|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: An alien concept in British political culture?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I am referring to the idea of "coalition government".
I confess to not being particularly knowledgeable about how election campaigns work in countries with a tradition of coalition government. But here in the UK, with our historically rather more decisive system, parties campaign on the assumption that they will gain an absolute majority (even if they know full well that they have no hope of obtaining this). Promises are made with a certain bravado, and, as far as I can see, no one campaigns with a view to helping form a coalition government in the event of a hung parliament. Would any party have the idea of "coalition government" as one of its core ideals?!
But what happens when the bluff, bluster and bravado of an election campaign collides with the political reality of a hung parliament? Clearly painful compromises have to be made, and manifesto promises go out of the window. Realism has to replace idealism. In the blink of an eye the electorate is required to think about government in a completely different way. If this radical revolution in thinking is not achieved in double quick time, then accusations of treachery, betrayal, spinelessness and "selling out" are levelled against the parties in government - particularly against the junior partner, who has to make the greater concessions.
Whatever one may think about the Liberal Democrats, I find it frustrating that many people - especially former members and supporters - can't seem to understand that that party does not have a democratic mandate to implement its manifesto promises. They did not win the 2010 General Election; they came a distant third (in terms of seats). The thinking seems to be that "if they are in government, then they have in some way 'won', and therefore they are in a position to keep their promises. They have not kept their promises, therefore they have betrayed us." The idea that a party can be in government, but is not bound to its manifesto promises, because it is in coalition with a party with a much greater mandate, seems to cause confusion to many people.
It seems to me that coalition government can be a good thing. Different points of view have to be considered, and not just an idealistic party line (although there is the danger of an extremist party becoming king maker, although that might be suicide for the senior partner). But it also seems to be political suicide, especially for the junior partner, because the electorate doesn't understand it, especially against the backdrop of associating a party with a raft of promises, which can only be implemented with an absolute majority.
Do you think this model of government is alien to our political culture?
How is election campaigning possible or how can campaigning be effective if this model of government is expected as the norm?
How does this model of government affect the electorate's perception of political parties in countries where coalition government is commonplace?
I'd be interested to hear your views on this.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I agree with you, I think.
Having said that, I think the Liberal-Conservative coalition would be considered unusual even in a country that regularly produces coalitions. I don't think it is usual for the junior partner to belong to the opposite wing of the political spectrum to the senior partner.
I also think part of the reason for antipathy towards the Lib Dems is the suspicion that they played their hand rather badly. For example, I don't understand why Nick Clegg expended so much of his bargaining power on forcing a referendum on AV, which nobody really wants, not even campaigners for electoral reform.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I think I also agree.
The oddest example I've seen of this was in the anti-AV leaflet.
You had the Lib-Dem's being bad for allowing Conservative policies. (I.E taking the extreme view of this)
But simultaneously arguing that a Conservative government would be better.
Either understandable enough depending on [left/right wing] prejudice, but together it's oddly contradictory.
[ 25. May 2014, 16:32: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
During my university years in Ireland, I saw a right-left (Fine Gael-Labour) coalition in operation and, with plenty of the usual flaws, it seemed to work fairly well. My Labourish friends seemed to take it in stride that they were only going to get a bit of their platform implemented, and focussed on that. On the Fine Gael side, which was less manifesto-oriented, they seemed to manage. Both elements were pleased that they could blame any non-delivery on their coalition partners.
Since then, the Irish have had a range of coalitions. With STV voting, strong pre-election hints or outright arrangements give voters a single for allocating transfers and this generally works efficiently. With first-past-the-post, it is very difficult to manage elections with a coalition in mind.
Many people (in Canada, at any rate) have trouble with the concept of of coalition through unfamiliarity and on account of our presidential (mis)understanding of elections. If the people don't want to give a specific party a majority blank cheque, then the parties have to make nice and figure out how to run a government. Sometimes this will mean a coalition and they will have to suck up some of their ambitions and fantasies-- I cannot think that this is a bad thing.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I also think part of the reason for antipathy towards the Lib Dems is the suspicion that they played their hand rather badly.
If you look at it by seats won then the Liberals did badly in 2010, losing seats. In terms of a percentage of the vote, there was a swing towards the Liberals. They had 6.8 million votes compared with the Conservatives 10.7. Well over a third of the votes cast for the coalition went to the Liberal Democrats yet Clegg hailed to negotiate any of the major cabinet posts for his party (Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer). The Liberals did not get a look in after that: at least not as far as majoy policy was concerned.
