|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Red versus Blue
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
The political leaders have made their reshuffles.
Now its a straight fight. Red (Ed) versus Blue ( posh Tory)
Let battle commence. And may the power-hungry Lib Dems whose only hope is a coalition be wiped out.
Do Shipmates agree that a real choice between clearly delineated policies is a good thing? Or do we support a third party spoiling vote?
I have no idea how this translates into across the pond politics.
[ 07. October 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Do Shipmates agree that a real choice between clearly delineated policies is a good thing? Or do we support a third party spoiling vote?
At the moment I think we (in the UK) have a total mess where we have insufficient distinction between the executive and the legislature, and the legislature represents no-one's interests but their own. Quite frankly the "choice"* between different parties strikes me as totally meaningless.
*In my constituency the probability of my vote making a blind bit of difference is as close to zero as to make no odds.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
*In my constituency the probability of my vote making a blind bit of difference is as close to zero as to make no odds.
Mine too. Member of the cabinet, nowhere near a marginal.
For the council elections, hardly anybody bothered to put up any non-blue candidates. (I think there was a Labour one, as I bothered to go, to no effect.) No Libdems, no Greens. Since the blues are represented by a husband and wife, I think they might well be short of candidates as well.
One website at the general election showed how this seat has been gerrymandered. The bit I live in used to be attached to a marginal town, but it has been reassigned to a blue seat. Also added was a very red estate based town. This ensured that the then Liberal possibility in an election never had a chance again.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Across the pond it's the other way around. It is the red party that's on the right.
I don't think that a vote for a third party is a spoiling vote at all. There are plenty of examples of successful coalitions. But we won't have to worry about the Liberal party at the next election, the Liberal party have seen to that.
A major part of the pre-election rhetoric of the Liberal party last time is that they want some form of proportional representation. That would mean almost perpetual coalitions, with a majority government a rare thing.
So if the Liberal Leader, Clegg wants to be part of a coalition government then he has had the opportunity that he could make it work. He has failed spectacularly.
From the very beginning he failed to get a Liberal in any of the main departments, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
David Cameron is a crafty politician and he has out-manoeuvred Clegg at almost every step. The Tories do something unpopular, the Liberals get the blame.
I believe a coalition could work. But the Liberals will need a new leader before it does.
And I voted for them.
Balaam - Liberal and disillusioned.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
A major part of the pre-election rhetoric of the Liberal party last time is that they want some form of proportional representation. That would mean almost perpetual coalitions, with a majority government a rare thing.
I see this (proportional representation = coalition government) trotted out regularly but, genuine question, is it actually a mathematical necessity?
It also somewhat comes back to my feeling that we need to distinguish more clearly between executive and legislature. What happens were we to vote directly for each cabinet position and proportionally for one of the houses, for example?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The proper government, given the outcome of the 2010 election, should have been a a coalition of the two parties with the most votes - or at least of those MPs of those parties prepared to act rationally.
The Lib Dems were able to exercise enough leverage to obtain a place in government solely because of the reluctance of Labour and the Tories to work together - and much good it did the Lib Dems, or us.
I now find it difficult to find anyone I would vote for. My former helpful Lib Dem MP (who lost her seat to a very unhelpful Tory councillor) isn't tainted by government - and may stand again; there may be a Green candidate or an acceptable independent. But it looks like abstention.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The political leaders have made their reshuffles.
Now its a straight fight. Red (Ed) versus Blue ( posh Tory)
Let battle commence. And may the power-hungry Lib Dems whose only hope is a coalition be wiped out.
Do Shipmates agree that a real choice between clearly delineated policies is a good thing? Or do we support a third party spoiling vote?
I have no idea how this translates into across the pond politics.
I'd say all you Brits have to do is look across the pond to answer your question. Do you like what you see happening in US right now?
And if you answer yes, I'd ask:
Really?
really?
That about covers it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Do Shipmates agree that a real choice between clearly delineated policies is a good thing? Or do we support a third party spoiling vote?
As a former member of a Conservative and Unionist association, I can't say I'm too disappointed to see Labour trying to make themselves as unelectable as possible. The only problem is that David Cameron is even more unelectable (though not as bad as Howard or IDS), and there's a more than a distinct risk of those loonies actually getting in next time. Shame Michael Portillo quit Parliament.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That would mean almost perpetual coalitions, with a majority government a rare thing.
