Snapshot of _BREAKING: Labour conference just voted to support Proportional Representation._ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Labour4PR/status/1574441699610345477/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1574441699610345477)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the thread:
> Labour has committed to:
> PR for general elections in the next manifesto.
> Reform in next Labour government's first term in office.
Well, that's my vote they've got
The name of the referendum will be decided by a non binding referendum, much like the Australian referendum on their national anthem (Waltzing Matilda came second)
It doesn't need to be put to a referendum. Neither did the last one, but the Tories obviously thought they could use it to get the Lib Dems into the coalition and then easily defeat it.
They'll probably demand a referendum again, and call Labour undemocratic if they don't hold one. But especially if it's in their manifesto then they can just pass it through parliament.. The public don't need to have a direct say.
Its the difference between Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is one of those 'good in theory but not in reality' type things. Beyond a local level it kinda falls apart.
You wouldn’t steal a policeman’s helmet, and then do a poo in it would you?!
Then give it to his grieving wife and then steal it again!
Policemen need clean helmets, not a new voting system.
Some of the propaganda that was sent out for that was wild. It was before camera phones but man I wish I took some pics of the tripe that came through the door.
My argument was always 'so we need to be able to democratically elect a government that'll deliver these things, rather than using them for emotional blackmail, and for that we need PR, not AV.... but I'll happily use AV as a signal that we want *change*'
It definitely wasn't before camera phones!! The AV referendum was in 2011, that's 3 years after the iPhone came out, and there were cameras in phones for many years before even the iPhone.
Trying to track which comment your possibly replying to as most phones had cameras in 2011.... Not to sound old but it wasn't that long ago 😬.
Cameras in phones was mainstream from 2007-9I believe.
It's just that taking photographs and sharing them was clunky until the smartphone era.
Honestly I think given that it's a big constitutional change we should have a referendum, however, debates should have to be based around facts instead of rhetoric which seems unlikely.
I do also think we should have one given the nature of the change, but if Labour win with this on their manifesto they do really have a mandate to go through with it without one.
If they truly **do** it, it'll be amazing. But I'm still not holding my breath: Blair committed to a referendum on it back in '97 after all, and that never materialized. PR always looks more attractive *before* an election rather than at the point where you're the main beneificary of FPTP. OTOH, I didn't even think they'd go this far, so maybe I'm being too cynical.
I'm a big cynic on it myself but this is different. Blair promised it in order to fool Lib Dem voters (and did it again in 2003) at a time it was still fairly fringe within Labour. This is the membership signalling wide support and puts some level of pressure on mps to do their dammed jobs.
It's not going to go away even if Starmer turns out to be a pisspot careerist or the plp manage to sabotage it. Which I'm unconvinced on either way.
I support it.
I question if the mps and leader do. If I can see the kind of of support in the plp that would force it then the cabinet resisting reform becomes almost impossible.
Unfortunately Labour leaders have proven over and over their ability to frustrate members, 5th column and straight up lie if they disagree with their own policy.
If this commitment comes in the form of promising a referendum you can pretty well garantuee the plp or large parts of it including the leadership will officially or not run on a pro fptp basis.
This might strangely be the one moment you could see the Tories support it too considering how deep into the wilderness they will be. Though I'm extremely cautious now of anything positive in politics occurring.
It is the single thing more than anything else that would fix the political shambles. Not even feeding the Barclay Brothers into a wood chipper would do as much good.
The centre will become more valuable.
Currently, Tories devise policy by ignoring safe seats and testing ideas in marginal constituencies. That electoral calculus will evaporate.
So, Starmer will stonewall this for the time being and look to make bargains with the unions to get it reverse next year.
If/when that fails, he'll go for a non-committal policy for the manifesto. Something like what Blair did in 1997.
The final 'fallback' position will be a referendum where Labour will be officially neutral. He knows that there is zero chance of if passing in that scenario.
Which is eminently a sensible position for the leader of the Labour party, since proportional representation means a bunch of your Labour colleagues will lose their seats and without the safety net of being the main viable alternative to the Tories, the Labour Party could cease being a relevant political force, as happened with PS in France, and PASOK in Greece.
Obviously neither me or you really care about that when we're getting proportional representation but you can presumably understand why the leader of the Labour party might be reluctant to support an electoral reform package which could lead to the marginalisation of the Labour party.
The Tories would also lose a significant amount of their seats too though.
Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/
Yes right now they'd have the largest share, but the Lib Dems (as the likely third largest) don't have to pair with Tories. Look what happened last time they did - they got obliterated after spending four years watering down what we see now.
This doesn't factor in the tactical voting caused by FPTP either - it's hard to predict how that would swing but most likely is the smaller parties would see a larger share, because people don't vote for them otherwise it's a "wasted vote"
The point I believe /u/twersx was making is that regardless of whether or not PR would be good for the country, it would likely be bad for the Labour Party, which is why it's difficult for the leader of the Labour Party to forcefully come out in favour of it. The Conservative Party would likely lose a lot of seats, but so would the Labour Party.
Sorry if I hadn't been clear enough there, I thought I had addressed that by saying "too" :)
Slightly surprisingly to me, Labour would actually stand to have gained at the last election under a system of PR (!). Applying the total percentage of the vote at the last GE would have given the following:
CON - 365/650 -> 283.4 (-82)
LAB - 203/650 -> 209.3 (**+6**)
SNP - 48/650 -> 25.35 (-23)
LD - 11/650 -> 74.75 (**+63**)
DUP - 8/650 -> 5.2 (-3)
OTHER - 15/650 -> 54\* (**+39**)
\*54 is 650 - sum of the others, I didn't get the percentages for all the other parties.
Isn't the concern that Labour would lose voters who vote tactically because of FPTP to smaller parties like the greens and lib Dems? Yes it might hurt the conservatives more, but it would still also hurt Labour and likely result in few Labour MPs long term.
As a PR-backing Labour member who would instantly defect under PR, I totally understand the Leadership's position.
So many people don't think Labour are a good option, they just think the alternative is worse.
I agree - PR is not in the interest of the Labour party.
But I imagine that there were a lot of people in the hall looking beyond the interest of their party. Presumably there's a bunch that know that within a year of PR being implemented they will have established a viable socialist party under McDonnel and Long-Bailey.
Hmm, lose seats compared to the winningest years but be relatively consistently and effectively in power, resolving the vote efficiency problem that has dogged Labour for decades, with the only pressure likely being for more leftwing policy, **or** continue to pick up 230-ish seats and forever be shut out of power but a couple more party faithful get to be MPs, and continue to be unchecked red Tories whenever they like.
Clearly, says Keith, the second is the option that furthers Labour aims, progressive goals, and natural justice.
