The problem with Starmer is he's promised no change at all. He's reversed himself on every policy that differed from the Tories over the last couple of years, and he'll be no different from a Tory. He's hit the ground running as a Tory - he just wants to be seen as a more competent one. I want to see a government that isn't a Tory one, and Starmer's is not it. It's why I didn't vote Labour.
Marr, you absolute PLUM. 1. France doesn't have a complete PR system, theirs is an old weird amalgamation of bits & pieces thanks to grandeur. Like the UK with London, France with Paris is way too centralised. Some people have said that if France's first round was wholly FPTP France would now have a 90% RN government. So much for "FPTP keeps the far right out" Neither for the UK of course, refUK ltd got seats after all. 2. There are many, many, MANY forms of voting systems & that referendum the UK had WASN'T on proper PR. AV was a sort of amended FPTP. 3. "Strong & stable government?" Where have we heard that before, oh yeah, more or less before everything became gridlocked & worse & worse for the British public. So NO the FPTP system decidedly DOESN'T produce stability. 4. The most prosperous nations on this planet haven't had a majority government. Why are you so hung up about a hung parliament? Coalitions are GREAT. It forces the different parties to work together & because those that refuse to argue on the basis of reality get weeded out in this system, the discourse is much more muted & dare i say it, technocratic. They just get the job DONE. 5. PR produces coalition governments that HAVE to work together. As a result of this, not only do they deal in reality instead of purity tests & fantasy, they also tend to be better at planning for the long term. No lurching from left to right from parliament to parliament. When stuff is decided it gets implemented. In my country a Socialist & a neo-liberal rightwinger worked together to make the whole of the railways(not privatised like the UK,[neither is water of course, who TF privatises water?!]) step free access so the railways work better for everyone. So it isn't this left-right lurching, constantly course changing unreliable state of government. In the UK Labour build the country up & then come the tories to do as their name suggest & rob everything that isn't nailed on & then proceed to salt the earth for the next Labour government. How are you supposed to invest as a business when you just cannot trust? By saying that you are so glad that you have FPTP because that produces the best results, you basically insulted the rest of Europe who don't have that outdated system anymore [except Belarus] AND all the Brits that long for a fairer voting system. AFAIK not one nation on this earth has gone from PR to FPTP. Loads have gone from FPTP to PR. Every country that experienced both prefers PR. Even if the whole strong & stable government shtick was true, which it isn't, FPTP simply isn't FAIR & should be abolished for that reason alone. The fact that the amount of people that showed up to vote was ~59% while my country reliably gets 80% should tell you how much FPTP disenfranchises people...
Adding: the bit about the UK & France is that Marr is imho quite disingenuous to only compare the UK & France, instead of ANY of the myriad other European countries.
@@LeafHuntress Good points. A. Marr mentioned the word ‘Consensus’. BJ’s 80 seat majority didn’t do much for Cabinet Consensus or even crisis management. With so many crises - economic, war and climate Cabinet will need to prioritise,compromise and coalesce. The huge parliamentary majority without public support is no guarantee of stability - more like a serious warning….
You’ll be able to tell if things are on the uptick within that time. Even if the economic figures don’t change, their should be robust plans and policies put in place. In my opinion they will eventually have to raise capital gains tax and wealth taxes to fund it.
@@archie7218 They could do what Margaret Thatcher did Raid the the Funds held by the City. Except she raided the National Pension Pot in her 2nd term. Offshore accounts are another possibility before the Billionaire's and Millionaire's leave. 🇮🇪🇪🇺
For political commentators this bunch are surprisingly ignorant on electoral systems; specifically what is PR and what is not. #1: No, we did not have a referendum on PR, we had a referendum on Alternative Vote (AV) which is essentially limited ranked voting. It isn't Proportional Representation, it's majoritarian. #2: No, France's system isn't a "mix" between PR and FPTP, it's essentially similar to AV. It isn't proportional, it's majoritarian.
@leo1961berlin this. He is old school, closet conservative Brit, stuck in the past, secretly longing for the empire. He has delusions that the UK is better than other countries.
Came here to say this. I was so confused that alternative vote was getting confused with PR, by people who usually know what they're talking about. There's a chance they're getting confused with the Additional Member system used in the Scottish Parliament, which keeps local representation but uses the list system to get a more proportional result (and thus is considered a form of PR)
If France had "first past the post", the Rassemblement National would have won an overall majority (297 seats) in the first round. I am surprised that Andrew Marr finds this preferable!
What the podcast don't just read the headlines dumb dumb,it's the public that will give them a year,whether you like it or not the public is hypocritical.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
Just remember it not a Labour win it was a Tory and SNP total collapse. That what propelled them into number 10 Downing street and into the majority, and more importantly Sir Keir Starmer knows it. That why he's just grinding has hard as he can to get the economy rolling again.
If you want to talk about PR and the problems with it then why not use some examples of places that actually use PR like the scandinavian countries. Bringing up a country that doesn't have PR (France) as proof that it is worse just makes you sound uninformed.
I think Australia has a good system. Preferential voting for the House of Representatives with compulsory attendance, which means if you turn up and get your name ticked off that’s it. It is a small civic duty every several years and helps to prevent nutters from the left or right from winning……the centre usually holds.
To be fair, I don't think he's saying Labour has a year to undo 14 years of Tory devastation. He's saying he has one year to show things are getting better. Everybody knows it's going to take a decade or more, but it's about the mood and general intent. I think Labour have started perfectly, but we can only hope things continue in that vein.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
No it not that. Just remember most people polled said they wanted the Tories out of power not because they like Sir Keir Starmer or Labour policies. So Starmer know too he doesn't have much of a honeymoon if any, he got find way to get the economy going again after Prime Minister Lizz Truss destroyed a lot of people mortgages.
3 days they have wrecked the tax payer. labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
It’s not about undoing it. It’s about showing competence themselves. He has a year to start to win over the doubters otherwise he probably never will. For a start he needs to dismiss any cabinet member caught in scandal (or resign if it’s him) otherwise all his attacks on rishis weak leadership will seem hypocritical. Will he? I’m not sure yet. Giving him free rein because the Tories messed the country up doesn’t cut it. He told us they’re not all the same right? People didn’t vote for him to be just as bad as Tories, he said he would do better so that’s what he needs to do and that starts right away.
You need to point out that Bill gave them 14 years and never once said that they had to prove themselves. Even now Bill has former Tories on his program of LBC spinning away. It disgusting if you ask me. Where is the fairness in media and I'm not even a Labour supporter.
Why Andy keeps saying "look accros the France"? France does not have PR for National Assembly. They have majoritarian system with one member constituency (as in UK), the difference is that they have two rounds. They use PR for EU parlament. But NA is majoritarian voting system that most of the time produced majoritarian government. This time they will have an issue as they are not used to form consensus governments. If they had PR for NA and political culture of consensus governments this issue would not exist. And there are examples of other EU countries that have PR and it works well with consensus gov.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
Apart from the woman’s minister who couldn’t decide whether men should be allowed in the women’s toilets or not. Labour need to sort that out it’s embarrassing them for a long time now.
Can you provide a correction please.Andrew made a statement bat 16:15 which is incorrect. We have never had a referendum on pr. We had a referendum on the alternative vote which is a completely different system. Equally, that referendum wasn't in any parties manifesto in 2010.
That's because Marr always pursues his own agenda. He has these very forthright views and doesn't allow facts to get in the way. He doesn't like the idea of PR or anything similar because he mistakenly thinks that FPTP is more likely to lead to a stable government. On that he is very very wrong indeed. Conflating AV with PR is just par for the course.
I don't think it's unreasonable to view the 2012 referendum as a rejection of changing from FPTP. All the arguments that would have been brought into play against a truly proportional system were employed against STV (which I seem to recall we were calling AV at the time) and sadly a sizeable majority of voters fell for the "PR systems lead to chaos, you need FPTP for strong government" arguments. That said, a lot has happened in the last 12 years so maybe we'd feel differently about it now (mind you, we've probably also learned from Brexit that it's probably wise to avoid a referendum which would allow for major constitutional change on a simple majority result...)
@@Red1Green2Blue3 Yes, because the debate in 2012 was exclusively focused on the specific system that was being proposed, the nuances of which were fully understood by all parties and the arguments against it were exclusively applicable to that one system. What an odd, narrow little world you must live in...
There's nothing proportional about the French system, it just gives you a chance to "vote with your heart" in the first round before voting tactically in the second. Until the old two-party system imploded in 2017, it produced plenty of majority governments (which is one reason why the French are so bad at forming coalitions today - they are out of practice), and 2017 produced a solid majority for Macron's party. The Assembly has been divided since then because voters are divided: there's no big base of support for any one policy programme, and whoever is in government will become unpopular because the majority want something else.
TheTories got 14 years to destroy our public services but Labour get 1 year to make us feel better about it? Lucky for Starmer I already feel better knowing we have a serious, grown-up government at last.