I don't think that's that unlikely. It's the next step in the argument that I don't understand, i.e. perpetual coalitions would be a bad thing. How are Germany doing? How often do they have coalitions?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Most proportional representation systems aim to get in the candidate who is least unacceptable to the most people. That will almost always be a centrist candidate.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If you really want proportional representation, then I'd advocate STV, which is incomparably more flexible and responsive to voter's choices than any party based system.
Sadly, in my view, neither politicians nor voters want, or are ready for, STV.
That being so I wonder if the system people and parties really want is a simple FPTP vote for Prime Minister - the winner to appoint 400 MPs, the second place (becoming Leader of the Opposition) to appoint 200 MPs, and the various losers to get as many MPs as their percentage (obviously no more than 25 or so at the very most).
Parliamentary majority guaranteed, "strong government", and we throw the rascals out if the mood takes us. What more could we or they want? Annual parliaments?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
None can be trusted to do what they say they'll do, or not to do what they have left out of their manifesto. They've been taking the people for granted for too long, they haven't represented the views of the public at large, they still delay the promised referendum (and have even changed the promise so that it won't give people other than an in or out if it's ever held). ISTM that all this will open doors for UKIP which they would never have imagined. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
If you really want proportional representation, then I'd advocate STV, which is incomparably more flexible and responsive to voter's choices than any party based system.
Sadly, in my view, neither politicians nor voters want, or are ready for, STV.
That being so I wonder if the system people and parties really want is a simple FPTP vote for Prime Minister - the winner to appoint 400 MPs, the second place (becoming Leader of the Opposition) to appoint 200 MPs, and the various losers to get as many MPs as their percentage (obviously no more than 25 or so at the very most).
Parliamentary majority guaranteed, "strong government", and we throw the rascals out if the mood takes us. What more could we or they want? Annual parliaments?
I would still want a constituency MP representing me and the people in my area.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That would mean almost perpetual coalitions, with a majority government a rare thing.
I don't think that's that unlikely. It's the next step in the argument that I don't understand, i.e. perpetual coalitions would be a bad thing. How are Germany doing? How often do they have coalitions?
That was my point, coalitions can be a very good thing. It is the present one in the UK that I'm saying doesn't work. And I can't see it working with the current Liberal leadership.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
A major part of the pre-election rhetoric of the Liberal party last time is that they want some form of proportional representation. That would mean almost perpetual coalitions, with a majority government a rare thing.
I see this (proportional representation = coalition government) trotted out regularly but, genuine question, is it actually a mathematical necessity?
It also somewhat comes back to my feeling that we need to distinguish more clearly between executive and legislature. What happens were we to vote directly for each cabinet position and proportionally for one of the houses, for example?
The odd thing I've spotted is that the most common argument boils down to that coalition government is bad as Nick Cleggs breaking his promises, and that therefore anything that therefore the more coalitiony government the worse. As though a pure Tory Government would be better by following the LD manifesto.
Which you see from a little from L.D (sour grapes and disappointment), & Lab (which makes a degree of sense, provided you blame L.D's for stealing Lab votes, a bit dodgy) but especially from the Cons (who I think must be being consciously disingenuous*)
*Arguing that "the LD's are blocking the great work of the Cons and making britain poorer" would be a different argument (and depend on the effect of the respective policies).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Hmmm - I think the OP is tongue in cheek.
The kind of politics they get across the pond isn't democracy at all. Money talks - only money. Our system is bad, but not that bad, yet.
Over here the middle ground matters, and I hope it gets stronger.
I was angry with the lib-dems for selling out to the Tories.
I reckon Green is the only way to go now.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The proper government, given the outcome of the 2010 election, should have been a a coalition of the two parties with the most votes - or at least of those MPs of those parties prepared to act rationally.
I my opinion that would be the worst case coalition. It would give a very strong government, but irradicate any effective opposition. The UK Parliamentary system relies on a strong opposition to run the checks and balances against government policy (and, a strong upper house too of course).
A Con-Lab coalition with a LibDem (+ SNP, PC and any others) opposition would leave the opposition with no-one to fill shadow cabinet positions, no chance of convincing enough MPs on the government side to vote against their leadership to block flawed policies (or, as mostly happens now of making sure the government has ironed out flaws before it comes to a vote, because a defeat when it comes to a vote is a governmental disaster).