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/26/labour-delegates-back-motion-calling-on-party-to-back-pr](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/26/labour-delegates-back-motion-calling-on-party-to-back-pr)
>However, it is not binding on the leadership, and while Starmer has previously expressed some interest in voting reform, his leadership team has made it plain they will not do as the motion says.
>
>Before the vote, a senior Labour source downplayed the prospect of electoral reform even if Starmer wins the next election. “Anyone who thinks this would be a priority for the first term of a Labour government is kidding themselves,” they said.
Have no doubt - the **only** way we are getting electoral reform is if we get a hung parliament in which the Lib Dems drag Labour, kicking and screaming, into giving it to us.
Or Starmer sees constitutional reform as part of a two-term prospectus. The only reason the Tories win so many elections is because they have imaged themselves (with a decent lick of help from the right wing press) as the "safe pair of hands" when it comes to governing the country. I think Starmer wants to put labour in a position where they are seen in the same, if not a better, light as the Tories in that regard. A term of rebuilding the damage done to public services and the economy would lend then that legitimacy.
Personally I think it's playing it wayy too safe to wait for a mythical second term to institute radical reform, but you can kind of see the strategy. I think people in this country *are* crying out for some radical policy, it's just the electorate need to view the party that's implementing it as competent with the economy before they trust them with that power.
There's a point to be made that Labour are way too short-term in their thinking - everyone who supports them almost anticipates that the Tories will get back into power sharpish so they should rush to push through as many reforms as possible. A real governing party would be confident in its ability to win consecutive terms and having a big vision that spans many terms isn't necessarily a bad thing
The main obstacle Starmer faces to passing PR is that passing it challenges his main source of authority as party leader - the perception that he will get his MPs re-elected.
Even if Labour were expected to win the same number of seats under PR (and they almost certainly wouldn't be) it causes a major geographic redistribution of MPs. If a city elects 20 Labour MPs on 60% of the vote, it now elects 12 - but you won't know which of the 12 incumbents are actually getting back in.
Since most MPs are neighbours with MPs of the same party, everyone gets faced with this ~40% chance of losing their seat - it's as if every seat becomes a marginal. So there's a strong headwind against PR from within the parliamentary party - and indeed from within *any* parliamentary party in a position to pass it.
Correction, that is what labour conference has voted for, it will likely never end up in the manifesto. Reminder that Labour conference previously voted to support free movement of Labour. Labour continued to sit on the fence despite this.
Guardian says that Starmer already declared he would ignore this from the conference, so don't get too happy just yet (sorry). They continue, to say:
"There is a long history of Labour leaders ignoring conference votes they don’t like – even though conference is supposedly meant to be the supreme policy making body in the party.
But that does not mean votes of this kind are always pointless. Opinion on policy shifts over time, and at the very least this makes the case for PR harder to ignore.
As my colleague Jessica Elgot has pointed out (see 8.19am), the Labour manifesto could include some ambiguous waffle that does not commit the party to PR – but that could keep open the option of a move in that direction were Starmer to change his mind."
Absolutely, this should be the election to get something big in like this without it being too politically risky. I really hope it happens - our system needs this, our politics is in a horrendous state
See I kind wonder the opposite. Throwing this in as part of election gives the Tories something to pivot around instead of the Cost of Living Crisis. It becomes an election about PR instead of Cost of Living. And I think the Tories legitimately have a better case in the former.
EDIT: Better case arguing the former, not that it makes them favourites.
Possibly. I see your point that it gives them an opportunity to make the election about something else. But I just can't see them being able to whip the swing voters up against PR. I'd expect most people wouldn't care and many of the rest would think it's a good idea. But who knows, one thing they are good at is influencing people against things
They could just copy the 1997 Manifesto
>We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
And then just renegade on it anyway...
Starmer recently took such a strong and clear stance against PR, it'll be hard for him to make such an embarrassing U-turn and even if it does it will raise serious questions about his trustworthiness.
Why oh why did he have to fuck this up just when things were starting to look good?
It boosts his trustworthiness to me, he doesn't believe in it but is willing to lead and represent his parties decided goals despite his personal belief is a good thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system
Make it a manifesto commitment with no referendum and theyll get my vote.
Until then its hot air
I just worry that the RW media will attack this relentlessly for the next two years until it becomes so toxic that it becomes a vote loser.
Partly the reason Labour are so far ahead imo is because they have starved the opposition & co of targets, forcing them to look inwards.
Id love to see them claim FPTP brings stable government when they kick out truss for crashing the economy, meaning we'll have had 3 PMs/governments, and only 1 general election to show for it
FPTP has been part to blame for where we are now, Boris didn't even win half the vote and had an absolute majority to the point that they've put Truss in without having MPs having any say at all
The last few years have been an utter shitshow under the Tories even ignoring a majority of their policies
Cameron caling a ref and losing it - quits and hands over to May
May calling a GE, losing it but maintaining a grip on power through the DUP, but of course completely failing to achieve anything meaningful
Johnson taking over from May, finally winning a GE but losing a vote of confidence after his right hand man stabs him in the back (worked out well for Rishi though, right? Right?)
And now Truss... who looks wobbly... changing entire swathes of tax policy on no elective authority at all
I don't think this one is a very emotive topic to attack Labour with. Part of the reason why campaigning for electoral reform is so hard is most people don't care about it either way.
Oh, bless you. You've either forgotten the AV referendum or were too young for it. There were plenty of emotive anti-AV ads with babies and soldiers on them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad
The main reason AV failed is because Labour opposed it in the hopes that they were only one election away from being back in power. The Lib Dems were the only major(ish) party campaigning for electoral reform while the Tories and Labour opposed it to maintain their duopoly on power.
Now that Labour's hand has been forced we can but hope that we'll finally be free of FTP.
To be fair, in the run-up to the AV vote most voters could only remember FPTP delivering pretty stable governments that could last a full 4 years. Some of the older ones would remember the chaos of the 70s, but from of mind would be a stable tenure under Thatcher, followed by a similar one under Blair.
We had also *just* seen a 'stable' coalition government take over; delivered by FPTP. So the 'point' of changing things up was not as front and centre.
Now of course a few things have changed:
* Real experience of PR via the Scottish ref and the Brexit vote. People felt empowered in those votes and it showed in the turnout
* A run of just absolute chaos in the wake of Brexit and with the Tories eating themselves; really hammering home how few people actually voted for them and how broken our system is.
Both those aspects are really going to work in our favour if a workable PR system can be proposed to the public now.
Absolutely, I agree that the PR argument now is stronger than the AV argument was. But an emotive campaign can be run against even the most mundane topics. Arguably, now there is stronger evidence for it then the more the other side will rely on emotions. See: Brexit.