@@paulcalder9697 I take it you are referring to the global financial crisis, partly caused by Thatchers deregulation of the banks, a fact never mentioned. It is a shame Labour did not re-regulate the sector, however the Tories used this crisis as an excuse to inflict austerity and cut our public services. They claimed this was to pay back the public debt, but this was an excuse to carry out their small state ideology . Did this work? Public debt grew and grew and is the highest it has ever been. Gordon Brown had a plan to grow our way out of the crisis. A plan adopted by many other countries also hit by the crisis. Imagine how much better our public services would have been if our country had listened to him the way European countries did. But I guess the Daily Mail and other right wing newspapers would tell you otherwise.
@@paulcalder9697 you know rishi sunak was literally one of the bankers that caused the financial crisis right? And you still blame Labour for a global issue? Insane delusion going on in the tory camp rn
Just wait for those higher taxes to come in. Higher council tax, higher water bills, higher gas and electricity thanks to Ed's new green energy policy, higher CGT, higher IHT, higher stamp duty, higher rents, higher mortgages. Oh, and more immigration. Happy days.
The resulting parliament even has a very different role in their government! It's a presidential system, in which Macron is still the president, whatever the vote. That's why he could call for reelections in the first place, other than for example Germany. Did you even know, who the PM (cabinet leader) was under Macron? I've read his name, when he tried to resign, but not before that!
@@rainerzufall42 Well the cabinet leader(which used to be called like that but now it's just prime minister) is still Gabriel Attal,the PM is still very important in France.
@@mathyeuxsommet3119 Yes, now I know again. It's still, that Macron determines most of the way the government works, a stark contrast to The Queen in UK or the President in Germany, who are both more representative.
I think the key here is "prove themselves", i.e. they need to be able to demonstrate, within one year, that they are creating a solid base for credible, longer-term change. Let's use the example of the NHS. No one can expect them to fix the NHS in one year, but they need to be able to demonstrate, for example, waiting lists starting to come down. With immigration, they can't solve the boat crisis instantly but we need to see that UK Border Security Command being set up soon. With housing, they can't build all the homes they plan to in 1 year but we need to see ground being broken on building sites and faster than in the last 14 years. And who are they proving themselves too? The public. The challenge for Labour is to create a reputation for big change and fast change. If they don't manage to do that in the first year, it will be increasingly harder each successive year to avoid an already very suspicious electorate from becoming hostile to another Labour term in 5 years.
No, a year to show they are capable of fixing damage. If you have a house full of broken windows, you don't expect to see the glazier having fixed everything by the afternoon. But you do expect to see him having made a start and demonstrate that he knows what he's doing.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
We need to be clear about what we mean by "prove themselves". If we mean fixing 14 years of damage in 1 year, that's insane. If it means that within a year we need to see evidence of real change starting to happen, then there's probably something in that.
I can't understand the whole "look at the mess of France because of their electoral system" argument. Countries with PR do end up with more coalition governments but also with parties that are forced to work together and create long term plans that they can all sign up to. France (without PR) is not used to that and is having to muddle through.
I was quite surprised that Andrew did not talk of Scotlands PR system . To me it seems to be pretty effective and a true reflection of peoples thoughts, bad politicians are something else. The French situation is all about bad politicians, causing unnecessary , stress and confusion. We here in the UK have had years of weird , politics and politicians. And now listen to everyones heart rate and blood pressure abate. Some boring and calm sounds wonderful (a few “wins” would be nice too)
The scottish sytem is very good. FPTP still makes up a majoroty of rhe seats i think its 79 then pr part has 56. And if you do well on the FPTP party it down plays your vote in pr part. Its a mixed system doesnt produce to many partys majority for one party is extremely difficult but coalision building is as hard as pure PR. Larger parties should only really need one party im coalision
@@neodym5809 That's because Marr in his ill-informed way wants to shoot down any idea that PR could be superior to FPTP or will necessarily lead to stable governments.
@@leo1961berlin it is true that pr can lead to unstable government. It is more likely than FPTP. But then there is the counter agrument that PR creates a different politcal climate where compromise is needed to govern
Me,beeing a EU citizen, you brittish people better give Labour a very fair and decent treatment for the time to come ahead !..If not, you certainly do not know your own good, and you will just have to live with the future for the next 30 years !
16:10 Andrew Marr is incorrect. We have not had a referendum on proportional representation in this country. We have had a referendum on preferential voting, which is a completely different thing. Some systems, such as Single Transferable Vote may do both, but there are also systems such as Mixed Member Proportional (used in Scotland) and the system previously used for British MEP elections which are proportional representation without preferential voting.
@@chrispalmer7893 proportional isn't a bigger change that preferential. It is a different type of change. "Wasn't big enough" doesn't apply. So, if you're going to speculate about the reason the majority of the population voted a particular way, could you at least make a sensible suggestion.
@@martineyles I'm not speculating, I'm recalling the debate that was had at the time. The pro-FPTP side weren't making nuanced arguments about the specific system proposed, they went in hard on the idea that any other system would produce weak, chaotic governments. Maybe if something genuinely proportional had been proposed the arguments on the other side might have been made with more conviction, but the result was so crushing that I can't see any reason to believe another outcome was possible.
The vote was lost in 2012 because Cameron saw in the polls that it would likely pass so contacted his media friends resulting in a campaign in the press to stop it, remember we have by far a right wing media in the UK.
@@matthewn1805 I'm not convinced the polls were that favourable, but it's true that Cameron mobilised the right-wing press and who did his bidding by employing general arguments against PR as a whole, not by focusing on AV specifically (and to a lesser extent in favour of FPTP). Not good or honest arguments, but unfortunately quite effective ones. I'm afraid the result would likely have been the same regardless of what voting system was on offer.
Where was this intense level of scrutiny on the Tory party over the past 14 years? They must do this, they must do that… Immediately! It’s so transparent, the media bias. I can think of plenty of things the Tories should have done, immediately… not least after 14 years.
As a correction to Andrew Marr: the Alternative Vote system which we had a referendum on, and which the French practically have but with extra steps, is NOT a PR system but a majoritarian system like FPTP but with a more representative bolt on ie. If no one wins 50%+ in 1st preference voting, 2nd preferences are used to find the candidate with the most support. It still facilities the hegemony of the two party system, and therefore why Cameron agreed to it. To pretend it’s PR is telling falsehoods to the public about the decision they made, or gaslighting, and it feels like you’re a mouthpiece of the system’s defensive narrative by saying it. I have much respect for you though and why I listen to you! So please be accurate.
The stability of a hung parliament all depends on the maturity of the politicians within the parliament. Also I understand Marr's perspective but I would also add, In the long term how stable will governments be if they only have the support of a small proportion of the electorate and that the breadth if political discussion is so narrowly represented? Labour has a majority with the support of only 20% of eligible voters, that cant be sustainable.
Starmer's not a performative buffoon. He's a serious man who likely didn't make the most exciting, forceful opposition leader because he's an introvert and thoughtful man unlike the many extroverted narcissists across the aisle.
Exactly right. You can’t commit to the mental work of policy creation and implementation of you acting like a performing bear for the media 24/7. A good politician is a boring guy who gets the job done, not the guy who plays to the mob all day.
@@superelipticlabour and its failure after a few days , One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
We should all want a boring leader who makes the country work. A working country is boring - the greatest number of people living their lives without drama. I live in Africa and my greatest wish is to have a boring life where the water comes out of the tap and the light goes on every time I flick the switch.
@@tonyduncan9852You imply life isn't fair. Okay, very often it isn't (although, last night England beating The Netherlands was on balance a fair result), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what's unfair.
FPTP produces more stable governments that don't represent people, often splitting a vote and letting the third option gain that majority. That's exactly what foments either apathy or frustration. AV wasn't a proportional system, it was ranked choice. It was sold to the people as far too complicated for our average voters, which I found very insulting. I think it is still the best method for getting an actual understanding of the voters opinion, whilst still having the more centrist party taking control. The we won so we have a mandate line always bothers me under our current system. I spent more time following polls to see which party is worth voting for instead of their actual policies.
It's a little weird to defend this voting system, when the disability to handle a hung parliament situation within this system was the starting point of 14 years of this mess, and probably caused (in advance, out of fear) another catastrophe 5 years later as well...
What analysts in the UK tend to miss about PR is that if it was already established, you wouldn't be facing a hung parliament if you'd just introduced it ahead of this election. Equally, extreme parties get more seats, but other non-extreme parties get more seats too, it all balances out in parliament. That is why it is a more democratic system.
@@Shadypines2 hung parliament is also bad phrasing. Coalition governments are the norm in many countries, resulting in a much more civil political discourse and more centric policies. I much prefer it to the “party dictatorship for 5 years” system.
