The Rise of The Green Party

[Henkeman]

We really need to move to proportional representation in this country, it'd be Turkeys voting for Christmas for the big two parties so I can't ever see it happening but I think the country would be a much better and less divided place if people felt like they were actually being listened to. It's a joke that UKIP never had any parliamentary representation with 12.6% of the vote.

OK. What would you like? A list system? STV? AV? Additional Member System? Biproportional apportionment? Calling for "PR" is meaningless, every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages. Strict proportionality hands immense power over to the parties and some politicians simply can never be unelected, while the supposed "fairness" of that proportionality gives utterly disproportionate power over to small, extremist parties who hold the balance of power (see Israel). Equally, you end up with minor parties permanently in government as they hop from one major partner to another, even though they don't command public support (see Germany).

Fairness is irrelevant in an open electoral system, what matters is how democratic it is. And with every electoral system you care to name, you're trading off one democratic element for another. By all means support a particular system, but be aware that it also means giving up some of the advantages of our own too. This is not, not ever, a one way street of improvement.

 

[without a dream]

OK. What would you like? A list system? STV? AV? Additional Member System? Biproportional apportionment? Calling for "PR" is meaningless, every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages. Strict proportionality hands immense power over to the parties and some politicians simply can never be unelected, while the supposed "fairness" of that proportionality gives utterly disproportionate power over to small, extremist parties who hold the balance of power (see Israel). Equally, you end up with minor parties permanently in government as they hop from one major partner to another, even though they don't command public support (see Germany).

Fairness is irrelevant in an open electoral system, what matters is how democratic it is. And with every electoral system you care to name, you're trading off one democratic element for another. By all means support a particular system, but be aware that it also means giving up some of the advantages of our own too. This is not, not ever, a one way street of improvement.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are advantages and disadvantages to any system. Calling for PR isn't meaningless as it starts a discussion, I like the Additional Member System but for any change to gain traction it needs an extended public debate on the merits and downsides of various systems.

I also think it's pretty obvious that increasing numbers of people are feeling disenfranchised with the current political status quo, there hasn't been a party this side of the second world war who have gained a majority of the vote yet we've only had 2 coalition governments, there are so many safe seats that many people don't even see it as worth the effort of voting. There's barely a UKIP policy I have any time for whatsoever but it's outrageous that the voting preference of more than 1 in 10 voters didn't lead to any representation.

 

[Henkeman]

I think it's pretty obvious that there are advantages and disadvantages to any system. Calling for PR isn't meaningless as it starts a discussion, I like the Additional Member System but for any change to gain traction it needs an extended public debate on the merits and downsides of various systems.

I also think it's pretty obvious that increasing numbers of people are feeling disenfranchised with the current political status quo, there hasn't been a party this side of the second world war who have gained a majority of the vote yet we've only had 2 coalition governments, there are so many safe seats that many people don't even see it as worth the effort of voting. There's barely a UKIP policy I have any time for whatsoever but it's outrageous that the voting preference of more than 1 in 10 voters didn't lead to any representation.

It's meaningless because there's no such thing as PR - there are endless systems that are more proportionate or less proportionate, the question is what you want to achieve. Now, the Additional Member System has significant drawbacks, such as the permanent holding of the balance of power by a small party. They actually had a change of government without an election in the early 1980s when the Free Democrats switched their support. Is that democratic? Likewise, because you have a party list, senior people literally cannot be voted out of office. Remember the Portillo moment? The Ed Balls moment? It can't happen. If they don't win their seats, they get in anyway because they're on the list. That's a huge shift in power towards the party structures, who decide who get into office, not you or me.

Furthermore, when you have coalitions, by definition it ends up being a compromise between the parties, and the people you voted for don't get the chance to put their manifesto into operation. You can argue (you may disagree) that you actually end up with a government that literally no one voted for. Again, you have to ask how democratic that is.

Now I'm not saying that it isn't worth all of that, because you might think it is, but that's the biggest problem with the whole line that we should have PR, you can't argue against such a nebulous concept, you can only argue against (or for) a specific system. As for the supposed disillusionment, voter turnouts have been falling in most countries over the last few decades irrespective of voting system, and it was interesting how last time round you had a significant uptick in participation here. I think I'd argue that there's disillusionment with the politicians more than the system.

Also, it's important to note with the likes of UKIP that the figures are skewed because of the number of protest votes that are made. It's the trouble with the UK system when analysing, and the same applied to the Lib Dems, who finished second in something like 200 seats one time, precisely because people would vote for them as an alternate to their main choice if they had no chance.

