[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Fair points. As long we don't have a system where the people who are elected are not on the ballot, or are people who are not the ones with the most first preference votes, I don't really mind what system we have. I really don't want a system where the candidate who comes second is the one who goes to parliament, or a system where if 20% of the country votes for a party then that party is given 20% of the seats.

Or a system that is 'more fair' than FPTP but which a dimbot like me doesn't understand.

Which means, by and large, I prefer FPTP.

And which is why, until turkeys start voting for Christmas, we won't change our system (very much - not enough for the liberals to return to their constituencies and prepare for power, anyway)

Well, we have just changed the system that millions of people were quite happily using. This is my point, beyond the specifics of what system I'd like, can you imagine the fuss if the British government just arbitrarily changed the voting system for the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish government? They'd go f***ing mental.

 

[Audax]

As long we don't have a system where the people who are elected are not on the ballot, or are people who are not the ones with the most first preference votes, I don't really mind what system we have. I really don't want a system where the candidate who comes second is the one who goes to parliament, or a system where if 20% of the country votes for a party then that party is given 20% of the seats.

Conversely: I really don't want a system where the one who becomes an MP only gets 30-something% of the vote. Respect your views on preference voting, but I see it from a very different angle to you. If the person who gets the most first-preference votes only has 35%, and the 65% who voted for someone else fundamentally disagree with and do not want that person, then that person is not the right person (even if they won the "most" votes initially).

What FPTP does (for those voters who actually think about their vote) is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st purely because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other candidates to potentially win.

Australia has preferential voting. It's not often that the candidate who finishes second on first preferences ends up winning a seat. But when it does, it's almost always because the vote on one side is split while the vote on the other side isn't. For example, there are seats in the last Aussie GE where the ALP and the Greens split easily over 50% of the vote between them. The seat of Brisbane, on first preferences was Liberal 37.7%, ALP 27.3%, Green 27.2% (just 11 votes between ALP and Green). Greens won it after preference distribution. Had it been a FPTP situation, either the Green vote would have been suppressed (historically an ALP / Liberal contested seat) and the ALP would have won on the back of Green voters tactically voting ALP, or the vote would have remained split and the Liberal would have won. Neither of those options, IMO, is democratic. In option 1 you have voters being forced to vote against their wishes in order to prevent a result they don't want. In option 2 you have a candidate elected that over 50% of voters clearly don't want.


Edit to add:

What FPTP does (for those voters who actually think about their vote) is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st purely because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning.

FWIW, this is exactly what I've had to do in the last 2-3 GE's here in the UK. I haven't actually voted for the candidate I most want to win. I've voted for the candidate I think is most likely to have a chance at beating the Tory candidate (fat chance in Wealden, but hey - worth a try).

 

[abc]

I used to be vehemently against PR because of the potential to give extremist groups a seat in parliament. However, we now have extremist groups within the main parties getting a platform thanks to fptp.
PR makes every vote count and any political instability that may or may not come from coalitions would surely be outweighed by the current experience of a government that answers to no one but the fascist cabal within

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Conversely: I really don't want a system where the one who becomes an MP only gets 30-something% of the vote. Respect your views on preference voting, but I see it from a very different angle to you. If the person who gets the most first-preference votes only has 35%, and the 65% who voted for someone else fundamentally disagree with and do not want that person, then that person is not the right person (even if they won the "most" votes initially).

What FPTP does (for those voters who actually think about their vote) is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st purely because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other candidates to potentially win.

Australia has preferential voting. It's not often that the candidate who finishes second on first preferences ends up winning a seat. But when it does, it's almost always because the vote on one side is split while the vote on the other side isn't. For example, there are seats in the last Aussie GE where the ALP and the Greens split easily over 50% of the vote between them. The seat of Brisbane, on first preferences was Liberal 37.7%, ALP 27.3%, Green 27.2% (just 11 votes between ALP and Green). Greens won it after preference distribution. Had it been a FPTP situation, either the Green vote would have been suppressed (historically an ALP / Liberal contested seat) and the ALP would have won on the back of Green voters tactically voting ALP, or the vote would have remained split and the Liberal would have won. Neither of those options, IMO, is democratic. In option 1 you have voters being forced to vote against their wishes in order to prevent a result they don't want. In option 2 you have a candidate elected that over 50% of voters clearly don't want.