The current coalition is only a problem because Clegg was outplayed by Cameron. He pledged support for the coalition, but all he got in return was the referendum on electoral reform (which, in turn was gerrymandered by putting up AV as the only option for a change, about the one potential system no one, even in the LibDems, actually wanted). He'd have done better asking for a smaller step towards electoral reform (eg: a referendum on "do you want to keep the current system?" and leave the actual changes to another parliament, or reform the local election system into an additional member system or something, so that voters outside Scotland have experience of a different system before going to a referendum) and taking some of their own policies forward in the coalition. But, hindsight is wonderful thing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A Con-Lab coalition will never happen, outside war-time, since Labour's soul is burned by the experience of MacDonald in the 30s.
I assume that the OP is a laaf. Never has politics been so boring, never has there been so little choice really. I suppose the efforts of journalists to argue that there is now clear water between Con and Lab might raise a chuckle. FFS, they have to earn a living.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
So, FPTP is the preferred choice as it, mostly, delivers "strong" single party government. When, rarely, it doesn't, the convention is that the parties coming first and third in terms of seats form a coalition.
The third party (obviously weaker) gets terminally damaged, and we retreat to the two party system, unless or until popular discontent finally breaks it.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
One argument in favour of coalitions that I find fairly convincing is that it encourages politicians to think more long-term. With FPTP, the government is strongly motivated to think about the next election, which in most systems is, what, 4-5 years away at most? Whereas with PR, parties don't get punished so much by losing a few % of their vote across the board, so perhaps they can afford to think a bit more about long-term issues.
I'm thinking in particular about long-distance transport and power generation, two issues which in the UK many commentators say are serious concerns because of short-term thinking on the part of the previous few governments.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
So, FPTP is the preferred choice as it, mostly, delivers "strong" single party government. When, rarely, it doesn't, the convention is that the parties coming first and third in terms of seats form a coalition.
In most places, including in the UK when an election hasn't resulted in a single party majority, the convention is that the party with the largest number of seats forms the government. That could be a minority government, where they rely on enough cross-party support for their policies (based on the assumption that what they'll propose is clearly a good thing for the country, and enough MPs would see it as good to vote in favour even if they aren't a member of the party in power). Or, they could seek formal support from one or more other parties to secure an overall majority for the coalition - that is usually a lot easier with smaller parties (especially those already relatively close to the majority party) because a coalition can be formed with relatively few compromises in terms of adopting a policy position unique to the smaller party or cabinet positions for minority party MPs. Whichever route is taken, the resulting government and the policies they adopt are very heavily influenced by the largest party in parliament - which, IMO, is how it should be since that's probably the closest we'll get to representing the wishes of the electorate.
quote:
The third party (obviously weaker) gets terminally damaged, and we retreat to the two party system, unless or until popular discontent finally breaks it.
That doesn't necessarily follow, though clearly in the case of the current UK coalition that appears to have happened. If, in entering a coalition, a third party manages to secure a policy position of considerable importance to their membership, or block a policy of the larger party that their membership strongly disagree with, then they will probably come out of the coalition stronger. A door mat to let the larger party into power and achieving none of what their members and supporters wanted to happen (even worse, not even really trying to do that) is not what a minority partner in a coalition should be.
I am still of the opinion that a strong coalition, in which the minority partner has a significant (though not over-ruling) say in policy formation and implementation such that the resulting government enacts policies that have the support of the majority of the membership and supporters of both parties would be my ideal form of government. It would be a government with a wider basis of support within the country than any single party, no matter how large their majority in the house, could ever achieve. It is a tragedy that for the majority of the UK electorate their experience of coalition is so far below that ideal. A tragedy because it will raise the boogey man of a future coalition as a "reason" not to vote for anyone other than Labour or Conservative; which damages not only the Lib Dems but also the Greens, SNP and PC in Scotland and Wales, UKIP (not that I have any problem with their chances being damaged) and independent candidates and other smaller parties.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I am still of the opinion that a strong coalition, in which the minority partner has a significant (though not over-ruling) say in policy formation and implementation such that the resulting government enacts policies that have the support of the majority of the membership and supporters of both parties would be my ideal form of government.
Germany has done very well with this model.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Shamwari
I'm curious why at the head of the thread you say quote:
Red (Ed) versus Blue ( posh Tory)
Why do you feel the need to say "Posh Tory" rather than "David" (or perhaps Dave)?
