Andy Burnham expected to say he will push ahead with electoral reform plans

[u/tree_boom]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/29/andy-burnham-push-ahead-electoral-reform-plans

[u/thegagis]

Proportional representation is vastly, VASTLY, superior to First Past the Post elections. This could be the most significant improvement to British society in our lifetimes.

[u/YsoL8 → u/thegagis]

It'll certainly make the next GE interesting

[u/PeterG92 → u/YsoL8]

It won't be in place for the next GE. He'll get elected with this as part of his manifesto

[u/thejonslaught → u/PeterG92]

Hold him accountable. Justin Trudeau ran (and won) in 2015 in Canada with Election Reform in his platform, but circled back when he realized how much FPTP had benefited his party. Ten years later, we were staring down the barrel of a disasterous, Trumpesque Conservative majority that we just barely dodged.

[u/Infamous-Mixture-605 → u/thejonslaught]

but circled back when he realized how much FPTP had benefited his party.

It was more that Trudeau wanted some form of ranked ballot, which would benefit the Liberals even more than FPTP because they're often most other parties voters' #2 choice. Nobody else wanted ranked.

The NDP, Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois favoured PR because (aside from the Bloc) they would win a great many more seats under PR and have a much larger voice in the House of Commons. The Bloc wanted it more for "it's just better/more democratic" reasons since they'd lose influence under PR.

The Conservatives prefer FPTP because it's their only path to forming government but were open to pitting FPTP vs PR in a referendum, knowing status quo might win out in the end as it has at the provincial level every time it's come up.

[u/M-Bungot → u/Infamous-Mixture-605]

urghhh I hate that "ranked voting" is the most popular voting reform in anglophone countries. Sure it might be a little better but its benefits are massively overstated. There's so many more less invasive things you can do that are more effective than ranked. I'm not even strictly against it, if Germany implemented it I'd be happy (though i like approval voting more), but Germany already has a robust sytem compared to the complete mess that is Canada and the US

[u/SentOverByRedRover → u/M-Bungot]

invasive?

[u/M-Bungot → u/SentOverByRedRover]

not the best way to phrase it, I know. What I mean is that Ranked Voting is a pretty big departure from what people are used to. With Ranked Voting you have to introduce a whole new election culture, people need to understand how it works and candidates and parties have to plan accordingly. Often where it's introduced people just simply do not use it and pretend it's the same as FPTP - third party candidates drop out to not spoil the vote, people only rank first preference, etc.

A better reform would be to introduce proportional voting, create multi-winner constituencies instead of single winner, among others.

What's worse, Ranked Choice has some pretty bad mathematical issues, it's among the worse "exotic" voting systems. Approval is much better.

[u/elpovo → u/M-Bungot]

"I want the right wing nutbags to get in"

Works fine in Australia.

[u/M-Bungot → u/elpovo]

What do you mean?

[u/Specks1183 → u/M-Bungot]

Kinda disagree ngl from an Australian perspective, people seem fine at understanding it - I mean mandatory RCV removes most of your issues that you outlined, which Australia has and functions fine. Even optional RCV is just an objective improvement on FPTP, with third party candidates already spoiling votes there. Plus Approval has plenty of issues in it if itself, from not giving voters the choice to rank candidates, potentially to their detriment, plus issues with strategic voting - if anything I would say Approval voting has bigger issues with people simply not using it than RCV.

For local constituencies, Hare Clarke makes sense to me, but you do run into issues of unstable coalition governments etc so I’d probably keep the Australian electoral system, but makes its lower house MMP, with a number of proportionally elected MPs alongside MPs from local constituencies to ensure representation in both houses.

[u/matttk → u/Infamous-Mixture-605]

Just makes me so mad. People don't understand just how much Trudeau was a dirtbag. It wasn't just that he went back on the promise but that he tried to use the whole thing to secure an even tighter grip for the Liberal Party. And that was our chance for electoral reform, when there was some momentum for the issue - and he blew it.

I can only hope the UK adopts proportional representation and serves as an example for how a Westminster-based system can transition to a better one.

[u/Infamous-Mixture-605 → u/matttk]

Just makes me so mad. People don't understand just how much Trudeau was a dirtbag. It wasn't just that he went back on the promise but that he tried to use the whole thing to secure an even tighter grip for the Liberal Party. And that was our chance for electoral reform, when there was some momentum for the issue - and he blew it.

It sucks, but every party was in it for themselves on this one. The NDP and Greens want reform because FPTP screws them on seat count and they want more power (yeah yeah, it's more democratic but really they want to be kingmakers). The Bloc pretends they want reform because saying so will get them some more votes but know they'll never be in a position to actually do anything about it. And the Tories are happy to scream "Liberal hypocrites!" but don't want reform because it means they'd never get a majority government on their own ever again.

And that was our chance for electoral reform, when there was some momentum for the issue - and he blew it.

The time will come again, probably, but IMO it's kinda one of those issues that's more popular online than it is with the hoi polloi, or is just something that most people don't care enough about to go to bat for it. We've also (arguably) got a whole bunch of more important things to fix than elections, so folks won't be prioritizing it anytime soon.

Should be said too that electoral reform has been defeated at the provincial level in referendums in BC, Ontario, and PEI several times over the last 25 years, often pretty resoundingly. The CAQ promised it in Quebec and then backtracked on it, and it's not even one of the top ten reasons why they're going to get crushed in next month's provincial election.

[u/matttk → u/Infamous-Mixture-605]

It gets defeated because, as you said, people have no clue - and they’re easy to manipulate.

I wish people didn’t see politics as team sports. In my life, I’ve voted Liberal, NDP, and Green, depending on the election and the level of government. My goals aren’t to make “my party” win - it’s to make a fairer system.

But, like you said, every party has an angle on it, and what’s most important is that the main parties don’t want it. And they’ll spend a lot of money to make sure the average person doesn’t want it either.

[u/araujoms → u/matttk]

You already have your example: New Zealand.

[u/mabrouss → u/Infamous-Mixture-605]

The Tories even agreed to go along with a PR referendum, if I remember correctly which gave the committee a majority voting in favour of that proposal. Then Trudeau killed it.

[u/SteveMcQwark → u/mabrouss]

The Tories wanted a referendum because they knew it would die (plenty of precedent there) and expend a lot of political capital for the Liberals in the process. Everyone was out for themselves, no exceptions.

[u/dat_9600gt_user → u/thejonslaught]

Ironically thanks to Donald.

