Latest news with #FPTP
Metro
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Metro
Labour's love lost in less than a year but will electoral reform rescue it?
In MetroTalk: Readers discuss Labour leaders, the left-wing, mass migration and the wealth tax debate (Picture:) Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. Is your spiritual home sturdy? Reader comments on Farage, Corbyn and Starmer Brian Dooley (MetroTalk, Wed) thinks Jeremy Corbyn's new political party should be the spiritual home of Labour supporters because Sir Keir Starmer has abandoned core Labour values. If only! Starmer ran to be Labour leader on left-of-centre policies and then understandably abandoned them to win last year's general election. Then, inexplicably, he forgot why he had won and reverted to comfort-zone, left-of-centre policies that plunged the government into a serious poll dive that shows no sign of being reversed. Immigration control, law and order, economic growth, NHS reform… policies very popular with the electorate have all collapsed in less than a year. Instead, out-of-touch, left-of-centre backbenchers bully the prime minister to maintain a bloated welfare state that is a magnet for migrants. No wonder Nigel Farage is so popular. Brian, the present Labour Party is indeed your spiritual home… until it is swept away in a few years' time – something that has happened in practically every country in Europe. Chris Shepherd, London Left-wing and centre-left vote to be split four ways? This reader says Corbyn would have less momentum if Labour offered concession to the left-wing(Picture:) I couldn't agree more with James Freeman (MetroTalk, Tue) that if Labour were to offer any sort of concession to the left wing of the party then Corbyn's party wouldn't have as much momentum. To reduce the threat posed by Reform UK, we also need proportional representation (PR). Under first past the post (FPTP), there is a danger the left-wing and centre-left vote will be split between Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Corbyn's party, while the right-wing vote is largely united behind Reform UK. Reform could win an overall majority with just 30 per cent of the popular vote under FPTP – but this could not happen under PR. Alan Yearsley, Sheffield Anti-immigrant, anti-immigration or pro-borders? Reader debates Some politicians and pro-immigration activists call their opponents 'anti-immigrant' protesters. Got a question about UK politics? Send in yours and Metro's Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@ or submit your question here. Maybe the protesters are not so much opposing immigrants – maybe they are opposing the government policies that have encouraged mass immigration? So, why not call them anti-immigration protesters? Or again, perhaps it would be more accurate to call them pro-borders protesters? Some of the pro-immigration activists carry banners calling for 'No borders, no nations'. Will Podmore, London 'Trying to nail down jelly', reader talks wealth tax This reader says wealth tax would be 'impossible to administer' (Picture:) Rob Slater (MetroTalk, Tue) asks why chancellor Rachel Reeves has ruled out introducing a wealth tax. The answer is simple – it's impossible to administer, as other countries have found. How do you put a value on works of art, fine wines, vintage cars, property or companies owned by individuals, to give just a few examples? What's to stop people who live here moving their assets to another country? How many civil servants would you need to assess values – if indeed you could? How many court cases would be brought by those who feel their assets have been overvalued? It's like trying to nail down jelly. The big mistake this government made was in promising not to increase those taxes that make up two-thirds of the total tax income – income tax, national insurance and VAT. If we don't want to pay more tax then we have to expect cuts to public services. It's as simple as that. John Daniels, Redhill Reader says Reform can't solve emigration when the party includes many ex-Tories responsible for mass migration? In her analysis of the causes of mass immigration, Helen (MetroTalk, Tue) ignores the fact large numbers of migrants don't come from countries with war or disaster but the EU and India etc. She glossed over the fact many who do come from problem countries go through safe countries to get here. Helen ignored the impact on the country of over-population (in the 1970s people were urged to stop having children as the then much smaller population was considered unsustainable). She also ignored the fact not only are we becoming 'an island of strangers' – in the words of Starmer, albeit words he now regrets – but of enemies as per the under-reported conflict between Muslims and Hindus. Helen is right about the terrible conditions driving some to emigrate but as to Reform claiming to being the solution, the party contains many ex-Tories responsible for much of the mass migration. Reform is in favour of increasing the wealth disparity between rich and poor, probably increasing the drive for immigration. Mark, via email At what age can you be rugby tackled to the floor for breaking the law? This reader saysthat if they're allowed to vote, they're old enough to face consequences for stealing(Picture: Getty Images) The other night I watched two teenagers walk out of my local superstore with a rucksack full of shopping they had not paid for. The security guard tried to stop them but they just casually walked past him. He told me they did it all the time because they know he can't touch them. If the government considers them old enough to vote then surely they are of the age where they can be rugby-tackled to the floor for breaking the law. Gareth, London Reader suggests substance testing for those on benefits with mental health issues Why doesn't the Department for Work and Pensions introduce drug and alcohol testing for those who receive benefits and claim to have mental health issues? Very often I see people on the street smoking marijuana or with a can of beer. It's easy to see what kind of state they are in and it's very dangerous. These individuals should be receiving medical care and food, travel and rent vouchers, not money or benefits. If they refuse, they should be disqualified and prosecuted. Val, Broxbourne Arrow MORE: KöD's signature three-course menu for only £39.50: 10 unmissable Time Out deals Arrow MORE: I'll sleep soundly through the next heatwave thanks to this game-changing item from Oodie Arrow MORE: Former UFC fighter Conor McGregor loses appeal for civil rape case
