The United Kingdom Elections 2010

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.