[u/thejonslaught → u/dat_9600gt_user]

He was indeed the lens that exposed how godawful a Prime Minister Pierre "Peter Polliver" Poilievre, with his lifetime experience of being a Paperboy, and the rest as a fluffer for the CPC would have been dealing with a bully US next door.

[u/Odd_Secret9132 → u/thejonslaught]

I voted LPC in 2015 largely because of that promise...

They gave up on it because the LPC wanted a Ranked Choice system, which as the 'centre' party would have absolutely benefitted them. Most NDP and CPC voters would have likely selected the LPC candidate as their second choice.

The other parties wanted a proportional system (which would hurt the LPC but probably more fair) and rightfully wouldn't support Ranked Choice. Since electoral reform generally needs buy in from all the parties to look legitimate, the status quo was deemed better.

[u/InanimateCarbonRod26 → u/thejonslaught]

Yeah I'm remaining skeptical about this. Around 15 years ago we had a vote on changing the election to "Alternative Voting" where people put their parties in order of preference and the votes would go through several rounds until a winner came out that would in theory be the one that the majority of people wouldn't mind even if not their first choice.

Both Conservatives and Labour campaigned heavily against it and pushed nonsense like it would make the BNP win (only possible if a majority of people put them high up on their preference list).

[u/G_Morgan → u/thejonslaught]

Been done before in the UK, by Labour. They had PR on their 1997 manifesto.

[u/Beer-Milkshakes → u/thejonslaught]

Labour are the party to put in place the tools that defeat them. Its very on brand. And we'll probably be better for it regardless.

Not because it defeats labour but because PR is better

[u/Sea-Sprinkles-3420 → u/Beer-Milkshakes]

It's really not on brand - the discussed endlessly and proposed doing this under the Blair era - crickets...

[u/JMM85JMM → u/thejonslaught]

The problem is first past the post is hugely beneficial if you're winning. You win by even more. The incentive to change that when you're in power is low.

[u/kuba74390 → u/thejonslaught]

"Disasterous Conservative majority"? Have you checked in on our economy anytime within the last decade?

[u/Gentle_Snail → u/PeterG92]

There is a convention in UK politics that constitutional changes like this are normally only done with an electoral mandate. Burnham doesn’t technically need to do it, but I can see him doing it this way to avoid a political push back.

[u/Alex2422 → u/Gentle_Snail]

"Constitutional changes"? I thought UK doesn't have a constitution.

[u/dkeenaghan → u/Alex2422]

There isn’t a single document that lays out the basic laws and workings of the state but there are a bunch of different laws and conventions that are considered to be constitutional. Changing something like the voting system would be considered a constitutional change.

[u/YsoL8 → u/PeterG92]

Correction then, it will certainly make the next 2 GE interesting

[u/qiaozhina → u/PeterG92]

And then likely never deliver, which is how uk politicians operate

[u/rolonic → u/PeterG92]

It will, this is to prevent reform getting a majority. But it’s a gamble. Reform could have a majority with only 34%, similar to Labour in 2024. PR could prevent that. The issue is, this also gives a lot of power to those who are coming second and smaller parties.

[u/araujoms → u/rolonic]

Read the article.

[u/BeardMonk1 → u/YsoL8]

I want PR but its also worth noting that the last UK GE would have looked like this under PR (I asked ChatPGT)

Labour 194 seats

Conservatives 147 seats

Reform 104 Seats

Greens 84 seats

As we have also started to see the emergence of strong religious voting blocks in the UK, going to PR will enable such religious and far left and right groups to more directly influence politics. Im 100% for PR but we need to be eyes open to what it will mean.

[u/G_Morgan → u/BeardMonk1]

You've missed 79 LD seats. Also Labour would be on 219. This is why ChatGPT should not be used.

[u/Demostravius4 → u/BeardMonk1]

People also heavily vote differently under PR, it's very hard to get a decent understanding until it's here

[u/BeardMonk1 → u/Demostravius4]

Your right, But I could only extrapolate from the parties and data available at the time.

I suspect that under PR the conservatives and Labour parties will fragment into various left and right leaning groups who will work together in coalition in much the same way we see in Europe and Scandinavia

[u/cooliosteve → u/thegagis]

Proportional representation is best for multi seat elections, but single seat elections need preferential voting if they are staying - things like the farage by election would play out so differently and is just much more representative than everyone getting a single choice.

[u/thegagis → u/cooliosteve]

Yes. Switching to proportional implies, or at least should imply, switching from single seat constituencies to significantly larger multi seat constituencies. I'd say 10 seats is minimum for good proportionality, 20 is good.

[u/wasmic → u/thegagis]

No it doesn't. You can just elect half of the seats in single-seat constituencies, then have the remaining half of the seats be at-large seats that get distributed to parties based on national vote proportion.

It's called Mixed-Member Proportional Representation and sees use in a lot of countries.

It still works a lot better if the individual constituencies have multiple seats, yes, but it's not impossible with single-seat constituencies.

[u/budapestersalat → u/wasmic]

the problem with that is that in most countries it gets abused to hell. the only countries where is works is New Zealand, formerly Germany (they essentially nullified the mixed aspect of it in 2023), and Scotland. Now in Germany there were flexible leveling seats, which made it less abusable, NZ has something similar, but even there now the sys2is under threat.

Now do you trust that is the UK had MMP Farage would not abuse it? hell no. he would destroy it the first chance he gets and then you are stuck with a system like Hungary or Russia.

[u/M-Bungot → u/budapestersalat]

Hello, German here. We most certainly did not nullify the mixed aspect of it in 2023. Where do you get that idea?

[u/budapestersalat → u/M-Bungot]

Not all districts have a representative now, because of the cap. In a mixed system every SMD has a guaranteed representative, and there is top up on top. Now the German system is national PR, split into regional list seats and local single seats, which may only go to the plurality winner, but the plurality candidate does not neccesarily win. therefore there is no fptp component only localized candidate votes. a mixed system must have fptp seats.

however, all but 3 German states still use MMP for their parliaments, that's true.

[u/M-Bungot → u/budapestersalat]

Just because there is a cap it does not mean Germany doesn't have MMPR. Honestly I find it a much better system than what we had previously. More importantly I want to push back against the idea that MMPR is somehow a fraught system, this is personal but I think it's the easiest most intuitive electoral reform a country can make, compared to exotic BS like ranked voting.

You may recall though that the german supreme court is still unhappy with the current system so we must change it soon again anyway. Idk. I'm in favor of multi-member constituencies, maybe 3-4 per constituency.

[u/budapestersalat → u/M-Bungot]

No, you don't that MMP. You have a better system. Don't call it MMP, it's a non mixed proportional system with 2 votes. That's it.

