We can’t tackle the climate crisis without voting reform
We can’t tackle the climate crisis without voting reform
'Effective action on climate chaos is purposefully rejected because First Past the Post (FPTP) privileges the voices and votes of a tiny minority'
The last paragraph just about sums it all up.
The choice is Labour’s, to go on trying to secure narrow, shallow and occasional FPTP victories on policies only acceptable to those who want nothing to change, especially on climate, or mobilise and build the progressive majority that exists in our country. Infrequent, weak single party government or strong progressive alliances most of the time? The flick of a switch in terms of how we count votes is a game changer for progressives and the planet.
I don't want a system that relies on the least worst option. This system is low hanging fruit for abusive regimes with a war chest to spend on campaigns.
They were talking about this on the radio and suggested that countries with OR did better because parties weren't just focused on the electoral cycle, which leads to short-term thinking. Instead, where you get coalitions parties who will often stick around for years and so are forced to think longer-term.
LFF yet again put the cart before the horse.
The problem, as they acknowledge, is that power is held in a minority of swing seats. It isn't only Labour and the Tories that benefit from this, but those voters as well.
But if Labour put voting reform in to their manifesto - and for it to be a day 1 issue they would have to - all it takes is for the Tories to run the sort of negative campaign we saw with the AV referendum, and every election since, in those swing seats for Labour to not win, and not be able to make the change.
The only route to electoral reform unfortunately seems to be a second Labour term. The theory being that it would be harder to run the sort of negative campaign the Tories would do, after a successful first term.
Or, via a coalition agreement, and instead of having a referendum - because parliament does not need one to decide how it's members are elected - just enact the reform.
If Labour put it in their 2024 manifesto, it would be too easily defeated.
I keep hearing this argument a lot. A very similar story with reversing Brexit. Educating the public is key to a successful result. Where as I agree with the Brexit case, I disagree with the PR voting. There are polls that show 70% of those asked that they want electoral reform. Adding this as an election is called would stop any organisations forming a campaign against it. Labour have a mission statement released. They do not have a manifesto pledge yet. There is an overwhelming desire from the Labour membership for PR voting. It would not be an unreasonable thing to do.
And more so, I feel this needs to be kept in the limelight to remind Labour that it is an item that is high on the voters want lists.
Sure Labour could add it, and yes 70%+ do support it, but you're ignoring the fact that tories don't need to convince >50% that electoral reform isn't needed, they only need to convince enough people to swing the vote in swing seats to keep themselves in power. That's maybe a few 100k people across the entire country, much much less than 50% of the electorate.
And more so, I feel this needs to be kept in the limelight to remind Labour that it is an item that is high on the voters want lists.
Bluntly, it doesn't matter what people who are already voting Labour want. I live in one of the safest Labour seats in the country, policies that turn a 25k majority in to a 26k majority are meaningless.
People who are already progressive leaning, if voting in a tory target seat, are likely to vote tactically against the Tories, regardless of party or manifesto (Lab, Lib, or Green).
So you're back to tory swing voters, and if they care about it. This is precisely why we need electoral reform, but it's precisely the thing that stops it.
The priority order must be
- Get the Tories out (via winning)
- Keep the Tories out (via electoral reform)
I think you can even position it as a continuation 0f the ideas that a lot of people's Brexit vote was based on. Parliamentary sovereignty requiring it to actually be representative of the population's opinion. A higher quality parliament for a parliament with greater responsibilities.
Yeah not surprised with LFF. Lots of surface level commentary without substance. But absolutely agree with your analysis. I wish it wasn't the case that we have to wait even longer for electoral reform but the realist in me knows this needs to happen in the way you described.
I'll go further and say that whilst Labour are successful (two terms three terms whatever) this will also never happen. I don't have faith in them not to be sucked in again by power like the Tories have been. I think only a coalition can force the thing through.
There is no reforming the system (the system, not the farce they let us "express our voice" through periodically that are elections), it is designed to resist reform, and any solution that is aiming for reform as its goal, WILL fail.
This is just more participation in their theatre, which is there to keep us from turning on the ruling class that enforces it so they can continue to oppress and exploit us.
You don't have any evidence to support that really though do you? My opinion is that nothing ventured nothing gained.
This is just pure defeatism and an excuse to not put in any of the hard work needed to make things better. If this was true, the right-wing ruling class wouldn't spend billions on trying to influence your opinions and fostering this exact type of hopelessness.
Reforming the current system is certainly an uphill battle but it has been done before – and without a coalition. Look at New Zeland.