LA and half to Progs. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 6, 2022 13:34:36 GMT
This is really interesting, and I think I broadly agree with your landscape. But there are two more parties that I think could be viable under this system that you don't have. Firstly, while a 4% national threshold means specific national movements like the SNP or Plaid Cymru are unlikely to gain representation, a more general pro-devolution party advocating for a more federal system might be better placed to do so. If they could gain 15-20% support in Scotland and Wales and 5-10% in the more peripheral English regions they'd probably hit the 4% national threshold. I'm not sure who their leader would be - in practice they would struggle to choose one because it might make them only appeal to one specific region, and might have co-leaders to get around this issue. Secondly, there seems to be a gap in the market on the populist side of politics, with no party between the Left Alliance and United Patriots. Perhaps the UP would tack left on some economic issues to pick up economically centre-left Eurosceptics and social conservatives, but if they didn't, there might be room for a party in that space too. Again it's difficult to pick out a leader - probably Frank Field would have been a previous leader but I'm not sure who would be best placed now. Assuming the 4% applied across the UK as a whole, wouldn't SNP and PC collaborate and pool their votes so as to ensure representation?
Also, I agree with the comment just downthread that these are all very much AB / C1 parties. Wouldn't there also be a headbanging nationalist anti-foreigner UKIP-style party campaigning to bring back hanging and pre-decimal currency and the Black & White Minstrel Show and generally take us back to the 1950s?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 6, 2022 13:47:20 GMT
Too many parties with a narrow AB appeal there. They wouldn't even appeal to the C1s. That is under any electoral system a recipe for them splitting about 20% of the vote between them and ending up performing as well as Change UK (at worst) or the Lib Dems (at best). Yes, decent argument to be made that GreenRadicals should go half to LA and half to Progs. I think there would be enough support for a Green party. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 13:48:11 GMT
Assuming the 4% applied across the UK as a whole, wouldn't SNP and PC collaborate and pool their votes so as to ensure representation?
Also, I agree with the comment just downthread that these are all very much AB / C1 parties. Wouldn't there also be a headbanging nationalist anti-foreigner UKIP-style party campaigning to bring back hanging and pre-decimal currency and the Black & White Minstrel Show and generally take us back to the 1950s?
I can imagine United Patriots members & representatives agreeing with most of those stances. National Conservatism & Rightist Populism are significantly overlapping & indeed in my view do belong in the same party! Kemi Badenoch is my example leader who may be of Immigrant origin but she certainly isn't politically correct or woke! UP is a merger of the most nationalistic 25% of the Tory party with UKIP, continuity SDP & the Brexit Party. If what you mean by headbangers is an Ethnic Nationalist or hardcore Islamophobic NF/BNP type party, I can't imagine that would pass the 4 or 5% threshold at a GE. The British people just aren't that racist en-masse! |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 6, 2022 13:49:39 GMT
This is really interesting, and I think I broadly agree with your landscape. But there are two more parties that I think could be viable under this system that you don't have. Firstly, while a 4% national threshold means specific national movements like the SNP or Plaid Cymru are unlikely to gain representation, a more general pro-devolution party advocating for a more federal system might be better placed to do so. If they could gain 15-20% support in Scotland and Wales and 5-10% in the more peripheral English regions they'd probably hit the 4% national threshold. I'm not sure who their leader would be - in practice they would struggle to choose one because it might make them only appeal to one specific region, and might have co-leaders to get around this issue. Secondly, there seems to be a gap in the market on the populist side of politics, with no party between the Left Alliance and United Patriots. Perhaps the UP would tack left on some economic issues to pick up economically centre-left Eurosceptics and social conservatives, but if they didn't, there might be room for a party in that space too. Again it's difficult to pick out a leader - probably Frank Field would have been a previous leader but I'm not sure who would be best placed now. Assuming the 4% applied across the UK as a whole, wouldn't SNP and PC collaborate and pool their votes so as to ensure representation? Also, I agree with the comment just downthread that these are all very much AB / C1 parties. Wouldn't there also be a headbanging nationalist anti-foreigner UKIP-style party campaigning to bring back hanging and pre-decimal currency and the Black & White Minstrel Show and generally take us back to the 1950s?
To what extent would the UP wish to incorporate those? Of course, they may consider an openly right-populist party standing alone viable without the need to do that given the electoral system |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Sept 6, 2022 13:50:10 GMT
Yes, decent argument to be made that GreenRadicals should go half to LA and half to Progs. I think there would be enough support for a Green party. Even with a new hard left party (LA) and a Progressive party? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 6, 2022 13:53:18 GMT
I think there would be enough support for a Green party. Even with a new hard left party (LA) and a Progressive party? Yes. I think there may be more of a case for the Progressive party being part of the Greens. Effectively they would be a left-liberal party and with the likely predominance of green issues, not many left-liberals would be not Green. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Sept 6, 2022 13:57:30 GMT
I think there would be enough support for a Green party. Even with a new hard left party (LA) and a Progressive party? I envisage that the Progressives would be left-leaning centrists, rather pro-business in a Technocratic Keynesian way or Third Way Blairite perhaps after the 1980s, tolerant of Nuclear power(but against state subsidies for it), Pro Nuclear armarment, Pro-Science & anti "Woo" but also socially very liberal on LGBT+ issues, pro Civil liberties & Secularist, pro-Immigration, YIMBY, Pro-soft drug legalisation, pro Free Trade, support Market-Environmentalism (eg. Cap & Trade). Call it Woke Capitalism? They'd be a hinge party open to coalition with the PopDems & FreeDems as well as SocDems & GreenRads . GreenRadicals clearly much more pro- actively Anti-Racist, pro Social Justice, Radical Feminist, Sustainable growth/NIMBY, Animal Rights & Alter Globalisation, as well as relatively pacifistic, anti Trident & Atomic energy etc, & more stridently left on economics/welfare although not quite to the degree of the Left Alliance. They'd be happy as the centre party with a SD+LA coalition or the leftier party in a coalition with SD+Progs |
|