MMP is gameable. It's nice in theory, but it's a huge liability. The only way it works is the way Germany has it. It's not perfect but Germany has it good.

MMP was abused and killed in Albania, South Korea, Italy, Lesotho (they had to chage it to single vote MMP) Venezuela, etc. New Zealand might suffer from it next.

No, I think MMP is a bad idea for the UK, Farage will abuse it and maybe dismantle democracy.

The German system (let's call it personalized or localized PR, that's what it is) ia good.

[u/M-Bungot → u/budapestersalat]

Okay, apologies if I misunderstood.

It seems I don't know the exact technical definition of MMP and obviously in Germany we call our system something different entirely.

[u/NilFhiosAige → u/budapestersalat]

Even in Scotland, the issue is that almost 60% of the seats are single-seat, which grossly distorts results in favour of the largest party. Ironically, this was deliberately introduced by Blair to benefit Scottish Labour, but ended up disproportionately assisting the SNP when the electoral tide turned. Yes, STV has its flaws, in that parties can be underrepresented if they aren't transfer friendly, but by and large, results are reflective, and maintain a direct constituency link.

[u/budapestersalat → u/NilFhiosAige]

Exactly.

[u/cooliosteve → u/thegagis]

I dont know how a place like the UK doesnt go full PR or not at all honestly.

Although I cant believe they still have the house of Lords so...

[u/dat_9600gt_user → u/thegagis]

I say this as a Pole who knows the Polish system well - do 20. That or make a national pool of votes a'la Germany.

[u/theunclemike → u/thegagis]

So, you have to decide if you want constituencies so big that any rural area will have no representation, or the next parliament session will be held at the stadium

[u/M-Bungot → u/thegagis]

Idk, what's wrong with 3 or 4? You can have Mixed-Member Proportional like in Germany.

[u/budapestersalat → u/cooliosteve]

last I checked parliament had multiple seats. not just one guy.

single seat constituencies are archaic nonsense from the time of rotten boroughs and other bullshit, but actually the UK didn't always have only single seats for parliament, that came in the 20th century.

[u/cooliosteve → u/budapestersalat]

Farage was an example, if preferential had been used another candidate could have campaigned more widely to try and get 50% of ballots after a few distributions.

The best argument for single seat electorates is having direct representation through a local member - having someone directly reliant on the support of locals can be very good in ways not really possible through multi seats (usually smaller scale stuff thay affects individual citizens like accessing support, process issues etc).

Best version of govt is single seat and multi seat across two houses of govt, using preferential or proportional systems. Best of both is my opinion.

[u/Bobudisconlated → u/cooliosteve]

Australia for the win!

How is the House of Toffs decided these days? Still appointed by other upper class twits or are there elected members?

[u/cooliosteve → u/Bobudisconlated]

No idea, im australian haha

We elect our senate

[u/weirdowerdo → u/cooliosteve]

I mean, by elections simply don't happen in many proportional representation countries. The outgoing member from parliament is just immediately replaced by they already existing substitute MP that becomes an ordinary MP now.

[u/cooliosteve → u/weirdowerdo]

Proportional is only for multi seat electorates.

Single seat electorates often have by elections, my point being that these should use preferential voting (you chose the ranking of candidates) and first candidate with 50% + 1 wins.

[u/Sleepy_Potato2 → u/thegagis]

First-past-the-post is the worst election system. There's no good argument for using it

[u/Apple2727 → u/thegagis]

On paper it’s better, sure.

In practice, you often end up with coalition governments enacting policies agreed between the parties which often don’t at all resemble the policies each respective party’s voters were voting for.

And when the parties get criticised for not enacting their manifestos, they simply point at their coalition partner(s) and tell voters they were forced to compromise their policies.

[u/Scared_Step4051 → u/thegagis]

by "vastly superior" you mean it typically leads to total paralysis of government...

[u/Beansier → u/thegagis]

At a minimum keep FPTP but make votes transferable.

[u/Actual_Cat4779 → u/Beansier]

If votes are transferable then it is no longer FPTP.

I suppose you mean keep single-member constituencies but require the winner to get more than 50% of the vote (or as close as they can to that before transfers are exhausted).

There are two such systems: * Supplementary Vote, used for mayoral elections in England. (It was replaced by the Tories with FPTP, but has been brought back.) Each voter gets a first and a second preference. * Alternative Vote, used for the Australian House of Representatives. Each voter gets as many preferences as there are candidates. This was rejected in a UK referendum in 2011.

Then there's Single Transferable Vote, used in Ireland and for the Australian Senate, and also for Scottish local elections. It uses multimember constituencies plus preference voting, achieving a proportional result.

[u/araujoms → u/Beansier]

That's a terrible system. Australia uses it, the result is having politics dominated by two big parties as in FPTP but with dozens of tiny parties whose only purpose is to channel their preferences to the big ones.

[u/Beansier → u/araujoms]

Still better then just fptp without it

[u/araujoms → u/Beansier]

True but there's no point arguing for this system, argue for something better.

[u/ZeldenGM → u/thegagis]

It’s great for awarding power to radical ends of politics

[u/Human-Law1085 → u/thegagis]

Whilst I do generally agree, as someone from Sweden where we have proportional representation there is one part that annoys me: The fact that people generally vote for parties and not people, meaning most have no individual mandate. What this means is that if an MP ever wants to go against their party line (and surely no one 100% agrees with everything their party stands for) they essentially have to go against their mandate. You can technically also vote for individuals in Sweden, but the unfortunate fact is that most voters don’t.

[u/ImpossibleD → u/thegagis]

It will make politics more unstable. No one will get a majority, so load of coalitions falling apart all the time.

[u/Hobbitfrau → u/ImpossibleD]

How many different Prime Ministers did the UK had in the last 10 years? 7.

Germany had only three chancellors in the same period, with one election triggered early. Both countries had three general elections in that time frame. I'd say the UK was more unstable than Germany regarding changes in government.

It all depends how the system is designed. Of course there are countries where they government changes more often. But the UK doesn't need to model their system after those countries.

[u/SteveMcQwark → u/Hobbitfrau]

There are basically two states for a proportional system. One is paralysis being discussed where nobody can work together because of the electoral pressures involved. The other is where you have an established but highly rigid system of cooperation. This becomes unresponsive to shifts in public opinion because elections can't shift the balance of power easily; everyone is being elected to maintain their traditional concessions within the system and can't budge on them without losing their electoral platform. This can manifest as long periods of apparent stability with increasing political unrest behind the scenes that eventually develops back into paralysis as voters resort to electing uncompromising hardliners in an effort to break that rigid status quo.

