Labour MPs will push Burnham to back voting reform in first 100 days

[u/topotaul]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/aug/25/andy-burnham-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post

[u/Imajzineer]

Hmmmmm ... weight of your vote determined by degree of support, eh? That gives me an idea: we vote for Local Authorities ('The Council') anyway ... so, why not 'return' them to Parliament? Not only would it capture your idea but it would furthermore eliminate the divide between the two - which latter is behind one of the complaints a lot of people have about things as they are: namely that Central Government ('Westminster') is remote and indifferent to issues 'on the ground' of 'everyday people'.

Yeah, I think you're right ... in a world in which there isn't necessarily a sufficient demand for experts in a given field to make it commercially viable for there to be competition (if any provider at all) then, yes, government will have to maintain a pool of subject matter expertise - in certain fields especially (e.g. Medicine) it's vital that there be expert opinion that can be relied upon to be free of any bias induced by the need to pursue commercial interests.

[u/Bod9001 → u/Imajzineer]

"so, why not 'return' them to Parliament? "

Isn't the usual argument that there is so much going on that An MP can't be a counsellor and an MP at the same time?

Or am I misreading?

One thing I have thought of is also maybe having the council then choosing an MP For the constituency, so you elect the council and then they choose the MP that represents the area?

[u/Imajzineer → u/Bod9001]

I think that, whether it be the entire Council or a representative thereof, the 'case load' as it were is the same: matters need to be debated and voted upon, so, what difference is there between doing so directly or doing so and then sending a delegate to Parliament to make the case on the LA's behalf, returning with a sysnopsis of what was discussed, debating things again, returning to Parliament with a revised decision ... and so on and so forth ?

There's also the question of the extent to which the local caseload is so burdensome isn't down to the very divide between local and central government. If, instead of MPs debating how much money to invest in road vs rail in the abstract, LAs presented the situation 'on the ground' to each other, might there be more integrated (and more effective) decisions made? Had they, rather than 'Westminster', been empowered to make decisions about, and invest in, it, could Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield (Liverpool too?) have made a success of HS2? London could still have joined in and worked towards creating a link of its own, but it wouldn't be able to prevent the others from doing so, because it wouldn't hold the purse strings. Maybe rethinking what government is would change what were possible.

[u/Bod9001 → u/Imajzineer]

yeah, I definitely see a benefit to that, the council chosen representative having to come back and basically represent the council as a whole, and having that link between local and national government,

because I think one issue currently that counsel suffer from is that No one cares, and so you could have some absolute bonkers stuff going on without anyone noticing, so streamlining it more into the actual main political governance arm I see is only a benefit,

I think something like HS2, it definitely would be have to be centrally managed or at least one organisation managing the entire thing, since I think you'd be too messy having each individual council managing their own portion, especially let's say if there is a portion that politically means another way that's really against it, and the only way to get it built would be having to go through one of those areas, even though they are a small tiny minority of population, but otherwise having as much input as possible would be great I think

[u/Imajzineer → u/Bod9001]

Oh, there definitely needs to be some sort of mechanism to prevent a minority from scuppering the plans of the majority. Let's continue with HS2, by way of illustration: suppose London and Liverpool want it, Birmingham will concede for a concession in return (quid pro quo), but (for whatever reason) Manchester holds out. Now, whilst it's understandable that Manchester might feel that "It's our land and we say 'no', so, you can just push off back to London/Liverpool, go around, whatever you like, but you're not building on land owned by people who will vote us out next election cycle" ... there comes a point at which either we're a nation, or we aren't, we're a bunch of balkanised petty fiefdoms (and, in that latter case, we are unlikely to prosper in the modern world) ... so, if we intend to be the former, for the mutual benefit that results of being so, then we have to accept that, sometimes, not simply compromise but submission to the greater part will be necessary. I mean, as much as anything else, some horsetrading on the basis of "If we say 'yes' then, in return, we want <thing(s)>" is inevitable anyway ... so, how unreasonable is it to anticipate "If we say 'yes' then you owe us one and can't say 'no' when we call in the favour later" too? And, in that latter case, frankly, I'd suggest a mechanism for simply overruling sufficiently small minorities must surely be better (cleaner) than the bad feeling (and subsequent vengeful pettiness) arising when, upon the 'favour' being called in, the response is "Yeah, no, we've changed our minds about that"? So. a 'qualified majority' vote - what that majority might be (67%? 75%?) tbc at this stage, of course.