The Independent
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
‘The UK needs a new voting system first': Readers react to Corbyn's new left-wing party
Public reaction to Jeremy Corbyn's new left-wing party has been mixed, with many Independent readers more concerned about the UK's electoral system than the party itself. While some welcomed the alternative to what they see as a 'Tory-lite' Labour government, most agreed that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system makes it almost impossible for smaller parties to succeed – and risks splitting the left vote. 'Until the electoral system is changed to proportional representation (PR), the dog's breakfast that is British politics will continue,' wrote one commenter. Others feared the move could hand power to a Tory-Reform coalition, with one reader warning: 'If you think Johnson and Truss were bad, wait until you see what Farage and Jenrick manage to destroy.' Although Corbyn remains popular among younger voters, many readers questioned the strategy behind launching a new party now. 'This is a disaster waiting to happen,' one said. 'The left is already fragmented and needs unity, not further splits.' Some saw the move as a protest rather than a serious political project, while others argued it could force Labour to shift left or adopt PR. Here's what you had to say: No real left in the UK I certainly don't like the Conservatives, and I dislike Reform UK even more. The problem with the current Labour government is that they are Tory lite. I cannot see Corbyn ever being PM. Starmer is sadly too authoritarian – hence the jailing of peaceful protesters. Personally speaking, I would like to see a combination of the Lib Dems and Greens in power, but there is almost zero chance of that happening. The Lib Dems are much more to the left than Labour. Christopher1959 Do you think the UK's voting system needs to change? Let us know in the below. Until the system changes, expect a mess Although it is excellent to have more choices for the electorate to choose from, unfortunately, because of the first past the post electoral system (FPTP), this only "waters down" the anti-Tory/Reform vote, because those right-wing parties and their "supporters" will stick together. Don't forget the Lib Dems, who command a fair old share of the electorate – but not enough for a majority. That could result in permanent right-wing governance! Until the electoral system is changed to proportional representation (PR), the dog's breakfast that is Brit politics will continue, with either "one or t'other", or, as I said, because of the watering down of the centre and left-wing vote, a permanent Tory/Reform bunch in power! Blue3Lee It's a step, but PR must come first A step in the right direction – offering a wider choice to the electorate, many of whom feel they have a Hobson's choice at the moment. But it won't work as an alternative under FPTP. To succeed, a genuine form of PR would have to come first – freeing voters to vote for their real preference rather than simply to prevent an alternative. Corbyn won't be around for too much longer and would, I think, willingly step back once a more genuine left-of-centre Labour-type alternative is available. Strangely Enough Finally, some choice outside the centre I think the public now having a slightly right-wing party in Reform and a slightly left-wing party with Corbyn to vote for is a positive thing, given the centrist WEF Lab/Con Blairites we've had since 1997. GaryGlass New parties need deep pockets to survive I have two principal thoughts on this: First, this isn't the first time that a "splinter" party has been formed in the UK. Regrettably, almost none have survived contact with FPTP for long, other than the Green Party and niche outfits like George Galloway's "Respect" party. Second, to have any chance of electoral survival, let alone making a difference, this putative political party must have serious (pots of money) backing. If this party subsequently shows sufficient support, I suspect that the chances of any form of proportional electoral system being brought in will recede even further, because of the increasing electoral threat to the current government. Nobrandloyalty Corbyn's party won't win, but could push Labour Whilst this new party will definitely not win the election and will probably get few MPs, the threat of a split in the left vote – letting in Reform on an even lower percentage than Labour got last year – will hopefully motivate Labour to change some policies. Possibly even encourage them to manifesto-promise PR/electoral reform to tempt people back into tactical voting for them in 2029 – so they can have better chances for the JC party in 2034. Someone182 A split left could hand power to Farage I remember how the SDP were going to "change politics in the UK forever". They did – the Tories lurched even further to the right and kept winning elections. I do not like Starmer, however, splitting the Labour vote is going to give us a Tory/Reform coalition. If you think Johnson and Truss were bad, wait until you see what Jenrick/Farage manage to destroy. Moonraker2025 New parties are pointless without PR The UK needs a new voting system before it needs more parties. These small new party initiatives don't work out within the current system. Corbyn's lifelong main political goal is to run a protest movement – and that's what this will be. – ItReallyIsNot FPTP stops Corbyn from being a threat If it wasn't for our FPTP electoral system, Corbyn