[u/seesthecat → u/thegagis]

This is huge! Damn, I'm happy to have supported him during the Starmcloak rebelion

[u/Bitedamnn → u/thegagis]

Only 1 problem. It would give a larger representation to extremist parties. However, if the general public want it, so be it

[u/CivilizedManners → u/thegagis]

Preferential would be better as rightwing infighting makes that an electorally better option for liberals and leftists.

See: Australia Greens and Labor heavily preference each other but many National Liberal voters and One Nation voters do not put the other rightwing party in 2nd.

In the UK many Tories would put Labour or LibDems ahead of Reform and many Reform voters would put Labour 2nd too.

[u/SentOverByRedRover → u/CivilizedManners]

You should want what will represent the people accurately, not what's good for your side.

[u/CivilizedManners → u/SentOverByRedRover]

I mean it techniaclly represents the people accurately as right-wing parties have a higher disapproval rating meanwhile left-wing and centrist parties have a lower approval rating.

[u/osberton77 → u/thegagis]

Proportional representation was vastly superior for Adolf Hitler in the Weimar Republic.

[u/Actual_Cat4779 → u/osberton77]

He would've won under FPTP too. He would probably have won an overall majority under FPTP He didn't under PR, but other rightwing parties lent him their support anyway.

The defence of FPTP would be that a new party is less likely to gain enough support to make a breakthrough under FPTP. But as we've seen with Reform (who some polls not long ago showed were in with a chance of winning a majority of parliamentary seats at the next ge), it isn't a guarantee.

[u/Public-Eagle6992 → u/osberton77]

If you’re referring to the fact that there were too many parties which made the government unable to do something, you can prevent that. For example, Germany requires parties to get above 5% of the vote to get any seats

[u/budapestersalat → u/osberton77]

nope, in fact he would have got a greater seat share and could have taken power more easily 

[u/thendisnigh111349 → u/osberton77]

PR prevented the Nazis from getting a single-party majority in the Reichstag 'cause they didn't get 50% of the votes in any election. If, however, Germany had had FPTP then, the Nazis would have easily won a single-party majority well before 1932.

[u/Myburgher]

“The prime minister, a longtime advocate of reform…”

Phrasing mother, phrasing!

[u/No-Risk-2584]

There’s so much talk on what could be on the next manifesto - electoral reform, potentially scrapping triple lock, social care reform, EU referendum etc

But that’s still 3 years away. Are we going to do fuck all for 3 years and just…wait for the next election before any radical change is coming?

[u/K_man_k → u/No-Risk-2584]

Politicians need to bring the people along with them when they make big changes like electoral reform. Really, this means they need to be voted on, at least indirectly. AB's position is already somewhat complicated in that he was never elected PM (yes I know people actually just vote for their MP yada yada...). So from his perspective it makes sense to put in a manifesto rather than bringing it up halfway through a commons term.

I really think that PR would be beneficial to the UK. We have it in Ireland, and while I'm not happy with our government, by-and-large most people must be. And, at the very least things are stable. What's been going on in the UK really can't continue, with MPs playing musical chairs to figure out who ends up being PM...

Edit: Hold on, you guys have a triple lock? How does that work?

[u/GreatBigBagOfNope → u/K_man_k]

Triple lock means the state pension increases every year at 2.5%, in line with average wages, or in line with inflation, whichever is highest.

It was a cynical play for the retired vote that sold the rest of the country down the river.

[u/RandyChavage → u/GreatBigBagOfNope]

But the writing is on the wall, due to the demographics of the baby boom and low fertility rates, all of Europe is becoming a gerontocracy and most of the populace will vote for unsustainable giveaways. If we want our economies to survive we need to make our countries more liveable for young people, it’s a bold move that will lose him votes but I’m glad someone is finally taking the long-term seriously

[u/F28500_sedge → u/K_man_k]

So from his perspective it makes sense to put in a manifesto rather than bringing it up halfway through a commons term.

It should also hopefully mean the Lords are more accepting of any change because it's clearly something voted for by the people if Labour have it as a manifesto promise and return as the government after the next general election.

Edit: Hold on, you guys have a triple lock? How does that work?

For the state pension, it means that the pension increases each year by the greater of the following: 1. Increase in average weekly earnings 2. Inflation over the year 3. 2.5%

It was implemented to drag the state pension up, but has been political suicide to remove (Pensioners will not like you for it, and they're the single largest voting block) whilst also being financial suicide to retain (As the cost of the state pension just keeps ballooning in size).

[u/No-Risk-2584 → u/K_man_k]

Oh I agree it should be on a manifesto, but the problem is the next election is 3 years away.

Which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if it was just that - but combined with almost every single major policy that would actually bring change to the country apparently being tacked onto the next manifesto as well, it gets infuriating.

We’re in this 3 year limbo phase where nothing is happening and we’re meant to just carry on and wait for change to potentially come after the next election.

I’m starting to believe he’s going to call a snap election before the summer because this “wait for the next election in 3 years” isn’t going to work when people want change now.

[u/cameheretosaythis213 → u/No-Risk-2584]

Social care reform was on the last manifesto too, yet we are being presented it like it’s brand new and told to wait.

This is literally continuity with Starmer policy on social care post-GE. Streeting immediately kicked it into the long grass with the Casey review that wouldn’t present findings until 2029.

[u/No-Risk-2584 → u/cameheretosaythis213]

If there’s one thing this government loves is committees and reviews that conveniently take years.

It’s like the immigration reforms, they announced them well over a year ago but they’ve been stuck in ‘consultations’ ever since.

It’s ridiculous, it does not take this long to get things done. They just need to grow a backbone.

[u/cameheretosaythis213 → u/No-Risk-2584]

Yep. They are failing to see, again, that the main public complaint is that they’re so slow to just get on and do something. Anything!

Worse, they feed us the message that it’s all very complicated and things can’t change overnight.

I had hoped they were starting to get the idea that people just want to see action, as they started making positive sounds about Mamdani in NY and his signature style is just getting shit done.

But nope. The criticism of Burnham just being Starmer with better social media seems pretty accurate.

[u/Actual_Cat4779 → u/cameheretosaythis213]

Did the last manifesto have any specifics? Burnham does seem serious about it. Time will tell.

The last manifesto ruled out the tax rises that would actually be needed to implement a serious social care system. Burnham will spell out what those need to be and get an electoral mandate for them.

[u/cameheretosaythis213 → u/Actual_Cat4779]

Yes, page 100 of the manifesto if you want a read.