And having typed that you then go on to speak of "clear choice" when it would seem your mind is already made up.
Just wondering... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Given that 'Dave's' latest reshuffle has appointed Conservatives from working class backgrounds, I'm not sure we can really talk about 'posh Tories'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If, in entering a coalition, a third party manages to secure a policy position of considerable importance to their membership, or block a policy of the larger party that their membership strongly disagree with, then they will probably come out of the coalition stronger. A door mat to let the larger party into power and achieving none of what their members and supporters wanted to happen (even worse, not even really trying to do that) is not what a minority partner in a coalition should be.
I am still of the opinion that a strong coalition, in which the minority partner has a significant (though not over-ruling) say in policy formation and implementation such that the resulting government enacts policies that have the support of the majority of the membership and supporters of both parties would be my ideal form of government.
It's interesting whenever this discussion comes around to actually look at the policies the Con-Lib coalition put forward when it was formed. The Guardian produced a handy website that helps us look at this.
With a bit of analysis it can be seen that of the 434 stated policies, 183 were from the Conservative manifesto, 82 from the Lib Dem manifesto, 67 from both manifestos and 102 from neither. That seems like a reasonable split between the parties to me, given their relative sizes in the coalition.
Of course, what people really mean when they call the Lib Dems doormats is simply that they wanted the Lib Dems to block everything that wasn't in their manifesto to start with. But that's not being a junior coalition partner, that's being the opposition.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With a bit of analysis it can be seen that of the 434 stated policies, 183 were from the Conservative manifesto, 82 from the Lib Dem manifesto, 67 from both manifestos and 102 from neither. That seems like a reasonable split between the parties to me, given their relative sizes in the coalition.
Thank you for this, Marvin. I'm a Lib Dem member (one of the few remaining, it seems!) and overall I'm really pleased with the extent of their influence on this government's legislative programme.
ISTM there's been a lot of complaining in some parts of the media about how the Lib Dems haven't managed to block everything the 'cruel Tories' have sought to do. Well, duh - they've got about 5 times as many MPs as the Lib Dems.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Given that 'Dave's' latest reshuffle has appointed Conservatives from working class backgrounds, I'm not sure we can really talk about 'posh Tories'.
Don't go spoiling the left's narrative that the right is full of 'posh' people, and that those on the left are all humble people who come from solid working class backgrounds, nor hoard wealth for their own selfish, hypocritical, benefit.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Given that 'Dave's' latest reshuffle has appointed Conservatives from working class backgrounds, I'm not sure we can really talk about 'posh Tories'.
Don't go spoiling the left's narrative that the right is full of 'posh' people, and that those on the left are all humble people who come from solid working class backgrounds, nor hoard wealth for their own selfish, hypocritical, benefit.
Twenty-seven cabinet posts, eighteen Oxbridge educated ministers (including all five Lib Dems!). OK, not all Oxbridge graduates are "posh" but there's a certain correlation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Do Shipmates agree that a real choice between clearly delineated policies is a good thing? Or do we support a third party spoiling vote?
I have no idea how this translates into across the pond politics.
I'd say all you Brits have to do is look across the pond to answer your question. Do you like what you see happening in US right now?
[/QB]
Are you suggesting that the parties in the US stand for opposing philosophies? Looking at it from this side of the pond, it appears that the choice is between fairly sane right wing and loony right wing.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Given that 'Dave's' latest reshuffle has appointed Conservatives from working class backgrounds, I'm not sure we can really talk about 'posh Tories'.
Don't go spoiling the left's narrative that the right is full of 'posh' people, and that those on the left are all humble people who come from solid working class backgrounds, nor hoard wealth for their own selfish, hypocritical, benefit.
Whose narrative is that? You are using the phrase 'the left' with rather vague referents. If you are referring to the Labour Party, I doubt if anyone thinks they are all humble people who don't hoard wealth!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With a bit of analysis it can be seen that of the 434 stated policies, 183 were from the Conservative manifesto, 82 from the Lib Dem manifesto, 67 from both manifestos and 102 from neither. That seems like a reasonable split between the parties to me, given their relative sizes in the coalition.
Thank you for this, Marvin. I'm a Lib Dem member (one of the few remaining, it seems!) and overall I'm really pleased with the extent of their influence on this government's legislative programme.
