This was YouGov's poll published yesterday:
This was the resulting election map:
This is, of course, quite extraordinary and may not last.
But the question still remains, is this what democracy should look like in the UK? Or is proportional representation still better? Should minorities ever be as under-represented as this map would suggest that poll would mean?
And, can good government, or governance, come from this?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Any country that has something like the Reform Party on +1 at a time like this is in big trouble (they operate in the city where I work and I know what they get up to which is going around communities where we are building new affordable hosuing and telling people its for immigrants).
PR is democratic caviar being offered to one of the most stupid, misled and abused electorates in the world.
Therefore, rather than offered, if I got into power and I had the seats, I’d do what the Tories do and just make PR happen with my majority.
Heck – I might even prorogue parliament to get it done! Why not!
there was an extremely depressing discussion about PR with labour panellists on Iain Dale’s show earlier this week.
unsurprisingly, the Labour panellists all said it wasn’t necessary, despite Labour having been in government for a fraction of the time the Tories have.
FPTP creates a false majority. It is fundamentally anti-democratic. It disenfrachises huge swathes of the country.
PR has it’s flaws but FPTP is wrong in principle and in practice. It is not democratic.
Bad news Benz0, the Labour party are as thick as the proverbial as ever.
What matters is the STRUGGLE! Didn’t you know!!!? Not getting into power!
And the Tories have a trump card. And his name is Jeremy Hunt and he could sell ice cubes to the Eskimos. He’s more skilful than Truss because he’d smile at you whilst he cut your throat and you’d thank him too as you bled out.
What I just don’t get about the Labour Party attitude to PR (well, those who have got themselves running the party – not the members), is that it is just so short-sighted. Absolutely no strategic thought. If you really want to make a change to the country, rather than focussing on getting into power for one or perhaps two terms of parliament (much of which will inevitably be spent righting some of the wrongs left by the previous Tory governments), think about getting PR in place so you are the dominant party in government for decades – unless you screw things up too much, of course. That’s just simple self-interest in the longer term and doesn’t even consider the fact that PR is both more democratic and fair.
One aspect to consider, I suppose is that MPs in safe seats might be somewhat nervous about a change which might potentially end up with them losing their seat following a reorganisation of the electoral system, regardless of whether or not it benefits the country as a whole!
The very worst result that could happen is if Starmer & Liebore get into power with a crushing majority. PR would be kicked down the road and we would be back in B.Liar territory. Furthermore, as the recent Al Jazeera documentary series has shown, Liebore under Starmer is a deeply unpleasant & highly undemocratic party. Thus, come the election I will be funding political parties, but not Liebore. The very best result would be Liebore forced into alliance with another party – with the condition PR or no deal.
On a related note, the Welsh borders have been shedding Toriy votes for some time – think of it as the “Brexit dividend”. I question if they will remain Tory. Probably not. Thus the Tory wipe out could be worse than expected. I note that the corporates are now cuddling up to Starmer/Liebore – further confirming the B.Liar II hypothesis.
PR – Totally necessary step toward a fairer and more democratic world.
In a previous comment I suggested that we need some form of proportional representation to remove the Tories. Being more clear, my belief is that it is needed to ensure that we can avoid situations such as we have at the moment…an inept, tin-eared, self-serving government that pursues political, fiscal or monetary ideologies that are not in the public interest.
We need distributive and regenerative economic and political policies. This can best be achieved by representing more fully the voting intent of the populace. In turn, this will enforce a degree of political compromise that avoids the litany of inept, corrupt and, frankly, plain wrong policies and practices that have been visited upon us, e.g., illegal prorogation of parliament, the VIP lane for Covid contracts and, of course, the current economic suicide that Truss and Kwarteng are determined to pursue.
Although it seems complicated, the current voting arrangement for the Scottish parliament is designed to better reflect voting intent (and be more representative of the numbers of votes) and to avoid any given party having an absolute majority. Personally, I think it could be improved upon but it works and it is a much fairer, representative approach than the current first past the post (FPTP) system. It doesn’t work here – look what we have faced for more than the last decade (and arguably much longer) – and I think is only slightly better than the US where basically big money determines election outcomes and often people are elected without actually having a majority resulting in governments that can barely function.
