{"id":76539,"date":"2024-07-06T07:30:21","date_gmt":"2024-07-06T06:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=76539"},"modified":"2024-07-06T07:30:21","modified_gmt":"2024-07-06T06:30:21","slug":"if-we-had-pr-labour-would-now-be-negotiating-support-so-that-it-might-form-a-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2024\/07\/06\/if-we-had-pr-labour-would-now-be-negotiating-support-so-that-it-might-form-a-government\/","title":{"rendered":"If we had PR Labour would now be negotiating support so that it might form a government"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Electoral Reform Society (of which I am a member) sent this commentary out in an email last night:<\/p>\n

The Electoral Reform Society has modelled what the new parliament would look like after the general election under proportional representation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The modelling shows what Parliament would look like under the Additional Member System (AMS) of proportional representation (PR), which is used for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments as well as the London Assembly, compared to the results under the current Westminster system of First Past the Post (FPTP)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nVote share<\/td>\nAMS - MPs<\/td>\nFPTP - MPs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Labour<\/td>\n33.7%<\/td>\n236<\/td>\n412<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Conservatives<\/td>\n23.7%<\/td>\n157<\/td>\n121<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reform<\/td>\n14.3%<\/td>\n94<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lib Dems<\/td>\n12.2%<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Greens<\/td>\n6.8%<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SNP<\/td>\n2.5%<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Plaid<\/td>\n0.7%<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A visual representation of how the results would look for PR compared to the First Past the Post results can be found here\u00a0https:\/\/public.flourish.studio\/visualisation\/18633267\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The Parliament elected under PR would far more closely reflect the way the country voted. It could lead to a number of scenarios politically, and likely lead to a government that represented a far greater share of voters. For instance, a Labour, Lib Dem, Green coalition under AMS would represent 52.7% of voters, rather than the just 33.7% represented by the Labour majority government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I was pleased to note this additional comment:<\/p>\n

\u00a0In the coming weeks, the Electoral Reform Society will also be releasing a model of the 2024 General Election result under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of PR, which is the ERS\u2019s preferred system and used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I much prefer STV to the AMS system of PR.<\/p>\n

The visual comparisons are:<\/p>\n

\"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

If we had PR Labour should now be entering into negotiations with the LibDems and Greens to deliver a government that would, most likely, have represented a majority of the country, and would have done for some time to come. Instead, it has a wholly unjustified landslide majority.<\/p>\n

I am not sure that our democracy can survive this for much longer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Electoral Reform Society (of which I am a member) sent this commentary out in an email last night: The Electoral Reform Society has modelled
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[122,106],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-election","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76539"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76539\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76542,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76539\/revisions\/76542"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}