After that it was a Tory show with Liberal Democrats put in positions so that when the government did something unpopular it was a Liberal rather than a Tory face seen on TV and in the papers. David Cameron has played a blinder and walked all over the Liberals. Clegg cannot be held entirely blameles for this.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what happens when the bluff, bluster and bravado of an election campaign collides with the political reality of a hung parliament?
We in the USA call that gridlock. Bad news, the party you voted for won't be able to push through their agenda. Good new, the parties you didn't vote for won't be able to push through theirs either. However, the UK coalition government hasn't experienced much gridlock.
I know. I know. Clegg is the devil because he didn't get more from Cameron for making him PM. C
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Having said that, I think the Liberal-Conservative coalition would be considered unusual even in a country that regularly produces coalitions. I don't think it is usual for the junior partner to belong to the opposite wing of the political spectrum to the senior partner.
I'm not sure that Nick Clegg had any good choices. As he said at the time, the Conservative party had won the most seats, and had 2 million more votes than Labour. He felt he had an obligation to first try to come to an arrangement with Mr. Cameron. (Note also that a Labour/Lib Dem alliance wouldn't have been enough to command a majority in parliament - they would have needed the nationalist parties as well, and would only just about scrape a majority.)
I agree that burning so much credit on the AV thing was a mistake - proportional representation is something that deeply excites Lib Dem party members, but doesn't look terribly important to most Lib Dem voters.
Ultimately, I think the Lib Dems got handed the wrong end of the electoral stick, and were going to end up being hated by many of their voters pretty much whatever they did.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think that 1. You are right in that none of the parties campaign with the option of a coalition in mind - even the LibDems. It is also significant that parties claim a "mandate" from the people when they achieve a majority in parliament - in truth, they can achieve this with a comparatively small portion of the electorate choosing them, and even a minority of those who voted choosing them. The idea of a mandate is, I think, outdated.
Also that 2. The LibDems made some appalling decisions in terms of what they should insist on. They should have picked some of the policies that people voted for (like tuition fees), even if they were not the most important ones.
I also think that the rhetoric after the election from Cameron, making the assumption that, because they had the majority, they were the only reasonable choice, was deceitful and unhelpful. The choice should have been based on who they could work with, who they could implement a consistent set of policies with.
But yes, the problem is that we do not understand how to do coalitions. Which is why we have ended up with a minority Tory government.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
There are a number of issues. On a number of things (like the NHS) the Tories themselves backed away from their own commitments and did what their critics said they would do all along - and then were arguably supported by the LibDems in doing the opposite of what they had claimed to be doing.
Secondly, they went into the election with a very specific manifesto in mind - rather than the broad principle style manifesto adopted by many parties in countries which traditionally have coalitions. As such they benefited fairly spectacularly from a the protest against the two parties - more so than they might otherwise have expected.
Lastly they entered into coalition with a Party that was not just on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but one which many of their own voters had vowed never to vote for.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I also think part of the reason for antipathy towards the Lib Dems is the suspicion that they played their hand rather badly.
If you look at it by seats won then the Liberals did badly in 2010, losing seats. In terms of a percentage of the vote, there was a swing towards the Liberals. They had 6.8 million votes compared with the Conservatives 10.7. Well over a third of the votes cast for the coalition went to the Liberal Democrats yet Clegg hailed to negotiate any of the major cabinet posts for his party (Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer). The Liberals did not get a look in after that: at least not as far as majoy policy was concerned.
After that it was a Tory show with Liberal Democrats put in positions so that when the government did something unpopular it was a Liberal rather than a Tory face seen on TV and in the papers. David Cameron has played a blinder and walked all over the Liberals. Clegg cannot be held entirely blameles for this.
Yes, but that's quart into a pint pot stuff. Percentage doesn't matter, number of seats does. Given that, there's no surprise whatsoever that the Tories didn't hand over the Treasury.
The Home Office is usually (although Teresa May seems to be an exception) the quickest way to end your career.
Which leaves the FO - I'm sure I read a t time that Clegg was offered the FO but turned it down to get a LibDem minister into every department (although they've subsequently removed themselves from at least the MOD).