@@neodym5809 Whoever is used to a system of "authoritarian rule of one governing party", won't easily understand the purpose of a coalition government (see 2010, which ended in a +1 government, that transformed back to a single party government). Looking at Westminster from the mainland, it seemed weird to me to see a failing governing party trying again and again to form a government. In other European countries, the losers would have been sorted out, before it would come to such figures like Liz Truss or Boris Johnson. They would have called for reelection (of all people, not just the party back benchers). There was a reelection only, when they had a controversial topic, they thought they could win over (completing Brexit). But this doesn't always work (see Brexit vote, see Sunak's July 4th choice, it's just a gamble!).
Andrew Marr seems to think France has a PR system and that's why they're in a mess. Nope, they have FPTP like us and that's why they're in a mess. UK and France are the only countries in Europe with FPTP and both countries have suffered an utterly disproportionate election result that makes a mockery of democracy.
AV lost as people were pissed off with LibDems, I would not wish a vote for PR in the next 5 to 10 years as Tory party supporters will NEVER vote PR, and now Labour supporters will not vote for it to screw reform and that would be over 50%. Best wait for a better time.
@@rivgacooper5330 I think Labour might come around to it as we get cxloser to the next election and they realise they could easily lose all their majority if Reform stand down
@avmavm777 If reform stand down I still do not think people would have forgiven the Tory party for what has happened over the past 14 years. If Labour have not increased taxes as well the scare tactics will fail. Labour just need to e competent, and they may also win over some Tory voters too.
4 DAYS OF labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
What a bloody ridiculous statement, its going to take a full term before we see significant turn around and thats if its reasonably easygoing,throw in big problems and it will take longer.lets give them a fair crack of the whip,if it works its better times for the country if not the ballot box will call the shots,im a life long tory voter,a member of the party and small contributor,and i for one wish them well and hope for better times even if its labour.
You are all paid to understand politics. Not heard a more uninformed discussion on PR in my life. The referendum in 2011 wasn’t for PR ffs! Also; the most stable government we’ve had since 2010 was a coalition so that argument hardly makes much sense. And finally! The people advocating for PR are still doing so! You are projecting your own lack of principles onto others.
16:14 "I think our system gives us a stable sense of direction for the next five years..." 🤦🤦♂️ Much as I respect Andrew Marr, the proportional representation system is essential. Over in France, the government fears its people ; but in Britain, it's the other way round.
A politician won't work productively if it fears the people. Fear shouldn't be part of politics. It should be an equal relationship between politicians and people.
Great debate. Love to watch it. And admire Andy Marr tremendously. However claiming that French system is kind of hybrid between majoritarian and PR system is not true. And it undermines all positives (and negatives) that change of the voting system would have. Thank You for great work!
Whose arbitrary timeframe is that then? The tories got 14 years to improve the country and look at the s£&#show that became. I’m inclined to give them 2 terms at least as long as things get better than they are currently!
Somehow, it seems unreasonable to blame the electoral system of France for the chaotic political situation over there. For most of its existence that system has enabled or at least facilitated the emergence of relatively stable governments. The causes for the present chaotic dynamics in French politics must be sought somewhere else, I think. Moreover, there is some irony in boasting about the British electoral system when only a few days ago a government had to be sent home that has produced chaos since at least 2017. A government elected using the very same electoral system that now has enabled the emergence of this Labour government. Really, no electoral system, in fact no constitutional system can prevent chaos if underlying, deeper societal forces are creating turmoil and change.
It was reported in the guardian 12 July that the Institute for Public Policy Research said that only 52% of UK adults cast their ballots at the 2024 Westminster General elections. This figure includes adult people who are not registered to vote and adult people who are registered to vote. To only have nearly one in two UK adults voting in the 2024 Westminster general election is a democratic scandal. Of UK adults who are registered to vote only 59% voted in the 2024 Westminster general election. Only 34% of the voters voted for the Labour party but the Labour party got 64% of the Westminster MPs. Only 20% of the UK people who are eligible to vote voted for the Labour party, counting people who voted for other political parties and people who didn't vote. Under First Past the Post voting system the Labour party won by a landslide at Westminster with 412 MPs out of a total of Westminster 650 MPs. The UK Green parties, SNP, Tory party, Reform, Liberal Democrats and others are under represented in Westminster going by their vote share. The 2024 Westminster election has the biggest gap on record between the share of the votes nationally by political parties and the number of Westminster seats they have gained. In a democracy the First Past the Post voting system is not very democratic that is why so few democratic countries in the world use the First Past the Post voting system. Most democratic countries in the world use a proportional voting system. Westminster democracy also has a problem of rich people, Unions and businesses buying influence over political parties and policies. Westminster general elections have a democratic problem with the amount each party spends in the election campaign. The total amount used to be £19 million but for the 2024 Westminster general election it was increased to £34 million. While some political parties can raise £34 million most cannot this gives an unfair advantage during the election campaign to the political party that can attract rich people, Unions and businesses to give them money. The political party with £34 million to spend can then buy advertising to influence the public and how they will vote. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/12/lowest-turnout-in-uk-general-election-since-universal-suffrage-report-shows&ved=2ahUKEwjXhOXuiKGHAxXVWEEAHSf_B9IQFnoECEcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07QBxlm5IuKWYdFeIdr5o4
To echo all the comments below, France does not have PR. Indeed consider looking at the first round vote in France and how that would have gone under FPTP. FPTP can produce massive false majorities and it can be potentially very dangerous. Geographical differences in political support have helped to reduce the problems with that in Britain but it is not inevitable that this will always be the case. Strange to hear the usually well-informed and astute Andrew Marr missing some of these points. Perhaps he is just very tired after all the election coverage!
They’ll be lucky to get 6 months before the electorate - 2/3rd rejected them - turn on them. Don’t conflate a huge seat majority with popularity. Labour are in for a very tough time and the sensible of their vote base knows that.
@@MsTravelady so what they have 5 very long years like 75% have suffered 14 long years suck it up, if after 14 years they ve trebled and more the national debt and nhs waiting lists they are as bad as your lot
You obviously don't have a clue about PR if you're using France of all countries to point out the potential drawbacks. The French system is arguably even more disproportionate than the UK system, and is nothing to do with PR.
Only 6.1% of the electorate voted for reform compared to 6.0% that previously voted for UKIP which says the far right vote has actually changed very little.
13:54 totally agree. It’s not fair to say that PR would result in a hung parliament. My vote, and millions of others I’m sure, would have changed if we knew the party we wanted had a chance of being elected in our area
If we had PR, we'd have voted differently, we'd have different parties running, it's a sliding doors moment from the failed 2011 alternative vote referendum and we can't say otherwise.
Andrew, we did NOT have a referendum on PR in the UK in 2011. We had a referendum on AV, which was arguably less proportional than FPTP and might only change the results in about 30 seats. It was an Aunt Sally, setup by Cameron to be knocked down, but was nonetheless the most the Tories would offer as a fig leaf electoral reform. We need proper PR. France does not have PR, but a 2 stage FPTP. You can have terrible or indecisive or extremist government under FPTP and also poor voter attitudes to politics, poor turnouts, poor reflection of voter's priorities and a lack of inclusiveness.
So much depends on so many factors. After all those PM's we recently had anyone that is remotely normal looks like a super star and ultra competent. To start he is actually answering questions at the press conference.
Good discussion about the prime minister not being there to be a reflection of the nation's psychodramas but to lead a government to do serious work. In fact, that's precisely one of the key arguments made in support of constitutional monarchy. It is the monarch who is there to embody the nation and represent it to the world and itself, the prime minister and the cabinet are the "efficient" (to use the former editor of a rival magazine's term) part of the constitution tasked with governing the country. We can see in the USA, France, etc., right now the dangers of combining the two roles.
Preserve is from people who have never lived in a country that has PR, telling us that the UK wouldn't be better off with PR. What we want from an electoral system is a parliament that properly represents how people vote, Andrew. Pretending that a party getting 63% of the seats on 34% of the vote is "democratic" is both innumerate and fatuous. I actually do live in a country that has PR (Finland), I have direct experience of PR both in local and national government, and the idea that the absolute shambles of the past 14 years in the UK is somehow better than the steady and thoughtful government we have here in Finland is ridiculous and ignorant. Ireland has PR too,and their governments are far better run than the UK's. Maybe Marr should actually learn something about how PR works, because all he does here is display a breathtaking ignorance. I notice this is a common theme in the UK, people making grandiose statements without actually knowing much about what they are talking about. We actually have plenty of evidence from other European countries about how PR works, and it works fine. It works fine in Finalnd, and Sweden, and Norway, and Denmark, and Germany, and Spain, and Italy and many others. None of those countries look at the UK and yearn for the undemocratic FPTP. In fact given the choice, the vast majority of countries much prefer PR. Hell New Zealand switched feom FPTP to PR, and when a government tried to switch back, it was defeated. When they get it, people like it. The same happened in Ireland. People rejected switching to FPTP. But oh no, we have to pretend that PR is some unknown black box. It's pathetic.