ISTM there's been a lot of complaining in some parts of the media about how the Lib Dems haven't managed to block everything the 'cruel Tories' have sought to do. Well, duh - they've got about 5 times as many MPs as the Lib Dems.
As a Lib Dem supporter, there were two low points with the formation of the coalition.
The first was the damp squib that was offered as an option for electoral reform; as I mentioned earlier the option of AV or status quo wasn't the referendum I'd have wanted to see, and it was hard to work for electoral reform when the only option was one no one really wanted. The result has been that electoral reform is off the table for the foreseeable future.
The second was tuition fees. The Lib Dems were very clear abuot phasing out tuition fees and voting against anything that would raise tuition fees. The best Clegg managed in the coalition agreement was that Lib Dem MPs could abstain, which resulted in a vote that allowed tuition fees to rise significantly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb]I'd say all you Brits have to do is look across the pond to answer your question. Do you like what you see happening in US right now?
Are you suggesting that the parties in the US stand for opposing philosophies? Looking at it from this side of the pond, it appears that the choice is between fairly sane right wing and loony right wing.
I think the point is more about the USA having an executive that doesn't have the support of the legislature without any method to break the deadlock, not about the two parties on offer in the USA.
The UK and other Parliamentary countries can definitely do without copying the USA in either disconnecting the executive and legislature or setting up a two party system.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
So, FPTP is the preferred choice as it, mostly, delivers "strong" single party government. When, rarely, it doesn't, the convention is that the parties coming first and third in terms of seats form a coalition.
In most places, including in the UK when an election hasn't resulted in a single party majority, the convention is that the party with the largest number of seats forms the government....
Except it isn't the rule. The rule is that in a minority parliament, the sitting government remains in power after election until 1) they choose to leave because it's obvious there's another choice or 2) they are defeated in the House in a Motion of confidence and another party is invited to form the Government.
(1) is the most frequent occurrence in modern times, for instance in Canada federally in 2004, 2006 and 2008 and in Ontario in 2011 and Quebec in 2012. (2) happened in Ontario in 1985 and might happen in Quebec later this year. In 1985 Frank Miller and the Progressive Conservatives chose to meet the House and lost a Motion of Confidence after an election; they were replaced by David Peterson and the Liberals, with the support of the NDP.
In Quebec if the PQ government falls then the Lieutentant Governor can call on the Liberals to form a government. It probably will happen, because under present legislation an election can't be called if a government voluntarily resigns, it can only be called if it loses a motion of confidence.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell - thoroughly agree with you on electoral reform. What a damp squib the referendum ended up being. As for tuition fees, however, I think the Lib Dems' mistake was to make such a firm, unequivocal commitment in the first place. I'm not sure they had much choice about backing the tuition fee rise. My memory might be playing tricks on me though; the details of it all rather escape me at the moment (which isn't much help for this discussion, sorry!).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As for tuition fees, however, I think the Lib Dems' mistake was to make such a firm, unequivocal commitment in the first place.
It may have been a mistake, but it was a commitment that came straight from the part conference and the membership of the party. It was also a commitment that made them unique from the other two main national parties, and was reported prior to the election as one of the main reasons they were gaining support in opinion polls. Phasing out tuition fees and electoral reform were the two issues where they clearly stood apart from Lab and Conservatives. While electoral reform was important to the LibDem party membership, it was probably their position on tuition fees that was largely responsible for them being in the position of being able to participate in a coalition government.
quote:
I'm not sure they had much choice about backing the tuition fee rise. My memory might be playing tricks on me though; the details of it all rather escape me at the moment
A quick refresh of my memory courtesy of a perusal of stuff turned up by Google, and I think they did have a choice. There was a review of tuition fees initiated in 2009 by the Labour government (under John Browne), which had not reported by the election. In the negotiation to form a coalition the it was agreed that a decision on tuition fees would await the outcome of the Browne report, with the agreement allowing LibDems to abstain from any vote that might increase fees. IMO, Clegg lost a lot of support from his party members and the general public when he took such a weak position on a subject that had been so important to the party and (according to the polls) a significant contribution to the relatively large vote for LibDems. He should probably have held out for a free vote on tuition fees, it may not have made any difference but would have allowed LibDems to vote in accordance with the expressed wishes of their party and the implied wishes of those who voted for them (ie: to vote against anything that might increase tuition fees).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The main thing I find interesting about the tuition fees thing is the fact that it would have happened in exactly the same way had the election results been slightly different and the coalition been between the Lib Dems and Labour. After all, as Alan points out it was Labour who commissioned the Browne Review in the first place, and their manifesto contained a pledge to follow its recommendations.