So there was method in the madness from Cleggs point of view. But, in FPTP, a party with very nearly a majority is under no obligation to play too nicely when negotiating with a potential junior partner. Especially when there's the possibility of governing as a minority then calling a snap election asking for a mandate, which is what Clegg really had hanging over him.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I get them not implementing all their manifesto, likewise the conservatives - it is the stuff they agreed to do that wasn't in *either* manifesto I have the greatest problem with. Most obviously the vandalism of the NHS.
That and they should not have directly broken their own promises.
Frankly, I would have rather had a minority conservative government, that the lib dems promised not to take to a confidence vote. Because that is essentially what the country voted for.
But yes, we are not used to coalition government and that has not helped.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm inclined to think an element of sortilege is worth trying. Let's elect our MPs and then generate a government through a lottery. Sure, they've got no coherent corporate policy, but so what? They all claim to be non-ideological nowadays anyway...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Lastly they entered into coalition with a Party that was not just on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but one which many of their own voters had vowed never to vote for.
This is why I think Nick Clegg was in trouble whatever he did - he basically had a choice between doing a deal with the Tories, who are viscerally hated by a fraction of his voters, or doing a deal to keep in power the hugely unpopular Labour government, who had just been pretty soundly rejected at the polls.
Neither of those options really plays well, and the fact that he didn't have enough seats for a straight Lib/Lab pact reduces the influence he could have had in negotiations with Labour - a hypothetical left-of-centre grand alliance would have been "Labour and the small parties" with the LDs as a large small party, rather than "Labour/Lib Dem".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is why I think Nick Clegg was in trouble whatever he did - he basically had a choice between doing a deal with the Tories, who are viscerally hated by a fraction of his voters, or doing a deal to keep in power the hugely unpopular Labour government, who had just been pretty soundly rejected at the polls.
TBH I suspect if they had entered a coalition and then continuously held the Tories feet to the fire on things like the NHS reforms (which were in neither party manifesto), they would have got a lot of negative publicity in the press but ultimately done themselves more good electorally.
They would have even been forgiven things like tuition fees by most of the electorate.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The fact that he didn't have enough seats for a straight Lib/Lab pact reduces the influence he could have had in negotiations with Labour - a hypothetical left-of-centre grand alliance would have been "Labour and the small parties" with the LDs as a large small party, rather than "Labour/Lib Dem".
Yet he seems to have ended up, effectively, either claiming that he endorses coalition policies, or claiming that it's a "Tories and the small parties" government...
--------------------
"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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is also significant that parties claim a "mandate" from the people when they achieve a majority in parliament - in truth, they can achieve this with a comparatively small portion of the electorate choosing them,
I am reminded of this daily. We have a statue of Harold Wilson in front of our station. A man who won 4 general elections for Labour (and lost one). On thwo of them the Tories had more votes. That's first past the post for you.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Yes I think it is an alien concept in our political culture, and that the scepticism of the public as to whether true democracy is served has increased. Everyone wants politicians to work together for the good of all of the people of the country. It was an opportunity missed. We've seen the worst of all worlds, with the sniping of the opposition, the pushing through of pet bills from both coalition partners that neither mentioned before the election, and with a failure to deliver those that were promised.
The hoped-for joint action to stabilise the economy, damaged so badly by the outgoing government, is being achieved by placing the greatest burdens upon those least able to bear them.
The political culture in Britain needs to change imv to the point where coalition would work: where the man in the street would have gained sufficient trust that those supposedly representing his or her views were actually doing so; and where parties would be held accountable to their promises. Sadly we're already bracing ourselves for the same old lines and bickering ready for next year's election, knowing that they're empty and false.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That's first past the post for you.
I'm not keen on FTP myself, but there really isn't (as far as I can see) any single voting system that doesn't produce some anomalies... Best solution I can come up with is to have multiple selection systems for multiple houses of parliament...
--------------------
"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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
If coalition is an alien term in British politics, perhaps we're going to have to get used to it. The council elections last Thursday, albeit on the usual low turnout, produced the following percentages:
Labour 31%
Conservative 29%
UKIP 17%
Lib Dem 13%
Others 10%
If these percentages were to be repeated at next year's general election, we will have another hung parliament. Because the first past the post system has a Labour bias, they would have come just 4 seats short of an overall majority, which would be a gap easy enough to plug by securing the support of either the Lib Dems or the smaller parties, but how can percentages of 31 or 29 give any party a mandate to run the country?
