[spidermonkey09]

ignoring motions passed at conference (eg. they won't implement PR),

I guess this is where we probably start diverging but to me the idea that any major political party should decide national policy based on motions at their party conference is completely mad. Labour has 360k members, the Tories only 170k! The UK population is 67 million. I would like to see PR but it would need a national conversation, not just being forced through or it would surely just be rolled back whenever the Tories next won.

[ToxicBilberry]

Thanks for the heads up on Ayn Rand, after a quick look at the Ayn Rand institute website I think I'll spend a bit of time reading her stuff. Re - the vote. I think Stone answered that already - it doesn't matter who you vote for as in the words of George Galloway - 'they're two cheeks of the same arsehole'. I'd like to see the Conservatives get zero seats, you're right, they're awful! It might be worth spending time reading about Elite Theory, it provides one way of understanding how power works, it is quite mainstream and doesn't talk about Cabal's or Sheeple. Re - useless eaters, a good example of useless eater policy was the mass sterilisation of Indian women from the 50's to the 70's - 18.5 million.

That you have looked up Ayn Rand and thought "I should read her stuff" speaks volumes

I think it’s good form to try and understand the world from a variety of perspectives. At first glance her objectivism doesn’t appeal to me due to its lack of metaphysical thinking. In reality objectivism may be more in keeping with the current spirit of the age and the world view of those in power.

[andy popp]

Here's an interesting short article on how Denmark came to be one of the first countries in the world to adopt proportional representation. Change takes work.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-denmark-get-proportional-representation/

[seankenny]

Here's an interesting short article on how Denmark came to be one of the first countries in the world to adopt proportional representation. Change takes work.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-denmark-get-proportional-representation/

It didn’t just take work, it took a massive change in the structure of the society. According to this (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-denmark/) Denmark started industrialising in the 1870s, increasingly so in the 1890s. Perhaps it was the Danish way of solving the same problems that we faced earlier in the 19th century, and which we dealt with via the reform acts? An answer to this is beyond my knowledge but we have two professional historians in the thread who might be able to shed some light on this.

More relevant to the PR in the U.K. argument, has there been a similar change that didn’t occur in the context of either the huge social changes of industrialisation or with the create/recreation of the state after war or colonial independence?

[stone]

Regarding the inefficient vote Labour got in 2017&19 -I think the huge mistake/flaw in the Corbyn project was a failure to actively recruit new party members in constituencies/wards under-represented in party membership. There is a feedback effect whereby friends and workmates introduce people like them to becoming members. That needs to be broken out of with effort. There was a huge influx of new members but they didn't represent the wider population at all. That really matters when a party relies on its membership for campaigning and policy development. Voters needed to see it as being "their" Labour Party, being run by people like them. A big policy shift like those manifestos required a lot of trust building and that requires such ownership by the electorate. A lot of the new "Red Wall" Tory MPs were local people voters could relate to.

Starmer also doesn't have relatable members nor candidates but that doesn't matter because he isn't trying a policy shift. People don't need to be persuaded or to put their trust in anything.

[Oldmanmatt]

I certainly think PR is a much better system than the current, in almost any iteration.
But I have to question whether it would have the massive effect on policy some seem to imagine (if I’m not mistaken).
Voting split by party has been really quite consistent over multiple elections, the swing from Con to Labour governments, seems, to mainly revolve around swing voters, centrists, moving one way or the other. They don’t actually vote centrist, otherwise the Libs would pull a bigger share. Now, probably under PR, they would. However, I can’t imagine that parliament under PR would look drastically different from the typical voting split. Maybe many customary Labour voter would go Green, Cons and Labour would lose some to the Libs, more would drift off to extreme R&L parties etc etc.
I don’t see it creating a parliament that will be able/want to push through anything more radical than current system, maybe even less so than where Cons or Lab have an overwhelming majority.

[Oldmanmatt]

Thanks for the heads up on Ayn Rand, after a quick look at the Ayn Rand institute website I think I'll spend a bit of time reading her stuff. Re - the vote. I think Stone answered that already - it doesn't matter who you vote for as in the words of George Galloway - 'they're two cheeks of the same arsehole'. I'd like to see the Conservatives get zero seats, you're right, they're awful! It might be worth spending time reading about Elite Theory, it provides one way of understanding how power works, it is quite mainstream and doesn't talk about Cabal's or Sheeple. Re - useless eaters, a good example of useless eater policy was the mass sterilisation of Indian women from the 50's to the 70's - 18.5 million.

That you have looked up Ayn Rand and thought "I should read her stuff" speaks volumes

Pipesmoke is kinda right, but it wasn’t worth the punter.
It’s not reading it that matters, it’s what you take away from it.