- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Exclusive: Sunak could be presiding over ‘wake’ at conference, warns Prof John Curtice – with voters furious over NHS failures, cost of living, migrants and Liz Truss
Exclusive: Sunak could be presiding over ‘wake’ at conference, warns Prof John Curtice – with voters furious over NHS failures, cost of living, migrants and Liz Truss
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.