Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 19, 2024 15:56:48 GMT
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 My understanding is that as soon as Blair got into unfettered power, he suddenly became very sceptical about all the huge constitutional changes that had been promised, with electoral reform and Prescott's hobby horse of regional assemblies being the only two he managed to put the brakes on sufficiently. The smaller bits of tinkering in his third term, however, he was fully on board with. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 19, 2024 16:09:35 GMT
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.)
A reasonably representational majoritarian single party administration. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 19, 2024 16:20:49 GMT
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.)
A reasonably representational majoritarian single party administration. Created at the voters hands and not in a smoke filled room!(or would have been prior to 2007!) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 19, 2024 16:27:44 GMT
Not sure he did/does, don't think easy to find anything on record about him supporting it My understanding is that as soon as Blair got into unfettered power, he suddenly became very sceptical about all the huge constitutional changes that had been promised, with electoral reform and Prescott's hobby horse of regional assemblies being the only two he managed to put the brakes on sufficiently. The smaller bits of tinkering in his third term, however, he was fully on board with. Blair has also expressed keen regret over one important change he did bring in, namely the Freedom of Information Act. To my mind, this is one of the best things he did, but he now seems to look on it as evidence of his own naivety at such an early stage in his administration. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 19, 2024 16:29:16 GMT
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.)
A reasonably representational majoritarian single party administration. Sounds like a line from the lost Gilbert and Sullivan Opera "The Psephologists" , "I am the very model of a modern electoral system" |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 19, 2024 16:50:06 GMT
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.)
sensibly phrased question. And yes, I think the needs of a Sovereign government are very different from those of a devolved or local government. A sovereign level you need a clear decision, you need a government that can declare war or decide not to, and it won't come as much of a surprise to either our allies or our enemies. If at all possible, you need a government with a majority in Parliament. But you need to be able to boot them out in such a way that no shady backroom deal can be cobbled together to keep them in and that applies not only to the Tories and Labour but also the Lib Dems who are the automatic beneficiary of a coalition government. I favour FPTP At the devolved and local level a case can be made that consensus is both more achievable and more desirable and that there is both more room for and more need for minority voices being heard. I am willing to consider either PR or preferential voting or a hybrid that knocks the hardest edges off FPTP |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 19, 2024 17:03:12 GMT
Unitary authorities for everyone Would have to be unitary districts, unitary counties would be (are) too big. agreed |
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 96
|
Post by jdc on Jul 19, 2024 17:05:53 GMT
Would have to be unitary districts, unitary counties would be (are) too big. agreed Districts are often the worst of both worlds, size-wise.
Unitary counties, splitting the largest ones, for large scale statutory services.
Devolution to towns and voluntarily clustered parishes for everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 19, 2024 17:34:26 GMT
Didn't Jenkins lean towards the '1918 Speaker's Compromise'? A mix of single and multi-member seats with preferential voting. The government was amenable to preferential voting in single member constituencies. It was pointed out to Jenkins that the 'compromise' was liable to magnitude gerrymandering. He couldn't back straight AV and STV, as per Ireland, was a 'leap into the dark' so he ended up proposing the 'dog's breakfast' (although Garret Fitzgerald had beaten him to the idea some years before). It was rather comedic and put the lid on electoral reform.
The chances of reform for Westminster are negligible. This year's result was skewed more than usual but it hasn't featured in any post-election polls and, by and large, the public are content.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 19, 2024 17:43:11 GMT
The reason is, as I have already stated, that this election, despite being the least proportionate in my lifetime, has delivered most exactly what the electorate wanted. Even the Tories agree that they got what they deserved. Labour know they are going to lose 100 seats next time out. There is no way they are going to propose losing 200 instead. The Lib Dems know that this is their level. The SNP know that the only way for them ever to win requires FPTP plus get lucky. Even Reform know that their effectiveness requires being grit in the oyster, not being a whelk in their own right
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 19, 2024 19:07:03 GMT
Didn't Jenkins lean towards the '1918 Speaker's Compromise'? A mix of single and multi-member seats with preferential voting. The government was amenable to preferential voting in single member constituencies. It was pointed out to Jenkins that the 'compromise' was liable to magnitude gerrymandering. He couldn't back straight AV and STV, as per Ireland, was a 'leap into the dark' so he ended up proposing the ' dog's breakfast' (although Garret Fitzgerald had beaten him to the idea some years before). It was rather comedic and put the lid on electoral reform. I recall William Hague recycling that phrase when responding to the publication of the Report in Parliament. I admire the Italian habit over the past few decades of referring to each successive new potential electoral system by a Latin nickname. Neither Johnson nor Rees-Mogg was yet in the Commons when the Jenkins Review was published, but if they had been Leader of HM Loyal Opposition at the time, they might've referred to the attempted all-things-to-all-people proposal as the " caniprandium" when what we're actually looking for is the canitestium (or apigenuum, if you prefer). |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 19, 2024 19:23:39 GMT
Districts are often the worst of both worlds, size-wise.
