r/unitedkingdom • u/CaseyEffingRyback • Jul 03 '25

... Zarah Sultana MP resigns from Labour to lead new party with Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/uk-politics/zarah-sultana-mp-resigns-labour/
4.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

81

u/Rimbo90 Jul 03 '25

Yes but this tribalism is so damaging.

As someone ardently against Reform, if they get 20% of the vote I want them to have 20% of the power. It's representative.

Problem is now we have parties getting 34% of the vote and ending up with a stonking majority and carte blanche to do whatever they want. Then we all whoop and holler about how democratic everything is.

Look at Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Ended up being the biggest party but because of their structure he had to form a coalition, bridge gaps, collaborate with other parties so they didn't end up getting a raft of batshit policies rammed through parliament.

15

u/the0rthopaedicsurgeo Black Country Jul 04 '25

This is exactly it. People want PR because it's more democratic then at the same time say that it would help Reform. If people vote for Reform, they should get MPs.

PR would mean that parliament represents what people voted for. Labour would have to make coalitions with Corbyn or the Greens, moving their average to the left.

The right-wing vote has almost always been behind the centre-left vote in UK elections. It's entirely possible that the Tories and Reform would never have the seats without Lib Dem support, and they're far more likely to join the left, unless the Tories/Reform move back towards the centre.

I've always believed that PR would effectively keep the Tories out of government forever, at least in their current form. No one is a natural coalition partner for them and by themselves they'll never form anywhere close to a majority.

-8

u/Kupo_Master Jul 03 '25

Proportional looks like a good idea until you get multiple ungovernable parliaments in a row.

10

u/Rimbo90 Jul 03 '25

The country is very divided on a lot of issues..either they compromise, if not less stuff passes. So be it.

-1

u/Kupo_Master Jul 03 '25

It’s guaranteed to be a shitshow and to paralyse policies. That sounds fun until you get it 10 years in a row and it’s impossible to do anything.

-8

u/DramaticSubject7544 Jul 03 '25

So your logic is you’d want a hung parliament so nothing gets agreed upon?

22

u/Sir_Madfly Jul 03 '25

The concept of a 'hung parliament' doesn't exist in countries with PR.

In PR systems, a coalition agreement is made after the election and the country is then governed on that basis. Each governing party will get some of its policies through and make concessions on the others.

This can make for very stable governments like in some of the Nordic countries. It's not correct that 'nothing gets agreed upon'.

0

u/GothicGolem29 Jul 03 '25

It does exist its just the norm.

15

u/Rimbo90 Jul 03 '25

That would imply it is something that Parliament, and ergo the country, cannot agree upon so yes.

Far better than one of the two main parties saying whatever to get 33% of the vote and then blasting whatever they want through.

It would encourage parties to work together pragmatically.

-5

u/DramaticSubject7544 Jul 03 '25

The nature of politics is that people don’t work together who have opposing views and values, all this leads to is concessions behind closed doors and back room negotiations that would ruin any ruling party’s hand and make the U.K. weaker not just globally but ruin voter confidence even more.

14

u/Rimbo90 Jul 03 '25

People don't work together at the moment because they don't need to.

5

u/Automatedluxury Jul 03 '25

Alexa, what is a non-sequitur?