What's the difference beyond semantics? Do you hope that the government will not be benevolent? Do you hope that they won't make decisions for us? Or was it just because Furunculus used the word "parent" that you object?
Printable View
What's the difference beyond semantics? Do you hope that the government will not be benevolent? Do you hope that they won't make decisions for us? Or was it just because Furunculus used the word "parent" that you object?
One of the fascinating possibilities that is emerging along with the Liberal Democrats' poll ratings is the constitutional impact. If the Lib Dem party delivers a high twenties share of the vote, this is likely to end up with a Labour-Liberal government where the LD holds quite a lot of moral power. It would be almost impossible for such a government to resist their core demand of a change in the voting system to one of proportional representation. If that happens (and it is increasingly likely, it seems) then there will never again be a Conservative government unless there is a seismic shift in voting trends.
Whatever one's feelings about the Tories, having an opposition with no realistic chance of government (not because of policy, but because of voting system) is a fundamentally bad thing. Yet the UK is probably weeks away from such an outcome.
Food for thought.
i have been aware of this, and my opinion obviously is that it would be a disaster for Britain.
This suggests that previous conservative governments did not rule through the ballot box, but through the red tape of elections? (Outdated distribution of seats in parliament per region.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
At any rate the suggestion that Tories cannot enter government if the voting system changes is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that coalitions with Tories are impossible. Why, after you assert the possibility of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in order to make that election change? Are the Tories a party unable to pass exams on politics 101? If that is truly the case (which I very much doubt), it would seem clear that Britain can only benefit from such a change then.
at the moment it is the reverse, the lower concentration of voters in labour strongholds means that a smaller proportion of the electorate can vote labour than conservative, and yet return more MP's to parliament thus winning the election.
the lib-dems have said they would not form a coalition with a minority government, as they would respect the mandate of the people, however they have not said whether that mandate would be determined by votes or seats (see above).
in my opinion a lab-con coalition would still be a stupid result, for the following two reasons:
1) the price would be PR, a terrible continental invention IMO.
2) it would be almost impossible for the tories to start the reforms that would prevent the national debt reaching 400% of GDP by 2040, and they are the only ones who would even attempt such a thing.
With the British system, huge majorities can be commanded with just over 40% of the popular vote. I think it was before the war that any government in the UK had over 50% of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
It has always been highly unlikely that the Liberal Democrats (a left of centre party) would ever find common cause for a coalition with the Conservatives, especially since one of their other core commitments is being very pro-European. The Liberals don't sit easily with the Labour party, but they have common objectives in many areas. In the modern era, these three parties have held 90-95% of the popular vote between them. Only in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are there parties with any parliamentary representation outside these three. Both the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru are socialist and very unlikely to enter a coalition with the Tories. Only the DUP in Ulster would consider it, and with their 8-10 MPs at best, the Tories would have had to take an unprecedented 48% share of the seats to have such a coalition work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
All governments in Britain are minority governments under most PR systems. The left splits between various flavours of party, but traditionally gets around 55-60% of the vote, whereas the only serious right of centre party is the Conservatives, which often polls the highest for a single party (which gets it into government under the existing system) with around 40% of the vote, but this would not be enough in a future PR approach to form a government.
One might say that is a good thing since the voters of the UK are consistently left of centre, but it would atrophy the opposition of ideas and that is bad for democracy - as anyone who watched the super-majorities of Mrs Thatcher or Tony Blair could attest.
Would they dare change the electoral system without referendum? This isn't rhetorical, I'm curious.
That's what I'm thinking Myrddraal, I can't see a coalition government truely believing they had a strong enough mandate to change the whole electoral system without holding a referendum on the issue, especially when one of those parties (Labour) isn't exactly keen on the idea. There is a difference between making minor constitutional changes (and even changes to the Lords) without asking the electorate about it directly compared with changing the entire electoral system that has worked more or less for the last 170 years. I firmly believe the latter is stepping way over a government's authority without holding a referendum on the issue unless they clearly stated it as a main aim in their manifesto when getting elected (which only the Lib Dems have done).
I don't see why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
RE: Coalitions, anything is possible. There have been Lab-Con coalitions in the past, they have lasted a single term.
A hung Parliament is most likely to result in a minority government though, because of the way all politicians conduct themselves at the moment.
PR is a fundamentally bad system though. It is about electing parties and not people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
(This is inregards to elections which revolve around picking a party, and if a party gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the Seats and the Party decides who goes into those seats.)
There should be a bunch of democratic reforms, however, making parties stronger is a bad idea. Introducing things like "Single-Transferable Vote" (STV), "Re-Open Nominations" (RON), re-laying the boundaries based on population for Members of Parliament (removes rotten boroughs), allowing multiple candidates ascribing to the same party to stand, Regional Governance, Electable Mayors. (shouldn't be just London that elects their Mayors), the reformation of the House of Lords, perhaps even rename it to "Senate" and redefining its purpose. Could even do an electable Cabinet based on purson for the job.
PR is used in the Republic and it is not about electing parties and giving them seats It does however elect people who happen to be members of parties the same would be true in UKQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Incidently Ireland is one of the longest stable democratic countries in Europe apart from UK.
Depends on the PR system. The one I illustrated is the most popular form which some one says "PR". What you are describing sounds like a hybrid between FPTP and PR. Need more information on it to comment, wikipedia is bare in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I believe Single Transferable Vote is the technical term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It make's for great theatre in elections too which is nice if your a political junkie
Which if you read after that comment you quoted, is what I suggested we should adopt in the UK. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I make a distinction between PR (Party-List) and STV. Sorry if that confused you. The Party-list setup basically means you do not get to choose who gets in government, it is just some one "from that party/group".
As quoted from the first-line of STV in wikipedia:
The bold bit is the distinction.Quote:
The single transferable vote (STV) is a preferential voting system designed to minimize "wasted" votes, provide proportional representation, and ensure that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.
Whoops my fault :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Constitutionally speaking, there is no need for a referendum. The United Kingdom has long worked on the basis that Parliament is sovereign, and does not need to refer questions to the electorate in referenda. There is some precedent for such referrals in the case of assigning sovereignty to the European Union, but not internally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
The Labour party has promised a referendum in their manifesto and the Liberal Democrats are explicitly committed to electoral reform in theirs. One could easily make a case that there was a mandate for reform - and in the current climate of distaste for politics, a referendum may well succeed anyway. Especially if the LibDems come second in this election (remotely possible given the polls) but only get 80 seats to third placed Labour's 300 + return for less votes.
I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum - Clement Atlee
Well said Clem :bow:
From what I've read, there's a lot to be said for the single transferable vote system
I'm the only person at my school who knows that the UK is having an election. (Well, maybe actually 1 of 6 people in my school).
Current polling data shows the Lib Dems surging, though their current support seems to be plateauing around the low-30s mark, putting them slightly ahead of Labour in most polls. The Conservatives are at about this same point as well. As such if you see polls with the headline SHOCK: LIB DEMS IN THE LEAD, or TORIES TAKE LEAD BACK, don't read anything at all into it. With all 3 parties polling this close to each other there are going to be several polls that will show each of the three ahead at one point or the other (Yes, even Labour, given that most of the recent Lib Dem support has come from the Tories, and there is no reason to assume this will stop). For example the recent ComRes poll with a 9 point Tory lead, putting them much further ahead of the other two than the other polling companies.
Also the Lib Dem surge is likely to not really amount to as much as they are hoping for due to the nature of tactical voting that already goes on. It will be interesting to see how Labour voters in 3-way contests vote.
The tactical vote is annoying, as it is basically all "We are going to vote Labour instead of Lib Dem, because we don't want those slimey Tories in power" and people calling a vote for Lib dem a "Wasted Vote."
Also, why STV would be a big improvement over the current system, Liberal Democrats will get a lot more firsts.
Reading this thread about "tactical" voting makes me sad. I wish I had a strong third party to at least give me the opportunity to make my vote "tactical".
agreed with atlee, the only time i demand to be consulted is when the government proposes to give its authority to govern away to a third party. i elect a british government to govern the british people, not to let some unconnected foriegners rule me from afar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
other than that, i expect the elected government to get on with it, you don't give a man a spade and then teach him how to dig.
It's like the reverse of the Oxfam message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
obscure phrase related to me by an ex-boss, basically means; that if you give someone a job to do then you leave them to get on with it, because to do otherwise implies that you don't trust them to do the job, in which case why did you give them the job in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You should run a mock campaign!
Does that include UN Resolutions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The only time I'd agree would be on a local scale for certain aspects of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland.
What we need in this country is a more proportional system that fits with the current model.
My suggestion would be for 6 member constituencies. We all get one vote, and can vote for anyone standing in our large super constituency. There is no limit on how many candidates any party can field - but they would obviously be daft to field more than 6 (water down their own vote) and may in fact field just one more than they expect to win (so a constituency that had 6 seats and was previously 2, 2 and 2 for each party, may well see each party field 3 or 4 - 2 high profile candidates, and 2 lesser ones).
The multi-seat constituency would also give a chance to local campaigners, independents and other parties - but wouldn't give parties as much control on the outcome as the party list system (which I think is awful) and wouldn't be as confusing and remote as STV.
no, why would it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
i'll settle for FPTP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
An interesting system is New Zealand's Mixed-Member Proportional, which is a combined proportional and FPTP system. Though I would rather FPTP be replaced by an optional form of STV, it still seems to really work.