Edit to add:


FWIW, this is exactly what I've had to do in the last 2-3 GE's here in the UK. I haven't actually voted for the candidate I most want to win. I've voted for the candidate I think is most likely to have a chance at beating the Tory candidate (fat chance in Wealden, but hey - worth a try).

TLR

I'm only half joking. This is the problem with anything other than FPTP. It takes a page of writing to explain how a different system would be better and more people votes made to count.

For what it's worth. I am not opposed to your suggestion for change. But in ten minutes I will have forgotten all your arguments.

Sadly the weft of the arguments for changing the voting system are like the weft of the arguments used pre-Brexit vote for staying in the EU, when compared with the hubristic arguments for leaving (noting that the latter were all lies).

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the failure to persuade the nation to vote (enough) for remain: make the argument simply and clearly and powerfully. Sadly I suspect this can't be done without misrepresentation. For example, "Double the power of you vote by backing PR". It's not really true, is it?

And there is of course the other barrier to change - neither labour nor the conservatives appear to want it, and are certainly not campaigning for it.

For the record I was (am) a strong remainer (who nevertheless sniffed the runes and predicted the outcome of the vote would be 'leave'), and am perfectly open to a change in the electoral system (but who feels that the most important thing presently is to see the next GE deliver a labour government, with the tories having no say, not in a snide coalition with another party. I want to see the tories in the sea).

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Personally I think Labour should get their win next year and run the next election 2029 with voting change on their manifesto.

There needs to be some mandate for electoral reform to come in. I don't want to another referendum on anything and I don't want Labour to do anything this time which gives this iteration of the tories any chance whatsoever.

Electoral Reform would benefit Labour in the long term. In effect it would mean there is no chance at all for these long spells of tories in office to continue to happen.

Government would either be, Lab majority, Lab coalition government, tory minority government where, as they have to try and find and keep a coalition partner, the batshit people will never again surface

 

[WATFORD zero]

I used to be vehemently against PR because of the potential to give extenuating groups a seat in parliament. However, we now have extremist groups within the main parties getting a platform thanks to fptp.
PR makes every vote count and any political instability that may or may not come from coalitions would surely be outweighed by the current experience of a government that answers to no one but the fascist cabal within

It's because FPTP and the current 'two party' system (I know ) simply encourages unelected coalitions desperate for power within the two parties fighting for complete control of the country.

Would Suella Braverman and Rory Stewart, Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Harriet Harman end up in the same political parties under any other conditions ? And then, as a result of this, we end up with a choice of Johnson or Corbyn and people don't understand why.

You really couldn't make it up

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well, we have just changed the system that millions of people were quite happily using. This is my point, beyond the specifics of what system I'd like, can you imagine the fuss if the British government just arbitrarily changed the voting system for the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish government? They'd go f***ing mental.

I haven't been keeping up with local elections. I presume you're saying the tories have recently randomly changed the local election system in the devolved governments. I may have read something about that on NSC. I'm afraid I don't take the devolved 'government' systems seriously. I always thought this was an idea of Blair to give the jocks and Welsh an illusion of independence that was risky because it may lead to independence (something that at the time I opposed, albeit I'm not really bothered anymore). So I think I'm saying that I'm not really bothered, albeit it is transparently wrong for one government to impose a vote system change on another, unless the first has executive powers over the second. I'm not sure of the law about this but I am assuming it is all legal so, again, I'm not bovvered.

That said, I think you are saying that one way to change the electoral system would be for the government to simply impose a different system on how it, itself, is elected. I don't think this is remotely feasible for the national parliament since, without a referendum to back it up, if the move were designed to favour the incumbent it would be tantamount to fascism. And again, why would the tories impose a new electoral system that will, without doubt, disadvantage them in the long run?

Now that I have forgotten the elegant arguments in favour of electoral change made in a post to which I replied earlier, I have fallen back into my FPTP - yay! - inertia. Sorry.

 

[jessiejames]

TLR

I'm only half joking. This is the problem with anything other than FPTP. It takes a page of writing to explain how a different system would be better and more people votes made to count.

For what it's worth. I am not opposed to your suggestion for change. But in ten minutes I will have forgotten all your arguments.

Sadly the weft of the arguments for changing the voting system are like the weft of the arguments used pre-Brexit vote for staying in the EU, when compared with the hubristic arguments for leaving (noting that the latter were all lies).

