Why don't the Tories support electoral reform/PR?

[d000hg]

I don't know the details how proposed systems work, but I thought both Tories and LibDems suffer from the current system by getting a smaller share of seats than popular vote? It hits LibDems particularly hard which makes me think their zeal for reform is purely about their own interests, but I'm also confused why Brown would support it and Cameron doesn't.
If Brown got in on a shaky alliance and introduced PR, wouldn't that mean Labour would inevitably do less well in the unavoidable next election?

[MrMark]

I don't know the details how proposed systems work, but I thought both Tories and LibDems suffer from the current system by getting a smaller share of seats than popular vote? It hits LibDems particularly hard which makes me think their zeal for reform is purely about their own interests, but I'm also confused why Brown would support it and Cameron doesn't.
If Brown got in on a shaky alliance and introduced PR, wouldn't that mean Labour would inevitably do less well in the unavoidable next election?

Both Labour and Tories gain from the current system, which is why reform hasn't taken place for a long time. They both accept that it doesn't mean they win with the biggest number of votes. For example the Conservatives won the 1951 election, despite Labour getting more votes:

In the event, despite Labour polling almost a quarter of a million votes more than the Conservative Party (and its National Liberal allies) - and more votes than in the 1950 election - it was the Conservatives who went on to form the next government.

On one side Labour and Conservative like the current FPTP system, as it means they periodically get total power based on 35 or 37 % of the popular vote. On the other hand they like to argue that the Brits couldn't cope with PR and we'd become ungovernable. Plus Sinn Fein may hold the balance....

[AtW]

They both don't want it and I doubt very much Clegg will get it - under the current system the WORST that can happen for either Labour or Cons is that they will be the main opposition party with a shot at power next time. Under PR system both of them will carry serious risk that they won't be main opposition and thus may lose chance to be in power, possibly indefinately.

Cons would offer Clegg referendum on it (in 4 years) and will campaign against so he'll get fook all.

[Green Mango]

They both don't want it and I doubt very much Clegg will get it - under the current system the WORST that can happen for either Labour or Cons is that they will be the main opposition party with a shot at power next time. Under PR system both of them will carry serious risk that they won't be main opposition and thus may lose chance to be in power, possibly indefinately.

Cons would offer Clegg referendum on it (in 4 years) and will campaign against so he'll get fook all.

You assume people will vote for PR, Labour and Tory voters have no incentive to change the system.

Also PR will give continual hung parliaments. Well they don't look very good do they...

[centurian]

Labour prefer First-past-the-post, but they could live with PR because under the current voting structures and intentions, Lib Dems are more inclined to side with Labour than the Tories. Even now, LD would rather support Labour, but the numbers don't stack up. If this election had been PR, then the Lib/Lab deal would have been done before breakfast yesterday.

Under PR, Labours power would be dilluted because the Lib Dem leader could pull the rug out from under them whenever he/she chose, but it would mean semi-permanent residence of No10

For the Tories, because hardly anyone would side with them - it means a virtually permanent opposition. There's simply no way they would ever be able to form a government.

In the longer term, votiing intentions and party structures may modify to accomodate that, but in the short/medium term, PR means a semi-permanent Labour administration.

[MrMark]

You assume people will vote for PR, Labour and Tory voters have no incentive to change the system.

Also PR will give continual hung parliaments. Well they don't look very good do they...

Did you read what Atw wrote?

Cons would offer Clegg referendum on it (in 4 years) and will campaign against so he'll get fook all.

I don't see Atw making the assumption you claim; quite the opposite...

[Mich the Tester]

I'm a tory supporter and I'm not opposed to PR; I have a few points of concern but I'm open to persuasion.

[AtW]

You assume people will vote for PR, Labour and Tory voters have no incentive to change the system.

That's pretty much what I am saying - Liebor and Cons have got too much vested interest in it and they'd lead their supporters to vote against this change and they would 100% insist on referendum being done first.

A more practical way might be to make past and present membership in Labour Party illegal and imprison all top members for crimes against the economy, then, hopefully some more sensible party will fill the void.

HTH

[AtW]

I'm a tory supporter and I'm not opposed to PR; I have a few points of concern but I'm open to persuasion.

You are not a decision maker in this, so relax and try to enjoy it if you can.

HTH

[d000hg]

Why is PR being underlined? Is this some forum feature?