Labour do not have a year to prove themselves... they have 2 years. 2026 is a big year in terms of local elections. Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary elections as well as numerous mayoral and local elections in Labour held strongholds. If Labour fail to deliver or fail to show that they are delivering on their promises they could face a big wipeout. (2025 does have local elections but the vast majority of the seats up for grabs are currently held by Conservatives, so it will arguably be more of a judgement on whoever the new Tory leader is more than anything Labour related).
First Past the Post is killing democracy. By any standard the turnout in this election was abysmal, which is a symptom of voter apathy about the choice they face. Labour and Tories chase after the ephemeral swing voters, who form a vast minority that decides the direction of the country, leaving people in “safe” seats unrepresented on the political spectrum. To note, labour’s share of the vote gave them a massive majority, but its abysmal size compared to even the Corbyn years may be an indication that there is no enthusiasm for Labour’s government. Disaffection in the political system breeds extremism. Why would one bother voting and engaging with politics if your views aren’t represented? This gives Farage and other populists and authoritarians a willing audience who listen to their poison, which so often goes unchallenged, because the likes of Farage can promise whatever they want knowing they would never form a government. The reason why things like Brexit happen (and the way they do happen) was Farage’s outsised political influence on the Tories. It stemmed from zero checks on Farage and co because they largely were outside the political system, cruising political periphery without ever having to worry about being held to account. If this election was anything to go by, the challenges brought about by proper media scrutiny resulted in them underperforming compared to predictions as they started to slump in the polls. The other minor point that Mr. Neil made about FPTP being designed to provide a “stable” government I think is mute simply because of the travesty of 14 years of Conservative rule. It echoes the same criticism he made of the PR too: we think it worked only because we are in power now. As a progressive person, I fear the next election under FPTP. I accept that PR is not a magic bullet that will fix all things that are broken in the UK. But I think of the future. An electoral coalition between Reform and the Conservatives (or the union of both into a single entity) coupled with a successful but ultimately unpopular Prime Minister unable to garner popular enthusiasm will lead us to the same place the USA finds itself in. I hope to be proven wrong. But if we usher in the darkness of authoritarianism and populism due to lack of Starmer’s ambition to reform politics and his inability to enthuse the voters, it will be his Labour that is to blame for a return to toxic Conservative rule.
I don't think it's possible to deduce from how people DID vote in this election to how they WOULD HAVE voted if we'd had some kind of proportional representation. Quite apart from the widespread tactical voting, lots of people either don't vote at all or don't vote for their first choice of candidate, because in much of Britain it's been a total waste of time to vote for anything other than the 2 major parties. I have been voting for 50 years and have NEVER lived in a constituency where the candidate I voted for got elected - and I'm sure I'm not unique.
In dismissing PR the way Andrew Marr does, he depends on two fallacies. Firstly, it was rejected in 2011: it was AV that was rejected, which was cynically proposed as the only version available when there were better alternatives. Secondly, the suggestion that the recent general election showed what would have happened if PR had been adopted ignores the fact that voting behaviour would have been very different, because we would not have had absolute control handed to those who didn't have the majority of the popular vote, as has happened under FPTP.
Every family member who has somebody killed or child got under the child abuse leader must take Starmer to court. His policy, letting more coming in and also letting the ring leaders out of jail earlier let's criminals run riot. This country is not safe to live in anymore.
If we had PR after the 2010 Coalition, we would not now have tactical voting, we would not have had Cameron’s BREXIT Referendum, or Johnson’s hard BREXIT. Reform forget that their justification for the hardest possible implementation of the referendum result to leave the EU was “we won a majority, and a majority of one would have been enough “, to move as we have.
I don't understand why The New Statesman primarily focus on compring the UK to France with the regards to the parliament selection. Germany uses PR and often gets hung parliaments which they compensiate for with Majority Goverments. Why could it not work in the UK? Furthermore Germany is usually seen as the stability of Europe so would it not make more sence for the business of France going to Germany rather than the UK especially because of Brexit? One of the reasons Germany seems a bit chaotic is because the german constition prohibits large financial deficit which makes brakes on short-term investment but creates long term stability. Both the UK and France has a national dept at around 100 % of the GDP while Germany has a national dept of 64 % which enables germany to make longer term decisions and have a better credit rating when borrowing. The stability of Germany helps France with its economic problems regardless of who is in power with the Euro and close economic bounds (Electricity, Commorcial Transport on Water-courses/roads and EU-cooporation). Furthermore Brexit has not been fully implemeted yet as the UK Car-industry is seeing its red-tape coming in 2 years time. In other words Brexit but also the general poor economic sitution of the UK makes the UK look more like "the sick man of Europe" rather than France, Italy or Turkey since they are increasing isolated in a still more globalised world. I really don't understand why business would choice the UK if they leave France.
I'd split the leadership team from the commons. We should vote for our MP and for who should lead the country. The MP should be someone who looks after your local area and should spend at least 60% of their time in the constituency. The leadership team should be people with qualifications for that specific job. The health secretary should have worked in the NHS, the education secretary should have been a teacher etc. Why are these people allowed two jobs? So they either half ass both or ignore one.
Watch next: Keir Starmer has "hit the ground running" czcams.com/video/cQzxGLKGCok/video.html
The problem with Starmer is he's promised no change at all. He's reversed himself on every policy that differed from the Tories over the last couple of years, and he'll be no different from a Tory. He's hit the ground running as a Tory - he just wants to be seen as a more competent one. I want to see a government that isn't a Tory one, and Starmer's is not it. It's why I didn't vote Labour.
Marr, you absolute PLUM.
1. France doesn't have a complete PR system, theirs is an old weird amalgamation of bits & pieces thanks to grandeur.
Like the UK with London, France with Paris is way too centralised.
Some people have said that if France's first round was wholly FPTP France would now have a 90% RN government. So much for "FPTP keeps the far right out" Neither for the UK of course, refUK ltd got seats after all.
2. There are many, many, MANY forms of voting systems & that referendum the UK had WASN'T on proper PR.
AV was a sort of amended FPTP.
3. "Strong & stable government?" Where have we heard that before, oh yeah, more or less before everything became gridlocked & worse & worse for the British public. So NO the FPTP system decidedly DOESN'T produce stability.
4. The most prosperous nations on this planet haven't had a majority government.
Why are you so hung up about a hung parliament? Coalitions are GREAT. It forces the different parties to work together & because those that refuse to argue on the basis of reality get weeded out in this system, the discourse is much more muted & dare i say it, technocratic. They just get the job DONE.
5. PR produces coalition governments that HAVE to work together. As a result of this, not only do they deal in reality instead of purity tests & fantasy, they also tend to be better at planning for the long term. No lurching from left to right from parliament to parliament. When stuff is decided it gets implemented. In my country a Socialist & a neo-liberal rightwinger worked together to make the whole of the railways(not privatised like the UK,[neither is water of course, who TF privatises water?!]) step free access so the railways work better for everyone.
So it isn't this left-right lurching, constantly course changing unreliable state of government. In the UK Labour build the country up & then come the tories to do as their name suggest & rob everything that isn't nailed on & then proceed to salt the earth for the next Labour government.
How are you supposed to invest as a business when you just cannot trust?
By saying that you are so glad that you have FPTP because that produces the best results, you basically insulted the rest of Europe who don't have that outdated system anymore [except Belarus] AND all the Brits that long for a fairer voting system.
AFAIK not one nation on this earth has gone from PR to FPTP. Loads have gone from FPTP to PR. Every country that experienced both prefers PR.
Even if the whole strong & stable government shtick was true, which it isn't, FPTP simply isn't FAIR & should be abolished for that reason alone. The fact that the amount of people that showed up to vote was ~59% while my country reliably gets 80% should tell you how much FPTP disenfranchises people...
Adding: the bit about the UK & France is that Marr is imho quite disingenuous to only compare the UK & France, instead of ANY of the myriad other European countries.
@@LeafHuntress
Good points.
A. Marr mentioned the word ‘Consensus’.
BJ’s 80 seat majority didn’t do much for Cabinet Consensus or even crisis management.
With so many crises - economic, war and climate Cabinet will need to prioritise,compromise and coalesce.
The huge parliamentary majority without public support is no guarantee of stability - more like a serious warning….
Labour have 1 year to prove themselves, whilst the Tories had 14. Seems fair and balanced!
If you watched the whole thing, you'd see he said 5 years. 1 year to prove they can deliver at least a few things.
You’ll be able to tell if things are on the uptick within that time. Even if the economic figures don’t change, their should be robust plans and policies put in place. In my opinion they will eventually have to raise capital gains tax and wealth taxes to fund it.
@@charliebryce3783 seems pretty typical to me. The vultures are out circling already
@@archie7218 Dont give a hoot how they raise the money as long as they bring sanity back to this country
@@archie7218
They could do what Margaret Thatcher did Raid the the Funds held by the City.
Except she raided the National Pension Pot in her 2nd term.
Offshore accounts are another possibility before the Billionaire's and Millionaire's leave.
