Brexit

[Witton Park]

but Labour and Tories are such broad churches they are in effect coalitions across center/left and centre/right.

and I think a version of PR would see extensive fragmentation.
You could see the Tories becoming up to 3 parties and Labour up to 4. So whilst I can understand the case for PR I can also see the problems.
The system we have has worked pretty well for us historically. It has been put to the test mostly by a referendum that produced a result that the politicians disagreed with on by about 4:1

I was a little surprised on the Peterborough result mostly because the bookies called it wrong.

I think after recent weeks, most will be surprised at the number that voted Tory.

It's also an interesting point that the SDP, UKIP and English Democrats took votes that would have most likely gone to the Brexit Party and in standing helped Labour.

Future by-elections and even the General Election may become extremely tactical.

[Oracle]

and I think a version of PR would see extensive fragmentation.
You could see the Tories becoming up to 3 parties and Labour up to 4. So whilst I can understand the case for PR I can also see the problems.
The system we have has worked pretty well for us historically. It has been put to the test mostly by a referendum that produced a result that the politicians disagreed with on by about 4:1

I was a little surprised on the Peterborough result mostly because the bookies called it wrong.

I think after recent weeks, most will be surprised at the number that voted Tory.

It's also an interesting point that the SDP, UKIP and English Democrats took votes that would have most likely gone to the Brexit Party and in standing helped Labour.

Future by-elections and even the General Election may become extremely tactical.

It would rightly consign Corbyn to the dustbin of history. So there is one good argument for PR

[DrPatrickBarry]

and I think a version of PR would see extensive fragmentation.

The way I see it is the range of left to right of people standing would not change. But yes there would be a wider range of people actually elected. That can only be good, as it is not democratic, where the likes of Greens/UKIP/Brexit have little or no representation over the last few years.

Personally I would be very relaxed with a Tory Wets/Labour Blairites/Lib Dem coalition. Currently two of those parties do not exist and I thing they should.

[Oracle]

The way I see it is the range of left to right of people standing would not change. But yes there would be a wider range of people actually elected. That can only be good, as it is not democratic, where the likes of Greens/UKIP/Brexit have little or no representation over the last few years.

Personally I would be very relaxed with a Tory Wets/Labour Blairites/Lib Dem coalition. Currently two of those parties do not exist and I thing they should.

It is not a good formula for change.
It favours the lowest common denominator of action, which is why the EU cannot vote to save its own life.
At national level take the government of spain flip flopping, essentially paralysed for years. Could a PR coalition ever dismantle the unprofitable militant ridden coal industry? I doubt it. They cannot make unpopular decisions however necessary.

It enables all "positive" actions to be agreed, never the necessary pain of realpolitik. The two have to be forced through together, or budgets run away.

[Muddy Retriever]

Personally I would be very relaxed with a Tory Wets/Labour Blairites/Lib Dem coalition. Currently two of those parties do not exist and I thing they should.

A party has come into being representing the Tory Wets and Blairites - it's called Change UK. They of course have now fragmented further.

[bigfella]

As we all know they'd campaigned to abolish tuition fees at the 2010 election only to go along with the Conservatives and triple them when they got into power. I actually had some sympathy with the LibDems over that. What did their supporters expect? They were the junior partner with less votes and seats than the Tories. They weren't going to get everything they wanted and would have to compromise.

They could at least have voted against it instead of just caving in.

[Muddy Retriever]

Just seen that the private prosecution against Boris Johnson has been thrown out by the High Court. Sanity has prevailed.

[DrPatrickBarry]

Ridiculous thing to try to do.

[Muddy Retriever]

They could at least have voted against it instead of just caving in.

Well they couldn't really if they wanted to be part of the Government. They had agreed to increasing tuition fees during the talks to form a coalition Government. The LibDems got some things they wanted but had to agree to other things they didn't but which the Conservatives did. It was horse trading carried out behind the scenes.

This was the point I was trying to make about coalition Governments. They sound like the obvious solution in principle but in practice you're going to upset some of your supporters who don't like what you've agreed to.

[Witton Park]

The way I see it is the range of left to right of people standing would not change. But yes there would be a wider range of people actually elected. That can only be good, as it is not democratic, where the likes of Greens/UKIP/Brexit have little or no representation over the last few years.

Personally I would be very relaxed with a Tory Wets/Labour Blairites/Lib Dem coalition. Currently two of those parties do not exist and I thing they should.

When we had the coalition, we were told that no one voted for this. The LibDems got slaughtered by supporting the Tories who were then the largest party.
Had they supported Brown, the defeated PM, it would have been the wrong thing to do and they would still have been slaughtered.
In the end, no one got what they voted for.

I don't look at the examples on the continent and think that any of t hem are an improvement on ours. Horse trading for prominent cabinet positions seems to abound.

The only exception would be Switzerland for me.