I just posted this short video on YouTube, TikTok and elsewhere:
And, yes, the video does include a mistake. I say first past the post increases constituency size when, of course, it is PR that dues that.
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:
At 48 seconds in I think you mean PR not first past the post???
I do…
At 51 secs do you mean PR increases the size of constituencies? You actually say FPTP.
Oops – missed that
Delivering even a two minute talk without “hesitation, deviation or repetition “, is difficult. The TV hosts have autocues. I think you do it well.
I think Labour people who admit they voted for another party, at some time when they were members of the Labour Party, are expelled.
Thanks
I am doing these unscripted after writing a prior outline
Richard, l hesitate to suggest, given your incredible work rate, that you reshoot video, but I I think the blooper noted above needs to be corrected.
Anyway, you are of course correct re labour’s stupidly in refusing both in the past and now to change to PR. I believe the reason is their grotesque tribalism, known as ‘labourism’, a term I saw one of the many erudite contributors to this blog use a few weeks ago. The ludicrous belief that only labour can represent progressive or non Tory opinions in the UK, and therefore their absolute refusal to work with the greens, SNP, LDs etc to the point that they are more concerned with fighting other left wingers than the political right. With the result that the right have an unearned, undeserved and disastrous grip on power here. What unforgiveable stupidly and arrogance on their part. Labour are a disgrace.
Mistakes happen and we cannot reshot this weekend
The lessons learned though – listen with more care
Of course, and given the amount of work you do to promote political and economic sanity, I’m amazed you don’t make more mistakes.
Yup, I saw Blake Homebrew as well, he he he!
I have two thoughts right now
One is that perfection is the enemy of the good
The other is that very soon anyone will be able to create an AI video of me saying anything….so is a minor slip an issue?
Please don’t think I’m mocking you, but when “Plaid Cymru” was subtitled as “Blake Homebrew” I spat my tea over my phone.
On the bright side, I now have a new stage name.
Oops….adder learn we will get more time for checkkng
Not all versions of PR have the characteristics you describe. In particular, the Additional Member system keeps the one-MP-per-constituency relationship.
Please elaborate on the different types of PR.
I am specifically interested in how Germany does PR.
Wikipedia explains better than I can…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Voting_system
New Zealand has a very similar system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand#Mixed-member_proportional_(MMP)_representation
Scotland also has a similar system, but the additional members are elected by region, and dominate the end result, which in my opinion disadvantages smaller parties. It also means the constituencies are larger, so constituency MSPs are less local.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Scotland
What I have been looking at are variants of two-vote systems. I realize the German system is such a system but I decided not to look at the specifics of it until I had completely worked out my own ideas. It shall post something probably by the end of the week.
@Bernard Hurley,
Looking forward to reading your report. Will Richard allow you to post it on the this site?
Probably…
I’ve never seen a party that’s so desperate to get into government but yet plan to do nothing. Where’s the hope, the dreams, the future?
I suspect those all involve being very well rewarded for doing favours for their corporate sponsors. We mere peasants, having nothing of value to offer, don’t get a look-in.
Hi Richard,
I’m afraid you are completely wrong in your assumptions about PR and British people. Britain is, in fact, conservative in political outlook, and has been for a long time. There is a false assumption that we have some special notion of “fairness”, which is untrue, and is only the result of years of propaganda. In truth, Britain is no different than any other nation in this regard.
In fact PR would not change the political position, because parties would find ways to work around it (in Ireland Sinn Fein are the largest party, but Fine gael and Fianna fáil, so called “enemies”, suddenly found they could work together to keep them out of government).
You will also be aware that a very powerful propaganda campaign, by the media and others, convinced the UK that a lifelong anti-racist and peace campaigner (Corbyn) was an antiSemite (this has to rank as one of the most disgusting abuses of power in British political history).
So the idea that PR would keep labour in power, is false.