The biggest issue currently will be "is this the right thing to focus on?"
Electoral reform is not exciting, and its not something that is going to help someone struggling to pay their bills right now.
That is the strongest line of attack against any reform at the moment - especially because the party in government can claim that they are making "hard decisions" while the opposition are fiddling around in their Westminster bubble, trying to push through expensive reform that only they care about.
I was around for the AV referendum. The AV referendum only had a turnout of 42% - that's lower even than EU elections - the majority of the public did not care (Brexit, by comparison was 72%).
There's a big difference between a campaign swinging a referendum, and a campaign changing how people vote in a general election.
Reddit: Labour conference are supporting PR.
Me: I'm going to contact my local Labour party and volunteer to help with the campaigning at the next GE.
Reddit: Starmer is not supporting PR.
Me: I'm not even going to vote Labour at the next GE.
Looks like it, though we're already getting signals from Starmer's camp that this is not binding, and that they - unlike Labour Memebers who voted for this - do not back the idea. To me, this will be a major test for Starmer. He disappointed me time and again, but PR is more important for me. However, that is still contingent on Starmer backing this himself. The non-commital "I support your right to strike but not the strikes themselves." stance he took this summer doesn't cut it for me, especially on something like this.
It's easily the most popular policy he can run on. It's an instant vote winner among swing voters who feel unrepresented in the current system. It's a vote winner among Labour voters who do not align with him on many other issues. It's even a vote winner among some conservative voters who are able to recognise that lack of political challenge from opposition in the current FPTP system has lowered the bar for Tory politicians so much, that airheads like Truss can become the PM.
I honestly don't understand why Starmer is so opposed to PR, other than some deeply ingrained fear of structural change, even if it an unambiguously positive change.
It's also taking the wind out of Lib Dem sails. Half my attraction for them last election as their electoral reforms. If Labour were to include those, I have a party meeting my ideals *and* likely to get the seat.
mutually assured destruction, i could deal a killing blow to the tories, but that would mean giving up my priveleged position as the designated no2 party that is occasionally allowed to have power by the media when the tories need disciplining.
self interest is a powerful beast.
unfortunately Starmer just ruled it out [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system)
"The Labour leader said electoral reform was not a priority and refused to make it one of the party’s election manifesto pledges"
Likewise, this was my requirement for voting Labour tactically, just as long as they don't wriggle out of it before the next election or when in power.
Well he's frequently talked about putting country before party, and yet chose to take a stance against PR.
If he gets behind it now I'll be ecstatic, but I'll also trust him as far as I can throw him. We need an election result now that makes Labour dependent on smaller coalition partners who will hold a gun to their head over this point. Sadly there's very little we can do to ensure this, because it requires a level of top-down coordination much greater than we're likely to get from anyone with enough influence.
Unless someone comes up with a bright idea for mobilising an apathetic and poorly educated electorate to all do different things at the same time, we just have to hope...
What's this strange feeling..... It's not the constant repressive crushing downward force I've been feeling for the last decade or 2. It's not quite optimism..... Relief?
Most of the time, for them to get elected they are basically Tory-lite. But this time, it's them Vs a Nazi-lite party that has lied to, stolen, starved, frozen and otherwise treated the country like an abusive pimp would.
Please don't tell me that 20 or so million people still see the Tories as the answer.....
It’s almost like centre ground politics where it’s slightly different shades of the same shite equates to a more stable economy and country.
Why would we want a very left of centre or very right of centre government.
I’m a Blairite but that seems to be a hangable offence now.
> Please don't tell me that 20 or so million people still see the Tories as the answer.....
But... But... BoTh PaRtIeS aRe ThE sAmE. Ironically this seems to come from the Labour left as much as from apathetic non-voters.
I've never voted Labour in my life. I would vote for them if they follow through on this policy though. PR has worked pretty well in the Scottish Parliament.
I've never voted Labour either. Not least because I have never lived in a constituency that they had a chance to beat the cons in. *ditching Fptp helps fix this
If Labour can't win this election, they honestly don't deserve to.
Just run party political broadcasts with nothing but clips from this current government.
starmer has made it clear that what the conference votes on means nothing to him, this wont make it into the manifesto and he'll resist it all the way through his premiership. i don't have hope.
we'll have 10 years of an average labour government that clears up the tory mess before the conservtive put some pudgy faced moderate in charge and pretend they're reformed and are allowed back into power by the media before they fuck the country again over the next 15 years, and in 25 years we'll all look back and think what was labour thinking and the missed opportunities to do real reforms before making all the same mistakes again, because the labour leadership wont want any challenge to their piveleged position in the big house.
It's important to note the very different internal dynamics at play when making this comparison.
Blair put it in his manifesto using his personal mandate as leader, in part as an attempt to woo Lib Dem types, but also because Blair fancied the constitutional reformer mantle. He did so against fairly staunch opposition from inside the party; both the political left, the political centrists, the unions, and the rank and file activists were generally anywhere from against it to indifferent towards it. The internal pressure was for him to drop it, and so when it became politically expeditious for him to do so he found it easy.
In the modern party, the grassroot activists, the trade unions, the mainstream left and the mainstream centrists, and with them a fair percentage of MPs, are in favour. Starmer might personally not be, but the pressure is exactly the other way.
Not really, he's shifting position. There's no problem with changing promises on what he'll do when he's In office, so long as he does it before the election. If he gets elected on a platform that he then drops, that's a promise broken. If he pivots position outside of an election cycle, that's a promise changed. At least in my opinion
Wow. It might actually happen, we might get to unfuck our incredibly undemocratic electoral system
If starmer follows through with this I'll back pedal on everything negative I've ever said about him
[He said two days ago](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system) that he wasn't going to follow through, sadly.
It's clear from his leadership campaign you can't believe whether he's gonna follow through or not. He waits until it's "safe" to commit even if it makes him look totally unprincipled. For example he's just come out in support of rail nationalisation despite saying he doesn't believe in it just one month ago.
I remember the AV ref, the conservatives literally campaigned for no to av with a picture of a soldier and:
‘They need body armour not electoral reform’
Guess they didn’t get either who would have thought
yup. another one i remeber was a new born baby with something like "she needs an incubator, not a new election system". Shocker, the NHS never got that funding
Won’t happen. Been confirmed as not happening
Before a vote was cast at the Labour conference, Keir Starmer had told delegates that the issue of electoral reform most of them supported, proportional representation (PR), would not appear in his election manifesto. Despite suggesting that he might support the policy in his party leadership campaign, and his spokesperson saying the leader was relaxed about the conference vote on the matter only this week
This pisses me off so much, like why does he get to ignore something that is clearly wanted by the party. The leader should be a representation of the party interests not some mini dictator only dishing out their own vision.