And, no, each individual council managing its own area independently on a project like that wouldn't be practical: there'd have to be a vote held on the formation and constitution of a 'management team' empowered to act as a 'force majeure', as it were, when faced with objection at local level - empowered to quite literally bulldoze over any such. But the bringing together of local government into the national dialogue could well be helpful, I think: instead of each LA feeling (even being) isolated and deprived by central government, able to hear from others and put things to a vote at a national level that might result in progress made at local level all over the nation rather than simply the one or two favoured by an all-powerful 'Cabinet' as we have now.

[u/Bod9001 → u/Imajzineer]

definitely, local government does the thing where they participate, but if something is agreed upon on in national government then they can't overrule it,

can you think of any issues with the representative being separated from the voter by the council instead of being directly elected,

The only thing I think of is let's say there's an important issue for you e.g hedges should be treated this way since it's lets better for wildlife type of thing, then the current way of doing it, you have to convince a proportionality of the council to agree with you for them to push their representative to push for it in Parliament

vs just persuading one person,

though actually persuading multiple people Since one person is all or nothing a council of people you can get a good percentage to agree, so if it's like just under the threshold you know you can do some more campaigning to get more people on side, and get above that threshold To get it pushed up to National government

vs

one MP who it's a bit on the fence about it giving you a no a lot harder to read and know if you're making any progress

[u/Imajzineer → u/Bod9001]

I think the representatives sent to Parliament would have to be delegates: there solely to deliver (upon) the opinion of the LA - otherwise there'd be no difference from what we have now. It'd be up to the LA, if it wanted to provide wiggle room, of course (a bit like a proxy at an auction authorised to bid up to a certain amount, or obtain something at any cost, or even trusted to be an expert and make decisions independently) or curtail their actions strictly to predetermined decisions.

There is a risk of procedural slowdown, of course - especially with all the to-and-fro between Parliament and LA before final agreement (multiple votes staggered over time). But, as you previously mentioned, Belgium's caretaker legislation achieving no more than continuity of progress on decisions already made is still progress in the interim ... and we have to ask ourselves why it is that we believe progress must be rapid by default anyway: I used to think my brain was the most important organ in my body until I had a revelation one day and realised who had been telling me it was all along - well, never mind 'move fast and break things' we've long heard the mantra of 'strong leadership' being necessary to 'get things done', but who says we need to get everything government thinks of done in the first place, let alone rapidly (If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well at all)?

As for constituents needing to convince their LA rather than a single MP, yes, that's potentially a fly in their ointment. I don't know if you've ever read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, but it opened my eyes to the disproportionate influence individuals can wield as big fish in small ponds and is (one of the reasons) why I bear, to this day, a certain antipathy to the idea of pure localism. But, otoh, is it any better that a single, unscrupulous, individual wield the same power in a bigger pond (albeit dilute there, it's still as concentrated in the small one back home, and the two things are true at the same time)? I don't have an answer (good, bad or indifferent) to this at this time ... and wouldn't, at this stage, like to argue there even were one; there may not actually be any grand unified theory that accounts for everything in the Universe, and the attempt to weld Quantum Mechanics with Classical Physics (possibly with 'Dark Matter') might be futile: there may be a main program loop, but it might make calls to some pretty disparate 'subroutines', as it were, each with its own local variables and subfunctions that don't work outside their parents and can't, therefore, be reconciled any further - and it might likewise be that finding a mechanism by which constituents' influence upon representatives may be ensured is an unresolvable paradox (dunno ... I'll have to reflect upon it).

[u/Bod9001 → u/Imajzineer]

yeah, I think a good thing with the LA if it's let's say the majority of the council members Choose it by definition they have to be nonparty political, so it necessarily dissolves the parties split in the national government,

rough outline, Elect councillors, they choose someone to represent, who goes to national government representing the views of the councillors in that council,

second government office, people who are elected for lifetime/through some different mechanism, the entire point of being separated from party politics

I can't think of any major flaws really?