What PR does do, that FPTP doesn’t, is level the access to the political playing field. FPTP allows the party system to keep those who the establishment does not like, out of power. PR breaks that – but PR also allows other vested interests, to access political power, very powerful ones. So whilst PR is fairer, it also takes more work to prevent political excess.
I do agree that PR is the only system that can deliver some sort of democratic government, but it is dangerous to assume that Labour would be the party to benefit from it. In fact, if the current Labour party “LINO”, was to maintain power for years, we would be in a very bad state.
Regards
People are overwhelmingly social democratic in this country according to all surveys
“So whilst PR is fairer, it also takes more work to prevent political excess”.
I think your argument is sound, and that is a very fair conclusion. Democracy is hard, and the need for vigilance never ends; and no system is perfect. The fact is vested interest groups are a permanent feature of lpolitics, even when the change or adapt. neither vested interests or the people behind them like losing elections, and will look for ways to ‘play the system’ to advantage; and, frankly – cheat if necessary. After all, that is nothing more than a thumbnail of British political history; and it is alve and well – going nowhere.
You listed the natural desire for fairness, effective public services, fair taxation and tackling inequality.
The majority also want democracy: First, Jeremy Corbyn spoke vigorously for the values you so accurately describe. He has short-comings but he was much more popular than Kier Starmer. Second, the Labour Party at a national meeting, has already voted for PR. Third, Johnson withdrew the whip from 21 MPs (including 2 former chancellors) who had supported an emergency debate about Brexit. Fourth, Kier Starmer has been similarly illiberal.
Thus, both the major neoliberal parties require their MPs to compromise their integrity.
Without integrity, nothing works well.
This is excellent stuff – keep ’em coming! Many thanks. (Am a massive supporter of PR – joined Compass a few years ago because of that.)
As an aside, I’ve often wondered (and amused myself) as to the future contortions a future Tory opposition during the run-up to a future general election will go through to try to win over more liberal and progressive voters (as that is a growing segment of the electorate).
We have Starmer now trying to court reactionary elderly (mostly male) voters with: “vote for me and I’ll press the button merrily”
And we had Cameron in the run up to the 2010 election: “the most precious words in my vocabulary – N. H. S.” (I can’t remember the exact quote). Cameron didn’t really value the NHS as the Lansley reforms played out.
What will a future opposition Tory leader say (that they don’t believe) in the run up to a future election, to try to win over more liberal types? It’s an interesting thought experiment!
I promised to post something about my proposed PR system some time ago. But I have been working on various possible systems and keep having new thoughts about it. For the moment I will just say it is possible to deliver PR keeping constituencies exactly as they are, with one representative per constituency and no additional lists etc..
To say that PR necessarily involves larger constituencies is incorrect.
Bernard,
I ask this question above but think it is worth re-asking: How does Germany handle PR??
Hi Richard,
I know you can’t reshoot this video immediately but I would strongly suggest you take it down if you possibly can and and at least take it off here.
All the people who come here are not your friends.
There is a real possibility for a mischief maker to clip that section and publish it as “he doesn’t know what he is talking about” clickbait.
I would hate to see that happen.
Having been to London and back delivering my elder son to his new flat/room I have but had time to think about this.
Let me do so…..
Why not PR for Labour? Probably similar to why not get rid of the House Lords. Because big money would slaughter them if they tried. They like the status quo too much. The only time you’ll hear Labour going on about PR or HoL abolishment is when they are in opposition and way down in the polls. So it’s just meaningless posturing that gets dropped anytime they are anywhere near to being in government.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/13/labour-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-meeting-financial-services-companies-donation
June 2023 – Labour said it is standing by its pledge to abolish the House of Lords in the first term.
https://archive.ph/id9QM
Feb 2024 – Labour delays plans to abolish House of Lords
https://archive.ph/4BTS1
That’s not an argument Ian, it’s capitulation. FPTP and the HOL are decades out of date and need to be replaced by more democratic, rational systems.
Nothing would change if we all accepted the status quo. Which is why labour’s spinelessness in constantly watering down/dropping/u turning any decent progressive policy means they aren’t worth voting for.