With my University Adminstrator hat on, the "risky" election result for us was a Tory win. We already knew what Labour would do.
Yes, the Lib Dems gained a lot of popularity among students in 2010 by making an unrealistic promise that was probably forged in the belief that they wouldn't actually end up in any kind of position where they'd have to deliver on it. Such promises are easy to make when you're not even big enough to form the Opposition, let alone Government. When they in fact ended up becoming a (small) part of the Government realism set in, and such a manifestly undeliverable promise was rightly one of the first to go.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I still think that in negotiating the coalition agreement Clegg should have stood for a free vote on tuition fees, or a right for LibDems to vote against without loss of the whip and other sanctions those who did vote against received.
The thing I find really strange is that Labour voted against the removal of the cap on tuition fees, which as Marvin pointed out went against their manifesto pledge to accept the findings of Browne. But, they don't seem to be suffering anywhere near the amount of political damage as the LibDems did for also breaking their manifesto pledge on the same point.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing I find really strange is that Labour voted against the removal of the cap on tuition fees, which as Marvin pointed out went against their manifesto pledge to accept the findings of Browne.
It is odd, but the argument can be made that as the Loyal Opposition it's their job to oppose government policies - especially ones with substantial public disapproval - even if they would have done the exact same thing had they been in power.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
When it comes to university tuition fees the facts remain: the fees were introduced by a Labour government and the ceiling was raised to the current £3,000 per term by the Liberal Democrats.
Nice to see parties stuffed full of former bright grammar school pupils who benefited from across-the-board student grants bringing in and supporting a system that makes higher education unaffordable for the poorest and, with the ensuing debt, terrifying for almost all.
Very socialist, very Christian.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...a system that makes higher education unaffordable for the poorest and, with the ensuing debt, terrifying for almost all.
The first part of that is simply false, and the second is because too many people simply don't understand how the system works.
Here's a clue to how it really works - the only figure that matters is the monthly repayment. The total loan owed is irrelevant.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Marvin the Martian
The first part of that is simply false, and the second is because too many people simply don't understand how the system works. Here's a clue to how it really works - the only figure that matters is the monthly repayment. The total loan owed is irrelevant.
I know exactly how the system works, thanks very much. I've two children at university at the moment and so also have some insight into how concerned they and their friends are at the amount of debt they are racking up.
Yes, I know they don't have to start repayments until their earnings hit a certain level - which is bound to change before my children get there. But for you to say that the monthly repayment is the only "relevant" figure is odd, since the outstanding debt will be attracting interest all the time, thus increasing the figure.
As for fees disincentivising the poorest, I stand by that: well and good to say there are bursaries and that children from the poorest homes are entitled to a grant element, but whoever works out the figures hasn't got to grips with children for whom going off to university means leaving home because Mum and Dad aren't prepared to support them in the holidays, not even to the extent of giving them a roof over their head.
My loft is the repository for those worldly possessions not required at university for two of my children's friends, neither of whom has a family home to return to but both of whom have parents who the system deems are able to support them. And my linen cupboard is a lot emptier since I helped out with equipping them for university with the things not provided by a hall of residence - think shower rail & curtain, storage boxes, curtains (I kid you not), etc, etc, etc.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing I find really strange is that Labour voted against the removal of the cap on tuition fees, which as Marvin pointed out went against their manifesto pledge to accept the findings of Browne.
It is odd, but the argument can be made that as the Loyal Opposition it's their job to oppose government policies - especially ones with substantial public disapproval - even if they would have done the exact same thing had they been in power.
Yes, the Opposition is there to oppose the government. And, as I said earlier a strong democracy requires a strong Opposition. But, surely opposition is more than just saying "no" to everything the government proposes? When both Conservative and Labour have made following the recommendations of the Browne inquiry manifesto pledges, then surely an argument could be made for saying that the public had voted for parties to follow those recommendations? As Opposition, of course, they had a duty to question the precise detail of the legislation and in committee stages and on the floor of the House campaign for amendments that they consider would enact the recommendations of Browne better, or at least more to their liking.
