Formal list of Reform pledges

[JBR]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371

Obviously, they cannot impose any of these unless they form a government, but hopefully Reform can push for them if and when they actually have some seats in the Commons.
Perhaps if enough people agree with them, they might benefit from more votes in the election.

[Alex]

WE can but hope JB !

[Cassandra]

Nigel has stated he knows he won't get in anyway, they are guidelines for future provenance, a contract as he says.

The founding fathers started off here in the same vein in 1776. The UK should have a written constitution like here. In that way electoral manifesto's would be a pledge to alter same, with a time limit for expiry.

For outright liars like May, Sunak and Johnson at least a referral to the truth, post parliament to judge their re-election criterion.

[JBR]

Well said, Cassandra.  I completely agree that we would benefit from having a written constitution, though I assume that we are not free to do that having a monarchy.
Of course a monarchy is, I believe, a good thing especially where the armed forces are concerned.  A sort of a safety feature perhaps.

The other change I'd really like to see is the removal of our 'first past the post' electoral system which, I think, is not present in many other countries.  Proportional Representation would make all votes count as they should do.  At least, that is how I see it, though I am no expert.

[klondike]

Proportional Representation would make all votes count as they should do.

There is always a whole lot of horse trading after while the parties decide just how they will link up to produce a government. This can take months and it isn't clear to me who is in charge during that time. Perhaps nobody. I'm in no way sure whether that is a problem or not. The way the current lot have been carrying on it could even be beneficial.

There could be public outcry after this election should Reform take a quarter of the votes and end up with less seats than the LibDems on a far lower vote share. The trouble is that no party that gained power by means of the current system is likely to agree to change it and they will declare that it successfully thwarted the far right Reform 

[Cassandra]

Well said, Cassandra.  I completely agree that we would benefit from having a written constitution, though I assume that we are not free to do that having a monarchy.
Of course a monarchy is, I believe, a good thing especially where the armed forces are concerned.  A sort of a safety feature perhaps.

The other change I'd really like to see is the removal of our 'first past the post' electoral system which, I think, is not present in many other countries.  Proportional Representation would make all votes count as they should do.  At least, that is how I see it, though I am no expert.

I think with the history of our decline since the turn of the century 'variation' - is a vital necessity. At the moment we have a 'Constitutional Monarchy' similar to the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Japan, as well as most of the Commonwealth.

Having a written 'Constitution' within the set up of this model would be easily variable, from first past the post system (as present) to proportional representation. A constitutional monarch anyway, is really "A sovereign who reigns, but does not rule".

I was once totally against PR, but unfortunately the lies and downright deceit since 1997 have convinced me we need to protect ourselves from such covert and shameful governmental behaviour. It would also be more difficult to coral and conceal scuttlebuck in a system where parties were forced to co-operate.

[JBR]

There is always a whole lot of horse trading after while the parties decide just how they will link up to produce a government. This can take months and it isn't clear to me who is in charge during that time. Perhaps nobody. I'm in no way sure whether that is a problem or not. The way the current lot have been carrying on it could even be beneficial.

There could be public outcry after this election should Reform take a quarter of the votes and end up with less seats than the LibDems on a far lower vote share. The trouble is that no party that gained power by means of the current system is likely to agree to change it and they will declare that it successfully thwarted the far right Reform 

I agree.  It does appear that our electoral system may be corrupt in such ways. 

As the 'two main parties' take turns in running the country, and have done for a hundred years, I can see that they have nothing to gain by changing the system.  However, as the Conservatives now seem to have become decimated in Westminster, perhaps as there now may no longer be 'two main parties', surely a 'single party system' cannot be allowed to exist indefinitely.  That would be almost like a dictatorship!

Certainly, I am fully confident that the forthcoming Labour government will make such a hash of this country, there must be some sort of uprising amongst all the other existing political parties.
Yes, that's what we need: a REVOLUTION!