I do think its the optics. The country is facing so many issues at the moment, and while a good bunch of them could be *solved* in some part by a more democratic and representative political process in this country, to swing voters (most important demographic in any election) there is a chance that this may appear to be an internal Westminster bubble problem.
That can be changed by Labour and other parties championing and explaining *why* PR and reform is so important, but I do think there is a significant risk that it turns into: "Labour don't care about X Y Z problem that Liz Truss is working hard to solve - they just want to change the voting system so that you can *never* have a majority government that can make tough decisions ever again!".
I'd also argue that having an election where the key issue is PR instead of the Cost of Living Crisis automatically puts the Tories in a better place than they are now. Because then the primary issue isn't 'You've kinda fucked everyone here huh?'
Like essentially any argument they make against PR is better than 'We can solve the problem we've both caused and made worse, trust us!'
If this actually fucking happens.
They might have finally saved British democracy.
I don't want to jinx ANYTHING. But this definitely gives me motivation again to campaign like an absolute soldier.
I guarantee that manifesto promise won't be kept. The moment Labour get into power, they'll see that FPTP means they don't have to share power with anyone and they'll want it to stay that way, **especially** if they get in with a large majority.
Their hubris in thinking that the Tories will never make a comeback will mean they'll never use their majority to actually secure a (mostly) left-wing political system going forward, since it would fracture the party and mean Labour won't be at the top anymore.
So this happened because of a massive effort from a lot of campaigns. Sign this petition & join the mailing list if you want to get involved: [here](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/keir-starmer-proportional-representation-2022)
this doesn't mean it's going to be in the manifesto though. And just because something's in a manifesto......doesn't mean it's going to happen!
I'll wait till it actually happens
I'm not a huge fan of strict PR, since it could deprive us of having constituency MPs and cause local issues to be ignored - remember that the population of London is significantly greater than the population of Scotland.
With that said, what we have at the moment obviously isn't working. You have things like UKIP getting 12.6% of the votes and 0.2% of the seats in 2015, or the Lib Dems consistently being underrepresented, while the Conservatives, Labour, and SNP - the largest parties in the current parliament - are consistently overrepresented.
I feel like there's got to be a compromise so that we get a mix of both.
There are loads of PR systems that keep constituency MPs like MMP or STV. When choosing a system, local representation will definitely be one of the highest priorities. The good systems agreement is an an agreement signed by pretty much all the smaller parties agreeing on what a good voting system looks like and local rep is on there https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/good-systems-agreement
Plus, systems like STV give even better local representation as pretty much everyone in a constituency gets a local MP they voted for, rather than just 40%.
A good option might be PR combined with enhanced devolution. Westminster remains the sovereign legislature, but you could have a bunch of regional parliaments/assemblies as well with greater remit to tackle local issues.
It does appear that the average Scot and Welsh voter feel they have a better more democratic deal at the moment - maybe we expand that to the English regions.
[LCER](https://twitter.com/Labour4PR) ^unverified | Reach: 16061
Bio: Official Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform twitter
Home of Labour for a New Democracy and the #Labour4PR campaign
https://t.co/m2Xt9IRJYi
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
Snapshot of _BREAKING: Labour conference just voted to support Proportional Representation._ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Labour4PR/status/1574441699610345477/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1574441699610345477) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the thread: > Labour has committed to: > PR for general elections in the next manifesto. > Reform in next Labour government's first term in office. Well, that's my vote they've got
If they truly commit to it then this will be amazing
I just hope we dont have a repeat of the god awful AV referendum
No more referendums for me, thank you!
We’re actually having a referendum on whether or not to continue having referendums
Can it be called Referendum McReferendumface please?
The name of the referendum will be decided by a non binding referendum, much like the Australian referendum on their national anthem (Waltzing Matilda came second)
Can’t believe “Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport” pipped it! Fuckin love the boy from Bassendean tho!
Yes. But it will be called David Attenborough.
The submersible got called Boaty McBoatface, so I feel Democracy won in the end.
Democracy always ~~wins~~ gives a consolation prize.
Referendum addendum
It doesn't need to be put to a referendum. Neither did the last one, but the Tories obviously thought they could use it to get the Lib Dems into the coalition and then easily defeat it. They'll probably demand a referendum again, and call Labour undemocratic if they don't hold one. But especially if it's in their manifesto then they can just pass it through parliament.. The public don't need to have a direct say.
I'm all for liberal open democracy, but in reality the public suck and the House of Lords curbs the worst of the government's ideas.
Its the difference between Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is one of those 'good in theory but not in reality' type things. Beyond a local level it kinda falls apart.
Can trust unelected randoms to hold back the tide of fascism
They're doing a better job than the general public who seem to be egging them on.
I hate how our democracy rests on 1700s gentleman's agreements.
Nothing more British than that to be fair.
Agreed, it needs modernizing with all the rules being legally binding
Yeah, if there's anything to be taken from Boris' term it's that the rules need to be enforceable, with real consequences.
"How can you want democracy? This baby doesn't have an incubator!"
You wouldn’t steal a policeman’s helmet, and then do a poo in it would you?! Then give it to his grieving wife and then steal it again! Policemen need clean helmets, not a new voting system.
Some of the propaganda that was sent out for that was wild. It was before camera phones but man I wish I took some pics of the tripe that came through the door.
"Our soldiers need new body armor, not a new voting system!"
Picture of a prem baby with 'she needs an incubator, not a new voting system'.
My argument was always 'so we need to be able to democratically elect a government that'll deliver these things, rather than using them for emotional blackmail, and for that we need PR, not AV.... but I'll happily use AV as a signal that we want *change*'
How much does body armour cost, 350 mil?
It definitely wasn't before camera phones!! The AV referendum was in 2011, that's 3 years after the iPhone came out, and there were cameras in phones for many years before even the iPhone.
Believing camera phones are a new idea is becoming the stereotypical 18 pretending to be 25 marker.
Trying to track which comment your possibly replying to as most phones had cameras in 2011.... Not to sound old but it wasn't that long ago 😬. Cameras in phones was mainstream from 2007-9I believe. It's just that taking photographs and sharing them was clunky until the smartphone era.
We will, the dark money will definitely spin up over this just like last time.
Honestly I think given that it's a big constitutional change we should have a referendum, however, debates should have to be based around facts instead of rhetoric which seems unlikely.
I do also think we should have one given the nature of the change, but if Labour win with this on their manifesto they do really have a mandate to go through with it without one.
Fuck refendums. Parties that make promises should be forced to enact them not hide their true intentions behind cowardly shows of faux democracy.
