The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I agree with putting the citizens of an area before outsiders, especially on a ecological sustainability point of view. Britain is far beyond that point, as to where we are dependent on other nations in order to get our fix. One of the reasons I am an advocate of Europe is because Europe together is ecologically sustainable. While some people are saying about capping immigration, admittedly, we are at the point we should seriously consider a two-child policy and no more. If you want more kids, you have no government assistance inregards to them. (aka, get the snip,etc)

---

While you think in "areas" everyone else thinks in "Nations", theoretically homogenous groups of people bound together by shared values and culture. So your basic value judgement here is faulty. You have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you believe it should be.

Quote:

---

This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)

---

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience. Using English as the "International Language" is totally impractical, because it's a national language; it would amount to cultural triunphalism. Any attempt to impose a standard language is (rightly) seen that way, Lingua Franca actually means "language of the Franks" i.e. Charlamanic Latin-French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We are 'Britain' we are not 'England'. National issues involve everyone, such as foriegn affairs amongst other things. Labour also has huge support inside London (strangely) and in the North. While I agree on regional issues such be addressed by regional representatives, hence why I keep advocating kicking out the quangos, so we can do just that.

---

That depends on how you define "we", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are recognised as seperate cultural entities, they also have their own assemblies. England deserves the same recognition by default.

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience.

Not down south around bridgend, newport and cardiff way. Meeting someone who speaks welsh is something of a novelty where I live, even the majority of my friends can say more in other langauges than Welsh. Maybe its different in mid wales and the north but the two places I have lived in the south have very very few welsh speakers, off the top of my head I now as many people fluent in polish as welsh (two incase your intrested) When I still went to school a girl came joined our year who could speak welsh and it was a novelty to everyone, outside of her there wasn't a single fluent person in my year.

Also less sure on this one, but im sure a fluent friend told me there are no swear words in welsh, you could construct an insulting sentence but theres no actual swear words... my memorys a little hazy there though...

in mid-wales which is supposedly very welshy, i often come across the chippy-welsh types who will deliberately try to talk in welsh to make a point of excluding any english, but even they often cannot comfortably converse with their friends as easily as they could in english.

news on reform:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...ot-Labour.html

Quote:

---

Hung parliament: Cameron’s PR coup to wrong-foot Labour
The full extent of David Cameron's audacity is beginning to emerge.


Benedict Brogan
Published: 11:57PM BST 09 May 2010

He is offering to trade reform of the voting system for a two-year deal with Nick Clegg that would deliver economic and social change and, in particular, the painful cuts needed to reduce the deficit. Suddenly, it is the Conservatives who are the radicals.

Until now the Liberal Democrats looked to Labour to deliver "fair votes" – their catchphrase for replacing the existing first-past-the-post system with something that better matches the number of votes cast with the number of seats each party gets in the Commons. Tony Blair led them up the garden path before 1997, only to go back on his word once he was safely in No 10 with a thumping majority.

Now in a twist that is causing consternation among some Tories, it is Mr Cameron who is in a position to deliver what Labour could not: a new way of electing MPs, which might be just enough to persuade Mr Clegg to throw in his lot with the Conservatives. The power-sharing deal could make Mr Cameron prime minister within 48 hours.

Just as it took the Right-wing Likud Party in Israel to broker peace with Egypt, or the Tories to start peace talks with the IRA, so it looks as if Mr Cameron has bucked convention in an attempt to redefine British politics in his favour.

Insiders say his priority is to agree a formal deal, possibly even a coalition, with Mr Clegg that would secure Lib Dem agreement for Tory proposals to reform the education and welfare systems and, in particular, for immediate spending cuts.

In exchange he would agree to hold a referendum on the proposals for voting reform developed by a new commission of inquiry that would conclude during this Parliament.

The Lib Dem statement last night that any agreement would have "deficit reduction and a credible plan for economic recovery" at its heart was taken as encouragement that Mr Cameron's pitch was working, even if the country and, more importantly, the markets may have to wait a bit longer for the "stable government" all sides are promising.

Tonight he will address his parliamentary party, including the 106 newly elected MPs who find

themselves being consulted in a Commons drama before they have even acquired their passes to the building.

But what exactly is he asking them to endorse?

Some on the Right fear that he is going to water down his pledge to insist on repatriating powers from Brussels. Others are horrified by the idea of giving seats around the Cabinet table to the Liberal Democrats.

Many want assurances that he is not about to abandon the party’s long-standing opposition to proportional representation.

And there are some who regard the uncertain outcome of the election as a reason to air their grievances about the way the Tory campaign was run. They see this as their chance to hit back at the tightly knit circle around Mr Cameron.

They reject the leadership’s boast that he produced a historic achievement with the best gain in seats since 1931 and a swing on a par with Margaret Thatcher’s in 1979.

Instead they say the campaign in the marginals was a costly failure that produced patchy results; that Mr Cameron was wrong to agree to televised debates that gave Nick Clegg a momentary advantage; and that the party’s manifesto — in particular, the notion of a Big Society — was too confusing for voters. They point out that a 36 per cent share of the vote was scarcely better than what John Major achieved when the Tories were crushed in 1997.

More simply, many Tory MPs question why a deal has to be done with the Lib Dems at all. They argue that, despite the hype of the debates, the party lost seats and emerged even weaker. With Labour contaminated by failure and the continued presence of Gordon Brown, Mr Clegg is a kingmaker but with only one king to make.

Tory whips spent the weekend telephoning MPs to take soundings on voting reform. Mr Cameron called party grandees on Saturday night to assure them that he remained steadfastly opposed to any form of proportional representation. By offering backbenchers a free vote in the Commons on whether there should be a referendum, he knows nearly all of them will vote “no”, and may find enough anti-reform Labour MPs to form a blocking majority.

But senior sources speculate that he could eventually offer the Lib Dems a form of electoral reform based on the additional vote system (AV) or even the AV-plus devised by the Lib Dem peer Lord Jenkins – and rejected by Mr Blair – more than a decade ago. Both maintain the constituency link that Tories say is essential, and both require voters to express a second preference.

For the Tories this would kill off the UK Independence Party vote which cost them an estimated 21 seats last week – enough to give them a majority. Even far-Right Tories have spotted this opportunity.

Mr Cameron is focused on delivering what his party wants: power.

To that end he is prepared to deal in ways that some in his party find hard to swallow.

Officially, there has been no offer so far on electoral reform but he also wants certainty that his Lib Dem allies will vote with him in the Commons when it matters.

He wants to bind them in to the hard decisions ahead. To that end he is prepared to go much further than his party perhaps realises.

But he also recognises that he has been presented with a chance to recast the Conservatives as the party of the centre that is keeping pace with public demands — if not for the obscurities of PR, then for a new politics in which leaders act pragmatically in the national interest.

There are more negotiations to come. It may be that Mr Clegg is the one who will face greater difficulties in persuading his party to do a deal that requires them to share responsibility for the pain.

Labour has offered to ditch Gordon Brown in exchange for a coalition. In which case Mr Cameron will go it alone, knowing that when the next election comes, possibly this year, no one will be able to fault his willingness to try anything to deliver stable government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

England deserves the same recognition by default.

---

What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Now this annoys me. This is the kind of crap that the pro-Tory media have been spouting. It's nonsense on a number of levels.

a) The acting PM has to stay in place until the Queen invites someone to form a government. You can't just leave the country leaderless.
b) 1% less share of the vote than the previous election does not amount to a comprehensive rejection anywhere outside the editorial meetings of Murdoch newspapers.

---

Whilst there is some constitutional robustness to your point of view, the reality is that Brown would be unable to form a government even with the Liberals unless assorted nationalists were bought by enormous transfers of spending to their provinces. Even then, such a coalition would be almost unsustainable. The Conservatives know how weak Clegg is in relation to threatening to go to Labour (a Government of Losers) and Brown's temper tantrum the other day directed at Clegg for daring to talk to the Tories, didn't really help his cause, I fear.

Losing a hundred seats counts as a fair rejection, methinks. Considering Blair's 2005 victory was based in the lowest share of the vote for a governing party, and the extraordinary gerrymandering of seats, and the fact the Brown has never had an endorsement from an election in his own party or the country, I think the legitimacy of any Brown administration is suspect at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The Tories don't want individual responsibility, they just don't want any impediment to leveraging power via their wealth.

---

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

---

Not rocket science, is it? Seems to work for loads of other countries.
I'm not that bothered in seeing the Union break up if all it is is subsidies to the Welsh and the Scots whilst they bitch about England.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

---

Yes, but you see, the thing is she was upwardly mobile, but in a bad way as she ended up in a party that oppressed the poor as she reduced the handouts available to them as the State knows what they want better than the individual does (occasionally the individual is wrong, of course).

Giving them their own homes reduces the number of homes that are available to be given out by the government, which are intrinically better as when owned by the government they are part of the Social Housing stock which can be used to help the Poor whereas ownership might stop them being poor, which is counterproductive...

Simples...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

---

Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

---

unlike Louis, I am full agreement with the sentiment.

this irrational thatcher hatred is deeply unhealthy for those who exhibit it, especially for Brits for whom it makes an actual difference.

Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

~:smoking:

I fear she must also have destroyed a sense of humour right across Europe. :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Brown has never had an endorsement from an election in his own party or the country, I think the legitimacy of any Brown administration is suspect at best.

---

I don't think you can vote for Brown unless you are an elector in his constituency. We vote for the local candidate, and leave it up to them who they make leader. Unless you are one of these frightful oiks who think our electoral system makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

---

You mean selling off social housing and removing mental health provision so that we now have a massive homeless/begging problem that was unheard of 30 years ago?

And by reducing the tax burden... I assume you are getting confused about which sections of society actually pay the most tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

---

Or not, how long do you think it takes for generational change to show through?

So... it can be caused by the Tories in about 12 years, but not resolved by Labour in almost the same length of time...

~:smoking:

@ rory Check your history my good man income can be destroyed in seconds but can take years even centuries to repair especially if an entire way of life or system of production is removed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... it can be caused by the Tories in about 12 years, but not resolved by Labour in almost the same length of time...

---

Honestly? I imagine we are only now living through the implications of Thatcherism.

If you think of the changes labour made -on education, health, job-seekers' allowance etc, they were never going to result in an immediate step change in equality. It'll take the kids and young people who went through Labour's reforms to grow, graduate, get jobs and settle for their impact to show -for good or worse.

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience.

Not down south around bridgend, newport and cardiff way. Meeting someone who speaks welsh is something of a novelty where I live, even the majority of my friends can say more in other langauges than Welsh. Maybe its different in mid wales and the north but the two places I have lived in the south have very very few welsh speakers, off the top of my head I now as many people fluent in polish as welsh (two incase your intrested) When I still went to school a girl came joined our year who could speak welsh and it was a novelty to everyone, outside of her there wasn't a single fluent person in my year.

Also less sure on this one, but im sure a fluent friend told me there are no swear words in welsh, you could construct an insulting sentence but theres no actual swear words... my memorys a little hazy there though...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

in mid-wales which is supposedly very welshy, i often come across the chippy-welsh types who will deliberately try to talk in welsh to make a point of excluding any english, but even they often cannot comfortably converse with their friends as easily as they could in english.

---

Ah boys, try living with a Welsh womean for two years; it's a wild Celtic rollacoaster.

Just take my work for it, ok, there are 600,000 native-Welsh speakers in Wales, so Beskar claim that, "not even the Welsh speak Welsh" is incorrect, perhaps even tautological given that the Welsh-speakers define "Welshness" as use of said language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

---

No, I'd rather just have the one Parliament; and effective County Councils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.

---

Coolius, to quote the most useful Latin phrase I ever learned. If anyone destroyed the working class is was Labour, when they used unhealthy sbsidies to hold up dying industries. All Thatcher did was pull the life-support 20 years later and put the patient out of its misery. Had Labour indulged in more sanguine ecenomic practices during the 50's and 60's we might have aBritish ship-building industry today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

---

Yeah, we'd have teh STASI and everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Yeah, we'd have teh STASI and everything.

---

1990's being post-Stasi under most contemporary views of recent history, no?

i was more referring to a poverty stricken post-industrial wasteland:

https://i134.photobucket.com/albums/...8/IMG_0035.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

1990's being post-Stasi under most contemporary views of recent history, no?

i was more referring to a poverty stricken post-industrial wasteland:

https://i134.photobucket.com/albums/...8/IMG_0035.jpg

---

ERm, yes...? :blush:

So who was it wot boosted the UK's switch from manufacturing to services, and in particular the city?

There's still time: ballooning debt, off balance sheet pensions and good old PFI.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

ERm, yes...? :blush:

So who was it wot boosted the UK's switch from manufacturing to services, and in particular the city?

---

what your missing is the fact that this situation would persist today, with moribund industries propped up on life-support with ever more ridiculous public subsidy.

those services generate a vast amount of tax revenue which labour has poured back into its social programs in stupendous quantities, rant against the financial services sector after you have implemented a better alternative, not before.

we would all be much poorer today had we not had thatcher, but our poorness might be more equal if that makes you feel better.......................?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

what your missing is the fact that this situation would persist today, with moribund industries propped up on life-support with ever more ridiculous public subsidy.

those services generate a vast amount of tax revenue which labour has poured back into its social programs in stupendous quantities, rant against the financial services sector after you have implemented a better alternative, not before.

we would all be much poorer today had we not had thatcher, but our poorness might be more equal if that makes you feel better.......................?

---

Yes UK manufacturing was no-longer competitive (crudely: costs too high, output & quality too low), but are there not ways of improvement which do not entail such a savage diss-embowling? They might have led to there being at least a couple of successful UK owned manufacturing companies.

These services which socialist parties advocate, I take it that you think they are the wrong way to go to improve equality and promote positive social change? That is what they are there for of course, not just to waste public money.

Some state support seems to have been working in France and Germany, they still produce things there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

---

Or a striking resemblance to Norway or France.

given the state of the UK in the seventies, when it was the sick man of europe, i sincerely doubt that.

"Gordon Brown announces intention to step down as PM as formal talks are to open between Labour and the Liberal Democrats."

Well good news, whatever the outcome, there is no Gordon Brown.

What would be good if is the Labour-left in particular works with the Lib Dems in any coalition talks, which might actually result in a left-wing Government for a change since these past 30 years or so.

if that does happen there will be another election within the year.

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

if that does happen there will be another election within the year.

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

---

Quite bullish given the Tories didn't really win outright this time either... :wink:

I'm not quite sure what Brown is proposing... 3 things essentially, which I'm having trouble synchronising in my head:

1) to step down as Labour leader after a labour leadership contest before the autumn coference,

2) form a coalition govt with lib, SNP and Plaid Cymru

3) rule as PM (of the coalition?) until a new labour leader is picked.

All I can think is that this would be TWO unelected labour leaders within 4 years and that the premise or justification for setting up the 2nd's government would also quite ironicaly be to introduce a more democratic voting system. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

---

Actually, a coalition of the two would mean the Lib-Lab coalition would have the largest mandate in both seats and votes.

the political system exists as it is, which is a first past the post winner takes all system, and the electorates expectations are still governed by this, not as you wish them to be, and the utter failure of the lib-dems to sustain the surge tells me that reform of the voting system wasn't deemed to be very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the political system exists as it is, which is a first past the post winner takes all system, and the electorates expectations are still governed by this, not as you wish them to be, and the utter failure of the lib-dems to sustain the surge tells me that reform of the voting system wasn't deemed to be very important.

---

Actually, the threat of a Conservative Government was more important, and those who wanted rid of Brown.

Also, I don't tread on Party Lines remember? First Past the Post means those people elected represent those areas first, the party second, therefore them working for the great good, in being in a coalition to better serve the interests of those who elected and of those in the area, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Well the latest developments just reveal how desperate New Labour is. The simple fact is that Labour cannot form a stable government, unless we wish to be held to ransom by the nationalists. This doesn't worry the Labour Party though, a party which would sell its soul to remain in power.

The disgusting attempt to try and pry the Liberals away from what quite frankly is the only sensible arrangement, whether your a Tory or not, shows the extent to which Labour only cares about its own self gain. The simple fact is a Labour rag tag government will have very little legitimacy, will be incredibly unstable and will cost the tax payer billions, or the English tax payer at least, due to the fact the nationalists have put increased funds to their respective countries on the table for any negotiations.

Then again, it might also be a beneficial arrangement, if only to show how our democracy would look under PR, with the backroom deals, the illegitimate governments and the individual parties own desire for power over any electoral endorsement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.

---

We must know our place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

unlike Louis, I am full agreement with the sentiment.

this irrational thatcher hatred is deeply unhealthy for those who exhibit it, especially for Brits for whom it makes an actual difference.

---

I live in an area which has a deep, deep hatred of Thatcher. Her legacy is that of folk history, with her persona taking on a similar role to the Devil in Medieval times. And rightly so. Thatcher sank her teeth into the North and ripped out it's throat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

~:smoking:

---

North Korea is actually a very unequal society, with Party bosses enjoying extremely high standards of living whilst the majority of North Koreans suffer tremendous abuses. Income equality is not worth Communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

---

That might prove to be wishful thinking. The Tories have just announced they will give the Liberals a referendum on AV. Almost certainly, the electoral system in Britain is now set to change.

Extraordinary times.

What's with all the referenda lately? What happened to Parliamentary sovereignty?

On STV, I thought it was? Only labour wanted AV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

On STV, I thought it was? Only labour wanted AV.

---

No, it was Alternative Vote.

There are so many tragedies of Gordon Brown's abysmal premiership, but two stand out: If he had called an election in 2007, he would have been re-elected and thence probably been less volcanic, tortured and had greater stature. The second is that had he stood down two months ago, Labour would probably have won the election outright, since the country clearly didn't much fancy a Tory government.

For those wanting more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

What is funny though, is this message from the telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ernative-vote/

I also love how he attacks it, based on the Conservatives might lose some seats, but he doesn't comment on how the Lib dems gained significantly more seats, thus being a fairer, as they actually gain a more represention of the seats, according to the voters. Amongst other things. I love his biased journalism.

Also, as one of the commenters says "How can you recast according to Alternate Vote without knowing what people’s second choice would be?". In the same breath, how can you recast not knowing what the voters first choice might have been? For example, UKIP or Green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That might prove to be wishful thinking. The Tories have just announced they will give the Liberals a referendum on AV. Almost certainly, the electoral system in Britain is now set to change.

Extraordinary times.

---

not wishful thinking, i am happy to tolerate a tory coalition / minority government, as long as someone is there to fulfil a sensible EU policy and a sensible defence policy.

i was merely pointing out that it would be deeply funny if a lib-lab coalition formed in spite of the Tory's putting on the full display of public cooperation with the Lib-Dems on live TV, leaving the electorates most favoured party out in the cold, and then watching that coalition of the unwanted collapse in acrimony, the public would absolutely punish lib and lab by returning a conservative majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What's with all the referenda lately? What happened to Parliamentary sovereignty?

---

as i have been arguing fairly consistently for the last couple of years; i only expect a referendum when the government is proposing to change how i am governed, particularly when they wish to give the authority to a third party, and oddly enough i have seen a lot of talking heads on the TV saying the same thing in the last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

For those wanting more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

What is funny though, is this message from the telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ernative-vote/

I also love how he attacks it, based on the Conservatives might lose some seats, but he doesn't comment on how the Lib dems gained significantly more seats, thus being a fairer, as they actually gain a more represention of the seats, according to the voters. Amongst other things. I love his biased journalism.

Also, as one of the commenters says "How can you recast according to Alternate Vote without knowing what people’s second choice would be?". In the same breath, how can you recast not knowing what the voters first choice might have been? For example, UKIP or Green.

---

i read that earlier and thought the same, it is a daft argument; it is no fairer but it is certainly just as unfair as the current system.

regardless, i have no problems with the current system because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion.

To be honest I cannot see Cameron letting the Liberals go over to Labour the deal will be struck it is really a case that the British are unused to this lark coalition prob not agreed until midweek I would say

much like europe, it is not a goal that is worth any price, cameron has done a wonderful job of appearing conciliatory and accommodating to the lib-dems, and thus mindful of the publics (stupid) wish not to have a commons majority, so he is sitting pretty if there is a lib-lab coalition and its eventual collapse in eight months time. just look at hagues statement on conceding a referendum vote on AV, everything is cooperative and conciliatory, exactly what the electorate said they want, how will it come across if the the lib-dems jump in bed with labour now.................. it will appear crass and opportunistic, and it will be a nail in the coffin of cleggs' 'new' politics agenda.

the tory's have the dems over-a-barrel, they can't lose either way.

but you are correct to not that the game is not over yet, and it may just be tactical positioning from the lib-dems to strengthen their bargaining position.

some FCO blowhard leaks a putative tory bargaining position between the UK and the EU, seems pretty accurate to me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ed-eurosceptic

and the text of the role-played letter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-william-hague

The Lib-dems will probably allow the Tories to do it, as long as they aren't involved in it. The thing is, if the Lib-dems ended up in power next election and the Tories were successful, the Lib-dems now has a bargaining chip with Europe to use for basically "free".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The Lib-dems will probably allow the Tories to do it, as long as they aren't involved in it. The thing is, if the Lib-dems ended up in power next election and the Tories were successful, the Lib-dems now has a bargaining chip with Europe to use for basically "free".

---

que?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

que?

---

Basically, the Tories want a concession from the EU? So let's say they do that.

This means in the future, the Liberal Democrats now have a bargaining chip, aka, this concession, in order to influence future policy in return to handing it back over to the EU.

what an awesome policy idea, i'm sure the electorate will be delighted!

that should go down in BOLD in their manifesto alongside all their other stupid ideas like ditching trident and an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

if they want to be taken seriously, they have to act seriously, and that means realising they are their to represent the electorate rather than play my-little-pony fantasy world.

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.

Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
Morley (Ed Balls): Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274

Big list..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.

---

Exactly.

Being honest, I can see a UKIP-Conservative coalition in the future, if we end up going down the STV/AV route. I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Exactly.

Being honest, I can see a UKIP-Conservative coalition in the future, if we end up going down the STV/AV route. I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.

---

This has been noted, AV would effectively wipe out the UKIP vote, and would ensure that whoever was elected had a majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This has been noted, AV would effectively wipe out the UKIP vote, and would ensure that whoever was elected had a majority.

---

How/why so? Why would it wipe out the UKIP vote?

I would see more conservatives voting for UKIP rather than the conservative party. Which would mean that UKIP would get more votes, as I could also see Conservatives putting UKIP down as a 2nd option too, in those instances where they have lesser votes. If UKIP don't win any seats, they would also put down Conservative as their 2nd option. This would obviously enforce the Conservatives power and as tibilicus pointed out, could have got the Cons more seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.

---

just so we are clear; i do not currently support the UKIP position that we should leave the EU.

this is on the massive proviso that we have a euroskeptic right-wing party in the mainstream that seeks to keep Britain out of a federal Union, and an EU that is willing to accept that position.

if there is no Tory party pushing for a two speed europe, and no ability to extract such a concession from the EU then, yes, I will become a full-blown UKIP supporter.

the EU is not a priceless goal, and if the price is federal union then the price is not worth paying at all.

to me, UKIP is useful leverage to push the mainstream party in the direction i want, nothing more, at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.

---

Two things: a) you are of course assuming that nobody voted Labour or LD as their 2nd choice. Take Bolton West. I'm sure you are right and the vast majority of UKIP voters would vote Conservative second. There are, however, 8,177 LD voters. Recent polls put the split between Labour and Conservative leaning Liberal voters as ~75%/25% Lab/Con nationwide. Assuming that's a fair reflection, this seat would have been solid Labour hold. b) to win a seat with AV, you need a majority of the vote. Conservatives plus the entire UKIP 2nd vote would only give 42.3% of the vote. They would still need to pick up a lot of LD 2nd votes.

This is why the Tories are fearful of AV: they assume that Liberal voters will favour Labour (and Labour voters will favour Liberals in Con/Lib marginals), and so even safe Tory seats could potentially fall. Take Battersea, for instance, where the Tories polled 47.3% of the vote, Labour 35.1% and Liberal Democrat 14.7%, Green 1.1% and UKIP 1%. Even if the Tories gained all the UKIP votes and the Green votes they would still not win the constituency: it would be decided on the alternative choices of the LDs. If they overwhelmingly support the Labour candidate...

Maybe my experiences are a little different but welsh speakers have been very rare where I have lived, they are mostly still very proud don't get me wrong, just they tell me "the welsh are better" in english....

One of the potential problems I see with a Lib dem Conservative coalition is that a tactic to scare people off voting for the lib dems is to tell them they will be allowing the conservatives in, ill be honest its one of the main reasons i would vote labour, by making such a deal the lib dems would surely give themselves a black mark in many peoples minds....

How would AV affect the nationalist partys ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

leaving the electorates most favoured party out in the cold

---

Actually the electorate most favour anyone other than the Tories :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Actually the electorate most favour anyone other than the Tories :laugh4:

---

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Maybe my experiences are a little different but welsh speakers have been very rare where I have lived, they are mostly still very proud don't get me wrong, just they tell me "the welsh are better" in english....

One of the potential problems I see with a Lib dem Conservative coalition is that a tactic to scare people off voting for the lib dems is to tell them they will be allowing the conservatives in, ill be honest its one of the main reasons i would vote labour, by making such a deal the lib dems would surely give themselves a black mark in many peoples minds....

How would AV affect the nationalist partys ?

---

hah, i bumped into some pissed neanderthal in the pub, who on seeing that i was wearing a new zealand t-shirt immediately told me he hated the english, so told him i wasn't from new-zealand and he asked where i was from because he couldn't place my accent, so i told him i was british, which confused him as i didn't fit into the neat pidgeon-hole he wanted that would allow him to dismiss me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

---

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

Well, they are both correct, but as neither understand what the other is saying....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

---

That's precisely what you are doing, as this is the world that exists now. Your favoured electoral system has produced this result. You can't discount it just because it hasn't given your party the advantage you would like.

Personally I like the deal making and compromises. That way we get the sort of policies that most people can agree on.

Majority governments are always launching 'bold new ideas' that are complete nonsense 90% of the time and are more about making a big media splash than good government.

lol, the only way to prove either view is to wait until a lib-lab coalition collapses and see how badly the electorate punishes the partners.

but don't misunderstand, i am happy with either outcome:

either a lib-lab coalition occurs, which will collapse before 2011, whereupon there will be a tory majority returned, hopefully before lib-lab have had a chance to do too much damage.

or, the libs return to the tory deal no tainted with exactly the kind of 'old' politics and back-room skullduggery that they accused the tory's of.

i am a happy man either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Personally I like the deal making and compromises. That way we get the sort of policies that most people can agree on.

Majority governments are always launching 'bold new ideas' that are complete nonsense 90% of the time and are more about making a big media splash than good government.

---

Sadly that is the case (PFI, massive aircraft carriers...). One would hope that long term, transiently unpopular measures could be enacted for what could loosly be called the Greater Good: infrastructure for example which benefits all but in a sufficiently nebulous way to not find private backing.
Coalitions can end up with equally oddball plans to placate the minority parties to back the same "bold new ideas".

~:smoking:

Looks like the Tory-times are back. More of this sort of thing for the bankers:

bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election

They earned it, they're spending it. The economy needs people to spend, preferably from money earned from foreign companies.

I like being at home with a few friends. I don't imagine I'd get any more satisfaction from the drink if the bill was £6k.

Better they blow vast sums on services here than elsewhere. They can help pay off the only thing Labour has made in abundance - debt.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Looks like the Tory-times are back. More of this sort of thing for the bankers:

bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election

---

is that saying something useful about the election, or just more tribalist working class chippiness against privilege?

those people are paying significant amounts of their hard earned cash into paying for your benefits, why be so bitter about your dependency on private wealth creation?

p.s. i already put this link in "news of the weird".

--------------------------------------------------------------

good article in defence of FPTP:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/pl...-the-post.html

Quote:

---

Lord Norton: The case for First Past The Post

Fundamental to any representative democracy is the concept of accountability. Our electoral system facilitates but does not guarantee the return of a single-party government. The winning party has a coherent programme of public policy that it put before the electors and for which it can be held to account at the next election.

There is one body – the party in government – that is responsible for public policy. There is no scope for buck-passing or shirking of responsibility. Electors can judge it in terms of what it promised – the manifesto is a benchmark – and if dissatisfied can sweep it from office. Critics focus on the hiring element of the process, but – as the distinguished philosopher Sir Karl Popper noted – tend to ignore the firing part. There is, in our system, a fundamental accountability that is lacking in alternative systems.

The electoral system does not guarantee single-party government. It can on occasion result in a hung Parliament, as we are presently experiencing. However, this is the exception and not the rule. Under alternative systems, it is likely to be the rule. Current experience points to the inherent problems of the alternatives.

Alex Salmond has referred to a hung Parliament as a ‘people’s Parliament’. It is the opposite: it is a politician’s parliament. Policy is the result of post-election bargaining. The people do not get a look in. Compromises are reached which may bear no relationship to what electors want, which were never placed before them, and which they may have no opportunity to pass judgement on at the next election if parties stand as independent entities: there is no one body to call to account.

The principal argument against the present system is that it is not fair – it is not a proportional system. However, proportional representation is a narrow concept. The ‘proportionality’ relates only to the relationship of votes to seats and not to the proportionality of power. Under PR, 10% of the votes are designed to produce 10% of the seats, but not necessarily 10% of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. Indeed, a party with 10% of the seats may be in a position to wield disproportionate negotiating power.

PR systems, contrary to claims made for them, do not necessarily produce governments that have the support of a majority of electors. If party A gains 30% of the votes and party B 25%, a post-election coalition of A+B does not enjoy the support of 55% of electors. It enjoys the definitive support of no electors, as no elector has been presented with the opportunity to vote for A+B. Wales provides a good example. The National Assembly for Wales is governed by a Labour/Paid Cymru coalition. No Welsh elector in 2007 was offered the opportunity to vote for Labour + Plaid Cymru – and it is unlikely that many voted Labour on the assumption that a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition was a likely outcome if no party achieved an overall majority.

No electoral system is perfect, but the first-past-the-post system has a number of attributes which, in combination, cannot be matched by any of the alternatives. It is worth fighting for. The first thing to do in any debate about PR is to demand that advocates stop talking about ‘PR’ as if it is a specific alternative and instead require them to specify the particular system they favour (STV, AMS, regional list, AV+). Once one starts to compare first-past-the-post to a specific alternative, one begins to recognise the benefits of retaining our current electoral system.

---

I prefer this analysis:

Dutch View on Coalitions

Furunculus, I can't see any link to the primary source of your article on FPTP (post #1587). All posted articles should have the primary source linked otherwise there are some copyright issues. It is also good practice to quote only a short piece from the article rather than the entire thing, again for recognition of copyright.

I assume it's from the Telegraph, but nonetheless, you should edit in a link. :wink:

sorry, don't know how that one slipped past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

either a lib-lab coalition occurs, which will collapse before 2011, whereupon there will be a tory majority returned, hopefully before lib-lab have had a chance to do too much damage.

or, the libs return to the tory deal no tainted with exactly the kind of 'old' politics and back-room skullduggery that they accused the tory's of.

i am a happy man either way.

---

If Cameron is thinking this he might need a closer examination of Irish politics rather than continental governments Fianna Fail has been in government in Ireland since 1997.

In fact they have been in power for most of the last 70yrs

During this time they have been in coalition each an every time and have had no problem making deals and getting votes through the Dail.

The secret is that politicians would have no incentive to seek a fresh mandate and so the would cling to each other in power. Once power is achieved they will try to keep it and if things did turn out better in 5yrs then they would get the praise for it.

Cameron will not gamble that big on a potential government bust up that may never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I prefer this analysis:

Dutch View on Coalitions

---

it's lovely if you deem those features desirable. i don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

If Cameron is thinking this he might need a closer examination of Irish politics rather than continental governments Fianna Fail has been in government in Ireland since 1997.

