Dutch election and the advantages of PR

I heartily apologise for any offence you may have taken from my liking a post by another user.

Not sure which bit isn't clear? 

I think that's an interesting observation. Although society is more atomised now we all stopped going to church, there are still poorer parts of cities where some communities have remained, usually because they are too poor to move away, and here the term 'social cohesion' or community might be applied perhaps? Or have I been watching too many 1960s films?

Those remaining are often deeply unpleasant social-failure dumping grounds with high crime rates.

But can't these areas also be the ones with some kind of "social cohesion"? Could you say that Britwell had a social cohesion that was in some way a positive thing, and that would have been threatened by influx of 'foreign' people, whether white gentrifiers or more recent immigrants?

In which case 'immigrants damage social cohesion' is a probably a non-argument. But in a country with heavily damaged by underfunding social, medical services, additional competition for such resources will bring resentment, as will competition for scarce housing. These are all failures of government, or a positive bonus for intentionally underfunding public services if you are a politician for a plan to take over an party with an anti-immigrant platform..

Interestingly, in a country where public services are well funded and the housing shortage is not so dire (NL), the votes of the 24% of disgruntled are noticed worldwide. Although mainly noticed in FPTP countries who expect a 'winner' in elections, whereas the eventual reality of government will result in a hybrid beast. But this party will be almost surely be in it and this view expressed, albeit nuanced by the other coalition parties.

In the case of similar immigrant resentment coming to the fore in the UK, rather than represent those views in the eventual government, the opposite is likely to happen. If Reform UK take 24%, or even 14%, they are likely to get no seats. But for the other party which to some extent reflects these views, the effect of FPTP is likely to be dire. If Reform do well, they are likely to be taking a sizeable number of votes from the Tories. In the situation this party is already in, that narrows again the number of seats they might win and they could conceivably fail even to return as HM's Official Opposition. 

So in terms of "the advantages of PR", you can see that it reflects in a reasonable way "the will of the people", while under FPTP increased opposition to immigration split across two parties, is likely diminish representation of those voters as expressed in parliament to the rump remains of a single party. 

Edit: The Observer/Guardian catches up and realises that a 'win' is not a win in NL. 

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/the-observer-view-on-geert-wilders-win-far-right-victory-is-a-warning-to-the-rest-of-europe/ar-AA1kx92f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e283fa9db3a74227ab9154e706f22ab4&ei=8

The LD had held those seats over and over again since the Liberal Party's heyday. A new party has no particular base in any one constituency, and can come second in  all of them and get no seats. Because the choice between Conservative and Reform is different flavours of the same platform, they split the vote in every constituency in which both stand. Based on this, Reform can take down the Tory candidate and get 25% in every constituency but fail to win any of them.

2019 election:-

the Brexit Party failed to win any seats in the general election.[7] Among its results the best were in Barnsley Central, where Victoria Felton came second with 30.4% of the vote;[8] Hartlepool, where party chairman Richard Tice came third with 25.8% of the vote;[9] and Hull West and Hessle, where businesswoman and media personality Michelle Dewberry came third with 18% of the vote.[10]