Read on Twitter
THREAD on why @UKLabour should now vocally support proportional representation.
1. In the 2019 GE, CON won 43.6% of the UK vote-share. This translated to a majority of 80 seats. In the 1997 GE, LAB won 43.7% of the UK vote-share. This translated to a majority of 179 seats.
1. In the 2019 GE, CON won 43.6% of the UK vote-share. This translated to a majority of 80 seats. In the 1997 GE, LAB won 43.7% of the UK vote-share. This translated to a majority of 179 seats.
2. Similarly in Scotland, the SNP won 45% of the vote share in 2019, which gave them 48 of a possible 59 seats in Scotland.
3. FPTP is clearly built for a simple choice between 2 opposing parties. But the reality is that almost a quarter of the voting public didn’t vote CON or LAB in 2019. Given the result, many voters feel their votes didn’t count or, worse, their votes actively worked against them.
4. Imagine it’s 2019. You don’t want Brexit but you can’t get behind Corbyn. So you vote LD rather than LAB right? But that risks taking a vote away from LAB. You’ve not only wasted your vote but actively helped CON. Same logic applies if you vote BRX instead of CON (helping LAB)
5. PR would directly tackle the wasted votes as parties would receive seats proportionate to the vote share in each area. This means a wider range of political ideals would be represented and discussed, and voters would have genuine choices rather than feeling disenfranchised.
6. PR would also moderate our politics and prevent one party from having all of the power, due to the increased need for co-operation and support from other parties which represent different sections of the population. This is a good thread on the merits of PR generally: https://twitter.com/_sean_________/status/1205923377036304389
7. So why LAB? @Keir_Starmer has had a good impact during his first 100 days as LOTO and has shown himself to be a LAB leader that the public at large (outside of the LAB party) can take seriously as a potential PM. He can now start looking ahead to rebuilding trust in the party.
8. But make no mistake LAB has a mountain to climb and needs to be realistic. Scotland has shifted towards the SNP and LAB hasn’t won a majority in England since 1945. Right now FPTP only benefits CON and SNP as they don’t need to rely on support to win their respective majority.
9. LAB (particularly under a pragmatic leader) could benefit under PR with support from LD and GRN (all together 46.4% of the 2019 vote share) whereas CON would rely more on the rebranded BRX (together 45.6% in 2019). As you can see this levels the playing field (and helps LAB).
10. Supporting PR is also a viable tactic for LAB in the 2024 GE. Many of the smaller parties (LD, BRX, GRN etc) would benefit from PR and get behind it, including possibly standing down against LAB in some seats, hoping a LAB government in 2024 will benefit them in the long run.
11. Also, voters who would typically vote for smaller parties may feel less inclined to “waste their vote” when they can lend their vote to LAB, which actually has a chance of forming a government, with a view to voting for their preferred party under PR in 2029.
12. TL;DR PR is a fair way of ensuring all political views are represented (even those I disagree with) and reduces the Tories’ natural advantage under FPTP. Supporting it in time for the 2024 GE will also give @UKLabour a tactical advantage and maybe help them form a government.
13. Note: I’m not saying that a Conservative government is necessarily a bad thing. But I think PR would be better for the UK as a whole and beneficial for the Labour Party on a practical/political level. END