🇮🇪🇪🇺
For political commentators this bunch are surprisingly ignorant on electoral systems; specifically what is PR and what is not. #1: No, we did not have a referendum on PR, we had a referendum on Alternative Vote (AV) which is essentially limited ranked voting. It isn't Proportional Representation, it's majoritarian. #2: No, France's system isn't a "mix" between PR and FPTP, it's essentially similar to AV. It isn't proportional, it's majoritarian.
Bravo. Marr just likes to polemicise all the time.
@leo1961berlin this. He is old school, closet conservative Brit, stuck in the past, secretly longing for the empire. He has delusions that the UK is better than other countries.
Came here to say this. I was so confused that alternative vote was getting confused with PR, by people who usually know what they're talking about. There's a chance they're getting confused with the Additional Member system used in the Scottish Parliament, which keeps local representation but uses the list system to get a more proportional result (and thus is considered a form of PR)
I should have read down the comments. Yes. (And I don't like it).
If France had "first past the post", the Rassemblement National would have won an overall majority (297 seats) in the first round. I am surprised that Andrew Marr finds this preferable!
Because he's totally uninformed on the topic and is just making noise because he likes the sound of his own voice.
Same for Geert Wilders
Wrong. Labour have a term to prove themselves. Stop trying to make it harder for them than for the Tories.
What the podcast don't just read the headlines dumb dumb,it's the public that will give them a year,whether you like it or not the public is hypocritical.
I mean there are local elections in that time, which will be important for them to win.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
Just remember it not a Labour win it was a Tory and SNP total collapse. That what propelled them into number 10 Downing street and into the majority, and more importantly Sir Keir Starmer knows it. That why he's just grinding has hard as he can to get the economy rolling again.
9:37 if you’re too lazy to watch the whole thing 😉
If you want to talk about PR and the problems with it then why not use some examples of places that actually use PR like the scandinavian countries. Bringing up a country that doesn't have PR (France) as proof that it is worse just makes you sound uninformed.
I think Australia has a good system. Preferential voting for the House of Representatives with compulsory attendance, which means if you turn up and get your name ticked off that’s it. It is a small civic duty every several years and helps to prevent nutters from the left or right from winning……the centre usually holds.
Like Scotland
I found it really stupid. Unsustainable.
To be fair, I don't think he's saying Labour has a year to undo 14 years of Tory devastation. He's saying he has one year to show things are getting better. Everybody knows it's going to take a decade or more, but it's about the mood and general intent. I think Labour have started perfectly, but we can only hope things continue in that vein.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
No it not that. Just remember most people polled said they wanted the Tories out of power not because they like Sir Keir Starmer or Labour policies. So Starmer know too he doesn't have much of a honeymoon if any, he got find way to get the economy going again after Prime Minister Lizz Truss destroyed a lot of people mortgages.
The implication is in the words. Simply giving him leeway shows how vague yet visceral his words are.
@@ianworley8169 Wait until the strikes start and the ideologues get going.
I don't think a year is sufficient enough to undo 14 years of incompetence.
3 days they have wrecked the tax payer. labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
not even 5
It’s not about undoing it. It’s about showing competence themselves. He has a year to start to win over the doubters otherwise he probably never will. For a start he needs to dismiss any cabinet member caught in scandal (or resign if it’s him) otherwise all his attacks on rishis weak leadership will seem hypocritical. Will he? I’m not sure yet. Giving him free rein because the Tories messed the country up doesn’t cut it. He told us they’re not all the same right? People didn’t vote for him to be just as bad as Tories, he said he would do better so that’s what he needs to do and that starts right away.
Especially as Starmer is just a Red Tory without any different policies.
You need to point out that Bill gave them 14 years and never once said that they had to prove themselves. Even now Bill has former Tories on his program of LBC spinning away. It disgusting if you ask me. Where is the fairness in media and I'm not even a Labour supporter.
Why Andy keeps saying "look accros the France"? France does not have PR for National Assembly. They have majoritarian system with one member constituency (as in UK), the difference is that they have two rounds. They use PR for EU parlament. But NA is majoritarian voting system that most of the time produced majoritarian government. This time they will have an issue as they are not used to form consensus governments. If they had PR for NA and political culture of consensus governments this issue would not exist. And there are examples of other EU countries that have PR and it works well with consensus gov.
First few days they have acted extremely well.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
Apart from the woman’s minister who couldn’t decide whether men should be allowed in the women’s toilets or not. Labour need to sort that out it’s embarrassing them for a long time now.
@@jaybee4288why are you obsessed about where people go to pee?
@@jaybee4288No, we’ll deal with the doctor strikes first before sorting out where people take a dump.
Starmer Just needs to get Everybody "around a table"... and Everything is as good as sorted...
... I'm sure the French will see things His way... 😅
Can you provide a correction please.Andrew made a statement bat 16:15 which is incorrect. We have never had a referendum on pr. We had a referendum on the alternative vote which is a completely different system. Equally, that referendum wasn't in any parties manifesto in 2010.
That's because Marr always pursues his own agenda. He has these very forthright views and doesn't allow facts to get in the way. He doesn't like the idea of PR or anything similar because he mistakenly thinks that FPTP is more likely to lead to a stable government. On that he is very very wrong indeed. Conflating AV with PR is just par for the course.
@@leo1961berlinAndrew Marr definitely has centrist Dad energy.
I don't think it's unreasonable to view the 2012 referendum as a rejection of changing from FPTP. All the arguments that would have been brought into play against a truly proportional system were employed against STV (which I seem to recall we were calling AV at the time) and sadly a sizeable majority of voters fell for the "PR systems lead to chaos, you need FPTP for strong government" arguments. That said, a lot has happened in the last 12 years so maybe we'd feel differently about it now (mind you, we've probably also learned from Brexit that it's probably wise to avoid a referendum which would allow for major constitutional change on a simple majority result...)
@@chrispalmer7893 It's utterly unreasonable to say the referendum on AV was a rejection of PR because it was not, in fact, PR. The end.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 Yes, because the debate in 2012 was exclusively focused on the specific system that was being proposed, the nuances of which were fully understood by all parties and the arguments against it were exclusively applicable to that one system. What an odd, narrow little world you must live in...
We didn’t have a referendum on PR. AV is not PR.
There's nothing proportional about the French system, it just gives you a chance to "vote with your heart" in the first round before voting tactically in the second. Until the old two-party system imploded in 2017, it produced plenty of majority governments (which is one reason why the French are so bad at forming coalitions today - they are out of practice), and 2017 produced a solid majority for Macron's party. The Assembly has been divided since then because voters are divided: there's no big base of support for any one policy programme, and whoever is in government will become unpopular because the majority want something else.
TheTories got 14 years to destroy our public services but Labour get 1 year to make us feel better about it? Lucky for Starmer I already feel better knowing we have a serious, grown-up government at last.
Cast your mind back, and didn't the last labour government leave the country in a terrible state, or is that all forgotten about
@@paulcalder9697 I take it you are referring to the global financial crisis, partly caused by Thatchers deregulation of the banks, a fact never mentioned. It is a shame Labour did not re-regulate the sector, however the Tories used this crisis as an excuse to inflict austerity and cut our public services. They claimed this was to pay back the public debt, but this was an excuse to carry out their small state ideology . Did this work? Public debt grew and grew and is the highest it has ever been. Gordon Brown had a plan to grow our way out of the crisis. A plan adopted by many other countries also hit by the crisis. Imagine how much better our public services would have been if our country had listened to him the way European countries did. But I guess the Daily Mail and other right wing newspapers would tell you otherwise.
@@paulcalder9697 you know rishi sunak was literally one of the bankers that caused the financial crisis right? And you still blame Labour for a global issue? Insane delusion going on in the tory camp rn
Grownups aren't necessarily competent.
Just wait for those higher taxes to come in. Higher council tax, higher water bills, higher gas and electricity thanks to Ed's new green energy policy, higher CGT, higher IHT, higher stamp duty, higher rents, higher mortgages. Oh, and more immigration. Happy days.
Once again france doesn't have pr why do you keep making this error in the beginning of the video aren't you supposed to be journalists?
The resulting parliament even has a very different role in their government! It's a presidential system, in which Macron is still the president, whatever the vote. That's why he could call for reelections in the first place, other than for example Germany. Did you even know, who the PM (cabinet leader) was under Macron? I've read his name, when he tried to resign, but not before that!
@@rainerzufall42 Well the cabinet leader(which used to be called like that but now it's just prime minister) is still Gabriel Attal,the PM is still very important in France.
@@mathyeuxsommet3119 Yes, now I know again. It's still, that Macron determines most of the way the government works, a stark contrast to The Queen in UK or the President in Germany, who are both more representative.
It's a low bar.
Always 'stop the boats', never a word about foreign policy and root causes.
Too right.
ONE year to undue 14 years of utter corruption?
it is a rather remarkable statement. given that its between 4 and 5 years till the next election.