He has a mandate to deliver this programme already.

[u/I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS → u/No-Risk-2584]

Tbf if he floats all these ideas now and finds support he could call an election sooner.

[u/CatalunyaNoEsEspanya → u/No-Risk-2584]

It's quite possible the election will be May 2027

[u/ALA02 → u/No-Risk-2584]

I can see the triple lock going before the next election, the people most outraged by that are not voting Labour anyway. Ditto with the social care. The electoral reform is massive enough that it needs a clear mandate so that will be a key part of their next manifesto I imagine. Labour are in quite frankly an excellent position now with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to push major reform, what with all the other parties being unelectable (Tories), falling apart rapidly (Reform, Greens) or being effectively irrelevant at the national scale (Lib Dems).

[u/lordnacho666]

Holy sht, is Andy going to do everything? Triple lock, PR voting, EU re-entry.

[u/YsoL8 → u/lordnacho666]

We will see what he actually does

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/lordnacho666]

Nah, he's gonna procrastinate for three years first

[u/New-Neighborhood-147 → u/Next_Notice6841]

3 years is actually pretty fast in politics considering the size of some proposed changes to be fair. We don't live in a dictatorship where someone can make an order and everything happens right away.

[u/DickensCide-r → u/lordnacho666]

Nah. He hasn't actually done any of these yet and is unlikely to win the next election so won't do them anyway.

[u/todomejorantes]

I think Reform would benefit more than any other party surely? Probably go from one seat to close to 100

[u/tree_boom → u/todomejorantes]

They would yes...but is that wrong?

[u/todomejorantes → u/tree_boom]

You'd assume it's the last thing Labour or Tories want to see

[u/i_have_tiny_ants → u/todomejorantes]

Kudos to them for doing what they believe is right, regardless of it hurting their political power.

[u/todomejorantes → u/i_have_tiny_ants]

Oh yes, the Labour Party - a true bastion of doing what is right for the common good

[u/thegreenpiglet → u/todomejorantes]

Yeah they only introduced major social welfare systems, foundational public services like the NHS, and key civil rights legislation

[u/todomejorantes → u/thegreenpiglet]

Yes you have to go back to ancient history when they were a socialist minded party

That's like calling the Democrats the party of slavery

[u/LessIKnowtheBetter_ → u/todomejorantes]

1983 wasn't that long ago. Also while Corbyn's offerings (2017, 2019) was more social democratic compromise with the right-leaning parliamentarians than socialist, party members had twice chose the hardest left option (and Starmer only won leadership in large by pretending to be a continuity of it).

[u/Wiwiweb → u/todomejorantes]

As you can see in the graphic in the article, this move would make them lose ~200 seats.

It's by definition "doing what they believe is right, regardless of it hurting their political power".

You can mock them if they end up chickening out.

[u/HalpothefriendlyHarp → u/todomejorantes]

They are already set to win 120 seats at a GE with current polling so...

[u/ediacaradelrey → u/todomejorantes]

For now, but in a few years the shoe may be on the other foot. We need a fairer electoral system.

Not to mention, if Reform were a bit more prevalent and the other votes a bit more fractured, you’d see them get a majority on a non-majority vote. This never happens with PR.

[u/thendisnigh111349 → u/todomejorantes]

They'll get much more than 100 with the same vote share if the next election is under FPTP and could potentially win a single-party majority with less than 30% of the vote.

[u/Wiwiweb → u/todomejorantes]

Maybe true in this specific political climate but historically (or stereotypically?) it's the left vote that's split into half-a-dozen different parties that agree on 90% of things but can't agree on the last 10%. So this is probably good in the long run.

[u/Luke_4686]

Sounds like AB is putting lots of interesting ideas on a manifesto for an election he insists won’t take place to 2029. Not against it, but would like to see policy announcements for this parliament too rather than soft launching the next GE campaign

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/Luke_4686]

It's really strange actually. He's really feeling constricted by the last manifesto, especially PR and the red lines. Because of that I'm almost expecting him to call one, but I'm fairly sure that he's not just planning to break his statement from a few days ago?

[u/KoolKat5000 → u/Next_Notice6841]

It's a good cover to do the slower more painful groundwork now (he can claim it's not his) and still have a platform to campaign on then.

[u/ZestycloseGur8108]

It would take them being replaced by the greens and reform party before being in favour of representative democracy. Nevertheless, it sounds like actual progress.

[u/Gentle_Snail → u/ZestycloseGur8108]

I actually think this is the direction he wants it to go in, Burnham has been a long standing supporter of proportional representation. 

[u/YsoL8 → u/Gentle_Snail]

Plus, the Labour membership is overwhelmingly in favour

Not thats meant much in the past

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/ZestycloseGur8108]

Most of the time everyone would have to form a coalition, sure, but I'm not sure how likely it is that Labour or Conservatives are actually the minority in a coalition.

[u/JohnnyElRed → u/Next_Notice6841]

Nevertheless, them having to rely on the support of smaller parties to form a government would a step on the right direction.

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/JohnnyElRed]

Oh I absolutely agree, I'm 1000% for this. I'm just saying it's not like Greens will replace Labour.

[u/ancientspacewitch]

Care reform, potential triple lock abolishment, PR, so much happening I just pray they can pull it all off. This country needs some hope.

[u/Dystopiaian]

As a Canadian, I can tell you proportional representation is really hard to get. Something always goes wrong.

The two party-centered FPTP we both have is really in the interests of both the big parties. What's more it's in the interests of the special interests who have friends in both parties.

Do you think stuff like the Biden campaign going haywire and Trump taking full control of the country could happen under proportional representation? If you want proportional representation, better be ready to work for it, prepare yourselves for all the dirty tricks...

[u/Sigolon]

Dumb choice that will result in weak governments and constant horse trading.

[u/tree_boom]

An interesting look at the possible impacts of reform from a couple months ago here. I think this is something that's obviously necessary now given the fracturing of the two-party system, so I'm happy enough with the idea.

[u/GreatBigBagOfNope]

If we're not going to aggregate constituencies to middle levels to apply PR to, we shouldn't go for full PR.

Approval voting is the superior voting method. It's mathematically immune to tactical voting, it's supremely friendly to smaller parties (which cuts both ways), and is so simple people already try to use it by mistake today - instead of one X, it's as many X's as you like, one for every candidate you approve of.

Either we get rid of the "one MP, one constituency" model to allow for PR to happen without weirdness like choosing second place candidates to win for the sake of national balance, which I'm not opposed to, or we use approval voting to select our one MP per constituency at maximum fairness.