Although I voted against the attempt to push us in the direction of PR, perhaps the days of government alternating between Conservative and Labour are coming to an end, and coalitions are the thing of the future. Whether that's good or bad depends very much on your outlook!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The political culture in Britain needs to change imv to the point where coalition would work: where the man in the street would have gained sufficient trust that those supposedly representing his or her views were actually doing so;
I can't see that happening by gradual change. It would need the present system to break down to the extent that a revolutionary change would be accepted by politicians and voter alike (or at least a lot of them). In other words there has to be a willingness of the larger party in the coalition to make it work and for it to be accepted by their voters. Or at least spin it so that their voters accept it.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Labour 31%
Conservative 29%
UKIP 17%
Lib Dem 13%
Others 10%
If these percentages were to be repeated at next year's general election, we will have another hung parliament.
But an exit poll last Thursday showed that 51% of those who voted UKIP in this election would be voting for their usual party next year, so the figures don't work for next year, even before you consider that the number voting could double. Result inconclusive.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I get them not implementing all their manifesto, likewise the conservatives - it is the stuff they agreed to do that wasn't in *either* manifesto I have the greatest problem with. Most obviously the vandalism of the NHS.
That and they should not have directly broken their own promises.
Frankly, I would have rather had a minority conservative government, that the lib dems promised not to take to a confidence vote. Because that is essentially what the country voted for.
But yes, we are not used to coalition government and that has not helped.
A minority government that survives from vote-to-vote has become the normal way of working in a minority legislature in Canada. A formal coalition is rare; Saskatchewan is the only example I can think of (an NDP-Liberal deal, the provincial Liberals had three seats).
Ontario had an "accord" in 1985 because David Peterson and Bob Rae couldn't stand each other personally.
The federal Tories survived for two straight minority governments 2006-2011 by making an as-you-go deal with the Liberals, NDP or Bloc Quebecois as needed. It was the Liberals who voted most often with the Tories.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Because the first past the post system has a Labour bias, they would have come just 4 seats short of an overall majority, which would be a gap easy enough to plug by securing the support of either the Lib Dems or the smaller parties, but how can percentages of 31 or 29 give any party a mandate to run the country?
Back in the eighties it had a Conservative bias. As I understand it, it really depends on who last had the chance to redraw the electoral boundaries. Unfortunately for Cameron, Clegg decided that the Conservatives had stabbed the Lib Dems in the back over proportional representation, and vetoed Cameron's attempts to redraw the boundaries again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
During my university years in Ireland, I saw a right-left (Fine Gael-Labour) coalition in operation and, with plenty of the usual flaws, it seemed to work fairly well.
Was that a 'grand coalition' or was one side noticeably junior to the other?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Australia, too, seems to have a horror of hung parliaments (EDIT: At least at the national level, a couple of smaller jurisdictions with proportional representation voting systems, including mine, deliver minority government with great regularity and the sky doesn't fall in). We delivered one around the same time as the UK did.
I think this is, in both cases, created by a fundamental mismatch between the actual constitutional system and the way campaigns are run these days. Everything is run in a 'presidential' away as if you are electing a prime minister and a government, when you are doing no such thing. You are electing a local member of parliament. A government only happens because enough of these local members of parliament get together and form an alliance.
It was eye-opening after our 2010 election to see just how many people talked about voting for the respective leaders when neither of those leaders had appeared on a ballot paper in 148 out of 150 lower house seats.
The same basic disconnect also occurs when a party decided to replace its leader, with the result the country has a new Prime Minister. This has happened a number of times in modern Australian history, and the recurring cry goes up about how people haven't voted for the new PM. Well, they didn't vote for the old one either, no matter how much they believe they did.
[ 26. May 2014, 09:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Just to add some historical perspective, in Great Britain from 1914 to 1945 (31 years), the Governments were mainly coalitions. There were partite Governments between 1922 and 1931 (9 years).
Given that before those dates few elections with universal suffrage had taken place, it would appear that non-coalition government in the UK is a post-war phenomenon.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
During my university years in Ireland, I saw a right-left (Fine Gael-Labour) coalition in operation and, with plenty of the usual flaws, it seemed to work fairly well.
Was that a 'grand coalition' or was one side noticeably junior to the other?
54 Fine Gael + 19 Labour=73; Fianna Fail 68; 2 independent, and the speaker. It was not what we would call a grand coalition.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Just to add some historical perspective, in Great Britain from 1914 to 1945 (31 years), the Governments were mainly coalitions. There were partite Governments between 1922 and 1931 (9 years).
Most of those coalitions were due to the two world wars, not any kind of popular vote.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To illustrate what I said just yesterday, this happened yesterday in South Australia.
The reactions range from excitement that someone isn't a slave to the party machine to outrage that someone would switch allegiance.
The disconnect between the actual legal/constitutional situation and the way many people think about this is epitomised by this in the comments field:
quote:
No sitting politician should ever be allowed to change party. Quote election rules all you like, I could not give a stuff about the non-entity on the ballot paper; we the people vote for parties. This is fraud, treason, theft.
A by-election should be called immediately.
The person whose name actually appeared on the ballot paper is a faceless 'non-entity'.
That's why coalitions are seen as so dreadful. Because a coalition means your party - the thing you CLAIM to have voted for, even though there is no capacity to elect a 'party' to your individual seat in Parliament - didn't win.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Ah, but there are rules and then there are practices.
The policy of the New Democratic Party in Canada since forever has been that we do not take floorcrossers. When Maria Mourani left the Bloc Quebecois* there was talk that she'd join the NDP. She fits us on everything except the sovereignty bit and she repented of that. We also have by far the most MP's from Quebec. But no, she's now an independent.
We do not take floorcrossers on principle. It's undemocratic and betrays the choices of the voters in that riding; in Canada party names appear underneath the candidate names on the ballot. And then there are the local donors who just got taken to the cleaners for $60K+ for a decent local campaign that turned out to benefit another party.
Floorcrossing is also strategically unwise in that it produces and MP without a local riding association and a local campaign, which is a recipe for vulnerability.
*Their last female MP and their only one from Montreal; now they're just four sad guys who sit in furthest reaches of the Mouse of Commons.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
54 Fine Gael + 19 Labour=73; Fianna Fail 68; 2 independent, and the speaker. It was not what we would call a grand coalition.
Fair enough - a pretty clear counter-example to my theory ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One fact that is often forgotten is that all the major parties are effectively coalitions. It's something that is obvious if you ask something like "what is the Conservative Party view on Europe?", because there are a wide range of views within the Conservative Party. The annual party conferences allow the different groups within each party to identify what they all agree on and find compromises on what they don't agree on (even if the compromise is "we can't agree, therefore at present we're declaring that we have no policy on this issue"). And, those positions can, and do, change at each conference as the relative strengths of different groups and external factors change.
The British public are familiar with coalitions of this form. What is unusual for the Westiminster government in recent decades is for a coalition to exist between different parties to form a government (the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and NI Assemblies have more experience of coalition), and that is something unfamiliar to voters.
I think there are two options to make coalitions more functional at Westminster.
One is to increase familiarity with coalition government by introducing Regional Assmblies/Parliaments in England with similar electoral procedures already proven in Scotland/Wales/NI - this will almost certainly create coalition governments at this level on a fairly regular basis. A similar familiarity will occur if people got more involved in local politics, as coalitions at local government are also common.
The second option would be to have mini party conferences following a general election in which no single party gains overall control, in which the members of those parties forming a coalition get to have their say on the policies of the coalition, rather than leaving it up to the party leadership to hash out a deal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That's first past the post for you.
I'm not keen on FTP myself, but there really isn't (as far as I can see) any single voting system that doesn't produce some anomalies... Best solution I can come up with is to have multiple selection systems for multiple houses of parliament...
I agree that there is no perfect system. But some systems are "fairer" than others.
The only argument that I can see for FPTP is that it produces "strong" governments, with a reduced need for coalitions which tend (it is alleged) to sap strength and purpose and leave the government perpetually inclining towards compromise policies which don't satisfy anyone and probably don't won't work.
Such arguments can easily be challenged.
I have long preferred some sort of PR, on the grounds that a government can then have a good chance of saying that it represents a majority of the population. I am aware of the arguments that PR tends to mean that the least objectionable person/party is elected, rather than the person/party that is genuinely wanted. But I think that this is a smokescreen for defending the status quo with all its injustices.
It seems to me that under a decent form of PR, the population would be given the chance to choose properly what kind of government they wanted. FPTP is basically the politicos saying to the masses "don't worry your pretty little heads about all this politics stuff. It's far too complicated for your little brains. Simply put a cross in one box and leave the rest to us."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
(Sorry for the double post!)
One additional thought....
One of the things I like least about the Labour Party is that for all its origins as the party of the ordinary working people, it has remained steadfastly committed to FPTP, not for any reasons of democracy or justice, but simply because it wanted to retain the possibility of power without coalition. It seems to me that a truly democratic party, committed to justice for all people, would be keen to ensure that the voting system was the most democratic and just one that they could get - not just the one that offers them the best chance of power.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
Here in NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional Representation MMP . Since its introduction we have had nothing but coalitions. These are typically referred to as a 'Labour lead government' or a 'National lead government' after the largest member of the coalition. A minor party usually supports the major party in two ways. By being a partner with cabinet posts, coalition agreements etc or by offering support for confidence and supply. At the moment we have eight parties in the the House of Representatives and one independent. Three parties only have one member.
Having lived under FTP and MMP give me MMP and coalitions.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I may be the only person in the country that thinks this, but it's my considered view that the present coalition has been the best administration the country has had for well over a generation. It's been far better than any of the single party administrations I've experienced as an adult.
There has also been far less of the excitable journalistic hype about who's rising and falling etc etc etc than we've become used to. The Major and Brown eras were particularly bad on that account.
If we could vote for it to continue, I'd prefer it to any of the other options we'll be offered next year.
I envy the Irish for having a proper electoral system and still detest the majority of my fellow country persons for voting against electoral reform in the referendum. Yes, what we were offered was nothing like as good, but I cannot respect the intellectual or political integrity of anyone who advocates first past the post - particularly when all our lives we've seen what it delivers.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be the only person in the country that thinks this, but it's my considered view that the present coalition has been the best administration the country has had for well over a generation. It's been far better than any of the single party administrations I've experienced as an adult.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but how about putting forwards some facts & arguments to support it?
This sort of thing:
I would say that the coalition is the worst possible thing that could have happened because:
1. The parties that came 2nd and 3rd in the election formed the Government, so they have absolutely no mandate whatsoever;
2. One of those parties immediately dropped its trousers and leaned over the barrel for the other, breaking its pre-election promises in the process (on tuition fees, for a start);
3. Senior politicians in the coalition (especially IDS) have repeatedly been rebuked for their misuse of statistics to mislead people - nothing short of wilful mendacity;
4. Finally, the Government has misled many people in this country into believing that those who caused the recent economic collapse should be assisted at every possible opportunity, while the poorest and the most vulnerable are causing economic problems by being poor and vulnerable.
See? It's that simple!
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
1. The parties that came 2nd and 3rd in the election formed the Government, so they have absolutely no mandate whatsoever;
You appear to have some difficulty with numeracy here.
For reference, in the 2010 election, the party results were:
1st: Conservative Party. 10.7 million votes, 307 seats
2nd: Labour Party. 8.6 million votes, 258 seats
3rd: Liberal Democrats. 6.8 million votes, 57 seats
If you start your list of claims with something which is obviously factually false, it doesn't lend much credibility to the rest of your "argument".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
1. The parties that came 2nd and 3rd in the election formed the Government, so they have absolutely no mandate whatsoever;
You appear to have some difficulty with numeracy here.
For reference, in the 2010 election, the party results were:
1st: Conservative Party. 10.7 million votes, 307 seats
2nd: Labour Party. 8.6 million votes, 258 seats
3rd: Liberal Democrats. 6.8 million votes, 57 seats
If you start your list of claims with something which is obviously factually false, it doesn't lend much credibility to the rest of your "argument".
Fair, if brutally expressed, so point taken.
I will say in my defence that it wasn't my "argument" but a demonstration of how to support a position when making an argument. What we have now is a "discussion" about the merits of the position.
I would counter by saying that if a numerical error in one part of an argument undermines your assessment of the credibility of the entire argument, then you are prejudging the other points.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
I would counter by saying that if a numerical error in one part of an argument undermines your assessment of the credibility of the entire argument, then you are prejudging the other points.
It's a fairly large error, though - rather than having "absolutely no mandate" as you claimed, a Conservative/Lib Dem combo includes the first and third parties, both in terms of seats won and vote share, and is the only two-party combination that would have yielded a clear majority (a Labour/Lib Dem alliance would have required the support of the nationalist parties as well).
The only way a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition becomes anything other than the thing that people actually voted for is if you take the line that the Lib Dems and Labour are indistinguishable left-of-centre parties, so a vote for either should be taken as a vote for anything vaguely left of centre, and against the nasty Tories. My response to that is simple - if the SDP types want to rejoin the Labour party, or make an electoral alliance with Labour, they are free to do so, and then we can vote for them on that basis.
To your second point, I'd agree that the Lib Dems played their cards rather badly in the coalition negotiations. The very fact of a coalition means that you're not going to get your own way in everything, especially when you're the junior partner, so complaining about the Lib Dems "breaking promises" is a bit silly. They needed to give up some things to get a deal done. I'd agree that they spent far too much political capital on the silly AV vote, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
A large error in one point out of many is just that: a large error in just that one point. I don't dispute your correction - only your assertion that it invalidates (or even merely undermines the credibility of) the others. Elaborating on the error doesn't enable it to justify the dismissal of valid points.
As to being a junior coalition partner: the LibDems promised before the election that they would not introduce tuition fees - and then participated in the introduction of them. It really is as straightforward as that.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
A large error in one point out of many is just that: a large error in just that one point. I don't dispute your correction - only your assertion that it invalidates (or even merely undermines the credibility of) the others. Elaborating on the error doesn't enable it to justify the dismissal of valid points.
OK, how about this? You are putting forward an argument, trying to convince me that your position is correct. Your argument contains things that you assert as fact, and it contains conclusions that you draw on the basis of those facts.
So now I have to consider whether your facts are correct, and whether I agree that those facts lead to the conclusions that you make. I look at your first point, and I see a big factual error. This doesn't tell me anything about the quality of your reasoning, but it does tell me that you are more likely to make factual errors.
Consider for example your point about IDS abusing official statistics. I am aware that IDS has got into trouble over this. I have no particular knowledge of how IDS compares to other politicians on this front. If I was under the impression that you were a person who generally provided accurate information, I'd be inclined to take your claims about IDS at face value. However, your error on the first point shifts my prior belief about your reliability significantly in the direction of "person who states inaccurate facts that support his partisan opinions". That being the case, I am less likely to take your claims of fact about IDS at face value, and more likely to shelve them until I can conduct my own review of the facts and determine whether IDS has behaved significantly worse than the average politician.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
As to being a junior coalition partner: the LibDems promised before the election that they would not introduce tuition fees - and then participated in the introduction of them. It really is as straightforward as that.
Pedantic point, but as I recall, it was Blair's government that introduced tuition fees. The Lib Dems said they would scrap them and, more importantly I think, Clegg promised that under no circumstances would the Lib Dems vote for any rise. The ink was hardly dry on the coalition agreement when they rose threefold, with Clegg, Cable, Alexander and 26 other Lib Dems voting yes while idiots like me who had voted for the fuckers in the election looked on aghast.
The thing is, it came as a shock to many Lib Dem voters that they joined with the Tories but that was only because we had not being paying attention. The party leadership had been stealthily moving to right with Orange Bookers like Cable and Clegg to the fore for some time. We thought the Lib Dems were still - and to be fair, many activists probably are - sandal wearing hippies concerned with social justice. Big mistake, but Clegg is now learning that his core support doesn't care for his economic policies, still less his empty promises.
edited for error in numbers.
[ 31. May 2014, 23:33: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ah, mandates.
One of the most fundamentally fallacious concepts in modern politics.
I'm not given a checklist of policies at the ballot box and options to tick yes or no. Such options would still be inadequate for when the answer is 'yes if' or 'no if'.
What I'm given is a bunch of names. Putting aside the names of the individuals concerned and JUST looking at their parties (a concept that's fallacious to begin with - there are members of the Australian Liberals I would readily vote for and members of the Liberals I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole), I'm given no opportunity whatsoever to indicate which policies are the most important to me, which policies I don't like but I can live with, and which policies are leading me to choose another party in the upper house so that they can block these crazy ideas.
I'm not given a space in which to indicate that someone is getting my first preference because they have 9 good policies as opposed to 4 bad ones, and another 73 no-one has advertised. And that's in a system that HAS preferences.
Claiming mandates for individual policies is just silly. Claiming mandates for your entire collection of policies is equally silly. The politicians that were elected espousing certain views are entitled to vote that way... and then the politicians that were elected espousing the opposite views are perfectly entitled to vote the opposite way without being told they are somehow standing in the way of the will of the people. They got elected to, presumably by people who kind of liked their ideas. It's not 'winner' takes all (again, assuming that a party wins as opposed to each individual MP who was elected).