Don't forget the 14 years of incompetence
I think the key here is "prove themselves", i.e. they need to be able to demonstrate, within one year, that they are creating a solid base for credible, longer-term change. Let's use the example of the NHS. No one can expect them to fix the NHS in one year, but they need to be able to demonstrate, for example, waiting lists starting to come down. With immigration, they can't solve the boat crisis instantly but we need to see that UK Border Security Command being set up soon. With housing, they can't build all the homes they plan to in 1 year but we need to see ground being broken on building sites and faster than in the last 14 years. And who are they proving themselves too? The public. The challenge for Labour is to create a reputation for big change and fast change. If they don't manage to do that in the first year, it will be increasingly harder each successive year to avoid an already very suspicious electorate from becoming hostile to another Labour term in 5 years.
No, a year to show they are capable of fixing damage.
If you have a house full of broken windows, you don't expect to see the glazier having fixed everything by the afternoon.
But you do expect to see him having made a start and demonstrate that he knows what he's doing.
labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
We need to be clear about what we mean by "prove themselves". If we mean fixing 14 years of damage in 1 year, that's insane. If it means that within a year we need to see evidence of real change starting to happen, then there's probably something in that.
Please stop saying we had a referendum on PR, we had one on AV, which is not a PR voting system
I can't understand the whole "look at the mess of France because of their electoral system" argument. Countries with PR do end up with more coalition governments but also with parties that are forced to work together and create long term plans that they can all sign up to. France (without PR) is not used to that and is having to muddle through.
Eh up. I heartily agree. We need a whole bunch of long-term plans or PHYSICS will render us EXTINCT. I'm 80, and don't care . . .
The Tories did FA for 14 years but that was alright ? Labour get a year or less for the Tory client media.
Watch the fucking video
France does not have PR, they have a modified FPTP. Germany has PR. It also has really stable governments.
I was quite surprised that Andrew did not talk of Scotlands PR system . To me it seems to be pretty effective and a true reflection of peoples thoughts, bad politicians are something else. The French situation is all about bad politicians, causing unnecessary , stress and confusion. We here in the UK have had years of weird , politics and politicians. And now listen to everyones heart rate and blood pressure abate. Some boring and calm sounds wonderful (a few “wins” would be nice too)
The scottish sytem is very good. FPTP still makes up a majoroty of rhe seats i think its 79 then pr part has 56. And if you do well on the FPTP party it down plays your vote in pr part. Its a mixed system doesnt produce to many partys majority for one party is extremely difficult but coalision building is as hard as pure PR. Larger parties should only really need one party im coalision
France also has FPTP, so I don’t understand why it is given as an example contra PR
@@neodym5809 That's because Marr in his ill-informed way wants to shoot down any idea that PR could be superior to FPTP or will necessarily lead to stable governments.
@@leo1961berlin it is true that pr can lead to unstable government. It is more likely than FPTP. But then there is the counter agrument that PR creates a different politcal climate where compromise is needed to govern
WE NEVER HAD A REFERENDUM ON PR!!! We had a referendum on AV, which is not a form of PR.
Me,beeing a EU citizen, you brittish people better give Labour a very fair and decent treatment for the time to come ahead !..If not, you certainly do not know your own good, and you will just have to live with the future for the next 30 years !
I suggest you deal with your own country rather than tell us what to do
@@keithparker1346 At least he has the advantage of being in the most successful economic market in the world.
I'm an expat, and now hold you in high regard.
16:10 Andrew Marr is incorrect. We have not had a referendum on proportional representation in this country. We have had a referendum on preferential voting, which is a completely different thing. Some systems, such as Single Transferable Vote may do both, but there are also systems such as Mixed Member Proportional (used in Scotland) and the system previously used for British MEP elections which are proportional representation without preferential voting.
I don't think the 2012 referendum was lost because people were upset that the change wasn't big enough...
@@chrispalmer7893 proportional isn't a bigger change that preferential. It is a different type of change. "Wasn't big enough" doesn't apply. So, if you're going to speculate about the reason the majority of the population voted a particular way, could you at least make a sensible suggestion.
@@martineyles I'm not speculating, I'm recalling the debate that was had at the time. The pro-FPTP side weren't making nuanced arguments about the specific system proposed, they went in hard on the idea that any other system would produce weak, chaotic governments. Maybe if something genuinely proportional had been proposed the arguments on the other side might have been made with more conviction, but the result was so crushing that I can't see any reason to believe another outcome was possible.
The vote was lost in 2012 because Cameron saw in the polls that it would likely pass so contacted his media friends resulting in a campaign in the press to stop it, remember we have by far a right wing media in the UK.
@@matthewn1805 I'm not convinced the polls were that favourable, but it's true that Cameron mobilised the right-wing press and who did his bidding by employing general arguments against PR as a whole, not by focusing on AV specifically (and to a lesser extent in favour of FPTP). Not good or honest arguments, but unfortunately quite effective ones. I'm afraid the result would likely have been the same regardless of what voting system was on offer.
France does not have PR Representation. They have a worse version of First Past The Post.
Dropping "Levelling up" isn't dropping the aspiration, it's dropping it because it's a stupid name and it meant nothing.
Bring in mandatory voting with the extra last option for “NON OF THE ABOVE”
Mine was lost in the post. But it worked out well . . .
The thing is when someone says "make the hard decisions" I hear "screw the least well off"
They should be careful not to give power to corrupt mayor's. More players equals more corruption risk
Someone gave you access to a keyboard before you knew how to pluralise. More education equals more information.
@@tonyduncan9852 do you spend your time looking for typos?
@@JamesHardaker No, I spend my time being interested in meaningful thoughts and actions. Replying to you is a charitable chore. Go buy a dictionary.
Where was this intense level of scrutiny on the Tory party over the past 14 years? They must do this, they must do that… Immediately! It’s so transparent, the media bias. I can think of plenty of things the Tories should have done, immediately… not least after 14 years.
I'm old. It has been 70 years. But I _gave up_ a long time ago.
As a correction to Andrew Marr: the Alternative Vote system which we had a referendum on, and which the French practically have but with extra steps, is NOT a PR system but a majoritarian system like FPTP but with a more representative bolt on ie. If no one wins 50%+ in 1st preference voting, 2nd preferences are used to find the candidate with the most support. It still facilities the hegemony of the two party system, and therefore why Cameron agreed to it.
To pretend it’s PR is telling falsehoods to the public about the decision they made, or gaslighting, and it feels like you’re a mouthpiece of the system’s defensive narrative by saying it.
I have much respect for you though and why I listen to you! So please be accurate.
WHY? The Tories had 14 years!
The stability of a hung parliament all depends on the maturity of the politicians within the parliament.
Also I understand Marr's perspective but I would also add, In the long term how stable will governments be if they only have the support of a small proportion of the electorate and that the breadth if political discussion is so narrowly represented? Labour has a majority with the support of only 20% of eligible voters, that cant be sustainable.
Sir Keir is going to be a fantastic PM
😀😃😄😁😆😅🤣😂🤢🤮
Got off to a great start!
@@AlunParsons HAHAHAHA.!! UNTILL YOU GET YOUR NEIGHBOURS, THE ONES YOU DESERVE.100%!
The woman on his shoulder will be better! Watch the space.
What a joke
Starmer's not a performative buffoon. He's a serious man who likely didn't make the most exciting, forceful opposition leader because he's an introvert and thoughtful man unlike the many extroverted narcissists across the aisle.
Exactly right. You can’t commit to the mental work of policy creation and implementation of you acting like a performing bear for the media 24/7.
A good politician is a boring guy who gets the job done, not the guy who plays to the mob all day.
@@superelipticlabour and its failure after a few days , One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
We should all want a boring leader who makes the country work. A working country is boring - the greatest number of people living their lives without drama. I live in Africa and my greatest wish is to have a boring life where the water comes out of the tap and the light goes on every time I flick the switch.
One year to prove themselves? That sounds totally fair. After all, the tories got only 14 years to mess things up.
Who ever told you Life was fair?
@@tonyduncan9852You imply life isn't fair. Okay, very often it isn't (although, last night England beating The Netherlands was on balance a fair result), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what's unfair.
@@bernardmaasdijk734 Right on, cherub.
FPTP produces more stable governments that don't represent people, often splitting a vote and letting the third option gain that majority. That's exactly what foments either apathy or frustration.
AV wasn't a proportional system, it was ranked choice. It was sold to the people as far too complicated for our average voters, which I found very insulting. I think it is still the best method for getting an actual understanding of the voters opinion, whilst still having the more centrist party taking control.
The we won so we have a mandate line always bothers me under our current system. I spent more time following polls to see which party is worth voting for instead of their actual policies.
AV was a compromise. Tory would not let a full pr system be on referendum.
It's a little weird to defend this voting system, when the disability to handle a hung parliament situation within this system was the starting point of 14 years of this mess, and probably caused (in advance, out of fear) another catastrophe 5 years later as well...
A YEAR? To under 14 years of Tory damage? Seems a bit unfair.