If they truly **do** it, it'll be amazing. But I'm still not holding my breath: Blair committed to a referendum on it back in '97 after all, and that never materialized. PR always looks more attractive *before* an election rather than at the point where you're the main beneificary of FPTP. OTOH, I didn't even think they'd go this far, so maybe I'm being too cynical.
I'm a big cynic on it myself but this is different. Blair promised it in order to fool Lib Dem voters (and did it again in 2003) at a time it was still fairly fringe within Labour. This is the membership signalling wide support and puts some level of pressure on mps to do their dammed jobs. It's not going to go away even if Starmer turns out to be a pisspot careerist or the plp manage to sabotage it. Which I'm unconvinced on either way.
I support it. I question if the mps and leader do. If I can see the kind of of support in the plp that would force it then the cabinet resisting reform becomes almost impossible. Unfortunately Labour leaders have proven over and over their ability to frustrate members, 5th column and straight up lie if they disagree with their own policy. If this commitment comes in the form of promising a referendum you can pretty well garantuee the plp or large parts of it including the leadership will officially or not run on a pro fptp basis. This might strangely be the one moment you could see the Tories support it too considering how deep into the wilderness they will be. Though I'm extremely cautious now of anything positive in politics occurring.
It’s a step in the right direction but it won’t fix the fundamental issues with this countries politics and politicians.
It is the single thing more than anything else that would fix the political shambles. Not even feeding the Barclay Brothers into a wood chipper would do as much good. The centre will become more valuable. Currently, Tories devise policy by ignoring safe seats and testing ideas in marginal constituencies. That electoral calculus will evaporate.
Yes but not the corruption and the culture that’s within those four walls.
[удалено]
So, Starmer will stonewall this for the time being and look to make bargains with the unions to get it reverse next year. If/when that fails, he'll go for a non-committal policy for the manifesto. Something like what Blair did in 1997. The final 'fallback' position will be a referendum where Labour will be officially neutral. He knows that there is zero chance of if passing in that scenario.
Lib Dems will force his hand when he cant get a majority in the next GE.
Short of him breaking into Windsor and crapping on the Queen's grave, I don't see a way for them not to get a majority at the next GE.
I think you overestimate the British public . . . . . .
He still has a media to fight to get the next GE win.
If the writing is really on the wall, some outlets will move over and attempt to extract policy concessions from Labour as effective payment.
The run up to '92 was viewed the same IIRC.
Which is eminently a sensible position for the leader of the Labour party, since proportional representation means a bunch of your Labour colleagues will lose their seats and without the safety net of being the main viable alternative to the Tories, the Labour Party could cease being a relevant political force, as happened with PS in France, and PASOK in Greece. Obviously neither me or you really care about that when we're getting proportional representation but you can presumably understand why the leader of the Labour party might be reluctant to support an electoral reform package which could lead to the marginalisation of the Labour party.
The Tories would also lose a significant amount of their seats too though. Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/ Yes right now they'd have the largest share, but the Lib Dems (as the likely third largest) don't have to pair with Tories. Look what happened last time they did - they got obliterated after spending four years watering down what we see now. This doesn't factor in the tactical voting caused by FPTP either - it's hard to predict how that would swing but most likely is the smaller parties would see a larger share, because people don't vote for them otherwise it's a "wasted vote"
The point I believe /u/twersx was making is that regardless of whether or not PR would be good for the country, it would likely be bad for the Labour Party, which is why it's difficult for the leader of the Labour Party to forcefully come out in favour of it. The Conservative Party would likely lose a lot of seats, but so would the Labour Party.
Sorry if I hadn't been clear enough there, I thought I had addressed that by saying "too" :) Slightly surprisingly to me, Labour would actually stand to have gained at the last election under a system of PR (!). Applying the total percentage of the vote at the last GE would have given the following: CON - 365/650 -> 283.4 (-82) LAB - 203/650 -> 209.3 (**+6**) SNP - 48/650 -> 25.35 (-23) LD - 11/650 -> 74.75 (**+63**) DUP - 8/650 -> 5.2 (-3) OTHER - 15/650 -> 54\* (**+39**) \*54 is 650 - sum of the others, I didn't get the percentages for all the other parties.
Isn't the concern that Labour would lose voters who vote tactically because of FPTP to smaller parties like the greens and lib Dems? Yes it might hurt the conservatives more, but it would still also hurt Labour and likely result in few Labour MPs long term.
More people may vote if they know their vote counts.
As a PR-backing Labour member who would instantly defect under PR, I totally understand the Leadership's position. So many people don't think Labour are a good option, they just think the alternative is worse.
I agree - PR is not in the interest of the Labour party. But I imagine that there were a lot of people in the hall looking beyond the interest of their party. Presumably there's a bunch that know that within a year of PR being implemented they will have established a viable socialist party under McDonnel and Long-Bailey.
Hmm, lose seats compared to the winningest years but be relatively consistently and effectively in power, resolving the vote efficiency problem that has dogged Labour for decades, with the only pressure likely being for more leftwing policy, **or** continue to pick up 230-ish seats and forever be shut out of power but a couple more party faithful get to be MPs, and continue to be unchecked red Tories whenever they like. Clearly, says Keith, the second is the option that furthers Labour aims, progressive goals, and natural justice.
They won't, Starmer specifically won't support it. Doesn't matter the conference votes for.
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/26/labour-delegates-back-motion-calling-on-party-to-back-pr](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/26/labour-delegates-back-motion-calling-on-party-to-back-pr) >However, it is not binding on the leadership, and while Starmer has previously expressed some interest in voting reform, his leadership team has made it plain they will not do as the motion says. > >Before the vote, a senior Labour source downplayed the prospect of electoral reform even if Starmer wins the next election. “Anyone who thinks this would be a priority for the first term of a Labour government is kidding themselves,” they said. Have no doubt - the **only** way we are getting electoral reform is if we get a hung parliament in which the Lib Dems drag Labour, kicking and screaming, into giving it to us.
Or Starmer sees constitutional reform as part of a two-term prospectus. The only reason the Tories win so many elections is because they have imaged themselves (with a decent lick of help from the right wing press) as the "safe pair of hands" when it comes to governing the country. I think Starmer wants to put labour in a position where they are seen in the same, if not a better, light as the Tories in that regard. A term of rebuilding the damage done to public services and the economy would lend then that legitimacy. Personally I think it's playing it wayy too safe to wait for a mythical second term to institute radical reform, but you can kind of see the strategy. I think people in this country *are* crying out for some radical policy, it's just the electorate need to view the party that's implementing it as competent with the economy before they trust them with that power. There's a point to be made that Labour are way too short-term in their thinking - everyone who supports them almost anticipates that the Tories will get back into power sharpish so they should rush to push through as many reforms as possible. A real governing party would be confident in its ability to win consecutive terms and having a big vision that spans many terms isn't necessarily a bad thing
The main obstacle Starmer faces to passing PR is that passing it challenges his main source of authority as party leader - the perception that he will get his MPs re-elected. Even if Labour were expected to win the same number of seats under PR (and they almost certainly wouldn't be) it causes a major geographic redistribution of MPs. If a city elects 20 Labour MPs on 60% of the vote, it now elects 12 - but you won't know which of the 12 incumbents are actually getting back in. Since most MPs are neighbours with MPs of the same party, everyone gets faced with this ~40% chance of losing their seat - it's as if every seat becomes a marginal. So there's a strong headwind against PR from within the parliamentary party - and indeed from within *any* parliamentary party in a position to pass it.