Reading this back it sounds a bit hostile to you - apologies, it's not meant to be, because we're having a discussion about it and that's great. From my own perspective, I quite liked the Alternative Vote system, because although it can actually be LESS representative in strict terms than FPTP, every single vote counts - which for me is more important. But hey, we had a referendum on that, and I lost. So it's dead.

 

[without a dream]

It's meaningless because there's no such thing as PR - there are endless systems that are more proportionate or less proportionate, the question is what you want to achieve. Now, the Additional Member System has significant drawbacks, such as the permanent holding of the balance of power by a small party. They actually had a change of government without an election in the early 1980s when the Free Democrats switched their support. Is that democratic? Likewise, because you have a party list, senior people literally cannot be voted out of office. Remember the Portillo moment? The Ed Balls moment? It can't happen. If they don't win their seats, they get in anyway because they're on the list. That's a huge shift in power towards the party structures, who decide who get into office, not you or me.

Furthermore, when you have coalitions, by definition it ends up being a compromise between the parties, and the people you voted for don't get the chance to put their manifesto into operation. You can argue (you may disagree) that you actually end up with a government that literally no one voted for. Again, you have to ask how democratic that is.

Now I'm not saying that it isn't worth all of that, because you might think it is, but that's the biggest problem with the whole line that we should have PR, you can't argue against such a nebulous concept, you can only argue against (or for) a specific system. As for the supposed disillusionment, voter turnouts have been falling in most countries over the last few decades irrespective of voting system, and it was interesting how last time round you had a significant uptick in participation here. I think I'd argue that there's disillusionment with the politicians more than the system.

Also, it's important to note with the likes of UKIP that the figures are skewed because of the number of protest votes that are made. It's the trouble with the UK system when analysing, and the same applied to the Lib Dems, who finished second in something like 200 seats one time, precisely because people would vote for them as an alternate to their main choice if they had no chance.

Reading this back it sounds a bit hostile to you - apologies, it's not meant to be, because we're having a discussion about it and that's great. From my own perspective, I quite liked the Alternative Vote system, because although it can actually be LESS representative in strict terms than FPTP, every single vote counts - which for me is more important. But hey, we had a referendum on that, and I lost. So it's dead.

A well designed open list system could still give you your 'Portillo moment' but I suppose this is the biggest drawback to PR systems, they're invariably complex, at least FPTP is easy to understand, however unrepresentative it is.

The reason I called for PR and not for a specific system is that I think we're so far away from anything happening that it's still useful to talk in broad strokes, I think most people would have a stab at understanding the basis of PR but outside of our Scottish and Welsh members not many would know what the Additional Member System is. I suspect the people keen for an alternative system are a significant minority and within that minority if we have to stick to specific systems to have a discussion it would all get a bit Judean People's Front.

I'm generally in favour of coalition, I think it works well to smooth out more extreme policies and helps well thought through, well backed policies to gain consensus. We're currently seeing the drawback of this in the UK though with a tiny party essentially being paid off to form a government. As you state there is no and never will be a perfect system.

 

[Henkeman]

A well designed open list system could still give you your 'Portillo moment' but I suppose this is the biggest drawback to PR systems, they're invariably complex, at least FPTP is easy to understand, however unrepresentative it is.

The reason I called for PR and not for a specific system is that I think we're so far away from anything happening that it's still useful to talk in broad strokes, I think most people would have a stab at understanding the basis of PR but outside of our Scottish and Welsh members not many would know what the Additional Member System is. I suspect the people keen for an alternative system are a significant minority and within that minority if we have to stick to specific systems to have a discussion it would all get a bit Judean People's Front.

I'm generally in favour of coalition, I think it works well to smooth out more extreme policies and helps well thought through, well backed policies to gain consensus. We're currently seeing the drawback of this in the UK though with a tiny party essentially being paid off to form a government. As you state there is no and never will be a perfect system.

I actually thought the AV system would get more support than it did. I didn't expect it to win that referendum but 32% in a two way vote is pretty miserable - you could ask if it was night or day at 1am and you wouldn't get far off that kind of result. Interesting that the turnout was relatively good though - it implies there is a fair old constituency out there who care about it.

You're right about the simplicity of FPTP, and you could argue that is actually quite important - that people understand how it works. AV/STV and so on require so many votes and enormous ballot papers to cover all options. Just to clarify, Scotland and Wales use versions of STV (as does Ireland) - it's Germany that uses the AMS, and oddly enough it was designed by us specifically to prevent one party having a majority.