Unitary counties, splitting the largest ones, for large scale statutory services.
Devolution to towns and voluntarily clustered parishes for everything else.
no issues there |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 19, 2024 19:53:52 GMT
With this election having been the most unproportional in history, I think it will be impossible to ignore electoral reform yet knowing how Con and Lab love the constituency link, there is only one to way to go. MMP.
325 directly elected constituency members (the current constituencies paired) and 325 regional list seats (calculated on a regional / county basis where suitable) using the constituency votes and constituency members as the calculation method
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 19, 2024 20:48:16 GMT
MMM keeps the constituency link without the hypercorrective element and is more likely to produce stable, single-party government.
There is also absolutely no reason, under either AMS or MMM, why the ratio of constituency and proportional seats has to be 50:50 (or even why the size of the Commons has to be 650, although parties who propose a massive deviation from that would do so at their own peril).
Under the above suggestion of 325 single-member seats, the average mainland constituency would have a population of around 210,000 people and rising - is that really not stretching the definition of a "local" representative??
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 19, 2024 20:50:42 GMT
MMM keeps the constituency link without the hypercorrective element and is more likely to produce stable, single-party government. There is also absolutely no reason, under either AMS or MMM, why the ratio of constituency and proportional seats has to be 50:50 (or even why the size of the Commons has to be 650, although parties who propose a massive deviation from that would do so at their own peril). Under the above suggestion of 325 single-member seats, the average mainland constituency would have a population of around 210,000 people and rising - is that really not stretching the definition of a "local" representative?? 543 seats in the Lok Sabha! |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 19, 2024 20:54:33 GMT
MMM keeps the constituency link without the hypercorrective element and is more likely to produce stable, single-party government. There is also absolutely no reason, under either AMS or MMM, why the ratio of constituency and proportional seats has to be 50:50 (or even why the size of the Commons has to be 650, although parties who propose a massive deviation from that would do so at their own peril). Under the above suggestion of 325 single-member seats, the average mainland constituency would have a population of around 210,000 people and rising - is that really not stretching the definition of a "local" representative?? 543 seats in the Lok Sabha! Well yes, some constituencies there have population figures far closer to 2 million than 200,000 - but India is a much bigger country. Arguably the lower house should be a bit larger there, but the same ratio of electors to seats here would mean a House of Commons way smaller than the Senedd! Each nation needs to find a formula that works for it, and I don't think ours involves just 325 FPTP seats. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,093
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 19, 2024 21:34:16 GMT
The reason is, as I have already stated, that this election, despite being the least proportionate in my lifetime, has delivered most exactly what the electorate wanted. Even the Tories agree that they got what they deserved. Labour know they are going to lose 100 seats next time out. There is no way they are going to propose losing 200 instead. The Lib Dems know that this is their level. The SNP know that the only way for them ever to win requires FPTP plus get lucky. Even Reform know that their effectiveness requires being grit in the oyster, not being a whelk in their own right You write as if the electorate voted with a single hivemind and you seem to be claiming that you know the motive and actions of each of that mind's cells. With heavy emphasis on the 'as if'. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 19, 2024 22:00:15 GMT
With this election having been the most unproportional in history, I think it will be impossible to ignore electoral reform £50 says you are mistaken. Again. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 19, 2024 22:29:37 GMT
Again, the fact that an electoral system that is neither designed nor intended to produce a proportional outcome has failed to produce a proportional outcome proves precisely nothing.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 20, 2024 2:52:36 GMT
Districts are often the worst of both worlds, size-wise.
Unitary counties, splitting the largest ones, for large scale statutory services.
Devolution to towns and voluntarily clustered parishes for everything else.
Depends on the size of the district. Sheffield is "functionally" a county and seems about the right size to be a unitary, and - barring a short interregnum - has been a unitary since 1843. Lincoln is too small. Leicester is too small. Middlesbrough is too small. But they would be big enough if their city borders were extended to where they should be. Dear Secretary of State. There are too many districts these days. Please eliminate some. I am NOT a crackpot. |
|