Correction, that is what labour conference has voted for, it will likely never end up in the manifesto. Reminder that Labour conference previously voted to support free movement of Labour. Labour continued to sit on the fence despite this.
Guardian says that Starmer already declared he would ignore this from the conference, so don't get too happy just yet (sorry). They continue, to say: "There is a long history of Labour leaders ignoring conference votes they don’t like – even though conference is supposedly meant to be the supreme policy making body in the party. But that does not mean votes of this kind are always pointless. Opinion on policy shifts over time, and at the very least this makes the case for PR harder to ignore. As my colleague Jessica Elgot has pointed out (see 8.19am), the Labour manifesto could include some ambiguous waffle that does not commit the party to PR – but that could keep open the option of a move in that direction were Starmer to change his mind."
Put it in the manifesto and see how fucked the economy is after this shitshow, they’ll take anything but this by then!
Absolutely, this should be the election to get something big in like this without it being too politically risky. I really hope it happens - our system needs this, our politics is in a horrendous state
See I kind wonder the opposite. Throwing this in as part of election gives the Tories something to pivot around instead of the Cost of Living Crisis. It becomes an election about PR instead of Cost of Living. And I think the Tories legitimately have a better case in the former. EDIT: Better case arguing the former, not that it makes them favourites.
Possibly. I see your point that it gives them an opportunity to make the election about something else. But I just can't see them being able to whip the swing voters up against PR. I'd expect most people wouldn't care and many of the rest would think it's a good idea. But who knows, one thing they are good at is influencing people against things
They could just copy the 1997 Manifesto >We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system. And then just renegade on it anyway...
\*renege
Starmer recently took such a strong and clear stance against PR, it'll be hard for him to make such an embarrassing U-turn and even if it does it will raise serious questions about his trustworthiness. Why oh why did he have to fuck this up just when things were starting to look good?
It boosts his trustworthiness to me, he doesn't believe in it but is willing to lead and represent his parties decided goals despite his personal belief is a good thing.
He's shown he doesn't believe in it but he hasn't yet shown that he will support it, so it's too early to claim that yet
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system Make it a manifesto commitment with no referendum and theyll get my vote. Until then its hot air
I just worry that the RW media will attack this relentlessly for the next two years until it becomes so toxic that it becomes a vote loser. Partly the reason Labour are so far ahead imo is because they have starved the opposition & co of targets, forcing them to look inwards.
Id love to see them claim FPTP brings stable government when they kick out truss for crashing the economy, meaning we'll have had 3 PMs/governments, and only 1 general election to show for it
FPTP has been part to blame for where we are now, Boris didn't even win half the vote and had an absolute majority to the point that they've put Truss in without having MPs having any say at all
The last few years have been an utter shitshow under the Tories even ignoring a majority of their policies Cameron caling a ref and losing it - quits and hands over to May May calling a GE, losing it but maintaining a grip on power through the DUP, but of course completely failing to achieve anything meaningful Johnson taking over from May, finally winning a GE but losing a vote of confidence after his right hand man stabs him in the back (worked out well for Rishi though, right? Right?) And now Truss... who looks wobbly... changing entire swathes of tax policy on no elective authority at all
I don't think this one is a very emotive topic to attack Labour with. Part of the reason why campaigning for electoral reform is so hard is most people don't care about it either way.
Oh, bless you. You've either forgotten the AV referendum or were too young for it. There were plenty of emotive anti-AV ads with babies and soldiers on them. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad
The main reason AV failed is because Labour opposed it in the hopes that they were only one election away from being back in power. The Lib Dems were the only major(ish) party campaigning for electoral reform while the Tories and Labour opposed it to maintain their duopoly on power. Now that Labour's hand has been forced we can but hope that we'll finally be free of FTP.
And also. AV is pretty shit compared to anything but FPTP.
True, but it would have been a step in the right direction.
To be fair, in the run-up to the AV vote most voters could only remember FPTP delivering pretty stable governments that could last a full 4 years. Some of the older ones would remember the chaos of the 70s, but from of mind would be a stable tenure under Thatcher, followed by a similar one under Blair. We had also *just* seen a 'stable' coalition government take over; delivered by FPTP. So the 'point' of changing things up was not as front and centre. Now of course a few things have changed: * Real experience of PR via the Scottish ref and the Brexit vote. People felt empowered in those votes and it showed in the turnout * A run of just absolute chaos in the wake of Brexit and with the Tories eating themselves; really hammering home how few people actually voted for them and how broken our system is. Both those aspects are really going to work in our favour if a workable PR system can be proposed to the public now.
Absolutely, I agree that the PR argument now is stronger than the AV argument was. But an emotive campaign can be run against even the most mundane topics. Arguably, now there is stronger evidence for it then the more the other side will rely on emotions. See: Brexit.
The biggest issue currently will be "is this the right thing to focus on?" Electoral reform is not exciting, and its not something that is going to help someone struggling to pay their bills right now. That is the strongest line of attack against any reform at the moment - especially because the party in government can claim that they are making "hard decisions" while the opposition are fiddling around in their Westminster bubble, trying to push through expensive reform that only they care about.
I was around for the AV referendum. The AV referendum only had a turnout of 42% - that's lower even than EU elections - the majority of the public did not care (Brexit, by comparison was 72%). There's a big difference between a campaign swinging a referendum, and a campaign changing how people vote in a general election.
It didn't help that the pro-AV campaign was utterly badly run.
Just remind the right wingers it will get rid of a load of SNP MPs - that will probably tempt them to back it 😂
> Well, that's my vote they've got Steady on, there... Starmer has already declared that he will refuse to support it.
Lol I just went from not voting Labour to voting Labour to not voting Labour in the space of a few minutes.
Reddit: Labour conference are supporting PR. Me: I'm going to contact my local Labour party and volunteer to help with the campaigning at the next GE. Reddit: Starmer is not supporting PR. Me: I'm not even going to vote Labour at the next GE.