Yes, you're right about the drawbacks being shown right now - the disproportionate power of the DUP for example. But I have to say, I thought the 2010-15 coalition government was, on balance, and given difficult circumstances, a fairly good one. The electorate's severe kicking of the Lib Dems felt a bit unfair in some ways - but that's a different topic!

 

[without a dream]

I actually thought the AV system would get more support than it did. I didn't expect it to win that referendum but 32% in a two way vote is pretty miserable - you could ask if it was night or day at 1am and you wouldn't get far off that kind of result. Interesting that the turnout was relatively good though - it implies there is a fair old constituency out there who care about it.

You're right about the simplicity of FPTP, and you could argue that is actually quite important - that people understand how it works. AV/STV and so on require so many votes and enormous ballot papers to cover all options. Just to clarify, Scotland and Wales use versions of STV (as does Ireland) - it's Germany that uses the AMS, and oddly enough it was designed by us specifically to prevent one party having a majority.

Yes, you're right about the drawbacks being shown right now - the disproportionate power of the DUP for example. But I have to say, I thought the 2010-15 coalition government was, on balance, and given difficult circumstances, a fairly good one. The electorate's severe kicking of the Lib Dems felt a bit unfair in some ways - but that's a different topic!

I voted against AV at the time as I thought it reduced the likelihood of a more proportional system ever being introduced, in hindsight that was idealistic and now I'm a bit older and hopefully wiser I'd vote differently now.

I'm willing to be corrected be I'm pretty sure Scotland does have AMS.

The Lib Dems took such a kicking as they targeted the student vote, it was never going to be pretty when they joined forces with the conservatives. They undoubtedly did some good, introducing the tax free allowance was a great idea but if you sign a promise to abolish tuition fees then triple them it's never going to do you much good.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I voted against AV at the time as I thought it reduced the likelihood of a more proportional system ever being introduced, in hindsight that was idealistic and now I'm a bit older and hopefully wiser I'd vote differently now.

I'm willing to be corrected be I'm pretty sure Scotland does have AMS.

The Lib Dems took such a kicking as they targeted the student vote, it was never going to be pretty when they joined forces with the conservatives. They undoubtedly did some good, introducing the tax free allowance was a great idea but if you sign a promise to abolish tuition fees then triple them it's never going to do you much good.

The Lib Dem’s would have been far better extracting the abolishing of the fees than going for a vote on PR so soon. Demonstrate the validity of a coalition government by achieving a few things that would never have been possible under a conservative government alone (in this particular case) and they might have stood a chance in 2015.

 

[Henkeman]

I voted against AV at the time as I thought it reduced the likelihood of a more proportional system ever being introduced, in hindsight that was idealistic and now I'm a bit older and hopefully wiser I'd vote differently now.

I'm willing to be corrected be I'm pretty sure Scotland does have AMS.

The Lib Dems took such a kicking as they targeted the student vote, it was never going to be pretty when they joined forces with the conservatives. They undoubtedly did some good, introducing the tax free allowance was a great idea but if you sign a promise to abolish tuition fees then triple them it's never going to do you much good.

Interestingly, I think a lot of people felt that way about voting against.

Apologies - we're at mixed messages, I was talking about the Scottish councils, and I think you were talking about the Scottish Parliament.

Hmm, for the Lib Dems, I'm not sure that explains the drop off. There simply aren't that many students!

 

[without a dream]

The Lib Dem’s would have been far better extracting the abolishing of the fees than going for a vote on PR so soon. Demonstrate the validity of a coalition government by achieving a few things that would never have been possible under a conservative government alone (in this particular case) and they might have stood a chance in 2015.

Indeed, given that Ed Milliband was in favour of AV I don't think they actually needed the conservative votes to push it through anyway.

Interestingly, I think a lot of people felt that way about voting against.

Apologies - we're at mixed messages, I was talking about the Scottish councils, and I think you were talking about the Scottish Parliament.

Hmm, for the Lib Dems, I'm not sure that explains the drop off. There simply aren't that many students!

There are about 2 million students in the UK with about half a million starting each year so it could account for most of the drop. Plenty of people vote Lib Dem to keep the conservatives out and after 2010 that seemed a bit pointless. I lived in a constituency which was created in 2010 and was predicted to be tight marginal seat and the Lib Dems campaigned hard there, they were 3000 votes short of winning it and now they're down to 10%. They need a serious rebrand.

 

[Tanzeylee]

I read that the reason the planet is more green these days is because of the increased levels of CO2! Go figure ...

Shhhhhh facts like that won’t sell eco lightbulbs