would be a serious threat, I believe. Polheg Reform will benefit most from Corbyn's move Corbyn's new party will take votes from Labour but is unlikely to win more than a handful of seats. The prime beneficiaries will be Reform. It was a serious mistake for Labour to expel Corbyn, since it was always obvious that he commanded a lot of support from the left and would be in a position to retaliate. Musil A fragmented left is a disaster in waiting Corbyn to the rescue – just when we need some kind of ruthless pragmatic unity in the face of 'Euphemism' – and in waltzes Corbyn and a further split of 5 to 10 per cent at most. It seems that more than ever, a further counterproductive split among an already fragmented centre/left, in the face of a determined, well-organised, highly coordinated and highly effective far right, is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. I genuinely cannot see a way out of this. Jim987 Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
The National
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
SNP must treat the Holyrood lists as the most important votes
The interface between psephology and mathematics is an unlikely place to look for an inspiring political discussion. But it is an area we need to get into. Scotland's additional member system is a hybrid of two different methods of election. There are 73 individual constituencies which elect a single MSP by first past the post (FPTP). The country is also divided into eight regions in each of which seven MSPs are elected from a party list. READ MORE: Poverty levels in Scotland below UK for 20 years, graphs show The list representation is quite deliberately intended to compensate parties who do badly out of the FPTP contests. It makes the numbers of MSPs from each party more in line with the votes cast for them. From the start, the system was a cop-out, accepting the gross and unfair distortions of FPTP, but preferring to put a sticking plaster on it rather than change it. It never ceases to amaze me that while on paper there is a massive cross-party majority against FPTP, the Scottish Parliament, unlike its Welsh counterpart, has never seen fit to change the electoral system it was given by Westminster. In theory, there is no reason why you could not allocate additional members through making a calculation of the votes already cast in constituencies. But we don't. Instead, voters are asked to make a separate vote on a different ballot paper. It is that vote, and only that vote, which is used to calculate what share of seats parties should have. These two votes are intended to be part of a single process of determining representation. But I'm pretty sure most people see them as two quite separate choices. Those electors who are still fairly strongly aligned to the party of their choice will probably vote the same way on each ballot. But a growing number of people are not strongly aligned to one party, they swing between them. A lot of them regard the regional vote as an invitation to make a second choice. Now that you've voted for your MSP, which other party would you like to see in the parliament? It feels like they are expressing a preference, giving the system their first and second choices. But it doesn't work like that. In reality, if you vote for a different party on the list, you may effectively cancel out your first choice. So, without your knowledge or intent, your actions may prevent the party you wanted elected from winning. In elections where one party dominates the constituency ballots, this might not be that much of a problem since the biggest party will be hard placed to get seats off the list anyway. But when the electorate's will is volatile and six-party contests make outcomes uncertain, a system in which one vote unwittingly negates the other is a democratic problem. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Do Scots really want to dance to Keir Starmer's military tune? Scotland's political parties have themselves reinforced the illusion that voters are being asked to rank more than one preference. The best example being the 'second vote Green' strategy. But even 'both votes SNP' tells people there are two different votes and implies there's an option of making different choices in each. The SNP have been the decisive constituency victor in the past three elections. In consequence, the party has come to see regional contests as less important. Lists are made up of the same candidates that are fighting the constituencies. For them, it's a belt and braces approach to getting elected. But for some voters, this increases the chance of their vote going elsewhere. They can't see the point of voting for someone on the list who they've already backed with their constituency ballot. Even now, the party has had all its constituency candidates in place for two months and has not begun the process of choosing regional ones. There is almost an acceptance that nothing can be done about the gap in voting intention between constituency and regional ballots. John Swinney speaks at an SNP event which saw the party confirm all its constituency candidates for the 2026 elections (Image: PA) This is a mistake. The only way in this system to get a majority is by winning in both constituencies and lists. And the best way to do that is to drive up the share of support in the regional ballot. Increased shares on the list will drag up votes in the constituencies. It doesn't happen the other way round. So that means a national message must be central to a winning campaign. High-profile teams of candidates not running in individual constituencies need to campaign on a wider terrain. The choice on the list must be presented as the most important, not seen as an afterthought. If anything, it's your main decision. Decide who you want to lead the government first and having done that now choose your local representative. The SNP tried to do this in 2011 with the slogan 'Alex Salmond for First Minister'. It was the only time the party won a majority. We should learn that lesson.