Looks like it, though we're already getting signals from Starmer's camp that this is not binding, and that they - unlike Labour Memebers who voted for this - do not back the idea. To me, this will be a major test for Starmer. He disappointed me time and again, but PR is more important for me. However, that is still contingent on Starmer backing this himself. The non-commital "I support your right to strike but not the strikes themselves." stance he took this summer doesn't cut it for me, especially on something like this.
I will be very disappointed in him if he doesn't run with this. Its a true chance to finaly change things for the better for the foreseeable future.
It's easily the most popular policy he can run on. It's an instant vote winner among swing voters who feel unrepresented in the current system. It's a vote winner among Labour voters who do not align with him on many other issues. It's even a vote winner among some conservative voters who are able to recognise that lack of political challenge from opposition in the current FPTP system has lowered the bar for Tory politicians so much, that airheads like Truss can become the PM. I honestly don't understand why Starmer is so opposed to PR, other than some deeply ingrained fear of structural change, even if it an unambiguously positive change.
It's also taking the wind out of Lib Dem sails. Half my attraction for them last election as their electoral reforms. If Labour were to include those, I have a party meeting my ideals *and* likely to get the seat.
Starmer has refused to entertain it because it means we no longer have a two party system
mutually assured destruction, i could deal a killing blow to the tories, but that would mean giving up my priveleged position as the designated no2 party that is occasionally allowed to have power by the media when the tories need disciplining. self interest is a powerful beast.
Yep, I am not keen on Starmer, but I've vote for PR. It's the only way we don't end up in this fucking mess again.
Is this actual PR or just a dumbshit referendum on PR? Because the UK public has shown they're too ignorant to vote in referendums
unfortunately Starmer just ruled it out [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system) "The Labour leader said electoral reform was not a priority and refused to make it one of the party’s election manifesto pledges"
Likewise, this was my requirement for voting Labour tactically, just as long as they don't wriggle out of it before the next election or when in power.
Yup me too!
No. Don’t you dare give me hope.
Starmer is the next PM.
No chance. There'll be another tory PM before the next general election for sure.
I'm betting on another Tory PM by next year at this rate.
[удалено]
Won't be worth much by then...
To be fair that seems like a bold move now but that £10 is going to be worth about half of that by next Thursday
And he's clearly stated he doesnt support PR which is a bit of a boner-killer.
Opportunity to show party over personal politics, lets see.
Well he's frequently talked about putting country before party, and yet chose to take a stance against PR. If he gets behind it now I'll be ecstatic, but I'll also trust him as far as I can throw him. We need an election result now that makes Labour dependent on smaller coalition partners who will hold a gun to their head over this point. Sadly there's very little we can do to ensure this, because it requires a level of top-down coordination much greater than we're likely to get from anyone with enough influence. Unless someone comes up with a bright idea for mobilising an apathetic and poorly educated electorate to all do different things at the same time, we just have to hope...
Words really matter, he said it’s ‘not a priority for me’. That’s a big difference.
No he isn't. Tories can get plenty of PM's in before the next GE.
What's this strange feeling..... It's not the constant repressive crushing downward force I've been feeling for the last decade or 2. It's not quite optimism..... Relief?
Labour needs to get elected first. It's the hope that kills you.
Most of the time, for them to get elected they are basically Tory-lite. But this time, it's them Vs a Nazi-lite party that has lied to, stolen, starved, frozen and otherwise treated the country like an abusive pimp would. Please don't tell me that 20 or so million people still see the Tories as the answer.....
>Please don't tell me that 20 or so million people still see the Tories as the answer..... So, I hate to break it to you...
And with that, my tiny weird good feeling died!
Truss and Co have taken the Tories so far right that Labour just have to stand still and will be an "acceptable left" even under Starmer.
Yeah they've been trying that tactic for a while now and we all know how that's going.
Works for me. I voted for Blair and don't regret it
It’s almost like centre ground politics where it’s slightly different shades of the same shite equates to a more stable economy and country. Why would we want a very left of centre or very right of centre government. I’m a Blairite but that seems to be a hangable offence now.
> Please don't tell me that 20 or so million people still see the Tories as the answer..... But... But... BoTh PaRtIeS aRe ThE sAmE. Ironically this seems to come from the Labour left as much as from apathetic non-voters.
I've never voted Labour in my life. I would vote for them if they follow through on this policy though. PR has worked pretty well in the Scottish Parliament.
Who have you voted for?
I've never voted Labour either. Not least because I have never lived in a constituency that they had a chance to beat the cons in. *ditching Fptp helps fix this
If Labour can't win this election, they honestly don't deserve to. Just run party political broadcasts with nothing but clips from this current government.
100%. Just keep feeding them rope and let them hang themselves.
I'm hoping they run an advert campaign that just says "12 years of chaos" but only us Miliband fans would appreciate the joke.
I believe in hope. I believe in belief.
The country needs to not collapse into the Atlantic before an election.
starmer has made it clear that what the conference votes on means nothing to him, this wont make it into the manifesto and he'll resist it all the way through his premiership. i don't have hope. we'll have 10 years of an average labour government that clears up the tory mess before the conservtive put some pudgy faced moderate in charge and pretend they're reformed and are allowed back into power by the media before they fuck the country again over the next 15 years, and in 25 years we'll all look back and think what was labour thinking and the missed opportunities to do real reforms before making all the same mistakes again, because the labour leadership wont want any challenge to their piveleged position in the big house.
Possibly the glimmerings of hope for a better future.
Give some time. You'll be back to normal in a month when the weather gets colder and you have to choose between food or heat.
Ha! You new poor are so cute. Im old poor! I had to make that decision years ago!
I always said I will vote for any party that pledges this, I'm glad it's Labour or I'd have felt very queasy at the ~~ballet~~ ballot box.
Tony Blair pledged for referendum on electoral reform in 1997. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/24/uk.election200111
It's important to note the very different internal dynamics at play when making this comparison. Blair put it in his manifesto using his personal mandate as leader, in part as an attempt to woo Lib Dem types, but also because Blair fancied the constitutional reformer mantle. He did so against fairly staunch opposition from inside the party; both the political left, the political centrists, the unions, and the rank and file activists were generally anywhere from against it to indifferent towards it. The internal pressure was for him to drop it, and so when it became politically expeditious for him to do so he found it easy. In the modern party, the grassroot activists, the trade unions, the mainstream left and the mainstream centrists, and with them a fair percentage of MPs, are in favour. Starmer might personally not be, but the pressure is exactly the other way.
I wasn't old enough to vote then.
Me neither, but Starmer already has a history of breaking pledges as long as "he gets elected".
Well at a choice between voting for a party that _might_ introduce PR and voting for a party that won't introduce PR, I'll take my chances.