Much like Labours huge majority based on less than 40% of the votes
@@keithparker1346 similar numbers to Cameron's in 2015 and no one said anything then.
Look at the Brexit result.
Will of the people.😊
What analysts in the UK tend to miss about PR is that if it was already established, you wouldn't be facing a hung parliament if you'd just introduced it ahead of this election. Equally, extreme parties get more seats, but other non-extreme parties get more seats too, it all balances out in parliament. That is why it is a more democratic system.
@@Shadypines2 hung parliament is also bad phrasing. Coalition governments are the norm in many countries, resulting in a much more civil political discourse and more centric policies. I much prefer it to the “party dictatorship for 5 years” system.
@@neodym5809 Whoever is used to a system of "authoritarian rule of one governing party", won't easily understand the purpose of a coalition government (see 2010, which ended in a +1 government, that transformed back to a single party government). Looking at Westminster from the mainland, it seemed weird to me to see a failing governing party trying again and again to form a government. In other European countries, the losers would have been sorted out, before it would come to such figures like Liz Truss or Boris Johnson. They would have called for reelection (of all people, not just the party back benchers). There was a reelection only, when they had a controversial topic, they thought they could win over (completing Brexit). But this doesn't always work (see Brexit vote, see Sunak's July 4th choice, it's just a gamble!).
Andrew Marr seems to think France has a PR system and that's why they're in a mess. Nope, they have FPTP like us and that's why they're in a mess. UK and France are the only countries in Europe with FPTP and both countries have suffered an utterly disproportionate election result that makes a mockery of democracy.
We’ve. Ever had a referendum on PR. It was on the AV system, which is not proportional
AV lost as people were pissed off with LibDems, I would not wish a vote for PR in the next 5 to 10 years as Tory party supporters will NEVER vote PR, and now Labour supporters will not vote for it to screw reform and that would be over 50%.
Best wait for a better time.
@@rivgacooper5330 I think Labour might come around to it as we get cxloser to the next election and they realise they could easily lose all their majority if Reform stand down
@avmavm777 If reform stand down I still do not think people would have forgiven the Tory party for what has happened over the past 14 years.
If Labour have not increased taxes as well the scare tactics will fail. Labour just need to e competent, and they may also win over some Tory voters too.
Tories had 14 and they carried on systematically destroying the country.
4 DAYS OF labour and its failure, One migrant arrived and has four wives and kids, and he gets four three bedroom houses. at our expense !! how many more have multiple wifes. so 100,000 migrants how many wifes have they.even ony half with two wives and kids thats 150,000 homes just for them at our expense , free council tax. gas, water , electricity and each wife get £140.00 per week and child benifit too. this is economic suicide for us tax payers.
What a bloody ridiculous statement, its going to take a full term before we see significant turn around and thats if its reasonably easygoing,throw in big problems and it will take longer.lets give them a fair crack of the whip,if it works its better times for the country if not the ballot box will call the shots,im a life long tory voter,a member of the party and small contributor,and i for one wish them well and hope for better times even if its labour.
You are all paid to understand politics. Not heard a more uninformed discussion on PR in my life. The referendum in 2011 wasn’t for PR ffs!
Also; the most stable government we’ve had since 2010 was a coalition so that argument hardly makes much sense.
And finally! The people advocating for PR are still doing so! You are projecting your own lack of principles onto others.
What is this? The Labour appreciation society. Woke love in.
Kinda. But what are you?
Dyson have already cut 1000 jobs and are moving operations abroad due to the incoming labour government.
He fought many court cases before he left. Everyone cheated, including him. Lying builds nothing.
16:14 "I think our system gives us a stable sense of direction for the next five years..." 🤦🤦♂️
Much as I respect Andrew Marr, the proportional representation system is essential. Over in France, the government fears its people ; but in Britain, it's the other way round.
A politician won't work productively if it fears the people.
Fear shouldn't be part of politics. It should be an equal relationship between politicians and people.
Freddie Hayword sounding more and more like a Telegraph columnist. I suspect he will be their soon
Great debate. Love to watch it. And admire Andy Marr tremendously. However claiming that French system is kind of hybrid between majoritarian and PR system is not true. And it undermines all positives (and negatives) that change of the voting system would have. Thank You for great work!
Whose arbitrary timeframe is that then? The tories got 14 years to improve the country and look at the s£&#show that became. I’m inclined to give them 2 terms at least as long as things get better than they are currently!
Somehow, it seems unreasonable to blame the electoral system of France for the chaotic political situation over there. For most of its existence that system has enabled or at least facilitated the emergence of relatively stable governments. The causes for the present chaotic dynamics in French politics must be sought somewhere else, I think. Moreover, there is some irony in boasting about the British electoral system when only a few days ago a government had to be sent home that has produced chaos since at least 2017. A government elected using the very same electoral system that now has enabled the emergence of this Labour government. Really, no electoral system, in fact no constitutional system can prevent chaos if underlying, deeper societal forces are creating turmoil and change.
We left the EU. There is no alternative. Changing how we live and work doesn’t help much.
How did you recruit Ollie from 'The Thick of It'?
It was reported in the guardian 12 July that the Institute for Public Policy Research said that only 52% of UK adults cast their ballots at the 2024 Westminster General elections.
This figure includes adult people who are not registered to vote and adult people who are registered to vote.
To only have nearly one in two UK adults voting in the 2024 Westminster general election is a democratic scandal.
Of UK adults who are registered to vote only 59% voted in the 2024 Westminster general election.
Only 34% of the voters voted for the Labour party but the Labour party got 64% of the Westminster MPs.
Only 20% of the UK people who are eligible to vote voted for the Labour party, counting people who voted for other political parties and people who didn't vote.
Under First Past the Post voting system the Labour party won by a landslide at Westminster with 412 MPs out of a total of Westminster 650 MPs.
The UK Green parties, SNP, Tory party, Reform, Liberal Democrats and others are under represented in Westminster going by their vote share.
The 2024 Westminster election has the biggest gap on record between the share of the votes nationally by political parties and the number of Westminster seats they have gained.
In a democracy the First Past the Post voting system is not very democratic that is why so few democratic countries in the world use the First Past the Post voting system.
Most democratic countries in the world use a proportional voting system.
Westminster democracy also has a problem of rich people, Unions and businesses buying influence over political parties and policies.
Westminster general elections have a democratic problem with the amount each party spends in the election campaign.
The total amount used to be £19 million but for the 2024 Westminster general election it was increased to £34 million.
While some political parties can raise £34 million most cannot this gives an unfair advantage during the election campaign to the political party that can attract rich people, Unions and businesses to give them money.
The political party with £34 million to spend can then buy advertising to influence the public and how they will vote.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/12/lowest-turnout-in-uk-general-election-since-universal-suffrage-report-shows&ved=2ahUKEwjXhOXuiKGHAxXVWEEAHSf_B9IQFnoECEcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07QBxlm5IuKWYdFeIdr5o4
To echo all the comments below, France does not have PR. Indeed consider looking at the first round vote in France and how that would have gone under FPTP. FPTP can produce massive false majorities and it can be potentially very dangerous. Geographical differences in political support have helped to reduce the problems with that in Britain but it is not inevitable that this will always be the case. Strange to hear the usually well-informed and astute Andrew Marr missing some of these points. Perhaps he is just very tired after all the election coverage!
ONE year no Andrew let’s criticise everyone and make everything dramatic Marr they have FIVE years !! ….
They’ll be lucky to get 6 months before the electorate - 2/3rd rejected them - turn on them. Don’t conflate a huge seat majority with popularity. Labour are in for a very tough time and the sensible of their vote base knows that.
@@MsTravelady so what they have 5 very long years like 75% have suffered 14 long years suck it up, if after 14 years they ve trebled and more the national debt and nhs waiting lists they are as bad as your lot
This new government will sink the boat in one year😂😂😂😂
You obviously don't have a clue about PR if you're using France of all countries to point out the potential drawbacks. The French system is arguably even more disproportionate than the UK system, and is nothing to do with PR.
Only 6.1% of the electorate voted for reform compared to 6.0% that previously voted for UKIP which says the far right vote has actually changed very little.
Labour have "a year" to prove themselves or go back to the Tories, because that makes so much sense.
Welcome to a short life.
13:54 totally agree. It’s not fair to say that PR would result in a hung parliament. My vote, and millions of others I’m sure, would have changed if we knew the party we wanted had a chance of being elected in our area
If we had PR, we'd have voted differently, we'd have different parties running, it's a sliding doors moment from the failed 2011 alternative vote referendum and we can't say otherwise.
Andrew, we did NOT have a referendum on PR in the UK in 2011. We had a referendum on AV, which was arguably less proportional than FPTP and might only change the results in about 30 seats. It was an Aunt Sally, setup by Cameron to be knocked down, but was nonetheless the most the Tories would offer as a fig leaf electoral reform. We need proper PR. France does not have PR, but a 2 stage FPTP. You can have terrible or indecisive or extremist government under FPTP and also poor voter attitudes to politics, poor turnouts, poor reflection of voter's priorities and a lack of inclusiveness.