This last point is, I believe, key. The outcome must result in government that is representative and is able to function effectively and efficiently on a day-to-day basis and be accountable. The apparent nature of politicians seems to be that they always want to take centre stage and their egos and ambition seems to get in the way of achieving an effective, balanced approach. We certainly don’t want to have coalition governments that constantly fail because they have fall-outs (such as Italy) and we certainly don’t want a repeat of the Cameron-Clegg debacle (although arguably it is better than what we currently have).
Referring back to Scotland, despite the intent of the voting method to avoid a majority government, the last elections saw the SNP almost achieve a majority. They entered into a partnership that seems to be working with the Greens. This is where I feel a form of proportional representation can be very powerful and enable a wider cross-section of society to have their voice heard. Using the aforementioned example of the SNP/Greens it is enabling ‘green’ ideas, thoughts, policies to be brought more to the fore in the political process. At the risk of over-simplifying, many believe in green policies, etc., but – certainly today – Green parties are not a viable proposition to be the government of the day…they are more like pressure groups (and I would suggest they don’t have a sufficiently broad political and economic agendas to be a viable government). However, they do act as a badly needed form of conscience to highlight the absolute necessity to address climate change. Thus, it would make sense that they play an active part in the government of the day. More generally, it is to better represent the views of the public that we need a form of proportional representation…we cannot have situations going forward where the ideologies of the minority (in actual total vote terms) are imposed on us simply because they have a majority of seats and can implement the party whip. Toxic (and hopelessly incompetent) Truss has demonstrated conclusively why we must change our form of government…and why we need some form of proportional representation. I believe it is the only way (in this increasingly divided country of ours) that we can achieve balance and enable progressive economic and political policies to to developed and enable a more distributive and regenerative economy. And, why wouldn’t you maximise the breadth of talent and ideas?
As a final observation, the map shows quite starkly the political landscape and, I would suggest, the consequences of decades of UK government failure. Whilst the Scottish MPs who sit in Westminster are subject to the UK FPTP system, I would also point to the fact that the SNP vote % (according to the poll) has gone up despite many years in power in the Scottish parliament and already having a significant share of the vote already (not much room for significant increase). I believe this is partly because they have set out a vision for a fairer society and a wellbeing economy (as part of their National Strategy for Economic Transformation) which has input from the Greens…and Trade Unions, Business, Academia, etc.
Commenting from the Scottish perspective:
Some Labour gains in the central belt from SNP, but the main change is the sea of yellow (SNP) through the Tory borderlands and some North East seats.
Those Tory heartlands are wiped out, remember, the borders are the seats of current Tory Scottish head Alistair Jack and former leader David Mundell.
Effectively, not one Tory MP and Labour winning around 12 out of 50 plus seats, an improvement but still a massive rejection from the public who after 15 years still support the SNP at every election.
Bottom line, a referendum was held this ‘generation’ on proportional representation and was firmly rejected by UK voters (yes, the proposal was not great), so if a second one were to go ahead, which is what would be required to change our voting system, then there can be no objection to a second Scottish Independence referendum.
If Scots are to be told we had our chance, then the UK should also be told that PR had it’s chance also.
Also by the look of things, a referendum on Irish reunification should also be happening.
Lastly, some advice for English voters, beware what is on offer for PR. In Scotland we have certain MSP’s who have never been close to winning an election ever who have yet been elected through the our PR system. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser has lost every single election he has stood in and yet has been an MSP since the parliament opened in 1999 !
He has won an election then
The claim that he has not is false
May I suggest that the underlying point is that the problem with PR in Scotland is the de Hondt system. This was a deliberate result of the strangulated form of devolution, to protect the hengemony of Unionst Westminster Parties. The de Hondt system gifts the selection of list MSPs to the Political Party choice. An STV system places the choice of list MSPs – with the electorate. It is a matter of doubt that some of the list MSPs currently sitting in Holyrood are actually, directly electable by the real electorate, given a choice.
The choice of taxes devolved; income tax, for example were chosen by Smith commission from a Westminster Party perspective on the same basis; to make it as difficult for Holyrood to deviate from Westminster as possible.
This is how the Union actually done.