As a Yank seeing first-hand on daily basis the problems with the US Senate, I can understand the reasoning and therefore need to have a non-elected Upper Chamber which is really a “Senate for Life”. As UK does not have written constitution, the House of Lords could easily and correctly be fixed if anyone had the “bullocks” to do it.
What I do not understand is this: why does the House of Lords have 790 members and why do they need 790 members? The 790 members CANNOT all be experts in something.
The House of Commons only has 650 members so could the House of Lords not get by with 99 hereditary peers and 201 true expert life peers for a total of 300 members?
Good question
It is clearly bloated
400 members – none hereditary – would be enough
Richard,
Baby steps, Richard, Baby steps. Reformation of the House of Lords will be easier with public consensus. Go on have 99 elected Hereditary Peers and as they die off just don’t replace them. They won’t retire if they know they will not be replaced so do it attrition.
In my arrogant Yank opinion, the only way you will get complete abolition of hereditary peers is if the House of Windsor collapses for some reason.
Also, FPTP narrows the political debate until there can be no movement. Only the marginals matter, and if that means Mondeo men, then that’s who your policies must appeal to. If marginals held the unemployed, the parties would compete to make their lives better, not worse. But they don’t.
In turn, this encourages the cynicism of the political parties. You don’t stand for anything, you present an image that might appeal to the target groups. The headline grabbing, short-term, stupid politics. Anything else is unrealistic and naïve. Corbyn got lots more votes than Blair’s third election, but in the wrong places so they didn’t count for anything. PR means you cannot take your supporters for granted.
But it’s not just a British problem: for years, the Spanish equivalent of the Labour party would not go into coalition with Podemos, the anti-austerity party, so as not to allow them any credibility. Spanish Labour (as in Scotland) preferred to ally with the conservatives.
And, while PR must be better than our horrible system, the drawbacks should be recognised. It’s true that the middle parties get more influence than their numbers warrant. And, in a list system, the parties choose who is going to be at the top of the lists: so, Scottish Labour kept their right-wing leaders even when the Labour vote had collapsed; they are entrenched by the system. On the other hand, Starmer is entrenched too, so it’s not just a failing of PR lists.
But yes, your overall point – the Labour leadership doesn’t really mind if the conservatives get back in. Apart from losing sponsorship, maybe. But they preferred the conservatives to Corbyn, just as Spanish Labour tried to undermine Podemos.
But at least there was a Podemus for them to try to undermine. In a FPTP system it would have been unlikely to have any significant representation at all.
@Bernard Hurley,
Have you perused “Rank Choice” balloting and voting?
Some states and municipality in the US use “Rank Choice”.
Also “Rank Choice” balloting and voting is completely different from the “Gonzo Primary” system used in California though one can have “Rank Choice” balloting and voting in a “Gonzo Primary”.
FPTP probably does narrow the political debate quite considerably.. maybe more than we think….
According to Chantal Mouffe the convergence of the two main parties into neoliberal orthodoxy with barely a fag paper between them on a majority of policy, and especially economic policy, actually increases the prospect of populism emerging both to right and left.
If PR does allow that differentiation to return then it ought to weaken the extremes of populism.
” the strong appeal of ‘anti-establishment’ parties is due to the incapacity of established democratic parties to put forward significant alternatives and….can only be grasped within the context of the consensual mode of politics prevalent today.”
“The growing success of populist parties provides an excellent illustration of ….. the absence of an agonistic debate among democratic parties, a confrontation between different politicaI projects, (so that) voters did (do) not have the possibility of identifying with a differentiated range of democratic political identities.
This created a void that was likely to be occupied by other forms of identifications which could become problematic for the working of the democratic system.”
“right-wing populist discourse,… is replacing the weakened left/right opposition by a new type of we/they constructed around an opposition between ‘the people’ and ‘the establishment'”
She wrote this before the 2016 referendum I think… but her arguments may partially account for the success of Brexit campaigners sticking it to the establishment..