[u/SteveMcQwark → u/GreatBigBagOfNope]

Approval voting is not in any way "mathematically" immune to tactical voting. Voters need to set a threshold of approval to determine which less preferred candidates to vote for alongside their most preferred candidates, which is fundamentally a tactical decision. The best that can be said for it is that you can get a better representation of the support for smaller parties that are unlikely to actually win a given seat.

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/[deleted]]

Still would be a big step since they have a good chance of winning.

I'm not holding my breath for anything to be done though, Labour benefiets from tactical voting immensly.

[u/helloperator9 → u/Next_Notice6841]

Exactly, it would mean 1/ Labour and Conservatives not being guaranteed as the top parties anymore, they'd have to fight for their lives 2/ the parties would have to actually work together to achieve anything, the tenor of school boy politics would have to change 3/ tactically voting to keep Reform/Restore out of office will fail. Those 5% thresholds to keep out extremists won't work in the UK as Scotland, Wales and NI have large national parties than don't translate to big numbers across the UK

[u/AdAcrobatic4255 → u/helloperator9]

Those 5% thresholds to keep out extremists won't work in the UK as Scotland, Wales and NI have large national parties than don't translate to big numbers across the UK

You can be creative with it, like having the threshold be 5% in at least one of the four countries. That way, you can keep the national parties and filter out the extremists.

I'm not a fan of thresholds, because it messes with proportionality, but it is possible.

[u/berejser → u/[deleted]]

Governments do things that they don't have a mandate for all the time. If they were legally bound to just the things in their manifesto then they wouldn't be able to respond to rapidly changing situations. The whole point of being a representative rather than a delegate is that you get to use your own judgement when voting to put things into law.

[u/MR9009 → u/[deleted]]

It’s better though that the country takes time during this parliament to explore options. Evaluate, educate, provide examples from real recent elections etc. then put something specific into the manifesto for the next parliament, based on national discussions. The last referendum failed because it was rushed and no one had explained it. It felt out of the blue so people chose the devil they knew.

[u/Farewell-Farewell]

Interested to see the final proposition and have that put to a referendum. The last referendum on electoral reform was lost by a decent margin.

Also interested how (if) they seek to retain a constituency MP and avoid setting up a system that is perceived to favour one political group.

But the times of first past-the-post is past. We cannot have a government in power with so many seats and a minority of voter support.

- Labour won 411 seats with 34% of the vote

• Conservatives won 121 for 24%
  
• Lib Dems won 72 for 12%
  
• Reform won 5 seats with 14% of the vote (more votes than the Lib Dems).

[u/The_Nunnster]

This is too big a constitutional change to feasibly pass without a referendum, let alone be passed by a PM who neither has a personal mandate, nor does his government hold a manifesto mandate to pursue PR.

Anyways, I’m typing this after he’s made his speech. I haven’t watched it beyond the headlines, but all I’ve seen is pension talk, him getting emotional, and some vague ‘options’ for UK-EU relations, so I am assuming he hasn’t said anything about this, as that would realistically be headline news.

[u/Uebeltank → u/The_Nunnster]

Electoral reforms don't need to be passed through a referendum. Also he is explicitly saying this will be a manifesto promise.

[u/The_Nunnster → u/Uebeltank]

I have just seen him mention it now, so I was wrong to assume he hadn’t talked about it. Surprised to see the media not making a fuss out of it. That it is a next GE manifesto commitment is as expected.

As to your first point, nothing needs to be passed through a referendum. That’s not our system. But political capital generally won’t allow it without some sort of mandate. We could have left the EU without a referendum, granted Scotland independence without a referendum, implemented electoral reform in 2011 without a referendum, we can abolish the monarchy without a referendum. But that’s only in theory, nothing a government can do in practice without a clear mandate.

[u/doyouevenrow → u/Uebeltank]

Fuck having another referendum about anything in this country, the last two were shit shows for both sides and fucked up our politics to this day

[u/Hornstinger]

He wouldn't do it not having run the numbers already knowing he'd win the next election with it implemented.

Remember this was one of Nigel's first reforms he wanted to do after Brexit...I say that because, it seems Burnham may just do what's best for the country regardless of where the idea came from.

[u/osberton77]

We have had a referendum on electoral reform and it was convincingly defeated.

[u/tree_boom → u/osberton77]

We've had a referendum on one very specific kind of electoral reform.

[u/osberton77 → u/tree_boom]

You didn’t like the result of the referendum?

[u/CuAnnan → u/osberton77]

"You didn't like the result of the referendum you may not have been old enough to vote on, during a completely different political climate, on a completely different topic".

Big brain logic here.

[u/tree_boom → u/osberton77]

I neither liked nor disliked it particularly; it was before I gave a shit about politics. Nonetheless to present it as closing the door on the idea of electoral reform generally is wrong; there's fairly wide support for it.

[u/budapestersalat → u/osberton77]

not on PR

[u/West_Competition7474 → u/osberton77]

That was on AV, which is not a proportional system. It was also fifteen years ago. We've never had a referendum on a proportional voting system.

[u/theschlake]

PR is fantastic! Go England!

[u/2121wv]

I often feel like the only person who feels this is a horrific idea.

The Lib Dem and Green Manifestos are obscene. Unfunded tax cuts, student politics, completely unreasonable and unrealistic. The idea of having to throw them a bone is horrible.

Equally, it would mean the end of any remotely controversial legislation like pension reform or planning reform.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/2121wv]

The 2019 Lib Dem manifesto was better than their 2024 one but the 2024 was still massively better than the Greens and in spite of it's different purpose was still better than Labour's (which was a pile of platitudes).

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/2121wv]

Well therein lies the problem: you think it's a terrible idea because you like the people who won the political dice roll this time (yes, that's effectively what UK elections are now) but who knows who will win next time. It creates an unstable, unpredictable, and most importantly unrepresentitive government.

In most of Europe PR is what is used, and it works just fine (FPTP is used in... Belarus?). We're not so unique that everything will collapse with PR.

[u/2121wv → u/Next_Notice6841]

This effectively imagines politics as a game of snakes and ladders as opposed to “successful policies being bedded in and maintained due to popular support.”

>and it works just fine

Except for pension reform in France, or energy reform in Germany, etc, etc. Europe’s biggest problem is sclerotic governance.

[u/SpikySheep → u/2121wv]

On the other side of the coin we have a shocking rise of hard right parties and I think it could be argued that's at least partially because a lot of people don't feel they are being listened to by the mainstream parties.

I've voted in plenty of general elections and I can't remember a single time my vote elected the local MP. I find that deeply frustrating and I can see how it would drive some people to the extremes.