June 20, 2024, 06:41:31 PM
Sorry, Cass.  My post was made just after yours appeared.

On reflection, I cannot see any easy way of overcoming what we now have and making PR work effectively.
I wish I understood more.  All I want is for the votes of people living here legally to actually count.

[klondike]

There are a number of forms of PR. We were offered an alternative vote system in the referendum on PR produced as the price of the LibDems joining the Conservatives in a coalition. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

I forget the precise mechanism proposed but remember deciding at the time it was likely to result in a succession of coalitions with the LibDems being a permanent junior partner as they would almost always be second choice so I voted against it as did 67.9% of those voting.

[JBR]

There are a number of forms of PR. We were offered an alternative vote system in the referendum on PR produced as the price of the LibDems joining the Conservatives in a coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

I forget the precise mechanism proposed but remember deciding at the time it was likely to result in a succession of coalitions with the LibDems being a permanent junior partner as they would almost always be second choice so I voted against it as did 67.9% of those voting.

I think that any such system which guarantees anything for any particular political party must be unfair.
The simple way would be to elect MPs in proportion to the votes nationally regardless of whereabouts those votes were cast.  Why complicate matters.
Depending on the numbers, if one specific party gained more votes than any of the others, that party should form a temporary government with the others in opposition.  If such a majority led to a small number of government members in proportion to those in opposition, that too might be considered fair as the opposition, if they can unite, could decide yes or no to proposed legislation.

Of course, in any such system we could well do without the Lords!  Perhaps keep a smaller number - 100 like the Yanks have.

[klondike]

I think that any such system which guarantees anything for any particular political party must be unfair.

The system guaranteed nothing. The voting choices of the public would certainly make it likely IMO and would almost certainly guarantee the LibDems more seats. I'm not sure who chose the specific form of PR offered but suspect that the potential beneficiaries are the most likely suspects. 

[1955vintage]

Anything that gives Lib Dems seats is wrong. Their coalition under Clegg is the root of many of our problems. This pillock Davey is just as bad, he would do tot he country what he did to postmasters when he was in Government.

[klondike]

There are PR systems that work. The Party List Proportional Representation system for instance.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/party-list-pr/

Breaks the direct connection between voter and representative to a degree but I doubt many have regular dealings with their MP and most letters result in a stock reply if you do. Anyway that's supposed to be what local councillors are for most of the time.

Here's a list of the types used around the world

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/

[ansu]

When I was in the UK last time we also visited the House of Parliament (guided tour) and if I understood the guide correctly the members of the House of Lords are not elected but inherit their seat there. They don't have to attend the meetings, so there are often only few present. Generally they are no politicians, but before a law is passed they have to agree to it. 
An enormous difference to our government here in Germany. 

[JBR]

When I was in the UK last time we also visited the House of Parliament (guided tour) and if I understood the guide correctly the members of the House of Lords are not elected but inherit their seat there. They don't have to attend the meetings, so there are often only few present. Generally they are no politicians, but before a law is passed they have to agree to it.
An enormous difference to our government here in Germany.

I believe you are completely correct here in what you say.
There may be some ex-politicians in the Lords, but I'm sure they are in the minority.  At one time, the House of Lords was exactly that: a parliamentary system not for politicians but for the aristocracy.
Yes, I'm sure that most of the people sitting there are of no real benefit to us as a country.  Their function is to consider what the Commons proposes to do and, if they disagree with anything, they are obliged to say so and attempt to stop any legislation they dislike.  In practice, a motion can go back and forth between Commons and Lords several times, not only delaying any acts but also having the possibility of preventing them.

The other matter, which I have mentioned before, is that there are well over 800 members of the Lords.  Compare that with the US where their upper house is limited to 100 despite that country being four times our population number.  Logically, then, there should be no more than 50 members in the Lords!
Think about the expense as well as the other problems.

[Alex]

There are no longer hereditary seats in the HoL, I'm pretty sure that was stopped years ago.