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the failure to persuade the nation to vote (enough) for remain: make the argument simply and clearly and powerfully. Sadly I suspect this can't be done without misrepresentation. For example, "Double the power of you vote by backing PR". It's not really true, is it?

And there is of course the other barrier to change - neither labour nor the conservatives appear to want it, and are certainly not campaigning for it.

For the record I was (am) a strong remainer (who nevertheless sniffed the runes and predicted the outcome of the vote would be 'leave'), and am perfectly open to a change in the electoral system (but who feels that the most important thing presently is to see the next GE deliver a labour government, with the tories having no say, not in a snide coalition with another party. I want to see the tories in the sea).

Im with you on this, TPTP is the only way to go imo. I would like to see heavy fines for people not voting, but i Suppose those will only spoilt there paper. I dont think any party wins an election, the government at the time Loses the election.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I haven't been keeping up with local elections. I presume you're saying the tories have recently randomly changed the local election system in the devolved governments. I may have read something about that on NSC. I'm afraid I don't take the devolved 'government' systems seriously. I always thought this was an idea of Blair to give the jocks and Welsh an illusion of independence that was risky because it may lead to independence (something that at the time I opposed, albeit I'm not really bothered anymore). So I think I'm saying that I'm not really bothered, albeit it is transparently wrong for one government to impose a vote system change on another, unless the first has executive powers over the second. I'm not sure of the law about this but I am assuming it is all legal so, again, I'm not bovvered.

That said, I think you are saying that one way to change the electoral system would be for the government to simply impose a different system on how it, itself, is elected. I don't think this is remotely feasible for the national parliament since, without a referendum to back it up, if the move were designed to favour the incumbent it would be tantamount to fascism. And again, why would the tories impose a new electoral system that will, without doubt, disadvantage them in the long run?

Now that I have forgotten the elegant arguments in favour of electoral change made in a post to which I replied earlier, I have fallen back into my FPTP - yay! - inertia. Sorry.

And you have the brass balls to complain about people who support electoral reform for long winded arguments?

Yes, the government have recently changed the voting system in local elections. You read about it in the post that you replied to that started this argument on this thread.

Also, the arguments in favour of electoral reform are entirely simple. The system should ensure more people's vote actually count for something. It's you who wraps the debate up in long winded "weft" to justify supporting a system that effectively dumps most people's votes in a skip.

 

[Audax]

This is the problem with anything other than FPTP. It takes a page of writing to explain how a different system would be better and more people votes made to count.

It really doesn't. Half my post was just providing real-world examples and I could have easily left them out. You can even drop the first paragraph. That leaves this rather short explanation (I've tweaked it a little):

"What FPTP does is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other, more preferred, candidates to potentially win."

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Conversely: I really don't want a system where the one who becomes an MP only gets 30-something% of the vote. Respect your views on preference voting, but I see it from a very different angle to you. If the person who gets the most first-preference votes only has 35%, and the 65% who voted for someone else fundamentally disagree with and do not want that person, then that person is not the right person (even if they won the "most" votes initially).

What FPTP does (for those voters who actually think about their vote) is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st purely because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other candidates to potentially win.

Australia has preferential voting. It's not often that the candidate who finishes second on first preferences ends up winning a seat. But when it does, it's almost always because the vote on one side is split while the vote on the other side isn't. For example, there are seats in the last Aussie GE where the ALP and the Greens split easily over 50% of the vote between them. The seat of Brisbane, on first preferences was Liberal 37.7%, ALP 27.3%, Green 27.2% (just 11 votes between ALP and Green). Greens won it after preference distribution. Had it been a FPTP situation, either the Green vote would have been suppressed (historically an ALP / Liberal contested seat) and the ALP would have won on the back of Green voters tactically voting ALP, or the vote would have remained split and the Liberal would have won. Neither of those options, IMO, is democratic. In option 1 you have voters being forced to vote against their wishes in order to prevent a result they don't want. In option 2 you have a candidate elected that over 50% of voters clearly don't want.


Edit to add:


FWIW, this is exactly what I've had to do in the last 2-3 GE's here in the UK. I haven't actually voted for the candidate I most want to win. I've voted for the candidate I think is most likely to have a chance at beating the Tory candidate (fat chance in Wealden, but hey - worth a try).

I see in your narrative you are happy with a party getting 27% of the vote winning a seat while the party with 37% of the vote losing out. Were I a supporter of the 37% ers, I would probably be planning some sort of revolt.