I agree entirely
The de Hindt system is an imposed fix, like so much else
But it is better than Westminster right now
But it is no model for the future
Yes and No Richard, I suppose it may depend on your point of view, such are the intricacies of the voting system we use. Maybe the clearest way to explain it is this extract from his Wikipedia page:
‘Fraser became an MSP in 2001, after the resignation of Nick Johnston, as next name on the Conservative Party’s Mid Scotland and Fife list. He gained a list seat in 2003, 2007, 2011, 2016 and 2021, having lost to John Swinney on each occasion in the constituency vote. Previously the convenor of the Economy, Energy, and Tourism Committee, Fraser is a member of the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament.’
In essence, he’s rejected in the FPTP part of the vote, known as the ‘constituency vote’ every time, then simply because the Tories do so badly in the first vote, they are guaranteed to pick up ‘list seats’, the PR portion of the vote.
Even in the PR portion of the vote, which is done on a regional basis, the Mid Scotland and Fife area elects a total of 7MSP’s (the area in which Fraser was standing) the Tories won 3 of the 7 seats with only 16% of the vote in 2007. In 2003 they won 3 seats out of 7 on 17% of the vote and 2011 won 2 out of 7 on 14%.
So yes, I’m wrong in that technically he is elected , but to say he has won takes a big stretch of the imagination, as voters clearly reject him as a popular candidate.
I know you are aware of our voting system up here, but I’m sure many of your readers may not be. It’s worth reading up on as it may highlight some of the pitfalls of certain kinds of PR systems.
See other comments this morning on the de Hondt system here
I agree that the current system in Scotland is not perfect…and suggested this was the case. However, compared to the current UK FPTP system that has resulted in an utterly incompetent, incoherent ideologue who is clearly incapable of rational thought pursuing policies that are clearly wrong, it is much better.
PR will not in or of itself resolve all political or economic issues. Nor will it entirely stop incompetent, untalented, self-aggrandising and self-entitled people from entering politics and possibly even be a part of the overall governance structure despite not having actually won a majority vote. However, it can bring balance and, over time, it should improve the quality of people who enter politics.
In reality there is not a perfect system and, as we have seen with the likes of Johnson and Truss, who have both become PM despite no evidence of any real intelligence, professional capability or even the ability to comply with expected standards of public life, we surely must strive to replace what is inarguably a broken system, otherwise, we are held captive to their egos and self-interests. Whilst being an idealistic view, I would much rather strive for a balance achieved through PR and broadening the quality of input to policy – recognising that a Murdo Fraser may somehow sneak in – than be subjected to the ideology of people who do not enjoy a majority of support.
Truss in her Britannia Unhinged mindset stridently praises free market principles. I cannot imagine who would wish to employ her (or Johnson) but I was thinking that she wouldn’t have passed her probationary period that most – if not all – people have to serve when they start a new job. She would be out! Equally, in a more balanced parliament achieved via PR, I cannot imagine that she would have been able to do what she has done.
I also believe we need to get rid off the Lords. It is ineffectual as a moderator of parliament and most put in are stooges with a political and self-interest. Just look at who BoJo nominated.
My caveat is that the total sample size for the whole of the UK was a mere 1712 people out of a current estimated population of 68,681,433 or 0.0025%. Is this sufficient for a reasonable polling prediction? The Scottish sample number is approximately a per capita share of the 1712 total sample, so it is consistent with the rest of the UK data. However, my suspicions were raised by the substantial increase in supposed Labour seats. Other recent polls in Scotland have suggested that any increase in Labour support has been largely as a result of a transfer of Unionist votes from Tories (there’s been a lot of tactical voting among UK Union supporters). These recent Scottish polls don’t suggest a reduction in pro-independence support, so the SNP gains in the Borders and north-east Scotland look like straight SNP gains from Tories. It’s the Central Belt and Western Isles gains by Labour that don’t look realistic. In these constituencies it would be a dog-fight between Labour & SNP in any Westminster election at the moment, but I don’t see Labour (currently with just 1 Scottish seat at Westminster) picking up 12 to 15 seats in the Central Belt and Hebrides.
Four polls have now found broadly similar results
So, I think there is some evidence in this
The most interesting thing about that YouGov poll was that the SNP with 50 or so seats would become the official opposition!
FPTP is a joke.
This tells us a couple of things if it were to happen.
