A Pro-PR Pact to fight the next General Election

Once Labour chooses to come out in favour of PR, the opposition parties should form a temporary electoral pact to fight the next General Election on the single policy manifesto of "Bring in PR and then immediately call a re-election" to ensure both the defeat of the Tories and the ushering in of electoral reform. www.proprpact.uk

Showing 22 reactions

What do you think of this suggestion? (You must be logged in)
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sue Fewster
    commented 2016-07-30 20:18:54 +0100
    Given the current manipulation of constituency boundaries I Believe this a necessity if we are to continue referring to the UK as a democracy.
  • Sue Fewster
    tagged this with love 2016-07-30 20:18:54 +0100
  • Michael Harris
    tagged this with dislike 2016-07-29 12:45:02 +0100
  • Jack Sherer-Clarke
    tagged this with love 2016-05-28 16:27:45 +0100
  • Chris Everett
    commented 2016-05-04 19:28:48 +0100
    What is incredible is not how many people failed to vote but how many people voted considering, in the average general election, the majority of votes are ineffective and two thirds of MPs are elected by the minority of the votes cast by their constituents. It as if the British were saying, “I want to show I dislike you but I am happy for you to form the next government”.
  • Chris Everett
    tagged this with like 2016-05-04 19:28:48 +0100
  • Jack Weatherilt
    tagged this with love 2016-05-03 22:02:26 +0100
  • Neil Stretton
    tagged this with love 2016-05-03 17:52:56 +0100
  • Cliff Grout
    commented 2016-04-06 07:56:52 +0100
    Thanks for all your comments and tags.
    Three points; firstly to John Hackett’s; I suspect that there will be little time between Labour deciding to throw in the towel on FPtP ( when polls in 2019 confirm that they are un-electable ) and the 2020 GE. Therefore a decision about which PR system to campaign on by the Pro-PR electoral pact will have to be made quickly and, since Labour would have to be part of the pact to ensure success, the system that it supports ( probably AMS ) should be adopted. Once the first PR Parliament is elected there should be a thorough review of all aspects of electoral reform and this should include the PR system adopted by the Pro-PR Coalition, perhaps by a referendum, to ensure it is fit for purpose. During the Pro-PR campaign, however, the point should be repeatedly made clear that no PR is system is perfect but any PR system will be 100 times superior to FPtP, as we need to be careful to avoid the failure of a potential Pro-PR Pact because it couldn’t agree on “what colour the front door should be!”

    Secondly to Tom Barker’s; A coalition designed to last a full parliamentary term will have to find a lot of common ground about policies for it to survive, but I can’t imagine that this would be possible. Between the present pro-PR parties there is a wide spread of ideas about nationalism, defense, the environment, immigration, welfare, etc. I therefore suggest that the pro-PR parties should focus solely on the single issue that unites them and suspend campaigning on others until the electoral playing field is leveled later in 2020 and then go for a partisan re-election then.

    Thirdly to Roger Cherry’s; Apathy, maybe. But 43% of the adult population did not vote in May 2015, either due to apathy or the realization that their votes wouldn’t count under FPtP. Polls conducted by the Electoral Reform Society recently have shown that 74% and 57% would like to see more proportional elections, while just 6% and 9% wanted to keep FPtP. Also remember that half a million people signed the petition of PR in May. Similarly to the Scottish referendum, I believe that a Pro-PR Pact would actually stimulate renewed interest in politics because something radical was happening to shake up the system.
  • Peta Cuttell
    commented 2016-04-03 18:15:22 +0100
    As long as the agreement is to implement a multi-choice referendum using instant-runoff voting referendum* (AKA preferential voting, AKA alternative vote) which includes more than one system… I would be STRONGLY in favour or a pro-electoral-reform electoral alliance.

    Should the system which is used to elect members of the house of commons be changed?
    - Yes
    - No

    Q2: (voting done preferentially via AV or IRV)
    Which system should members of the house of commons be elected with?
    - First Past the Post
    - Alternative member system
    - Single transferable vote
    - Alternative vote/Instant run-off vote
  • Peta Cuttell
    tagged this with love 2016-04-03 18:15:21 +0100
  • Roger Cherry
    commented 2016-04-03 15:41:30 +0100
    If a consensus could be reached then it would be interesting to see whether this engaged voters but I have a feeling that it could meet antipathy.
  • Roger Cherry
    tagged this with love 2016-04-03 15:41:29 +0100
  • John Hackett
    commented 2016-04-02 12:08:25 +0100
    Good suggestion, but this pact would be complicated by deciding on the system to implement. There a split between those parties and groups who favour Single Transferrable Vote and those who prefer the Additional Member System which could complicate matters significantly.
  • John Hackett
    tagged this with like 2016-04-02 12:08:25 +0100
  • John Hackett
    tagged this with love 2016-04-02 12:08:24 +0100
  • Jane Ayres
    tagged this with love 2016-04-02 11:03:42 +0100
  • Nate Higgins
    commented 2016-04-02 07:41:15 +0100
    I recently wrote a tool that analyses past elections and shows what might have happened had certain parties been in a pact.

    Check it out

  • Tom Barker
    commented 2016-04-02 00:22:05 +0100
    I love the idea of an electoral pact, in fact I would say all of us would be mad not to have one, but I do believe our pro-PR alliance should govern for five years before we hold the first PR election. The next parliamentary term should also be reduced to four years.
  • Tom Barker
    tagged this with like 2016-04-02 00:22:04 +0100
  • Fred Rose
    tagged this with love 2016-04-01 23:19:09 +0100
  • Cliff Grout
    published this page in Join the debate 2016-04-01 22:43:59 +0100