Daily Mirror
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Farage's Reform UK reached a 'tipping point' - and it's worrying news for Labour
Analysis of the local election results by the Electoral Reform Society shows Reform getting an almost 10-percentage point 'winner's bonus' in their haul of council seats last Thursday compared to their vote share Reform UK have reached a 'tipping point' where Britain's electoral system works for them rather than holding them back. Nigel Farage's party has long opposed the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system which holds back challenger parties. But analysis of the local election results by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) shows Reform getting an almost 10-percentage point 'winner's bonus' in their haul of council seats last Thursday compared to their vote share. Across 22 of the 23 councils contested last Thursday, Reform won just under 31% of the vote but garnered just over 40% of the seats, leading to a 'winner's bonus' of 9.8 points. In the 2013 local elections - when Ukip got its strongest vote - the party got just 5% of the council seats available, despite winning 20% of the vote. The ERS analysis shows that just a 12.2-point increase in Reform's vote share in 2025 compared to UKIP's in 2013 has resulted in a huge 35.5-point increase in council seat share. Darren Hughes, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: "It is clear from these results that UK elections are turning into a random lottery to see which party will get the 'winner's bonus' under First Past the Post. " But in worrying news for Labour, Keir Starmer's party suffered the greatest electoral penalty from the FPTP system at the local elections, seeing a difference of -8.2 points, with its 14% vote share yielding just 5% of council seats. Labour benefited from the system hugely in last year's general election, turning a slim lead in votes to a huge commons majority. The FPTP system saw Labour win a landslide 63% of the seats in Westminster on just 34% of the vote [2], leading to the most disproportional parliament in British history. Mr Hughes added: "At these local elections we again saw that people are voting in an increasingly multi-party way and our two-party voting system is simply unable to cope. "That is why it is throwing out distorted results that don't represent the way people voted with parties winning majorities on councils on just over a quarter of the vote. "This just underlines the need to move to a fairer, proportional electoral system for town halls, as well as Westminster, that accurately reflects the way people vote in the seats parties receive. "Rather than gifting different parties massive electoral bonuses that don't represent the votes they won, the only bias the electoral system should have is to the voters."
Express Tribune
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Ballot box representation
Listen to article Barely a quarter of all directly elected members of the National Assembly won more than 50% of the total votes cast in their constituencies, raising new questions about the mandates of our parliamentarians. Without delving into any rigging allegations, the data not only reflects the deep political divisions in society, but the unrepresentative nature of our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system, where a politician can, in theory, win with even less than 10% of the vote. Should such a victory constitute a legitimate mandate? Data from Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) underscores the need to take a long hard look at major election reforms to ensure that the winning candidate is at least generally popular in their own constituency. One change suggested in several FPTP systems is a runoff system, where low vote-getters are eliminated and fresh polls held until somebody reaches a certain threshold, usually 50% of the vote. However, runoffs can be prohibitively expensive as they can require several stages of polling. This makes ranked choice voting - which lets people vote for several candidates while attaching a weightage to each name - more doable. This leads to an instant runoff, ensuring that the winner has at least some support from an outright majority of voters. It can also ensure that a generally unlikeable candidate with a strong base cannot win a split-vote election, and makes 'seat adjustment' between parties unnecessary. Some countries also have proportional representation, where votes are cast for parties, not candidates, and seats are allocated based on parties' own priority lists. But while this leads to strong governments, it opens the door for undemocratic parties to take regressive measures, making it a hard pass for Pakistan, where most major political parties lack internal democracy, and some have authoritarian leadership. Whatever the solution to better elections, it certainly is not FPTP in its current form.
