105
And this, kids, is how they will replicate the Milei experiment in UK. We are going to enjoy homeschooling, healthcare bankruptcy, 3 jobs just to pay rent etc.
I'm definitely all for PR, but hasn't FPTP hurt smaller parties like Reform/UKIP in the past? There was an election where UKIP received millions of votes but only secured a couple of seats. PR could potentially make it easier for parties like Reform to gain power.
Yes. One of the only benefits of FPTP is that for most of its history it has stopped tiny, insane, extreme, populist parties getting a foothold, and instead encouraged relative stability. For all the issues we have, the UK has been a phenomenally stable democracy over the years.
That is no longer a protection against Reform, as they've broken past the "not being popular enough to gain any traction under FPTP barrier".
Labour would rather this than have to change the voting system. PR came up in the last party conference and they just said, "Naaaah".
Keep voting red vs blue everyone!
They and the Torys are inveterate gamblers who every couple of decades win a huge number of seats as Labour did at the last election and that hope that they can win big every time rather than playing the odds properly.
This is coupled with wanting to lock out smaller parties like the Lib Dems, but that doesn't really work for Tory adjacent parties like Reform when seat boundaries have been gerrymandered by the Tories to such a degree that a small shift in certain seats can win the election.
Could the monarch technically (I know they aren't typically involved in politics in recent generations) force a change? Is there any way to petition them to do so? I don't really know the UK system or if this would actually be a good idea.
The method by which the Crown assents to petitions is via signing bills which the elected government of the day and the House of Lords have voted to bring into law.
In theory, the Crown could refuse to do so, or attempt to bypass Parliament by issuing a royal decree. In practice they'd find such efforts ignored at best, more likely their constitutional role far further curtailed (thence leading to a rapid diminution of their ceremonial duties and privileges, if not outright abolition).
The situations under which the Crown could flex their power and have a reasonable chance of survival are extreme. Even here, they'd de facto be acting in tandem with the populace to defend against a coup and preserve (or restore) Parliament as the source of law within a representative democracy. Whether or not they'd do so in a very clear cut scenario is moot; in the dense fug of populism as a cover to usher in authoritarianism, absolutely not, let alone the drear realities of a clumsily formed electoral system chafing and fraying in a complex world. Against that, neglecting to intervene in defence of the realm from clear attack could also prove fatal to the Crown, albeit far less hazardous to the monarch themselves & their family, having greater opportunity to go into exile beforehand.
Either way, they'd have to be confident that a large majority of the Armed Services, Police and other key institutions, all members of which swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown, were up for obeying orders issued by the Crown against a hostile takeover of democratic institutions.
Whether as a temporary measure to defend the nation in an emergency, or any other cause including those which are malign, a monarch acting as a supreme leader would likely have to use a good deal of their personal wealth to fund their activities. In this they can quite easily outspend many actors.
Broadly, it may be more effective for the Crown or the monarch in their own right to discreetly support an array of resistance groups, than wield regnal power with overt grandeur in the face of grubby onslaught. Meantime... we all best be glad that is vanishingly unlikely that the current monarch or his heir would decide to avail of a severe crisis as an opportunity to seize absolute power.
I believe they has, but any act from the monarchy not instigated by the parliament would also be their last
The monarch has power to do a lot of things. In practice, that power would get removed the instant they deviated from the script.
As someone from a country with proportional voting, you should give it a try
But the babies need ventilators!
And our soldiers need helmets!
Y’know none of this would be necessary if we taught media literacy in the first place. You see- Ow!
Alright, alright, fine.
PR all the way for me.
Yes. Count Binface could too.
As an independent under FPTP.
Nope that can never happen. He can only ever win one seat.
Not as an independent, no, but he could form the Recyclon party with a few of his kin.
Yes theoretically.
But then so could you and I. But ATM the odds of us being made a gov minister are about the same. At least for me. You may have won a few MP elections I do not know about.
I suppose he could become a cabinet minister in a coalition though.
He could be Prime Minister if the house stood behind his leadership. It's only convention that makes the leader of the largest party the presumptive prime minister. The house can send whoever they want to the king.
Def Possible. But given, such positions are political in a coalition. Again, the lack of power of vote risking party makes it unlikely.
I'd guess it's more likely under a majority, where he gains a reputation for a specific subject. Under FPTP, coalitions tend to need to appeal to the multi MP parties to survive.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
105 points (98.2% liked)
United Kingdom
4754 readers
172 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS