|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm completely furious that they're even SPEAKING to the conservatives. What was the point, all those years, of tactical voting (where a Labour supporter votes LibDem in those areas where labour has no chance, in order to prevent the tories getting in) if they're now picking up the long spoons and settling down to supper????
I recognise where you are coming from, but there are also places in the UK where people have voted LibDem in order to oust/keep out Labour candidates where Conservatives don't stand a chance. That is always the risk with tactical voting - unless you are also happy to trust the person/party you are voting for when a situation such as the present one arises.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Well, if it is as simple as all that, why have all of those center left parties in the first place if they all share the same ideology? Any coalition of center left parties will be lead by Labor. People clearly chose not to vote for Labor knowing that in all likelihood doing so would result in Conservatives gaining control of the government. The Conservatives almost won enough seats to have a majority. How do you know that the second choice of those voting Lib-Dem wasn't Conservative? Wouldn't that make sense given the state of the UK?
--------------------
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
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
You are making the assumption that the Lib Dems are much closer to Labour than the Conservatives. I'm not sure that is actually true.
Let's look at it issue-by-issue:
- The deficit: This election was supposed to be defined by the economy and how best to reduce the deficit and maintain growth. The Lib Dem position on the correct time to introduce cuts (I mean 'efficiency savings') was much closer to Labour. On the other hand, they made a big deal about being the most 'honest' with the electorate about what was to come. I think that puts them substantially nearer Labour.
- Europe: A no-brainer for Labour.
- Education: The Lib Dem's ideas about how education should be funded are substantially nearer the Conservatives.
- Civil liberties: I'm not sure the Lib Dem position is very close to either party on this. Sure, the Tories don't want ID cards (or so they say) but that's because of the cost, not because of ideology. I'd call that a no-score draw.
- NHS: I don't know about this one: What distinctive policies do the Lib Dems have on health?
- Electoral reform: Given that the Tories are completely against the idea of voting reform for the House of Commons (reducing the number of MPs is just window-dressing, not reform) and haven't made much noise about reform of the Lords, this is easily for Labour.
- Energy policy/environmentalism: A number of high profile Tories deny that climate change even exists. Is there really any chance that the Lib Dems could work with them on this? I think not. Both big parties are in favour of new nuclear power plants, so that doesn't differentiate between them. I think this issue marginally goes with Labour.
- Defence: This issue is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the Tories and the Lib Dems are agreed that a comprehensive review of the military is needed. On the other hand, the Tories are committed to a like-for-like replacement for Trident, the Typhoon, and so on. Labour are also committed to those things, but are perhaps closer to the Lib Dems on general levels of military spending. A score draw.
So on that analysis, I would say that the Lib Dems are rather closer to Labour. But I may have missed out some important issues so please feel free to add to the list or correct any inaccuracies in what I wrote.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Just a couple of thoughts.
The number of votes under the current system is not representative at all, as the turnout varies remarkably throughout the country. Yes there is a class issue here.
Say for example you have two areas. Both with 100,000 people for easy maths - although 74,000 is the UK average.
The first has a turn out of 40% - 40,000 people vote, 20,000 party A, 15,000 party B, 5,000 party C.
The second has a turn out of 60% - 60,000 people vote, 30,000 party B, 25,000 party C, 5,000 Party A
Under first past the post the 20,000 who vote in area 1 are seen to represent half the electorate. As are the 30,000 in are 2. This is actually fair if you think about it, as frankly in some very safe seats and especially in working class areas less people vote, but even those who don't vote should have their 'non-vote' counted on the basis that voting patterns would have been the same if they had. So the two seats would go to parties A & B.
However on number of votes combined we have:
Party B 45,0000
Party C 30,0000
Party A 25,0000
Which is the sort of figures we see in 'share of the vote' on a national level. This would suggest that Party C should have a seat not Party A.
If you adjust the first area with a weighting to represent the number of residents the voters represent we would get a result of B, A, C. (I think!)
So the advantage of FPTP is that is doesn't disenfranchise areas with low turnouts. We may think that if people don't vote they shouldn't have a voice, but listening to the radio on election day and hearing that 'rain traditionally knocks the labour vote by 2-5%' saddens me!
Any new system has to work with this. Either to increase turnouts, or to recognise that areas of low turnout need a weight of representation relevant to their population, not just to who from that population turns out to vote.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm completely furious that they're even SPEAKING to the conservatives. What was the point, all those years, of tactical voting (where a Labour supporter votes LibDem in those areas where labour has no chance, in order to prevent the tories getting in) if they're now picking up the long spoons and settling down to supper????
I recognise where you are coming from, but there are also places in the UK where people have voted LibDem in order to oust/keep out Labour candidates where Conservatives don't stand a chance. That is always the risk with tactical voting - unless you are also happy to trust the person/party you are voting for when a situation such as the present one arises.
Taliesin, you need to chill. What Brojames says is right. Furthermore, even if the Lib Dems went in with Labour, the numbers would be so finely balanced, the government would be unstable. And what Clegg is saying is that the Tories, as the party with both the biggest number of seats and the biggest number of votes, have a moral right to lead the government. He said he would take that view during the campaign, so if you're feeling betrayed should perhaps have listened more carefully to his answers to those "What if..." questions.
I don't welcome the thought of a Tory government, but "the people have spoken" and to ignore what's been said (which is pretty clearly 'Gordon out!") would make the LibDems very, very unpopular.
Take comfort from this - the next few years are going to be pretty ugly, whoever holds power and it's very likely that the party that governs during this time will be out on its ear at the next opportunity. I'm no fan of Brown's, but I think he's been treated very unfairly. In 5 years time, I reckon many will acknowledge how lucky we were to have Gordon at the helm over the last year (even though he should have listened to Vince Cable and done more to stop us getting into that mess in the first place).
If the LibDems goes in with the Tories, they can moderate the worst of Tory nonsense, and then, I hope, if Cameron does come through on Proportional Representation - he can help to bring them down, once it's clear that the electorate have come to their senses and realise we need a progressive, liberal-left government. I reckon that will probably only take 2-3 years.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
You are making the assumption that the Lib Dems are much closer to Labour than the Conservatives. I'm not sure that is actually true.
Let's look at it issue-by-issue:
- The deficit: This election was supposed to be defined by the economy and how best to reduce the deficit and maintain growth. The Lib Dem position on the correct time to introduce cuts (I mean 'efficiency savings') was much closer to Labour. On the other hand, they made a big deal about being the most 'honest' with the electorate about what was to come. I think that puts them substantially nearer Labour.
- Europe: A no-brainer for Labour.
- Education: The Lib Dem's ideas about how education should be funded are substantially nearer the Conservatives.
- Civil liberties: I'm not sure the Lib Dem position is very close to either party on this. Sure, the Tories don't want ID cards (or so they say) but that's because of the cost, not because of ideology. I'd call that a no-score draw.
- NHS: I don't know about this one: What distinctive policies do the Lib Dems have on health?
- Electoral reform: Given that the Tories are completely against the idea of voting reform for the House of Commons (reducing the number of MPs is just window-dressing, not reform) and haven't made much noise about reform of the Lords, this is easily for Labour.
- Energy policy/environmentalism: A number of high profile Tories deny that climate change even exists. Is there really any chance that the Lib Dems could work with them on this? I think not. Both big parties are in favour of new nuclear power plants, so that doesn't differentiate between them. I think this issue marginally goes with Labour.
- Defence: This issue is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the Tories and the Lib Dems are agreed that a comprehensive review of the military is needed. On the other hand, the Tories are committed to a like-for-like replacement for Trident, the Typhoon, and so on. Labour are also committed to those things, but are perhaps closer to the Lib Dems on general levels of military spending. A score draw.
So on that analysis, I would say that the Lib Dems are rather closer to Labour. But I may have missed out some important issues so please feel free to add to the list or correct any inaccuracies in what I wrote.
Gordon Brown and most of the Labour Party don't want PR either. They would go for AV which is not much more PR than FPTP.
Europe is in such trouble at the moment that I don't think that is an issue on which the LibDems can make much hay with this.
On the deficit, the Lib Dems are closer to the Tories on the action, but not the timing, but the longer this uncertainty goes on the sooner the next Financial Year is.
Civil liberties: Much closer links between the Tories and Lib Dems on ID cards, ContactPoint. Can see a joint bill here even without a coalition.
Education: Not much problem in agreeing a ministry and a bill here, with or without a coalition.
Long-term defence is a difference, but I don't think this Parliament is going to last past two years, so a decision deferred is a problem solved.
Environment is an issue that divides the Tory left and right. But surely a chance for the Lib Dems to be a positive force?
It is not clear cut, either way. But there is enough agreement to get a Queen's Speech through, if both sides want to do it.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Let's look at it issue-by-issue:
The deficit: This election was supposed to be defined by the economy and how best to reduce the deficit and maintain growth. The Lib Dem position on the correct time to introduce cuts (I mean 'efficiency savings') was much closer to Labour. On the other hand, they made a big deal about being the most 'honest' with the electorate about what was to come. I think that puts them substantially nearer Labour.
The Liberals have spoken of the need for 'savage cuts' in a way that Labour haven't. There might be some disagreement about timing, but otherwise I think the Conservatives and Lib Dems both agree on the need for a radical reduction in public expenditure.
Certain Lib Dem policies, viz raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, would be very popular with Conservatives, although they would not agree with the way the Lib Dems propose to finance it.
I think there's plenty of common ground between the Conservatives and Liberals on this issue.
quote:
Civil liberties: I'm not sure the Lib Dem position is very close to either party on this. Sure, the Tories don't want ID cards (or so they say) but that's because of the cost, not because of ideology. I'd call that a no-score draw.
I disagree. Many Conservatives (in fact, I'd say almost all of them) are opposed to ID cards on ideological grounds - David Cameron has said in a speech that the culture of 'ihre Papieren, bitte' is alien to the UK.
Labour has been increasingly authoritarian over the last decade and the Conservatives and Liberals have been drifting the other way, emphasising the need for civil liberties. There is much more common ground in this area than you make out.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
If I was Cameron I would get an alliance under any terms. Get the IMF to come in and to give a report on the state of public finances. Announce things are far worse because of Labour's shoddy work. Call another election to say I need a full mandate to carry out the work that is needed. By that time Labour will have just gone through a terrible internal election or maybe in the middle of one and the Lib-Dem's won't have much money to run an election campaign. Hope for the best.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Gordon Brown and most of the Labour Party don't want PR either. They would go for AV which is not much more PR than FPTP.
I don't doubt that many Labour MPs want to stick with FPTP, but you are wrong to minimise the difference that AV makes. It is a complete game changer. You've seen the strength of the Labour vote in Scotland and yet under AV they have never been able to hold an outright majority in the Scottish parliament. Nor have the two major parties Labour/SNP been able to squeeze out Liberal and Tory voices in the ridiculous way that FPTP has allowed the Liberal vote to be devalued in England.
On election night we had (rightly) gasps of shock and horror from all parties as some hundreds of people were unable to vote due to polling station problems - well how much more of a problem is it when you have six million eight hundred thousand liberal voters (just for starters) whose votes were so devalued by the system that effectively hundreds of thousands of them were disenfranchised?
Voting reform is not some little fringe issue to be brushed off, The electoral system is badly broken, has been for a long time and a first priority should be fixing it. I say this as someone who is not a lib dem voter and as someone who thinks it was equally wrong that Blair once held supreme power on a minority vote.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
There are a lot of Labour MPs who support FPTP, even if it isn't most of them. If there was a genuine free vote in the House of Commons on the issue, most MPs (i.e. the Conservatives, a substantial number of Labour MPs and perhaps others) would vote for the status quo.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are a lot of Labour MPs who support FPTP, even if it isn't most of them. If there was a genuine free vote in the House of Commons on the issue, most MPs (i.e. the Conservatives, a substantial number of Labour MPs and perhaps others) would vote for the status quo.
Which speaks badly of all of you, and shows your true colours, that you put power for yourselves first and democracy second.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
That depends on whether you think PR is more democratic. Personally, I don't think it is.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Lib Dems can't deliver a stable coalition with the Conservatives, or at least a stable minority Conservative goverment, then they shoot themselves and the case for PR in the foot.
I don't think that's at all true. Another way to argue would be to say that 49% of the electorate voted for centre-left/progressive parties (55% if you add Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru), but only 36% for the centre-right party. So, from a proportional point of view, a Lab-Lib alliance is the result which most reflects the electorate's wishes. The fact that the Tories are the largest party could be seen as irrelevant if you are interpreting the results on ideological grounds.
But, be honest, would such a 'Rainbow Coalition' of Lab+Lib+SNP+PC+Greens actually work and deliver a stable government capable of sorting out the mess we're in? [ETA It also assumes that the Lib Dems are 'centre-left' which not all of them are...]
[ 09. May 2010, 15:45: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But, be honest, would such a 'Rainbow Coalition' of Lab+Lib+SNP+PC+Greens actually work and deliver a stable government capable of sorting out the mess we're in?
I'd wondered that too. I can't see it holding up for long without fragmenting, and there being another early election. Which might well result in another hung parliament.
Fingers crossed for a Con-Lib pact, I suppose. Both parties recognize that something needs to be done pretty quickly and as Paddy Ashdown has said, events in Greece have focused the mind.
ETA I see someone has put Nick Clegg on eBay!
[ 09. May 2010, 15:52: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are a lot of Labour MPs who support FPTP, even if it isn't most of them. If there was a genuine free vote in the House of Commons on the issue, most MPs (i.e. the Conservatives, a substantial number of Labour MPs and perhaps others) would vote for the status quo.
Which speaks badly of all of you, and shows your true colours, that you put power for yourselves first and democracy second.
I don't see what is so democractic about a system that gives significant power to insignificant parties.
Also, I don't think PR is the most important issue. I think the economy is and it would appear to me that both Cameron and Clegg have been extremely professional in the way they have dealt with matters so far. It is imperative that something is worked out, and quickly, so that there are no repercussions for the economy.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I don't see what is so democractic about a system that gives significant power to insignificant parties.
Instead of one that gives significant power to marginal constituencies?
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I don't see what is so democractic about a system that gives significant power to insignificant parties.
Instead of one that gives significant power to marginal constituencies?
Part of the argument is that the Lib Dems, for example, are not as marginal as the number of their seats seems to show. I'm not one of their supporters, but it doesn't seem fair that Labour should have over four times the number of seats with only 6% more votes.
I'd hate to see the BNP represented in Parliament, but if their performance in local councils is any guide they would soon make a laughing stock of themselves and be voted out next time round. And there is always the option of setting a threshold percentage which would exclude them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If I was Cameron I would get an alliance under any terms. Get the IMF to come in and to give a report on the state of public finances. Announce things are far worse because of Labour's shoddy work. Call another election to say I need a full mandate to carry out the work that is needed. By that time Labour will have just gone through a terrible internal election or maybe in the middle of one and the Lib-Dem's won't have much money to run an election campaign. Hope for the best.
Would that not cause a massive pro-longed run on the pound, and massively increase the cost of borrowing thereby increasing the deficit ? (Given that business leaders are assuring us the markets are panicking over the prospect of a week-long hiatus with a caretaker orime minister - nevermind an election in under a year and the involvement of the IMF.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd hate to see the BNP represented in Parliament, but if their performance in local councils is any guide they would soon make a laughing stock of themselves and be voted out next time round. And there is always the option of setting a threshold percentage which would exclude them.
The BNP managed to get over 5,000 votes this time round. Two of them are already MEPs, if I remember correctly. What if they exceeded such a threshold percentage? Raise it again to keep them out and be laid open to allegations of undemocratic practice?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
You are making the assumption that the Lib Dems are much closer to Labour than the Conservatives. I'm not sure that is actually true.
Labour are looking like very bad losers.
I have been very impressed by the behaviour of the leadership of the Lib Dems, and I have never voted for them in my life. (They seem to have offended quite a lot of their own voters in the process.)
I think that is rather unfair. The incumbent prime minister has invited the largest party to try to form a workable government, and said failing that he'll try. What did you expect him to do ? He can't resign until an alternative administration has been established - otherwise he is handing over without anyone to run the day to day business of government whilst a deal is thrashed out. Just dumping the job on the deputy prime minister, would change nothing - as no new policy initiatives can be taken during the caretaker phase, and would just divert some civil servants into having to rapidly brief some knackered other politician who is only going to be on the job for a week or so.
It would be much more difficult for the Tories & the Lib dems to negotiate about liberals in cabinet if people had already started in post.
This period is allowing the Tories to plan, if they end up forming a minority government, they will have had a opportunity to make plans and set up some confidence and supply arrangements - cut their legislative program to the core etc.
As a labour supporter I completely agree with Clegg and Cameron, that Cameron should have first opportunity to try and put something together. Much as I would prefer a progressive alliance, I recognise it would be potentially less stable than a con-lib deal - and the basic fact that the tories got the biggest share of the seats and the vote. But I also think that pretending it is the only possible arrangement would be dishonest, and that it won't be stable unless they can carry their parties with them.
Actually, if they can't, treating the economic crisis as an emergency on the scale of a war and having a government of national unity led by Cameron might be the best bet. With tory-liberal control of the treasury and foreign affairs, and then mixture of folk taking different areas of responsibility within the cabinet.
Any coallition deal probably needs a strict time limit. 24mth would be favourite.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The BNP managed to get over 5,000 votes this time round..."
I got that wrong. It was actually 514,819, which is about half a million. Now that's worrying.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That depends on whether you think PR is more democratic. Personally, I don't think it is.
What you 'personally think' does not correspond to the reality for millions of voters.
Devonian and I just looked at the figures - total vote and how many votes it took for each party to get a seat. So let's compare the situation for Liberal voters to that for Conservative voters. When you consider how votes translated into seats, effectively 2/3rds of Liberal voters - a whopping four and a half million people effectively had their votes flushed down the toilet by the distorting effect of the electoral system.
Look at it the other way round, if Tory voters were disadvantaged in the same way with their votes not translating into seats, that would be over seven million Conservative voters whose votes effectively didn't count. You'd have about 89 seats instead of 306.
By contrast if the Lib Dems had been advantaged by the electoral system in the same way as the Tories they would have approximately 191 seats not 57.
But the bottom line is you get distortions of democracy running to millions of voters being effectively disenfranchised. It requires a major 'I'm alright, Jack' contempt for the voters to justify that.
The rest of the UK has had better systems for years. It's time the English electorate were allowed something better than a system only good for the self-interest of the two big parties, who treated us to such a lovely display of their mutual corruption over MPs expenses. That sort of contempt for the electorate is what you get when they know they can never be voted out, thanks to a broken electoral system.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I don't see what is so democractic about a system that gives significant power to insignificant parties.
Instead of one that gives significant power to marginal constituencies?
At least in marginals your vote counts and can influence the result. It's the safe seats which are the problem under the present system IMO. They disenfranchise so many people.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The rest of the UK has had better systems for years. It's time the English electorate were allowed something better than a system only good for the self-interest of the two big parties, who treated us to such a lovely display of their mutual corruption over MPs expenses.
Firstly, it's up to us how we sort out our electoral system and secondly, I believe it was the three big(est) parties who treated everyone to a 'lovely display of their mutual corruption ...'
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
What you 'personally think' does not correspond to the reality for millions of voters.
I haven't seen any opinion polling on what people think about electoral 'reform', but I'd be interested to see how people's views change after the latest political horse-trading. The British aren't used to this sort of thing in Westminster politics and I wouldn't be surprised if support for PR goes down as people realise that this sort of thing is the norm under most PR systems.
quote:
But the bottom line is you get distortions of democracy running to millions of voters being effectively disenfranchised. It requires a major 'I'm alright, Jack' contempt for the voters to justify that.
Having lived for some time in a major northern city I was effectively disenfranchised as a Conservative voter. Labour and the Lib Dems were the only players in town. That wasn't nice, but I lumped it.
First Past the Post has its disadvantages, but it is the least worst system in my view. The major problem, as I see it, with PR is that it would mean the Liberals are never out of power in Westminster: Labour and the Conservatives will never form a majority and will always be looking to the Liberals to form a coalition.
That's great if you're a Lib Dem, particularly a senior one (you've got a cabinet job for life) but not if you're anyone else. I don't see how that is an improvement.
Also, it means that Labour and Conservative politicians will have to spend time wooing Liberals, time which will not be spent wooing voters. Again, I don't see this as a step forward.
quote:
The rest of the UK has had better systems for years. It's time the English electorate were allowed something better than a system only good for the self-interest of the two big parties,
The Scottish Parliament is a case in point. After the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections, a coalition was formed between Labour, who came first, and the Liberal Democrats, who came, er, fourth.
So long as the executive is drawn from the legislature, PR will give real political power to less popular parties. I don't see this as progress.
quote:
the two big parties, who treated us to such a lovely display of their mutual corruption over MPs expenses. That sort of contempt for the electorate is what you get when they know they can never be voted out, thanks to a broken electoral system.
As Sleepwalker said, all parties treated us to that. And the Lib Dems' biggest donor is currently doing some serious jail time.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
If the Liberals don't form an alliance with someone and get PR (of whatever form) now, should they just go home and disband?
Don't get me wrong - I don't want that to happen. For years I have thought a Liberal revival in poilitics would be very healthy for the nation. But, once again, a surge in interest during a campaign failed to materialise into anything much at the Election. Despite the "Clegg factor" their share of the vote hardly changed, and they actually lost seats. If they can't get anywhere under these circumstances, is there any point in them trying any more?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Despite the "Clegg factor" their share of the vote hardly changed, and they actually lost seats. If they can't get anywhere under these circumstances, is there any point in them trying any more?
Yes, because they have got distinctive policies. The Clegg factor faded away IMHO because some people actually went and looked at LibDem policies and decided they didn't like them.
If/when we get PR, the Lib Dem vote might actually go down, because people no longer have to vote tactically, but they might still have more seats than they've got now.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Despite the "Clegg factor" their share of the vote hardly changed, and they actually lost seats. If they can't get anywhere under these circumstances, is there any point in them trying any more?
Yes, because they have got distinctive policies. The Clegg factor faded away IMHO because some people actually went and looked at LibDem policies and decided they didn't like them.
If/when we get PR, the Lib Dem vote might actually go down, because people no longer have to vote tactically, but they might still have more seats than they've got now.
The best indication we have as to the outcome of a PR based election is the European vote which is, of course, PR based. Whilst it is possible to argue that people are more inclined to vote for the lunatic fringes as a protest when it 'doesn't matter'. See the result below: enough to be deeply scary: a UKIP / Tory government anyone?
The URL reference in Wikipedia for the result
contains a bracket and this site objects to a bracket, so it's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009
and then follow the link to the UK.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
it would mean the Liberals are never out of power in Westminster: Labour and the Conservatives will never form a majority and will always be looking to the Liberals to form a coalition.
If some models of PR were adopted then all the parties that currently exist will probably not exist in 10 years time or will be fractured. There would be probably be a BNP, a hard left socialist party, soft left (new labour) Green party, Social democrats, Liberals, One nation Tories, Thatcher tories, UKIP and several fringe parties like Islamic party and a christian party.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
And even under PR in the Euro elections, the Conservative / UKIP block got a majority of the seats on about 44% of the votes.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Indeed but then the Scots don't use a a pure PR system as you have just said. If the scottish system were adopted in the UK there might be one or two BNP people if that. I have no idea what the Lib Dems support I always assumed it was a pure PR list.
I really dislike the idea of a hated politician getting chuked out by the local people but to return like the living dead via a regional list.
They are for STV in multi-member constituencies which isn't a party list system. It's not a bad system either, however the system used in Scotland and Wales has been tested and works well, and I cant see why that couldn't be used in England as well. It would certainly tackle the problem of what happens to third parties, but without losing the good side of having truly local constituency MPs.
As for 'hated politicians' returning via the list, I haven't seen that but I have seen the opposite. When parties deselect popular politicians they can make a comeback via putting themselves as individuals on the regional lists - Margo Macdonald being a good example in my area.
L.
In Wales, since the 2006 Government of Wales Act people haven't been able to stand in a constituency and on a list, so unpopular people couldn't be voted out by the public and still get in on the list.
And on the TV coverage -- BBC Wales' coverage was fronted by a woman (Betsan Powys)
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The major problem, as I see it, with PR is that it would mean the Liberals are never out of power in Westminster: Labour and the Conservatives will never form a majority and will always be looking to the Liberals to form a coalition.
That's great if you're a Lib Dem, particularly a senior one (you've got a cabinet job for life) but not if you're anyone else. I don't see how that is an improvement.
But the Lib-Dems are only in the position of kingmakers because their views aren't too distinct from those of Labour and the Tories, such that collaboration with the Lib-Dems is acceptable to Tories.
In other words, a Tory-Lib-Dem coalition under a PR system would be a government which is at least acceptable to the majority. Compare FPTP, where it's possible to have a Government that's totally unacceptable to a majority of the electorate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
[silly tangent] Incidentally, may I congratulate the BBC for this stunningly insightful piece of political analysis: quote:
BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins says a colleague spotted a junior Lib Dem aide going into Parliament carrying pizza boxes. "It may be they are sustaining themselves through the night with pizzas", he adds.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Stunning insight there, thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded by you, the viewer.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't get it. What's so bad about pizza? In many jobs I've had if you're working late the boss or the corporation springs for pizza. Why should that be different for the BBC?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
I hear from the Radio 4 'Today' press review that a new phrase has been coined:
quote:
Con-Dem Nation
Quite.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
My hope is that coalition government will bring more long term planning, instead of swings from one extreme to another.
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The URL reference in Wikipedia for the result
contains a bracket and this site objects to a bracket, so it's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009
and then follow the link to the UK.
In addition to reducing the number of characters, TinyURL's also doesn't include any objectionable characters in its URLs. Linking to Wikipedia on the Ship was a problem for me for a while before I realised this.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't get it. What's so bad about pizza? In many jobs I've had if you're working late the boss or the corporation springs for pizza. Why should that be different for the BBC?
This is the country where there were concerns about the plans to broadcast the coronation of the Queen on television because of the possibility of men in public houses who might be watching with their hats on.
Eating pizza in Parliament may be one thing but one must not be seen to be doing so.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TraineeChristian
Shipmate
# 12972
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The BNP managed to get over 5,000 votes this time round..."
I got that wrong. It was actually 514,819, which is about half a million. Now that's worrying.
I agree. If we had PR, how would that translate into seats?
Posts: 274 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TraineeChristian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The BNP managed to get over 5,000 votes this time round..."
I got that wrong. It was actually 514,819, which is about half a million. Now that's worrying.
I agree. If we had PR, how would that translate into seats?
This suggests they 2% of the votes so would 13 seats. On the other hand in the European Election under PR they got over 6% so that's about 40.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Shipmate
# 15431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TraineeChristian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The BNP managed to get over 5,000 votes this time round..."
I got that wrong. It was actually 514,819, which is about half a million. Now that's worrying.
I agree. If we had PR, how would that translate into seats?
I'm not so worried about the prospect of the BNP getting a seat. It would give the BNP a higher profile, but with a higher profile comes greater scrutiny. They would have to defend their policies, and if their policies are ridiculous then they will not come out of the debate well.
--------------------
was phil2357
Posts: 76 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I know this was a few pages ago but I missed it.
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
In July 2007, there were serious negotiations between the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats about forming a coalition in the Welsh Assembly. But they could not agree on issues such as the introduction of proportional representation (for local elections). Apparently, the Welsh Conservatives and David Cameron were willing to consider this proposal but the Shadow Cabinet wouldn't accept it (source: Vernon Bagdanor, 'The New British Constitution').
This is a rather shortened version of events.
It all started after the elections in May 2007.
An Agreement (the All Wales Accord) was reached between Plaid, the Tories and the LibDems. But the LibDems had to agree it as a group, in their Welsh Exec and at a special conference of the Welsh Party. The Welsh Exec voted on putting it to the wider party and tied so the special conference wasn't called and so it fell through and Rhodri Morgan (Labour) became First Minister of a Minority government. Labour then seriously started talking to Plaid which led to signing of 'One Wales'. I'm not sure if discussions continued between the other three parties. I do recall the LibDems realising too late that a certain number of members could petition for the special conference to happen. But I went to Greece in late June and by the time I came back Plaid and Labour were in coalition and have been ever since with few problems. There was a bit of a kerfuffle before Christmas about the proposed Referendum on further powers but that got worked out in the end.
I'm glad to see this time that Clegg needs 75% of his MPs and the ok of the Federal Executive Committee but not a Special Conference as it speeds things up somewhat.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I would argue that we already have, in effect, coalition governments all the time. All parties (even the tiny ones, never mind the major ones, contain a huge diversity of opinion. Having a party is simply a convenient way of saying OK, we can agree on a joint programme as we are stronger if we stick together (and are all more likely to get things we are individually interested in to be legislated for).
Having coalitions and deals between parties is simply an extension of this. In the long run, PR might simply mean that there are a larger number of parties to choose from who then form coalitions at a more observable level and people can vote for the party which most closely aligns to their views. I think this could well be healthier than a situation the Labour party has already made compromises and done plenty of horse trading to come up with a manifesto (and in half the time which isn't followed anyway) or a Tory party balancing One-Nation Tories with hardline Thatcherites.
The First Past the Post Party system is already about coalitions, they are just disguised.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TraineeChristian:
I agree. If we had PR, how would that translate into seats?
As I said ealier on the thread it depends on the PR model I guess about 12 seats on a list system.
Based on the last election using a pure list PR system the results could be something like this.
BNP 12 seats (rounded down)
Green 6 seats
Conservative 234
Labour 188 seats
Liberal Democrats 149 seats
SNP 11 seats
DUP 4 seats
UKIP 20 seats
Sinn Fein 4 seats
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Despite the "Clegg factor" their share of the vote hardly changed, and they actually lost seats. If they can't get anywhere under these circumstances, is there any point in them trying any more?
Yes, because they have got distinctive policies. The Clegg factor faded away IMHO because some people actually went and looked at LibDem policies and decided they didn't like them.
If/when we get PR, the Lib Dem vote might actually go down, because people no longer have to vote tactically, but they might still have more seats than they've got now.
The best indication we have as to the outcome of a PR based election is the European vote which is, of course, PR based. Whilst it is possible to argue that people are more inclined to vote for the lunatic fringes as a protest when it 'doesn't matter'. See the result below: enough to be deeply scary: a UKIP / Tory government anyone?
The URL reference in Wikipedia for the result
contains a bracket and this site objects to a bracket, so it's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009
and then follow the link to the UK.
Archbishop Cranmer has a post including figures from the ConservativeHome website listing seats where the Conservative candidate lost by a narrow margin, and the number of UKIP votes would have given the Conservatives a majority had the UKIP votes gone to them.
That's just more tactical voting conjecture of course, but interesting from the UKIP/Conservative perspective
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Archbishop Cranmer has a post including figures from the ConservativeHome website listing seats where the Conservative candidate lost by a narrow margin, and the number of UKIP votes would have given the Conservatives a majority had the UKIP votes gone to them.
That's just more tactical voting conjecture of course, but interesting from the UKIP/Conservative perspective [/QB]
That assumes, though, that had the Conservatives said and done the things to make those UKIP voters vote Conservatives that all the people who did vote Conservative last Thursday would still have done so.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Archbishop Cranmer has a post including figures from the ConservativeHome website listing seats where the Conservative candidate lost by a narrow margin, and the number of UKIP votes would have given the Conservatives a majority had the UKIP votes gone to them.
That's just more tactical voting conjecture of course, but interesting from the UKIP/Conservative perspective
That assumes, though, that had the Conservatives said and done the things to make those UKIP voters vote Conservatives that all the people who did vote Conservative last Thursday would still have done so.
No - all it assumes is that UKIP doesn't exist and all their voters vote Tory given they have nowhere else to go.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Archbishop Cranmer has a post including figures from the ConservativeHome website listing seats where the Conservative candidate lost by a narrow margin, and the number of UKIP votes would have given the Conservatives a majority had the UKIP votes gone to them.
That's just more tactical voting conjecture of course, but interesting from the UKIP/Conservative perspective
That assumes, though, that had the Conservatives said and done the things to make those UKIP voters vote Conservatives that all the people who did vote Conservative last Thursday would still have done so.
No - all it assumes is that UKIP doesn't exist and all their voters vote Tory given they have nowhere else to go.
I have had a look at the Wells result, the first one mentioned in the blog. The BNP also stood and, had their votes all gone to the Tory candidate, then they would again have been enough. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I can't imagine the Tories alone lost or failed to win seats as a result of "rogue" candidates. It's a feature of FPTP. Archbishop Cranmer should grow a pair.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Archbishop Cranmer has a post including figures from the ConservativeHome website listing seats where the Conservative candidate lost by a narrow margin, and the number of UKIP votes would have given the Conservatives a majority had the UKIP votes gone to them.
That's just more tactical voting conjecture of course, but interesting from the UKIP/Conservative perspective
That assumes, though, that had the Conservatives said and done the things to make those UKIP voters vote Conservatives that all the people who did vote Conservative last Thursday would still have done so.
No - all it assumes is that UKIP doesn't exist and all their voters vote Tory given they have nowhere else to go.
I have had a look at the Wells result, the first one mentioned in the blog. The BNP also stood and, had their votes all gone to the Tory candidate, then they would again have been enough.
I can't imagine the Tories alone lost or failed to win seats as a result of "rogue" candidates. It's a feature of FPTP. Archbishop Cranmer should grow a pair.
I think the inference of the article is that some kind of deal was previously offered by UKIP not to field candidates against openly euro-sceptic MPs if the Conservatives guaranteed a referendum on Europe. I quite agree they weren't the only ones who profited/lost due to fringe candidates. He alludes to Ed Balls wafer thin result as well.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