Here is another argument. If only 30% of the voters support the tories as their first preference, they may win the seat in FPTP. If another 30% would be happy with the tories but prefer another candidate, then in your electoral system the tories would win with 60% approval (or 45% if you count the second preference as half-tariff. In each situation the tories win. This is your main point, that changing the sustem won't normally change the outcome.

If so, how can a change to a preference voting system be of any value? I wouldn't think the system fairer, or be more happy with the outcome, if my first preference didn't win, no matter what the vote counting system. So when the preference system doesn't affect the outcome it is pointless.

But consider your example of when it really does change the outcome. Now, imagine if 45% support the tory as first preference, and 35% support labour (and the other 30% are scattered among the loony parties). Now, if 75% of second preference votes are for labour and only 20% for the tories, then labour will win the seat whatever the tariff of the second preference vote. That to me would be injustice. I would need to go on a training course, and listen to a long lecture by David Attenborough before I could accept this as remotely fair.

So perhaps (and I appreciated I am drifting into TL-DR territory here, but I am trying to find a way of backing your preference) one way of dealing with this is to make the vote FPTP in the first instance, bringing in second preference votes (with a 50% tariff) if the FPTP outcome is a majority of less than 5% (or 2%, the margin can be discussed). I could live with that (well, using the 2% rule) if my party had been in the lead but another candidate leapt ahead on the back of the second preference vote. Maybe. But I still don't instinctively feel this is 'fair'. No, f*** it, I'm sticking with FPTP. Anything else simply seems like a mess.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It really doesn't. Half my post was just providing real-world examples and I could have easily left them out. You can even drop the first paragraph. That leaves this rather short explanation (I've tweaked it a little):

"What FPTP does is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other, more preferred, candidates to potentially win."

I disagree with your argument completely. If we had preferential voting I would definitely vote tactically

I would chose the order of my candidates to maximise the chance of labour winning and minimise the chance of the tories (and the other lunatics) winning. I would have to have a long think about how to do that, especially if I am allowed to pick more than two parties.

If I lived in mid Sussex I would vote tactically (Liberal first, labour second). If I lived in a liberal stronghold I would vote Labour and not use my second preference vote.

To argue that with preferential vioting everyone would only rank their true preference is naïve.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Im with you on this, TPTP is the only way to go imo. I would like to see heavy fines for people not voting, but i Suppose those will only spoilt there paper. I dont think any party wins an election, the government at the time Loses the election.

I would like to see more people voting. I have no problem with compulsory voting but I would like the ballot paper to have a 'no candidate' option. And if 'no candidate' is the winner then the constituency returns no MP.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Conversely: I really don't want a system where the one who becomes an MP only gets 30-something% of the vote. Respect your views on preference voting, but I see it from a very different angle to you. If the person who gets the most first-preference votes only has 35%, and the 65% who voted for someone else fundamentally disagree with and do not want that person, then that person is not the right person (even if they won the "most" votes initially).

What FPTP does (for those voters who actually think about their vote) is encourage tactical votes, because a portion of voters will put their 2nd (or 3rd) preference down as 1st purely because they need to stop their least preferred candidate winning. That's not democratic. It suppresses votes for minor parties. We shouldn't need to vote for a candidate who isn't our #1 choice just because that candidate is more likely to beat the candidate we don't want.

What preferential voting systems do is allow voters to vote for candidates in their order of preference, safe in the knowledge that if their first preference doesn't win their vote can still help other candidates to potentially win.

Australia has preferential voting. It's not often that the candidate who finishes second on first preferences ends up winning a seat. But when it does, it's almost always because the vote on one side is split while the vote on the other side isn't. For example, there are seats in the last Aussie GE where the ALP and the Greens split easily over 50% of the vote between them. The seat of Brisbane, on first preferences was Liberal 37.7%, ALP 27.3%, Green 27.2% (just 11 votes between ALP and Green). Greens won it after preference distribution. Had it been a FPTP situation, either the Green vote would have been suppressed (historically an ALP / Liberal contested seat) and the ALP would have won on the back of Green voters tactically voting ALP, or the vote would have remained split and the Liberal would have won. Neither of those options, IMO, is democratic. In option 1 you have voters being forced to vote against their wishes in order to prevent a result they don't want. In option 2 you have a candidate elected that over 50% of voters clearly don't want.