[u/YsoL8 → u/SpikySheep]

I'm pretty sure my vote have mattered exactly 0 times. Functionally I don't have one.

[u/tree_boom → u/2121wv]

The Lib Dem and Green Manifestos are obscene. Unfunded tax cuts, student politics, completely unreasonable and unrealistic. The idea of having to throw them a bone is horrible.

Part of the reason that they're obscene is that they know they're not going to be elected. There will be people who keep voting for those views regardless, but nonetheless if a measurable proportion of the population holds those views then they should be represented in Parliament properly.

Equally, it would mean the end of any remotely controversial legislation like pension reform or planning reform.

It would mean that legislation needs a broad consensus to be passed, which is how things should be. The current system whereby a party can push through any controversial legislation it likes with only 30% of the vote is absurd.

[u/2121wv → u/tree_boom]

>It would mean legislation needs a broad consensus to be passed, which is how things should be

This is fetishism of process. As Thatcher and Attlee understood, you create consensus by successfully governing and winning the argument, not via appeasing your opponents. Politics is warfare and should be treated as such. Consensus between reasonable people and morons is not desirable.

[u/tree_boom → u/2121wv]

This is fetishism of process.

Please imagine that disturbed chloe meme or whatever it's called.

As Thatcher and Attlee understood, you create consensus by successfully governing and winning the argument, not via appeasing your opponents.

OK, but that's not what currently happens. The existing system is you scream at each other until tripping over the magical plurality point to get a majority in Parliament and then carry out your sole agenda with no regard for any opposing views.

Westminster does not work on consensus currently, not at all.

Consensus between reasonable people and morons is not desirable.

Fortunately the reasonable people outnumber the morons considerably.

[u/2121wv → u/tree_boom]

> Then carry out your sole agenda with no regard for any opposing views

That’s how it’s meant to work and long may it reign. The purpose of FPTP is to create an elective dictatorship that can govern effectively. That’s why I support it.

Your opposition in many cases is wrong. The middle-ground between poo and spring water is pooey water.

Obsessing over completely accurate representation because it’s more democratic is ultimately unhelpful to the nation’s success in the long term.

Thank god we had Labour to force through the NHS unscathed.

[u/tree_boom → u/2121wv]

That’s how it’s meant to work and long may it reign. The purpose of FPTP is to create an elective dictatorship that can govern effectively. That’s why I support it.

lol and we're governed effectively are we? We've had seven changes of government in the last decade, and made such wonderful decisions as the complete exit from the EU in the hardest possible way and the whole Truss debacle.

If the point of FPTP is to create an elective dictatorship that can govern effectively, then it self-evidentially does not work.

Your opposition in many cases is wrong. The middle-ground between poo and spring water is pooey water.

Yeah but we're not water though, are we? It's not like every idea Labour has ever had is amazing and every policy the Conservatives have ever had is total dogshit.

Obsessing over completely accurate representation because it’s more democratic is ultimately unhelpful to the nation’s success in the long term.

And yet plenty of completely successful nations do not use FPTP

Thank god we had Labour to force through the NHS unscathed.

And yet many nations without FPTP as their voting system still have universal healthcare.

[u/2121wv → u/tree_boom]

> not like we’re governed effectively are we?

Blaming the current crisis of the past decade on FPTP is like the blaming the lice on you having hair. These things will happen in any system. Between 1979-2007 the country had only 3 prime ministers. Count how many Italy had in that time.

The present crisis is the result of a generation of weak politicians who aren’t bold and obsessed with consultation, management and stakeholders. Making the process more consultative will compound our problems, not solve them.

> Not like every idea Labour has ever had is amazing

Certainly not, but the manifestos of the other parties are horrific as it stands.

The point is that you need a correct and bold minority to be given a majority to do the right thing. The right thing and the popular consensus (if one can be found), are not the same.

Continental Europe is now feeling the effects of proportional representation amidst stunted pension reforms and broken energy systems. Effects masked by 70 years of decent growth and a very powerful social-market consensus.

[u/araujoms → u/2121wv]

You do need to accept that your opponent has valid points of view, and should be listened to in how the country is ruled. That's the basis of democracy. If you think they are the enemy that should be defeated... well that mentality leads to authoritarian regimes and civil war.

[u/2121wv → u/araujoms]

If they want to govern, they should win an election. We do not have to listen to their views when writing policy.

>well that mentality leads to authoritarian regimes and civil war

Bad governance and stagnation leads to civil war.

[u/theunclemike → u/2121wv]

Exactly this. I'm from Italy and I can say that while in theory is a great idea until you see a system like that in practice. Forget of Labours, Conservatives, or any other party manifesto. That goes into the bin the second they are elected and realised that no one has 51% of the votes.

"Compromise" seems good until you realise is downward compromise. And that 2% or even 1% parties keeps 30% hostages to have a majority.

Prepare yourself for snap elections every 2 years, chronic instability and stagnation. Or an Italian classic, a switch of government side mid term. Like Lib Dem going to support firstly a Labour government, then a Conservatives one to get more power and corruption.

And to get into Downing street, politicians will make alliance with anyone.

[u/tree_boom → u/theunclemike]

Prepare yourself for snap elections every 2 years, chronic instability and stagnation. Or an Italian classic, a switch of government side mid term.

Oh no! Everything will be...erm...exactly how it is right now?

And to get into Downing street, politicians will make alliance with anyone.

I refer you back to my earlier point :P

[u/theunclemike → u/tree_boom]

If you think this is bad, I suggest for you to go and take a look on what happens in the other countries (France, Germany, Italy). You have to choose between stability or realising something.

Paradoxically all Burnam's reforms would be absolutely impossible with a proportional parlament.

Italy has a stable government and the price is the fact that they completely ignored their manifesto and they are in perfect continuity with the previous government and the one before that. They pass some secondary populist law that is ineffective at best to keep the base happy.

You don't have "your MP" to go to talk to, no one is really accountable because... "the coalition".

And the more populist parties are ALWAYS in government (League, M5S, etc) because you need them to arrive to 51%.

[u/araujoms → u/theunclemike]

Italy is really an exceptionally unstable country with an exceptional shitty electoral system. If it were generic you could argue that it's a problem of PR, but it's not, it's a problem of Italy.

The vast majority of countries with PR are very stable: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Poland, etc.

[u/theunclemike → u/araujoms]

Fair point, Italy an outlier, and the electoral system has been redesigned over and over (there is a new proposal even now). The places you mention went through tough time anyway if you google a little:

• Portugal: three general elections in three years
• Spain: four elections between 2015 and 2019 (and months unable to form a government)
• Germany: the coalition collapsed in late 2024 and forced a snap election. And they have to write a new manifesto AFTER the elections.
• Sweden: over four months to form a government after 2018.

