WI: Labour brought in PR

This is a purely hypothetical situation that will encounter many a-butterfly.

Let's say that in 1998, Tony Blair had a vision of God telling him to adopt STV as the electoral system to the House of Commons. This is later implemented by 'the Parliament Act 1999'.

What effects would this have on Tony Blair, the Labour government and the Liberal Democrats?
 
Well I'd like Mr. Blair a lot more.

Not nessecarily a coalition - there was a 12% downturn in voting in 2001 due to part apathy and part acceptance of Labour's dominance - 2.8 million Labour voters stayed home from 1997. New system might encourage more people to go to the ballot. Plus STV isn't purebreed PR - Labour could still get a majority with around 40-45% of the vote.

However that's ignoring the huge bombshell it would be - christ knows how many fringe parties would come out of their caves and yell "Our time is now!" Maybe Referendum take another crack - try to get a hung parliament? The various left-wing parties that sprung up over the decade might latch on somewhere.

Lib Dem vote could go up but Kennedy was doing very well considering Labour's popularity so it might not be much better. Also even if they do and form a coalition that doesn't mean no Iraq War when you've got the Official Opposition all for it. The Liberal Democrats are not the fearless rebels they are sometimes painted as - Kennedy in the Cabinet might have bitten the bullet to get through more Lib Dem domestic policies.
 
Like most types of PR it's all very well until someone like the BNP gets a seat (in somewhere like Leeds?). Couple this with other small parties Green, UKIP and what ever party Galloway is calling himself, it still adds upto, no one gets who they vote for. I do not think for one moment Tony, blessed be his name:D, would ever go for it.
 
Perhaps the 1992 election returns a hung parliament, and the ensuing Labour/Lib dem coalition implements PR on the logic it would make a Conservative government all but impossible?
Not quite the OP, but it's the closest scenario that occurred to me. One of the more interesting schemes I've seen suggested (late in WWI) was for single transferable vote PR in the cities, but with single-member AV districts for rural areas.
 
There still might be no choice for him if sufficient extra parlementary pressure is placed on him ,enough petitions ,public meetings maybe get a newspaper involved [obviously not a murdoch one:rolleyes:]
Perhaps apathy turns into anger which is channeled by a minor party seeking a chance for power Something a little like this happened in New Zealand a few years back. The major parties splintered a small proportion of their MP's who formed thier own parties in conjunction with others or on their own
Few of these parties survive today.
 
Like most types of PR it's all very well until someone like the BNP gets a seat (in somewhere like Leeds?).

The present voting system does'nt stop them from getting seats, UKIP has 2 seats and the BNP got 2% of the vote in the last election and it would'nt be impossible for other Right-wing groups to focus their attention on a specific area to get elected in.
 
The present voting system does'nt stop them from getting seats, UKIP has 2 seats.
They have MPs in the European parliament, for which multi-member constituencies and a 'party list' system are used, not at Westminster.
 
The present voting system does'nt stop them from getting seats, UKIP has 2 seats
Where? They've got none in Parliament (FPTP) but 13 in the European parliament (closed party list). Their vote went from 16.5% in the European election in 2009 to 3.1% in the 2010 general election.

and the BNP got 2% of the vote in the last election .
2% in the last general election, but 6% at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Both of these examples support rather than contradict the idea that more proportional systems encourage people to vote for fringe parties.
 
They have MPs in the European parliament, for which multi-member constituencies and a 'party list' system are used, not at Westminster.

Where? They've got none in Parliament (FPTP) but 13 in the European parliament (closed party list). Their vote went from 16.5% in the European election in 2009 to 3.1% in the 2010 general election.


2% in the last general election, but 6% at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Both of these examples support rather than contradict the idea that more proportional systems encourage people to vote for fringe parties.

They have 2 seats in the House of Lords; I mixed-up the HoC and HoL numbers.
 
If PR was brought in by Labour, would this eventually mean that the Liberal Democrats displace the Tories as the largest opposition with the Conservatives falling down to third place?
 
If PR was brought in by Labour, would this eventually mean that the Liberal Democrats displace the Tories as the largest opposition with the Conservatives falling down to third place?

Depends, did, during the Labour period, the Lib Dems recieve more votes nationally than the Tories?
 
The Labour backbenches break the three-line whip on the STV bill and Blair is forced from office.
 
Top