And if nobody succeed in 'winning' (which only makes sense when you talk about parties), then the elected MPs face a choice. They can either twiddle their thumbs for the next several years on the grounds that nobody has a mandate for anything, or they can get on with the business of trading ideas, recognising that they might have to (gasp!) compromise.
Mandates are fairy stories we get told to make us believe an election is like a single football match instead of a Parliament being like an entire league season.
[ 31. May 2014, 23:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
And if nobody succeed in 'winning' (which only makes sense when you talk about parties), then the elected MPs face a choice. They can either twiddle their thumbs for the next several years on the grounds that nobody has a mandate for anything, or they can get on with the business of trading ideas, recognising that they might have to (gasp!) compromise.
Yes, and if the people who voted for them don't like the compromises they make, they can register their displeasure at the ballot box the next time around. And we can have expectations on what those compromises are likely to be based on the things they say, especially in election campaigns. That's how it works. OK, it sucks, but it's the system we have now. And if people like Clegg try to play the system so that can get a shot at power without much of a thought for how blatently different post election actions are from pre - election promises they are going to get their arses kicked.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And if people like Clegg try to play the system so that can get a shot at power without much of a thought for how blatently different post election actions are from pre - election promises they are going to get their arses kicked.
Given the result of the previous election, Clegg was faced with two practical choices. The first was to do a coalition deal with Cameron, and the second was to do a more limited deal where he agrees to support a minority Conservative government on certain subjects.
At the time, he said that given the economic situation, he didn't think a (weak) minority government was in the interests of the country. I agree with him - I think going into coalition was his best option. I think burning all his negotiating capital on the AV vote was silly, but "introduce PR" has been a red line for the average muesli-knitting party activist for so long that he probably felt he had little choice there either.
But for all I think that he did more or less the right thing, I agree with you - by going in to coalition, he makes himself look like Tories lite, and that's not a vote winner.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think burning all his negotiating capital on the AV vote was silly, but "introduce PR" has been a red line for the average muesli-knitting party activist for so long that he probably felt he had little choice there either.
The AV referendum was a total farce. I totally agree that given the emphasis given on PR by grass root LibDems for a long time Clegg had to expend a lot of negotiating capital on a referendum - what I never understood was how it ended up as a vote on a choice between FPTP and AV, given that AV is a scheme that no advocate of electoral reform had mentioned prior to the bill for the referendum to my knowledge, and certainly was radically different from what most LibDem members wanted. AV would (IMO) be an improvement of FPTP, but it was clear that most of the people campaigning for a "yes to AV" would have very much preferred to be campaigning for a different system. At the time it seemed very much that Cameron had run rings around Clegg. That impression hasn't subsequently changed, the biggest problem the LibDems had/have is that quite simply they suck at the backroom deals that are the backbone of British politics.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Wasn't there some discussion about AV being a first step, that would do for the time being before progressing on to AV+, which the Jenkins Report had called for (majority of MPs elected by AV, 20% or so elected by PR so the overall numbers reflected the voting).
That seems to be a reasonable enough strategy, but pretty hard to sell on the doorstep, even before you run a lacklustre campaign.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There might have been such a suggestion, but it does make it even harder to sell "vote for this temporary change to a voting system which no one really wants, and then there'll be another vote to change it again later".
There is value on a system that incorporates two different voting systems. But, if you're going to do that why invent something completely new? There was a considerable amount of support for simply adopting the voting system that has been shown to work in Scotland for the whole UK.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
And if nobody succeed in 'winning' (which only makes sense when you talk about parties), then the elected MPs face a choice. They can either twiddle their thumbs for the next several years on the grounds that nobody has a mandate for anything, or they can get on with the business of trading ideas, recognising that they might have to (gasp!) compromise.
Yes, and if the people who voted for them don't like the compromises they make, they can register their displeasure at the ballot box the next time around. And we can have expectations on what those compromises are likely to be based on the things they say, especially in election campaigns. That's how it works. OK, it sucks, but it's the system we have now. And if people like Clegg try to play the system so that can get a shot at power without much of a thought for how blatently different post election actions are from pre - election promises they are going to get their arses kicked.
Yes, though one of the first things they did was give themselves a guaranteed 5 year term. That is a fairly major constitutional change - without a referendum - every bit as important as fptp vs av. And given that they were holding a constitutional referendum anyway - they could have put that to the people at the same time.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