Edit to add:


FWIW, this is exactly what I've had to do in the last 2-3 GE's here in the UK. I haven't actually voted for the candidate I most want to win. I've voted for the candidate I think is most likely to have a chance at beating the Tory candidate (fat chance in Wealden, but hey - worth a try).

Short answer - I don't care if people vote tactically. I have done on occasion. And I would do so again, even if we have a preferential system.

Also, to think that every voter has a right to get 'represented' is also wrong. We are voting for one MP. If we don't get what we want, tough. There is no chance of me getting a labour MP here in 'Medway', but that's life. If the majority here are tories, I just have to suck it up. I am more than happy to think that there will be lots of labour MPs elected elsewhere. And I will campaign for labour.

 

[nicko31]

I would like to see more people voting. I have no problem with compulsory voting but I would like the ballot paper to have a 'no candidate' option. And if 'no candidate' is the winner then the constituency returns no MP.

Compulsory voting works fine in Oz with a preference system.

 

[Audax]

I see in your narrative you are happy with a party getting 27% of the vote winning a seat while the party with 37% of the vote losing out.

That's a very reductionist way of boiling down my position that actually grossly misrepresents it.

More accurately:

Under a political system that has constituency seats (UK, Australia lower house, etc) I am *not* happy with a candidate winning a seat if they do not have the support of at least 50% of voters. A FPTP system cannot guarantee this. And while preferential voting isn't perfect either, it does give us a better idea of which candidates actually have the highest level of support.

I disagree with your argument completely. If we had preferential voting I would definitely vote tactically

I would chose the order of my candidates to maximise the chance of labour winning and minimise the chance of the tories (and the other lunatics) winning.

It's a different sort of tactical voting, though. Under PV you would still put your 1st preference down first. You then vote tactically to minimise the chances of a Tory by putting non-Tory candidates ahead of the Tory. But I would suggest that you would do that again by preference. Say, for example, you have the following candidates in a seat where polling suggests Labour, Lib Dems, and Conservatives are neck-and-neck:

Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
Green
Reform
Loony

If you want Labour to win, you put Labour first. If you under no circumstances want the Tory, you put them last, so you then have:

1 Labour
2
3
4
5
6 Tory

The tactical part then comes into play - how do you expect preferences to flow from other candidates? I'd expect anyone who votes Reform to have Tory 2nd, so I'll put them 5th. Loony votes could go anywhere, and really wouldn't want them winning by mistake, so they get 4th. It then becomes a straight choice between Green or Lib Dem for 2nd / 3rd. Under the scenario of wanting Labour to win but knowing that Lib Dems are in with a shout as well, you want to minimise Lib Dem - so stick them 3rd:

1 Labour
2 Green
3 Lib Dem
4 Loony
5 Reform
6 Tory

Easy.

If, however, I was a staunch Green supporter ... well, just put Greens 1st, then Labour, then Lib Dem. Most Greens backers would probably prefer a Labour candidate wins than a Tory or Lib Dem (especially with the Tories seemingly hell bent on setting pro-environment policies on fire).

Faced with the same choice under FPTP, you've then got a big choice to make. Say, for example, the polls for your seat are suggesting that Tory have 35%, Lib Dem have 34%, and Labour 30%. As a Labour supporter who under no circumstances wants a Tory to win, what do you do? Do you vote Labour and risk letting the Tory in by a whisker, or do you bite your tongue, vote Lib Dem, and hope they snatch it?

UK politics under FPTP is showing stronger and stronger signs of the "biting the tongue" type tactical voting happening. That's why multiple tactical voting sites exist in the UK, but there are none in Australia. Australians don't need a website to tell them how to avoid getting the candidate they don't want. They just order their preferences and the system handles it.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's a very reductionist way of boiling down my position that actually grossly misrepresents it.

More accurately:

Under a political system that has constituency seats (UK, Australia lower house, etc) I am *not* happy with a candidate winning a seat if they do not have the support of at least 50% of voters. A FPTP system cannot guarantee this. And while preferential voting isn't perfect either, it does give us a better idea of which candidates actually have the highest level of support.