1) Despite a Tory wipe out Labour would have little to no representation in Scotland. Like the Tories, they could not speak as representative of the whole of the UK.
2) It’s also a joke that with 21% support the Tories, love them or hate them – and I hate them, getting just 3 seats would be totally undemocratic. Now the Tories know how the LibDems feel.
Of course, it will be wonderful to see the Tories squirm. They have totally misread the mood of the public, but if Labour think that the public have just turned in favour of a socialist or even a softer social democratic, Blarite alternative they need to think again. The Labour leadership are just as bad as the Tories when it comes to supporting the undemocratic hypocrisy of FPTP.
It is not easy for the Tories to turn this around, but Truss is now on borrowed time. Unlike Thatcher there will be no Falklands war to rescue Truss from her free market, low tax for the rich fantasies. I’ll be surprised if the Tories don’t come back with a new budget within a few weeks. The knives will be out for her already. Truss comes across as cold, heartless, totally lacking in empathy, and totally out of touch with the reality of the situation people face.
Labour may now have a chance to change the political landscape for good by committing to PR even if they got the result above (they won’t). It would show them to be democratic and brave rather than FPTP opportunists.
It’s my belief that FPTP keeps the Tories alive, PR kills them off. Your choice Labour.
Sorry to harp on about Scotland again, but there is an important Labour narrative about to be destroyed if such a poll was reflected in an election.
Going by the poll, Labour would win on English seats solely.
Key to Labour’s defence of the UK in the Independence referendum was a (false) argument that without a strong Labour showing in Scotland in a GE, the UK would be doomed to permanent Tory rule. Therefore, how could we Scots sacrifice our English brethren to such a fate !
This was, and still is, trotted out by Labour politicians in Scotland as a key argument against Independence. Losing it would be a tactical blow.
Elephant in the room: the House of Lords. Completely undemocratic and yet can provide a counter balance to the wilder policies of the supposedly elected house. What to do?
I agree the UK would be better with proportional representation. But that introduces two immediate issues: what form, and how to get it from our current starting point.
I don’t know what the answer is to “what form of PR” but the fact there is no consensus of any sort makes it a lot harder to make a public case for changing.
To get PR – well there is no chance of the Conservatives introducing it. And it is difficult to see any chance of Labour backing PR if they got in under FPTP based on their track record. A hung parliament resulting in a coalition involving the Liberals and Greens might, but that didn’t work out for Nick Clegg so you can’t have much optimism. Possibly your proposal yesterday for a cross-party coalition without an election could introduce PR as one of its reasons for existence, but that pre-supposes a split in the Conservative Party producing a moderate splinter that could join such a coalition, and there is absolutely no sign of the necessary group of “sensible” Tories.
There must somehow be a route to PR (please….) but I can’t realistically see one at this point.
Others raise the related matter (thinking of democratic validity) of the House of Lords. The current undemocratic system does at least have the huge benefit that government proposals are scrutinised and challenged by people who actually have serious expertise and credibility in the topic, and in many cases are cross-benchers not simply following a party allegiance. Changing them for party stooges would rather undermine the rationale for a second chamber – an alternative system needs careful thought but at least one can think of possibilities.
If we can’t see a route to PR frankly we cannot see a route to survival
The route is the power of argument
80% of Labour is persuaded
It is unlikely that a Lords or Senate of appointees would be acceptable to people today.
But I do think there is a very good case for having some appointed because they could bring expertise and experience. Possibly some former leaders of the TUC and CBI, Chief of Defence Staff, Senior ambassadors, people from devolved assemblies, Economists and possibly some people who have made contributions in other fields and can speak from non official backgrounds such as environmental activists , writers, lawyers, scientists, and so on. A problem is numbers and who is left out. How long do they serve?
But they would need to be appointed by an independent body. No more appointing the Prime Minister’s brother as Boris did. I just looked at the creation of life peers since 2010 and they are overwhelmingly Conservative. Cameron less so.
It would be an opportunity to define their constitutional role and that of the Head of State. The occasion of the Queen agreeing to the Prorogation of Parliament caused me to re-assess the role of monarchy. Until then I had accepted it as, in Bagehot’s words, the dignified branch of the constitution. It gave a little colour to the dreary process.