A simple reactionary "it's the Government proposing it therefore we vote 'no'" does very little to make that the final legislation is as good as it can be, and as acceptable to the majority of the electorate as possible.
Although there quite clearly is substantial public disapproval of tuition fees, an in particular the higher rates that have now been allowed. I suspect that both Labour and Conservative read the public mood fairly well prior to the election and realised that the disapproval was most strongly voiced by a minority of the electorate, and so wrote their manifestos with no clear commitment either way, just a "we'll follow what Browne says" (and, I don't think Browne was ever going to suggest scrapping tuition fees altogether and his recommendation to remove the cap entirely wasn't a big surprise to anyone - so therefore the manifestos were leaning towards raising tuition fees). The LibDems did well by picking up the votes of those who felt most strongly and deserted Labour and Conservatives over the issue - but that wasn't enough people to give them more than the kingmaker minority they got.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know exactly how the system works, thanks very much. I've two children at university at the moment and so also have some insight into how concerned they and their friends are at the amount of debt they are racking up.
That's nice, but it's my job to deal with tuition fee setting at a Russell Group university, and to understand the systems and processes within which I have to operate. I read every page of the Browne Review before it was officially published (it was released to universities a week early, to enable us to work on our response before the press started asking us for it), and I've also read the final government paper that brought the new system into being (the two were actually quite different in many respects). Of all the subjects we discuss on the Ship, UK tuition fees is the one I'd back myself to know more about than pretty much everyone else here.
I'd certainly back myself to know more about it than a group of undergraduates who probably haven't thought about anything other than "£9,000 x 3 = SHIIIIIT".
quote:
Yes, I know they don't have to start repayments until their earnings hit a certain level - which is bound to change before my children get there.
Yes. It will almost certainly be higher by then.
quote:
But for you to say that the monthly repayment is the only "relevant" figure is odd, since the outstanding debt will be attracting interest all the time, thus increasing the figure.
Increasing the total figure, sure - but the monthly repayment is tied to income rather than the total debt owed, so it will remain the same whether they owe £2,000 or £200,000.
I did slightly overstate my case though - the total amount owed is relevant in as much as it defines the maximum amount that will be repayed.
The student loans repayment system is, in effect, a graduate tax with a defined maximum total lifetime payment per person.
quote:
As for fees disincentivising the poorest, I stand by that: well and good to say there are bursaries and that children from the poorest homes are entitled to a grant element, but whoever works out the figures hasn't got to grips with children for whom going off to university means leaving home because Mum and Dad aren't prepared to support them in the holidays, not even to the extent of giving them a roof over their head.
That would still be a problem if tuition fees were set at zero.
quote:
My loft is the repository for those worldly possessions not required at university for two of my children's friends, neither of whom has a family home to return to but both of whom have parents who the system deems are able to support them. And my linen cupboard is a lot emptier since I helped out with equipping them for university with the things not provided by a hall of residence - think shower rail & curtain, storage boxes, curtains (I kid you not), etc, etc, etc.
I admire your devotion to your childrens' friends, but I fail to see what difference lower tuition fees would make to their circumstances. Especially as the reduced income for universities would guarantee the lack of all those things, plus quite a few others.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks for that, MtM. ISTM that the tuition fee system is a brilliant thing, because it (a) doesn't stop poorer people considering university, but (b) it does make people think twice about going just because they fancy it, because everyone else in their family went, or whatever.
Under the previous government university attendance went up massively, but for what benefit? It cost the country a load of money and has left many thousands of young people with qualifications not considered relevant by employers, when they could have spent those 3-4 years building up valuable experience and skills in the workplace.
I think this whole Christian = socialist (= Labour party, in the UK) thing is massively simplistic.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Under the previous government university attendance went up massively, but for what benefit? It cost the country a load of money and has left many thousands of young people with qualifications not considered relevant by employers, when they could have spent those 3-4 years building up valuable experience and skills in the workplace.
Not to mention devaluing qualifications as a whole. There was a time when A-Levels could get you a good job. Then lots of people started getting degrees, and they became the minimum qualification for those jobs. Then half the population started getting degrees, and suddenly an increasing number of those jobs are now asking for postgraduate qualifications as well. If it carries on like this the kids of the future will need Doctorates just to get onto an entry-level management training program.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The student loans repayment system is, in effect, a graduate tax with a defined maximum total lifetime payment per person.