It's a different sort of tactical voting, though. Under PV you would still put your 1st preference down first. You then vote tactically to minimise the chances of a Tory by putting non-Tory candidates ahead of the Tory. But I would suggest that you would do that again by preference. Say, for example, you have the following candidates in a seat where polling suggests Labour, Lib Dems, and Conservatives are neck-and-neck:

Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
Green
Reform
Loony

If you want Labour to win, you put Labour first. If you under no circumstances want the Tory, you put them last, so you then have:

1 Labour
2
3
4
5
6 Tory

The tactical part then comes into play - how do you expect preferences to flow from other candidates? I'd expect anyone who votes Reform to have Tory 2nd, so I'll put them 5th. Loony votes could go anywhere, and really wouldn't want them winning by mistake, so they get 4th. It then becomes a straight choice between Green or Lib Dem for 2nd / 3rd. Under the scenario of wanting Labour to win but knowing that Lib Dems are in with a shout as well, you want to minimise Lib Dem - so stick them 3rd:

1 Labour
2 Green
3 Lib Dem
4 Loony
5 Reform
6 Tory

Easy.

If, however, I was a staunch Green supporter ... well, just put Greens 1st, then Labour, then Lib Dem. Most Greens backers would probably prefer a Labour candidate wins than a Tory or Lib Dem (especially with the Tories seemingly hell bent on setting pro-environment policies on fire).

Faced with the same choice under FPTP, you've then got a big choice to make. Say, for example, the polls for your seat are suggesting that Tory have 35%, Lib Dem have 34%, and Labour 30%. As a Labour supporter who under no circumstances wants a Tory to win, what do you do? Do you vote Labour and risk letting the Tory in by a whisker, or do you bite your tongue, vote Lib Dem, and hope they snatch it?

UK politics under FPTP is showing stronger and stronger signs of the "biting the tongue" type tactical voting happening. That's why multiple tactical voting sites exist in the UK, but there are none in Australia. Australians don't need a website to tell them how to avoid getting the candidate they don't want. They just order their preferences and the system handles it.

that's an awful lot of writing to say you want change the system just to vote out Tories. i've come round to PR on it's merits, arguments i've seen here today are all about trying to bias the result.

 

[Machiavelli]

I see in your narrative you are happy with a party getting 27% of the vote winning a seat while the party with 37% of the vote losing out. Were I a supporter of the 37% ers, I would probably be planning some sort of revolt.

In the interests of brevity , let's just focus on this -- which is accurate, if selective.
In your selection, you've ignored two crucial further facts that @Audax has provided:
1, that c55% voted for two parties, versus the 37% that voted for the one that you want to win
2, that once first and second and third and ... preferences were taken into account, one of those two parties on 27% won. There was also the possibility for those second and third and ... preferences to get behind the party on 37% to tip that over the threshold but, in this instance, it wasn't sufficiently popular amongst the voting public to do so

What you're ultimately after is a two-party system, which delivers strong (!) and stable (!!!) government, wherein Labour governs for about a third of the time, and the Tories govern for the other two-thirds. This is what we've had to endure for the past century. And, in contrast to you, I'm not that keen on it continuing.

 

[WATFORD zero]

In the interests of brevity , let's just focus on this -- which is accurate, if selective.
In your selection, you've ignored two crucial further facts that @Audax has provided:
1, that c55% voted for two parties, versus the 37% that voted for the one that you want to win
2, that once first and second and third and ... preferences were taken into account, one of those two parties on 27% won. There was also the possibility for those second and third and ... preferences to get behind the party on 37% to tip that over the threshold but, in this instance, it wasn't sufficiently popular amongst the voting public to do so

What you're ultimately after is a two-party system, which delivers strong (!) and stable (!!!) government, wherein Labour governs for about a third of the time, and the Tories govern for the other two-thirds. This is what we've had to endure for the past century. And, in contrast to you, I'm not that keen on it continuing.

And you forgot the occasional bonus of a Johnson/Corbyn type choice

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

that's an awful lot of writing to say you want change the system just to vote out Tories. i've come round to PR on it's merits, arguments i've seen here today are all about trying to bias the result.

It's an (I'm guessing Labour supporter) writing to a Labour party member. Both of whom live in what are currently heavily Conservative constituencies. They're going to frame the example that way.
You could do exactly the same exercise with the Conservatives as first preference, Reform or whatever they're called nowadays at 2, etc. down to the Socialist Workers Party at the bottom.
The problems with FPTP exist as much for a Conservative living in Liverpool as for a Labour voter in Wealden. Actually they exist for most people but those are just about the extreme cases.