18:36 Wrong! That business will go to stabile French EU neighbors like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium ...
I have to say I'm impressed by Freddie Hayward. A young man who has no right to be half as clued-in as he is. A bright future? Odds on I'd say.
Labour have a year to show progress. But we won’t know for 3 or 4 years if they’ve been a successful Government.
Technically have 5 years
Young Freddie speaks very well but he’s clearly not in agreement with the NS endorsement of Labour
So much depends on so many factors. After all those PM's we recently had anyone that is remotely normal looks like a super star and ultra competent. To start he is actually answering questions at the press conference.
Good discussion about the prime minister not being there to be a reflection of the nation's psychodramas but to lead a government to do serious work. In fact, that's precisely one of the key arguments made in support of constitutional monarchy. It is the monarch who is there to embody the nation and represent it to the world and itself, the prime minister and the cabinet are the "efficient" (to use the former editor of a rival magazine's term) part of the constitution tasked with governing the country. We can see in the USA, France, etc., right now the dangers of combining the two roles.
The problem is people are not taught in school to be greedy and ambitious they are taught to be envious, you will get nowhere with that
that sounds like a nakedly unfair and partisan stance
Like typical UK output, in fact. No-one is sufficiently honest.
Preserve is from people who have never lived in a country that has PR, telling us that the UK wouldn't be better off with PR.
What we want from an electoral system is a parliament that properly represents how people vote, Andrew. Pretending that a party getting 63% of the seats on 34% of the vote is "democratic" is both innumerate and fatuous.
I actually do live in a country that has PR (Finland), I have direct experience of PR both in local and national government, and the idea that the absolute shambles of the past 14 years in the UK is somehow better than the steady and thoughtful government we have here in Finland is ridiculous and ignorant. Ireland has PR too,and their governments are far better run than the UK's.
Maybe Marr should actually learn something about how PR works, because all he does here is display a breathtaking ignorance. I notice this is a common theme in the UK, people making grandiose statements without actually knowing much about what they are talking about. We actually have plenty of evidence from other European countries about how PR works, and it works fine. It works fine in Finalnd, and Sweden, and Norway, and Denmark, and Germany, and Spain, and Italy and many others. None of those countries look at the UK and yearn for the undemocratic FPTP. In fact given the choice, the vast majority of countries much prefer PR. Hell New Zealand switched feom FPTP to PR, and when a government tried to switch back, it was defeated. When they get it, people like it. The same happened in Ireland. People rejected switching to FPTP. But oh no, we have to pretend that PR is some unknown black box. It's pathetic.
Delivery is the most important word in politics. Policy without delivery is worthless.
That pack of scoundrels tumbling through the gate, emerges as the order of the State. Stanley Kunitz.
I'm not sure that AV can reasonably be described as PR either (especially if you're saying that the French electoral system isn't PR!)
Labour do not have a year to prove themselves... they have 2 years. 2026 is a big year in terms of local elections. Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary elections as well as numerous mayoral and local elections in Labour held strongholds. If Labour fail to deliver or fail to show that they are delivering on their promises they could face a big wipeout.
(2025 does have local elections but the vast majority of the seats up for grabs are currently held by Conservatives, so it will arguably be more of a judgement on whoever the new Tory leader is more than anything Labour related).
High tax, high immigration, prisoners released early, sign up to EU laws and child sex changes encouraged.
This government is a danger to us all.
A year to start moving forward is a pitifully short period of time. So very short sighted
First Past the Post is killing democracy. By any standard the turnout in this election was abysmal, which is a symptom of voter apathy about the choice they face. Labour and Tories chase after the ephemeral swing voters, who form a vast minority that decides the direction of the country, leaving people in “safe” seats unrepresented on the political spectrum.
To note, labour’s share of the vote gave them a massive majority, but its abysmal size compared to even the Corbyn years may be an indication that there is no enthusiasm for Labour’s government.
Disaffection in the political system breeds extremism. Why would one bother voting and engaging with politics if your views aren’t represented? This gives Farage and other populists and authoritarians a willing audience who listen to their poison, which so often goes unchallenged, because the likes of Farage can promise whatever they want knowing they would never form a government.
The reason why things like Brexit happen (and the way they do happen) was Farage’s outsised political influence on the Tories. It stemmed from zero checks on Farage and co because they largely were outside the political system, cruising political periphery without ever having to worry about being held to account.
If this election was anything to go by, the challenges brought about by proper media scrutiny resulted in them underperforming compared to predictions as they started to slump in the polls.
The other minor point that Mr. Neil made about FPTP being designed to provide a “stable” government I think is mute simply because of the travesty of 14 years of Conservative rule. It echoes the same criticism he made of the PR too: we think it worked only because we are in power now.
As a progressive person, I fear the next election under FPTP. I accept that PR is not a magic bullet that will fix all things that are broken in the UK. But I think of the future. An electoral coalition between Reform and the Conservatives (or the union of both into a single entity) coupled with a successful but ultimately unpopular Prime Minister unable to garner popular enthusiasm will lead us to the same place the USA finds itself in. I hope to be proven wrong. But if we usher in the darkness of authoritarianism and populism due to lack of Starmer’s ambition to reform politics and his inability to enthuse the voters, it will be his Labour that is to blame for a return to toxic Conservative rule.
I don't think it's possible to deduce from how people DID vote in this election to how they WOULD HAVE voted if we'd had some kind of proportional representation. Quite apart from the widespread tactical voting, lots of people either don't vote at all or don't vote for their first choice of candidate, because in much of Britain it's been a total waste of time to vote for anything other than the 2 major parties. I have been voting for 50 years and have NEVER lived in a constituency where the candidate I voted for got elected - and I'm sure I'm not unique.
A year lol
They already showed us how ridiculous they are.
Lammy " im black"
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yawn… ambition 3/10, likely effectiveness 3/10, delusional bias from the left wing press 10/10
20 years, feasible once we have strong technical education sector.
This is bullshit - the mess which is the Tories heritage can‘t be solved in 100 days or one year…😂
In dismissing PR the way Andrew Marr does, he depends on two fallacies. Firstly, it was rejected in 2011: it was AV that was rejected, which was cynically proposed as the only version available when there were better alternatives. Secondly, the suggestion that the recent general election showed what would have happened if PR had been adopted ignores the fact that voting behaviour would have been very different, because we would not have had absolute control handed to those who didn't have the majority of the popular vote, as has happened under FPTP.
Less tribal politics? What a naive thing to say.
I wish Labour was a Left wing Party, but that doesn't win Elections these days, UNFORTUNATELY.
Every family member who has somebody killed or child got under the child abuse leader must take Starmer to court. His policy, letting more coming in and also letting the ring leaders out of jail earlier let's criminals run riot. This country is not safe to live in anymore.
I’d say they should have 14 years to prove themselves…
If we had PR after the 2010 Coalition, we would not now have tactical voting, we would not have had Cameron’s BREXIT Referendum, or Johnson’s hard BREXIT. Reform forget that their justification for the hardest possible implementation of the referendum result to leave the EU was “we won a majority, and a majority of one would have been enough “, to move as we have.
The more I hear Freddie, the more I suspect he’s a reform fanboy…
Yes completely agreed. I think he will pop up at The Daily Telegraph soon
I would love to know what massive changes Labour are going to make to suddenly improve everything in the first year
I don't understand why The New Statesman primarily focus on compring the UK to France with the regards to the parliament selection. Germany uses PR and often gets hung parliaments which they compensiate for with Majority Goverments. Why could it not work in the UK? Furthermore Germany is usually seen as the stability of Europe so would it not make more sence for the business of France going to Germany rather than the UK especially because of Brexit? One of the reasons Germany seems a bit chaotic is because the german constition prohibits large financial deficit which makes brakes on short-term investment but creates long term stability. Both the UK and France has a national dept at around 100 % of the GDP while Germany has a national dept of 64 % which enables germany to make longer term decisions and have a better credit rating when borrowing. The stability of Germany helps France with its economic problems regardless of who is in power with the Euro and close economic bounds (Electricity, Commorcial Transport on Water-courses/roads and EU-cooporation). Furthermore Brexit has not been fully implemeted yet as the UK Car-industry is seeing its red-tape coming in 2 years time. In other words Brexit but also the general poor economic sitution of the UK makes the UK look more like "the sick man of Europe" rather than France, Italy or Turkey since they are increasing isolated in a still more globalised world. I really don't understand why business would choice the UK if they leave France.
I'd split the leadership team from the commons. We should vote for our MP and for who should lead the country.
The MP should be someone who looks after your local area and should spend at least 60% of their time in the constituency.
The leadership team should be people with qualifications for that specific job. The health secretary should have worked in the NHS, the education secretary should have been a teacher etc.
Why are these people allowed two jobs? So they either half ass both or ignore one.
"Labour have......"
Q: ARE England a country?
A: It ARE a country. Brexit English!