I'm going to take the opportunity to ask the expert.
I assume if someone leaves uni straight into a well paid job above the threshold they will immediately start repaying their loan, and thus clear that debt at the earliest opportunity incurring the minimum interest. If, on the other hand, someone leaves uni into a good, but lower paid job, they don't start repayments until later by which time more interest has accrued and the total they pay is greater. Thus, there is no "defined maximum total lifetime payment per person", because the maximum payment is going to vary depending on how soon someone is earning enough to repay, and hence how much interest has been accrued to the debt. Or, am I missing something?
What happens if someone leaves uni, and never gets a job with a salary above the threshold or dies in a tragic accident before the loan is repaid? Is the loan then written off, or does it (or as much as possible) get paid out of insurance payouts or what the graduate leaves to his children?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume if someone leaves uni straight into a well paid job above the threshold they will immediately start repaying their loan, and thus clear that debt at the earliest opportunity incurring the minimum interest. If, on the other hand, someone leaves uni into a good, but lower paid job, they don't start repayments until later by which time more interest has accrued and the total they pay is greater. Thus, there is no "defined maximum total lifetime payment per person", because the maximum payment is going to vary depending on how soon someone is earning enough to repay, and hence how much interest has been accrued to the debt. Or, am I missing something?
What happens if someone leaves uni, and never gets a job with a salary above the threshold or dies in a tragic accident before the loan is repaid? Is the loan then written off, or does it (or as much as possible) get paid out of insurance payouts or what the graduate leaves to his children?
I have one son in each situation.
One will have paid his loan off in a couple of years. The other will never pay a penny I reckon, he won't get above the threshold. The loan will be written off. He has to fill a form in every year and send proof of salary.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
I approve of tuition fees that function as a graduate tax, if people are getting access to high-paying jobs thanks to study funded by the taxpayer it would seem quite fair to ask them to pay a small portion of that cost back into the public purse.
We have a similar setup in Australia called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which if paid off in full will have most students paying for roughly a fifth to a third of the real cost of their education if they subsequently get a well-paid job. It's reasonably well-accepted across the nation, with the exception of liberal arts students who ironically face the smallest chance of ever being required to pay off the loan. There is considerable support for charging HECS each year to athletes who are funded by the taxpayer through the Australian Institute of Sport, as many of them go on to well-paid professional sporting careers and well-paid jobs after sport finishes as a direct result of their support from the AIS.
The form of indexing or interest is the main question for me that would determine whether it's fair or not. If the balance is only indexed each year to keep in pace with inflation so it neither grows or decreases in real terms that would seem fair, if a rate of interest greater than inflation is applied it wouldn't seem so fair. In Australia it's just the indexation for inflation that is added, which is it in the UK?
In Australia, remaining HECS debt is not charged after a person has died, the regular compulsory payment rate is charged to their estate on their final tax return and the remainder written off.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume if someone leaves uni straight into a well paid job above the threshold they will immediately start repaying their loan, and thus clear that debt at the earliest opportunity incurring the minimum interest. If, on the other hand, someone leaves uni into a good, but lower paid job, they don't start repayments until later by which time more interest has accrued and the total they pay is greater. Thus, there is no "defined maximum total lifetime payment per person", because the maximum payment is going to vary depending on how soon someone is earning enough to repay, and hence how much interest has been accrued to the debt. Or, am I missing something?
The only key thing you've missed is the fact that all outstanding loan debt is written off after 30 years. So the total amount an individual will repay over those years actually rises with their salary until it hits the point where they actually manage to repay the full amount, after which it falls as salary continues to rise (because they pay it off sooner and thus accrue less interest). Obviously it never falls below the total loan originally received, so a graph of total repayments against salary would resemble a bell curve with the right-hand quarter or so chopped off.
I don't have the exact salary at which the maximum repayment will occur to hand, but a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it's in the region of £40,000.
Of course, all of that assumes an unchanging salary for the whole 30 years and no interest. In real life the salary would increase with time and interest payments would push up the total owed - the two factors would potentially cancel one another out to a greater or lesser degree. Like I said, back-of-an-envelope stuff.
quote:
What happens if someone leaves uni, and never gets a job with a salary above the threshold or dies in a tragic accident before the loan is repaid? Is the loan then written off, or does it (or as much as possible) get paid out of insurance payouts or what the graduate leaves to his children?
Written off.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
