Jenkins Commission II ?

[swanarcadian]

Do we know the Starmer government’s views on changing the way we vote in general elections, and whether there is any prospect of history repeating itself and a commission being set up to consider the issue by the end of the year?
As we know, the Jenkins Commission ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Blair never genuinely supported the idea of moving away from FPTP. Just after the 2010 exit poll was released, however, figures such as Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson were voicing an interest, presumably to try to win over the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

Surely the case for electoral reform is far stronger than it was back in ‘97. Blair got well over 40 percent of the vote; two weeks ago Labour got just over a third. The party system has become more fragmented, with the rise of Reform, and to a smaller extent, the Greens. Notwithstanding Labour’s huge majority, a swing of 5 percent would be enough to wipe it out next time. If the government isn’t keen on discussing the issue, their hand may well be forced by a hung Parliament situation in the future.

[johnloony]

Jul 18, 2024 20:44:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

Do we know the Starmer government’s views on changing the way we vote in general elections, and whether there is any prospect of history repeating itself and a commission being set up to consider the issue by the end of the year?
As we know, the Jenkins Commission ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Blair never genuinely supported the idea of moving away from FPTP. Just after the 2010 exit poll was released, however, figures such as Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson were voicing an interest, presumably to try to win over the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

Surely the case for electoral reform is far stronger than it was back in ‘97. Blair got well over 40 percent of the vote; two weeks ago Labour got just over a third. The party system has become more fragmented, with the rise of Reform, and to a smaller extent, the Greens. Notwithstanding Labour’s huge majority, a swing of 5 percent would be enough to wipe it out next time. If the government isn’t keen on discussing the issue, their hand may well be forced by a hung Parliament situation in the future.

There was no hint at all in the Labour manifesto, or during the campaign, about changing the electoral system for elections to the House of Commons. I think for the foreseeable future the issue is dead, after the 2011 referendum heavily rejected even AV let alone PR (the arguments against PR and the result of the referendum would have been similarly heavy, even if it had been a referendum on PR not AV).

Since the general election, it has often been said that Labour’s victory was shallow, and that the majority is vulnerable to a small swing against Labour. Labour’s position at the next general election is equally open to the possibility of being strengthened and entrenched, with a substantial increase in the share of the vote nationally and locally, particularly if the share of the vote for Greens and Reform drops by a large amount.

[mattbewilson]

Jul 18, 2024 21:43:50 GMT johnloony said:

Jul 18, 2024 20:44:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

Do we know the Starmer government’s views on changing the way we vote in general elections, and whether there is any prospect of history repeating itself and a commission being set up to consider the issue by the end of the year?
As we know, the Jenkins Commission ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Blair never genuinely supported the idea of moving away from FPTP. Just after the 2010 exit poll was released, however, figures such as Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson were voicing an interest, presumably to try to win over the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

Surely the case for electoral reform is far stronger than it was back in ‘97. Blair got well over 40 percent of the vote; two weeks ago Labour got just over a third. The party system has become more fragmented, with the rise of Reform, and to a smaller extent, the Greens. Notwithstanding Labour’s huge majority, a swing of 5 percent would be enough to wipe it out next time. If the government isn’t keen on discussing the issue, their hand may well be forced by a hung Parliament situation in the future.

There was no hint at all in the Labour manifesto, or during the campaign, about changing the electoral system for elections to the House of Commons. I think for the foreseeable future the issue is dead, after the 2011 referendum heavily rejected even AV let alone PR (the arguments against PR and the result of the referendum would have been similarly heavy, even if it had been a referendum on PR not AV).

Since the general election, it has often been said that Labour’s victory was shallow, and that the majority is vulnerable to a small swing against Labour. Labour’s position at the next general election is equally open to the possibility of being strengthened and entrenched, with a substantial increase in the share of the vote nationally and locally, particularly if the share of the vote for Greens and Reform drops by a large amount.

the NPF report called FPTP a reason for distrust in democracy. But it wouldn't go as far as supporting reform. So who knows what the solution on it off it

[doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️]

My natural instinct is for a big red reset button to be pressed on much of the UKs increasingly creaky constitution. The end of two-tier government in England, and the introduction of PR to all layers of UK authorities, from Westminster down to Parish Council; a genuine and powerful devolution away from Westminster to towns and cities across the country, and an elected second chamber.

This election proved that the UK electorate has seen through the façade of "choice". More independents, more Greens, Reform UK, etc, it's proof that there's an appetite for a multiparty solution to the quandary of democracy.