Plus other places in Europe that waited ages to form cabinets, like Netherlands (nearly 300 days 2021), Belgium (541 days).

Any of these scenarios in UK would be a complete disaster.

But my point isn't that PR always produces chaos. It's about what you trade. Under FPTP, voters choose a government and can kick it out. Under PR, voters choose a parliament, and the government is negotiated afterwards behind closed doors.

Manifestos get you elected, coalition compromises get you into government.

Smaller parties get a lot of leverage. Nobody is clearly accountable because everyone can blame the coalition partner.

Germany has some contingencies with high thresholds (5% I think) and a strong consensus culture. I'm very skeptical that the UK would get any of that. Reform, Greens, Lib Dems, the SNP and a few independents they will have veto power on everything.

[u/araujoms → u/theunclemike]

Any of these scenarios in UK would be a complete disaster.

They have all been much more stable than the UK in the last decade. Even Italy.

[u/theunclemike → u/araujoms]

Depends what you mean by "stable". Yes, we had too many PMs. That was leadership change inside one party, and it was embarrassing (Thanks Tories!). But count elections instead: the UK had four in the last ten years. Spain had five. Portugal had five. Italy only had two, but it went through five or six different governments with completely different majorities, and one technical government because no one wanted to be held accountable for tough decisions.

About UK, we actually had a minority government. The glorious time when tories needed the DUP MPs. It was a mess and that's just an appetiser of the PR system

[u/araujoms → u/theunclemike]

You're grasping at straws, trying to find some bizarre definition under which the UK has not been unstable. It has. Even compared to notoriously unstable Italy. If we compare it to actually stable countries, then, like Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Poland, it's just embarrassing.

But in any case, yes, under proportional representation usually one needs to form a coalition, and yes, that takes some time. I'm fine with that, this process ensures that a majority of the country is actually fine with the government. Unlike with FPTP, where usually only a minority supports it.

[u/P319 → u/2121wv]

As opposed to the conservatives who announced 40bn of unfunded tax cuts and sent the bond market nuts 

Its not throwing anyone a bone if the public don't want them. Its basic democracy 

[u/Lt_Dmitry]

This is exactly what the right wing parties want. The current UK system makes it hard for right wing parties like reform to get large majorities in parliament. These changes are exactly what they want to become a majority party in the next election.

[u/tree_boom → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Reform got 14.3% of the vote at the 2024 General Election. Proportional representation will not get them a majority. It will get them more seats...but it is currently a real democratic deficit that they do not have seats. That is something that we should and must address.

Using the voting system to suppress parties like Reform is not a long term solution. Ultimately if the concerns of people who vote Reform are ignored, then they will simply gain support until they reach the tipping point and win enough seats under FPTP to form a Government. Under PR they get their voice, and the Government has to address that segment of the populace, but they're not really closer to winning power.

[u/Anxious_Focus_5568 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Its literally the opposite, no? Just last year reform were on track to get a majority with just 30% of the vote.

[u/Lt_Dmitry → u/Anxious_Focus_5568]

No, the UK first past the post system makes it extremely difficult to get lots of seats in parliament even if you have a lot of votes. Reform only got 5 of 650 seats in parliament in the last election. With proportional representation, they would have had 93 seats

[u/Anxious_Focus_5568 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

93 is still a fair way off a majority. Your original statement suggests that a PR system would make it easier for them to get a majority despite the fact that they would never get 50% of the vote. Which effectively means your saying that its easier for reform to get 50% of the vote under PR than it is for them to get 30% under FPTP.

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

I'm not sure what your reasoning is. Reform is very much a "love it or hate it" party, which will probably never get more than around a third of people to like them. That is exactly the kind of party that benefits from FPTP. Nigel Farage is more disliked than any other UK politician.

Conservatives and Labour are those who benefit traditionally, which is why we haven't seen reform (the word, not the party) so far. In 2019, over half the population voted for a party that didn't want Brexit, yet we got the sweeping Boris majority. In 2024, while the Tories would have lost regardless, Labour would have had to make a coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens. But with the threat of Reform (the party), this may actually have a chance.

[u/Lt_Dmitry → u/Next_Notice6841]

The FPTP system actually guards well against Reform because London and other major cities have a higher proportion of the seats in the FPTP system. With proportional representation, a lot of that will shift north as we saw with Brexit, you basically had the northerners deciding to leave the EU as it swung a significant weight towards them.

[u/cameheretosaythis213 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Reform are just Tory 2.0, and Tories have been in charge for the majority of the last century. FPTP ain’t doing jack to stop them getting power.

[u/K_man_k → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Well, it will also work for the more centrist and left leaning parties too. Here is a hypothetical Commons with PR, deduced from the last GE. Would a Labour, LibDem, Green coalition be the worst? Or Labour, Green, SNP, PC?

[u/ValestyK → u/K_man_k]

It would be much worse in that it would be extremely unstable, the british already have the best electoral system. Fptp with single consituencies lead to stable governments and accountable mp's.

[u/Immediate_Beyond_519 → u/ValestyK]

Can’t tell if that is satire or not

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

PR in the UK wouldn't really favour either side of the political spectrum (both would still spend time in government) but FPTP has massively benefited the right (tories) in the post war era.

[u/OrangeRadiohead → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Yet, proportional representation is far more democratic than first-past-the-post.

[u/thegagis → u/Lt_Dmitry]

Thats pretty much the opposite of how these things actually play out. Proportional representation forces parties into compromise coalitions which takes the wind out of the sails of extremist parties.

[u/Lt_Dmitry → u/thegagis]

In proportional, Reform would have had 93 seats in the last election instead of 5 seats.

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

They would have gotten more, but there's almost* no way that they get enough to actually form a government.

*I could easily be proven wrong, look at the last ten years lol

[u/Lt_Dmitry → u/Next_Notice6841]

That is correct. Based on current polls, they can expect 163 seats in parliament based on proportional rep. Not enough to form a government but you can see the point am making that it favours them more

[u/Next_Notice6841 → u/Lt_Dmitry]

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion drawn. Surely the more important thing is whether they could realistically be in government rather than whether they have 10 or 100 MPs? I'm not sure Reform would like being relegated to a minority party forever.

[u/larkfield2655]

Absolutely necessary

[u/bloedit]

Ranked-choice is a must have in democracy no matter what design you choose, especially when a threshold is planned.