161
Tories heading for landslide election defeat, says Britain’s top pollster
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
161 points (97.6% liked)
UK Politics
3086 readers
31 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you're right that a Labour majority wouldn't go for PR, but I also think PR is unlikely to solve many problems. It was FPTP that gave us the NHS after all!
But basically we need to get the Tories out and right now, the simplest way to do that is to get Labour in!
What PR would achieve in the long run is assure that future governments actually reflect what the people want. FPTP can't achieve that, because it allows situations where Tory governments get massive majorities based on only 30-35% of the vote, which results in them, amongst other things, dismantling the NHS, which at best only 30% of the country wants. All Labour majority governments achieve is undoing some of the damage, before getting voted out again.
So while I agree the highest priority right now is getting the Tories out, and I'll vote however I need to in order to make that happen (realistically, that'll actually be the Lib Dems for me - I'm in the south west), a Labour majority isn't a long-term solution. Labour would never get to stay in power forever. Under a proportional system, the fact that 60-80% of the votes are for progressive parties would actually be reflected in parliament, which will never be the case under FPTP, and would mean that parties like the Lib Dems and Greens (who are more committed to tackling climate change than Labour) would have a say proportional to the number of people that actually voted for them. Right now, the 10-15% that vote Lib Dem and 5-10% that vote Green, scattered all over the country as they are, are entirely ignored. So are everyone who doesn't live in a city or the red wall.
People often make this argument, that PR would somehow lock in left wing governance, but that simply hasn't been the experience in other countries that have adopted it. We'd get just as many Tory minorities, propped up by Lib Dem or whatever Ukip's called these days, as the other way around.
What we wouldn't get, though, are 80+ seat Tory majorities on 35% of the vote. There's also the fact that in countries with PR, right-wing governments are closer to the centre than they are in countries without it. Minority governments and coalitions have to compromise to get anything done, which leads to better, more balanced legislation more often, while taking into account a broader range of viewpoints which, crucially, represent the whole country and not just a segment of it.
Yes, and I agree that's broadly a good thing. But it also means the likes of Ukip end up in government.
We already have the valorisation of compromise under FPTP in the form of battling for the 'centre ground': parties compromise with the electorate in order to win. Under PR, parties compromise with each other in order to govern.
Is one better than the other? I think PR is better, because the compromise is continuous. But there's not a lot in it.
This is why although I basically agree PR is a good thing, I don't prioritise it.
What we really need to do is get every single political party out. There isn’t a single one of them that is willing to do enough to stop climate change or to address inequality.
Okay, I'm not really sure what your theory of change is, here.
The only thing that will stop climate change is large scale international agreement. The chances of that happening are small, but they're better with Labour.
We need to change our perspectives. Electoral politics isn’t the most important thing for changing our society, it should be quite low on the list.
What we really need to do to change the world for the better is to substantially change the structure of society. We need to build an alternative structure to what exists - a series of workers co-ops, housing co-ops, social centres, industrial unions, and so on, and once we have such a structure in place we can withhold our labour and stop participating in the exploitative, destructive system that exists now. This would effectively lead to the collapse of the current system in a way that would minimise harm.
That's just a list of nice things.