AV+ was a fudge. We need real proportional representation. And quick.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 18, 2024 21:49:42 GMT mattbewilson said:

Jul 18, 2024 21:43:50 GMT johnloony said:

There was no hint at all in the Labour manifesto, or during the campaign, about changing the electoral system for elections to the House of Commons. I think for the foreseeable future the issue is dead, after the 2011 referendum heavily rejected even AV let alone PR (the arguments against PR and the result of the referendum would have been similarly heavy, even if it had been a referendum on PR not AV).

Since the general election, it has often been said that Labour’s victory was shallow, and that the majority is vulnerable to a small swing against Labour. Labour’s position at the next general election is equally open to the possibility of being strengthened and entrenched, with a substantial increase in the share of the vote nationally and locally, particularly if the share of the vote for Greens and Reform drops by a large amount.

the NPF report called FPTP a reason for distrust in democracy. But it wouldn't go as far as supporting reform. So who knows what the solution on it off it

Start at the bottom. "Complete" the reformation of local government elections by extending Scottish/NI STV to the rest of the UK for district councils. I admit that County Councils are an issue as they a) tend to have single member seats and b) cover huge areas, so leave that for the mo. Get STV uniformly across all district council elections and let it bed in. Think about what to do next later.

[riccimarsh]

Labour didn’t even have votes for 16-year-olds in the King’s Speech, and that was a clear manifesto commitment. So it doesn’t seem that changes to the the way we conduct elections, including the voting system, are a particularly high priority. Nor should they be.

[uthacalthing]

Jul 18, 2024 22:35:59 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

AV+ was a fudge. We need real proportional representation. And quick.

Not STV then? 

[peterl]

Why does it always have to be STV? Electoral reform would be more likely to happen if its advocates could find a better system to support.

[swanarcadian]

Jul 19, 2024 2:25:21 GMT peterl said:

Why does it always have to be STV? Electoral reform would be more likely to happen if its advocates could find a better system to support.

I’d prefer a list system such as D’Hondt, but with some adjustments to the way it was done at the last Euro elections here! Open lists and more equal constituencies.

[doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️]

Jul 19, 2024 6:20:29 GMT swanarcadian said:

Jul 19, 2024 2:25:21 GMT peterl said:

Why does it always have to be STV? Electoral reform would be more likely to happen if its advocates could find a better system to support.

I’d prefer a list system such as D’Hondt, but with some adjustments to the way it was done at the last Euro elections here! Open lists and more equal constituencies.

How many existing constituencies would you combine to create new ones? It'll be 'back to the future', that's how they created the original Euro constituencies.

[mattbewilson]

Jul 18, 2024 22:49:53 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 18, 2024 21:49:42 GMT mattbewilson said:

the NPF report called FPTP a reason for distrust in democracy. But it wouldn't go as far as supporting reform. So who knows what the solution on it off it

Start at the bottom. "Complete" the reformation of local government elections by extending Scottish/NI STV to the rest of the UK for district councils. I admit that County Councils are an issue as they a) tend to have single member seats and b) cover huge areas, so leave that for the mo. Get STV uniformly across all district council elections and let it bed in. Think about what to do next later.

Unitary authorities for everyone

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 19, 2024 6:24:28 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jul 19, 2024 6:20:29 GMT swanarcadian said:

I’d prefer a list system such as D’Hondt, but with some adjustments to the way it was done at the last Euro elections here! Open lists and more equal constituencies.

How many existing constituencies would you combine to create new ones? It'll be 'back to the future', that's how they created the original Euro constituencies.

One doesn't combine existing constituencies when creating new constituency boundaries. One combines (or maybe in one or two cases, divides) Local Authorities in order to create areas of roughly equal electorates (though with enough leeway to prevent unnatural pairings)



Then you don't need to keep changing the boundaries. You just calculate the quota for each electoral area before each election - some will lose a seat and some will gain.

[The Bishop]

Jul 18, 2024 22:55:11 GMT riccimarsh said:

Labour didn’t even have votes for 16-year-olds in the King’s Speech, and that was a clear manifesto commitment. So it doesn’t seem that changes to the the way we conduct elections, including the voting system, are a particularly high priority. Nor should they be.

Some in the media appear to have missed it, but there is going to be more than one KS in this parliament.

Going back to 25 years ago, yes I am pretty sure Blair supported electoral reform (and quite possibly still does)

But getting it through a Labour party that had just won a massive majority was beyond even his most persuasive peak powers - and his deputy (Prescott) was strongly against. So he decoded to let it lie, maybe in the hope the time for it might come later - but that never happened.