In fact they have been in power for most of the last 70yrs

During this time they have been in coalition each an every time and have had no problem making deals and getting votes through the Dail.

The secret is that politicians would have no incentive to seek a fresh mandate and so the would cling to each other in power. Once power is achieved they will try to keep it and if things did turn out better in 5yrs then they would get the praise for it.

Cameron will not gamble that big on a potential government bust up that may never happen.

---

the argument runs that any lib-lab coalition will quickly collapse, in which case the electorate would return a Con majority, in other words it is a good election to lose.

You make dislike coalition but then so do the majority of politicians however that does not mean they are naturally unstable.
Lets remember that politicians are basically they kind of people that intellectually, philosophically and psychologically are suited to coalition.

Lib-Lab talks over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

PR systems, contrary to claims made for them, do not necessarily produce governments that have the support of a majority of electors. If party A gains 30% of the votes and party B 25%, a post-election coalition of A+B does not enjoy the support of 55% of electors. It enjoys the definitive support of no electors, as no elector has been presented with the opportunity to vote for A+B (1).

Wales provides a good example. The National Assembly for Wales is governed by a Labour/Paid Cymru coalition. No Welsh elector in 2007 was offered the opportunity to vote for Labour + Plaid Cymru – and it is unlikely that many voted Labour on the assumption that a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition was a likely outcome if no party achieved an overall majority (2).

---

Thanks, that's a good article -although i do have 2 comments:

1) While agreeing that a coalition does not command the direct support of electors in the way that a single party majority government does, the party system itself means there is some "float" or room for difference between the MP a constituency elects and the MP's party. A party is itself a composite of the views of its MPs -as well as that of unelected party members/aides. While a coalition carries the potential for even more divergence from an MPs mandate, the party system could be considered bad enough in itself.

2) Without knowing the precise conditions of the Welsh NA elections in the example, in the particular case of our recent general election where the prospect of a hung parliament was continuously discussed and debated, I think there are grounds for assuming voters were certainly aware of the likelihood of rule by a coalition government. I think there are grounds for saying that people voted with full knowledge of the prospect of coalition government.

So, sucks to be JAG, looks like.

After everything, it seems clear that Labour ultimately have nothing to offer the Lib-Dems.

So, all that Clegg has done with this is damage his image. Even if he did negotiate with both sides in good faith, he has lost credability over this. He will be seen as oppertunistic, and I suspect the Lib-Dems will suffer for that at the next election.

Looks like Cleggmania was a completely busted flush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Thanks, that's a good article -although i do have 2 comments:

2) Without knowing the precise conditions of the Welsh NA elections in the example, in the particular case of our recent general election where the prospect of a hung parliament was continuously discussed and debated, I think there are grounds for assuming voters were certainly aware of the likelihood of rule by a coalition government. I think there are grounds for saying that people voted with full knowledge of the prospect of coalition government.

---

The problem with this view, surely though, is that electors can only vote for a single MP. You can't vote for a Hung Parliament, not as a real strategy.

I think I want a Lib-Tory alliance.

It can limp along for a couple of years. The libs taking the edge off the tories, while ID cards get scrapped. And in 2 years time, when the Tories have stiffed the Libs over PR (which we all know they will), and the country has been laid low by massive government cuts and unemployment (meanwhile the city of London makes bumper profits); the Libs will bail out, we'll have another election and the Tories will be kicked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I think I want a Lib-Tory alliance.

It can limp along for a couple of years. The libs taking the edge off the tories, while ID cards get scrapped. And in 2 years time, when the Tories have stiffed the Libs over PR (which we all know they will), and the country has been laid low by massive government cuts and unemployment (meanwhile the city of London makes bumper profits); the Libs will bail out, we'll have another election and the Tories will be kicked out.

---

Unless the cuts reduce the defecit enough that the economy, and thence spending, pick up.

Important to point out that, whatever else, both the Tories and Liberals have a much better record on Civil Liberties than Labour. So this Alliance can only be a good thing on that account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The problem with this view, surely though, is that electors can only vote for a single MP. You can't vote for a Hung Parliament, not as a real strategy.

---

I voted for Lib dem, 1 in the hope that they would form a majority govt (ha), 2 that failing that, they would pursue their manifesto to the best of their capability whatever the outcome -be that as part of a coalition, in opposition or just in parliament. I was not, and am not, averse to the idea of a coalition govt, providing a fair deal is won for the party I supported.

All this bollox about Lib's negotiations with both sides being undemocratic is in the strictest sense of the word true, but in the practical sense: exactly what you would expect and no different to what any party in their position would do.