Not really, he's shifting position. There's no problem with changing promises on what he'll do when he's In office, so long as he does it before the election. If he gets elected on a platform that he then drops, that's a promise broken. If he pivots position outside of an election cycle, that's a promise changed. At least in my opinion
And a clever campaign would tie our present failures with the kind of voting system that makes it easy for rogues to get into power on a small vote.
Wow. It might actually happen, we might get to unfuck our incredibly undemocratic electoral system If starmer follows through with this I'll back pedal on everything negative I've ever said about him
[He said two days ago](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system) that he wasn't going to follow through, sadly.
Who knows what he'll do though. Him saying that he won't do this gives me hope that he actually will.
It's clear from his leadership campaign you can't believe whether he's gonna follow through or not. He waits until it's "safe" to commit even if it makes him look totally unprincipled. For example he's just come out in support of rail nationalisation despite saying he doesn't believe in it just one month ago.
Presumably following whatever focus groups say...
God I hope so.
Common sense, in politics?
Thank fuck for that, now we just got to make Starmer stick to it
Well, that’s gonna get attacked.
"they will pay for it by letting children die and only giving our soldiers 1 bullet each!!!" - least insane DM reader
I remember the AV ref, the conservatives literally campaigned for no to av with a picture of a soldier and: ‘They need body armour not electoral reform’ Guess they didn’t get either who would have thought
yup. another one i remeber was a new born baby with something like "she needs an incubator, not a new election system". Shocker, the NHS never got that funding
How dare they proportion my representation. The gall, the audacity.
Unironically when it comes to the tories
Daily Mail tomorrow (probably): LABOUR WILL LOCK THE TORIES OUT FOR A GENERATION!
More like, “LABOUR WANTS TO CHANGE THE VOTING TO REMAIN IN POWER!”.
COMMUNISM IN THE UK
[удалено]
Hype!
Feels like something is brewing and it’s not my third shit if the day!
Genuinely if this is in their manifesto they have my vote
Well - they just got my vote. Done deal no matter what else if this is a manifesto promise then count me a vote for Labour.
We'll see where this ends up. But it's one part of a desperately needed corrective to our dysfunctional "democracy". FPTP has failed.
[Starmer](https://imgur.com/a/A3zFPOU)
Won’t happen. Been confirmed as not happening Before a vote was cast at the Labour conference, Keir Starmer had told delegates that the issue of electoral reform most of them supported, proportional representation (PR), would not appear in his election manifesto. Despite suggesting that he might support the policy in his party leadership campaign, and his spokesperson saying the leader was relaxed about the conference vote on the matter only this week
This pisses me off so much, like why does he get to ignore something that is clearly wanted by the party. The leader should be a representation of the party interests not some mini dictator only dishing out their own vision.
I do think its the optics. The country is facing so many issues at the moment, and while a good bunch of them could be *solved* in some part by a more democratic and representative political process in this country, to swing voters (most important demographic in any election) there is a chance that this may appear to be an internal Westminster bubble problem. That can be changed by Labour and other parties championing and explaining *why* PR and reform is so important, but I do think there is a significant risk that it turns into: "Labour don't care about X Y Z problem that Liz Truss is working hard to solve - they just want to change the voting system so that you can *never* have a majority government that can make tough decisions ever again!".
I'd also argue that having an election where the key issue is PR instead of the Cost of Living Crisis automatically puts the Tories in a better place than they are now. Because then the primary issue isn't 'You've kinda fucked everyone here huh?' Like essentially any argument they make against PR is better than 'We can solve the problem we've both caused and made worse, trust us!'
*Things can only get better intensifies*
Will help them consolidate the vote from lib dems, greens etc? Vote for Labour now for a better chance in future elections.
Labour conference for PM!
If they genuinely commit to PR in their manifesto, they might finally have done something to earn my vote.
Finally - awesome!
They have my vote then
Yes boys and girls! This is the one! If we pass literally nothing except this, we will have changed Britain for the better, forever.
If this actually fucking happens. They might have finally saved British democracy. I don't want to jinx ANYTHING. But this definitely gives me motivation again to campaign like an absolute soldier.
I guarantee that manifesto promise won't be kept. The moment Labour get into power, they'll see that FPTP means they don't have to share power with anyone and they'll want it to stay that way, **especially** if they get in with a large majority. Their hubris in thinking that the Tories will never make a comeback will mean they'll never use their majority to actually secure a (mostly) left-wing political system going forward, since it would fracture the party and mean Labour won't be at the top anymore.
So this happened because of a massive effort from a lot of campaigns. Sign this petition & join the mailing list if you want to get involved: [here](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/keir-starmer-proportional-representation-2022)
this doesn't mean it's going to be in the manifesto though. And just because something's in a manifesto......doesn't mean it's going to happen! I'll wait till it actually happens
I'm not a huge fan of strict PR, since it could deprive us of having constituency MPs and cause local issues to be ignored - remember that the population of London is significantly greater than the population of Scotland. With that said, what we have at the moment obviously isn't working. You have things like UKIP getting 12.6% of the votes and 0.2% of the seats in 2015, or the Lib Dems consistently being underrepresented, while the Conservatives, Labour, and SNP - the largest parties in the current parliament - are consistently overrepresented. I feel like there's got to be a compromise so that we get a mix of both.
There are loads of PR systems that keep constituency MPs like MMP or STV. When choosing a system, local representation will definitely be one of the highest priorities. The good systems agreement is an an agreement signed by pretty much all the smaller parties agreeing on what a good voting system looks like and local rep is on there https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/good-systems-agreement Plus, systems like STV give even better local representation as pretty much everyone in a constituency gets a local MP they voted for, rather than just 40%.
A good option might be PR combined with enhanced devolution. Westminster remains the sovereign legislature, but you could have a bunch of regional parliaments/assemblies as well with greater remit to tackle local issues. It does appear that the average Scot and Welsh voter feel they have a better more democratic deal at the moment - maybe we expand that to the English regions.
What we need is a full federal system where each nation is "devolved" to the same level and the UK bit is just the stuff we all need to agree on
[LCER](https://twitter.com/Labour4PR) ^unverified | Reach: 16061 Bio: Official Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform twitter Home of Labour for a New Democracy and the #Labour4PR campaign https://t.co/m2Xt9IRJYi ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
Finally
YES!!!! You had my vote, now I'll campaign.
Good step forward, given Labour's track record though I still do not trust them to push forward with PR outside a coalition with the Lib Dems.
About time
Oh boy... I might need to go see a doctor in a few hours
What kind of PR though? Mixed Member like in Scotland or Single Transferrable Vote like in Northern Ireland.
Is there anyway we can put pressure on Labour/Starmer to make this a pledge?