[carlton43]

Jul 18, 2024 22:35:59 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

My natural instinct is for a big red reset button to be pressed on much of the UKs increasingly creaky constitution. The end of two-tier government in England, and the introduction of PR to all layers of UK authorities, from Westminster down to Parish Council; a genuine and powerful devolution away from Westminster to towns and cities across the country, and an elected second chamber.

This election proved that the UK electorate has seen through the façade of "choice". More independents, more Greens, Reform UK, etc, it's proof that there's an appetite for a multiparty solution to the quandary of democracy.

AV+ was a fudge. We need real proportional representation. And quick.

I wish to establish myself as the reasoned and total opponent to all of those proposals without exceptions.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Jul 19, 2024 9:48:15 GMT The Bishop said:

Jul 18, 2024 22:55:11 GMT riccimarsh said:

Labour didn’t even have votes for 16-year-olds in the King’s Speech, and that was a clear manifesto commitment. So it doesn’t seem that changes to the the way we conduct elections, including the voting system, are a particularly high priority. Nor should they be.

Some in the media appear to have missed it, but there is going to be more than one KS in this parliament.

Going back to 25 years ago, yes I am pretty sure Blair supported electoral reform (and quite possibly still does)

But getting it through a Labour party that had just won a massive majority was beyond even his most persuasive peak powers - and his deputy (Prescott) was strongly against. So he decoded to let it lie, maybe in the hope the time for it might come later - but that never happened.

Not sure he did/does, don't think easy to find anything on record about him supporting it

[islington]

Jul 18, 2024 20:44:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

Do we know the Starmer government’s views on changing the way we vote in general elections, and whether there is any prospect of history repeating itself and a commission being set up to consider the issue by the end of the year?
As we know, the Jenkins Commission ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Blair never genuinely supported the idea of moving away from FPTP. Just after the 2010 exit poll was released, however, figures such as Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson were voicing an interest, presumably to try to win over the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

Surely the case for electoral reform is far stronger than it was back in ‘97. Blair got well over 40 percent of the vote; two weeks ago Labour got just over a third. The party system has become more fragmented, with the rise of Reform, and to a smaller extent, the Greens. Notwithstanding Labour’s huge majority, a swing of 5 percent would be enough to wipe it out next time. If the government isn’t keen on discussing the issue, their hand may well be forced by a hung Parliament situation in the future.

Well, whenever this question is raised, people (as in the thread above) jump in to advocate their own preferred option.

But they never ask the question that should come first.

Confining it to Parliamentary elections (because other considerations may apply to other types of election), the question that should be answered first is this: What is a General Election for? Why do we have it at all? What purpose is it meant to achieve?

(All right, that's actually three different ways of asking the same question.)

I'm betting that once you've decided what you're trying to achieve, it will be obvious which system is best for the purpose.

So: what is a GE seeking to achieve?

(I have my own answer to this question, but I'll let others go first.)

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 19, 2024 9:23:03 GMT mattbewilson said:

Jul 18, 2024 22:49:53 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Start at the bottom. "Complete" the reformation of local government elections by extending Scottish/NI STV to the rest of the UK for district councils. I admit that County Councils are an issue as they a) tend to have single member seats and b) cover huge areas, so leave that for the mo. Get STV uniformly across all district council elections and let it bed in. Think about what to do next later.

Unitary authorities for everyone

Would have to be unitary districts, unitary counties would be (are) too big.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 19, 2024 14:11:57 GMT islington said:

So: what is a GE seeking to achieve?

There are conflicting answers. Some will say: to pick a representative who will then pick a government. Some will say: to pick a government. To reconcile that, an option would be to seperate out the picking of a representative from the picking of a government.

[uthacalthing]

Jul 18, 2024 22:35:59 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

More independents, more Greens, Reform UK, etc, it's proof that there's an appetite for a multiparty solution to the quandary of democracy.

Its not. Its proof that the electorate wanted to give the Tories a hiding. 600 seats worth of evidence. 50 seats with obvious reasons why they did not fit the pattern.  

You started with your conclusion and worked it back trying to interpret the evidence to support it. 

[johnloony]

Jul 19, 2024 15:02:04 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 19, 2024 14:11:57 GMT islington said:

So: what is a GE seeking to achieve?

There are conflicting answers. Some will say: to pick a representative who will then pick a government. Some will say: to pick a government. To reconcile that, an option would be to seperate out the picking of a representative from the picking of a government.

Look what happened when they tried that in Israel.