I really must read this….
Richard,
Please do! Then please summarize the article and make make a post out of it.
I still do not understand why BREXIT passed when 70% (maybe 80%) of the people who voted for it were actually voting for tighter controls on immigration and limited Freedom of Movement. Did the 70% of BREXIT voters not realize that BREXIT would NOT produce tighter controls on immigration?
Also, I never understood why many Brits had a problem with “Paul the Polish plumber”, Spartacus the Greek Sparky” and “Boris the Bulgarian Bricklayer”. I really do not believe that anyone in Florida would have a problem with a plumber, electrician or bricklayer that was from New Jersey, Texas or Minnesota.
The answer is straightforward racism
I looked up Chantal Mouffe and learned quite a bit (though frankly some of this on political philosophy is very ‘wordy’ and hard work reading!). Here’s an article that covers her and others and helps understand the ‘democratic’ basis of what are sometimes simply called populists. It introduces class perspectives, but doesn’t make (neo) Marxism exclusive or even central.
https://publicseminar.org/2016/06/mouffe/
BayTampaBay – exactly the same people would have a problem with American commenters. Racism gives identity to the eternally put-upon tiny-minded underdogs of British society and perhaps thanks to the ever-present jackbooted heels of our oppressive ruling classes we have a lot of them.
@Bill Kruse,
In my experience with Brits in Florida, it seems to be the English that have an underlying distaste for the US as a whole. The Welsh, Scotts and Northern Irish that I have meet do not seem to have an an underlying distaste for Yanks.
Despite the mess created Thatcher and her ghouls have one last throw of the dice The Incredible Disappearing Labour Party!
I’ve been in favour of PR for decades (ever since I was a Young Liberal for a couple of years – remember Jeremy Thorpe?) but I have some reservations. Scottish Council elections use STV and as someone pointed out further up, even supposed enemies can find an excuse to work in coalition and so in some councils you have Labour and Tories working together to form an administration simply to keep the SNP out. Who’s to say it couldn’t happen in Westminster?
But PR is a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about radical, revolutionary even, change in our political system. There’s a whole list of things that need to be done before we even approach getting a democratic parliament in the UK, one of the most important is changing the baleful influence of parties and the whole ecosystem surrounding them – whipping, party discipline, “donations”, candidate selection and so on.
I accept the necessary but not sufficient condition
It is not even as if FPTP has been Labour’s friend in recent times because since 1979, the Tories have been in power for 32 of those 45 years. Labour have only won when they became Tory lite.
I think what would be interesting is, if every time an opinion poll was taken, people were asked how would you vote if we had PR? FPTP now clearly encourages tactical voting, with people voting against what they don’t like, rather than for something they do. If we had PR, and the policies of all the parties were the same as now, I would vote Green. However, in the constituency where I vote, the Green Party have no chance, it is a wasted vote. The vote to beat the Tory, is for Labour. I don’t like it, but that is the reality of FPTP.
We also need one of Tory or Labour to support PR to get it through a FPTP Parliament. At least the Labour membership support it. So, step one, get the Tories out, then step two work on Labour to support PR. I know there are those in Labour that plan to do that. I expect Starmer to ignore them, but once the reality sets in that the next Tory Government could be the most right wing of them all, maybe Labour will finally wake up?
Mistakes acknowledged; it’s how we learn. An most people don’t notice.
That is my feeling
Perfection might also be the enemy of the good here
But I did see Thomas last night, and we agreed we’d try harder.
The last two national elections under Proportional Representation in the UK were won by the following:
1. Brexit Party
2. UKIP
Based on most seats.
I like PR, but your analysis fails because you don’t acknowledge the downsides of PR, and don’t acknowledge the benefits of FPTP. There are trade-offs that net off in favour of PR in my view, but please – you’re an academic saying you like to deal with the real world. Well the above are real world results.
The next European elections begin on 6th June 2024 and American liberal supporters of PR here in the UK are going to get a frightener.
They were not won by them
Do you have a clue how PR works?