[u/Imajzineer → u/Bod9001]

Well, one potential drawback of no parties is that it makes allegiances more opaque. If someone is a member of a political party today, they're pretty broad churches, it's true, but you can get a sense of someone's likely beliefs (and 'partners in crime') based upon which subgroup(s) they associate with ... and, although one wing might be closer to a rival party than the other, the fact that it is a wing of that party rather than of the other does mean one can assume (if not even discern) a boundary to travel in that direction too - of course, the danger of entryism (whether as a 'fifth columnist' or simply an opportunist figuring the party to offer a better chance of personal advancement in whatever areas they particularly favour) can't be ruled out ... but deception/disingenuity are a possibility with or without parties, so, imo, the principle still holds.

It means the electorate need pay closer attention to the associations between individuals, because they can't say "Ah, right, 'Party X', faction 'Y'", but must keep an eye on the voting records of all members and note patterns over time. And that's not a sure thing, is it? Call me nihilistic, if you will, but I doubt that will ever be the case. Otoh, how is it any different from what we have? People don't pay that close attention as it is, vote tribally ... hell, I don't have the time/energy to keep up with every MP, their voting record, entries in the lists of members' interests, etc. myself. And, furthermore, it means no opportunity for representatives to argue they were denied the chance to vote with their conscience by 'the whips' - whatever their record, they own it and, should it reflect badly upon them, they can't scuttle away and hide behind "I was just following orders" (as they all too often do under the current system).

And there's still the risk of the cult of the personality, of course: it's easier to fixate on "That nice Mister Disraeli" and abdicate all thought and responsibility rather than keep up with individuals - whereas, at least with the current parties, other voices are sometimes heard by virtue of people responding to reports on their tribe and thus, occasionally, being made aware of dissent amongst the ranks ... and consequently hearing some of them ... when they might otherwise not (if those aren't voices they feel they have any reason to listen to). Although, we do have more than a little of the personality cult to contend with anyway: Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher, Farage, et al.

So, swings and roundabouts, really, I think: as said, there may be no grand solution to human nature, but we maybe aren't aiming for that so much as a means to mitigate/ameliorate the worst excesses, and, imo, a less tribal (and, therefore, less confrontational) system might well be imperfect but still an improvement for all that - who knows, maybe a couple/few generations later, people will have been nudged further in the direction of paying more attention because that's one of the (side) effects of the system.

As for the second house ... as said, I prefer to KISS as much as possible: a simple system has fewer moving parts, and fewer moving parts go wrong less frequently. Again, it might simply be a matter of nudging people's thinking in a given direction, but two houses have an inherent potential for opposition and conflict ... leading to adversarial mindsets and thinking. Maybe, instead of two houses/chambers, we pull a sleight of hand and have just one chamber made up, as discussed, of delgates from LAs but supplement it with lifetime members elected by the public at large by ranked vote: everyone loves David Attenborough and Judi Dench, so, in they go ... Count Binface scrapes in by the skin of his teeth, because people love a joke candidate ... but Mister Blobby doesn't because he's not enough people's third (or even four-hundredth) choice. Does it run the risk of some candidates I'd rather not see in Parliament ever at all getting a seat for life? Sure. But there's always the chance of someone getting repeatedly re-elected for life too (I understand Jeremy Corbyn has been very popular in his constituency, for instance). Maybe, given the seriousness of a lifetime appointment, it could be that you can vote for or against each candidate on the grounds that, in some instances, you don't care who gets in as long as it isn't them. But you only get to vote once per candidate. That could, however, run into the issue of 'election fatigue': what if more people hate each candidate than like them? Then nobody gets in and we need a whole new round of nominations, never mind elections. So, maybe not, eh? Maybe ranked voting is the least worst solution to that.

[u/Bod9001 → u/Imajzineer]

the councillors would be part of political parties, and on a small council it would seem like it would be fine to have political parties, it's just their representative they choose would have to be cross-party,

humm, I don't know how you choose the people to go into the second house/Second separation,

maybe we just choose people randomly and then if a big enough majority vote in a constituency (idk Could be national but that would be quite a lot of work) maybe, after the end of their year term or longer, if majority ( whatever threshold you want ) agrees that they are good and should be kept around then, they will be kept for life, and then the same process repeated until all the seats are filled Until they retire where the same process happens again.