Gordon Brown signs his death warrant

[Banquo's Ghost]

Some members seems to expect a notable improvement if the Tories come to power. Personally I would put my money on the LibDems. But the fundamental question seems to the philosophical point my colleague made, a point that stands regardless of which party is in power. Is he right?

There may well be an election much sooner than that if New Labour finds the spine to assassinate Mr Brown. His successor would have no choice (even in Britain, changing leaders twice in a parliament without seeking a mandate would be unthinkable) and might even win, given the resounding relief from the country. I don't see much appetite for the New Cons, just a desperation for anyone but Brown. And if anyone thinks the Cameroons would step back from introducing just as many intrusions into privacy, they are as soft as the man who thinks the Lib Dems have a snowball in hell's chance.

As to the philosophical point made by your colleague, I think he is harsh. The British are sceptical, but have a much greater depth of practical political philosophy. They just don't reflect on it any more. This is a country that has produced some quite exceptional parliamentarians and progressive policies, born from a historically titanic clash of philosophies - the Whig and the Tory tradition.

Sadly, the UK suffers from the same plague as much of the West - a disconnect from politics, cynicism bordering on apathy about political motives; and a deepening level of wilful ignorance/rejection of responsibility in favour of "circuses and celebrities". Add the ongoing destruction of education which denies much of the citizenry any ability to think or read, and you have grumbling but no solutions.

There is the widespread distrust of intellectual endeavour and reasoned debate, and the belief that complex politics must be addressed in a sound-bite. This is fostered by the pygmies that aim for election, because it is all they can accomplish. Add the unreasoning acceptance of the Anglo-Saxon free market capitalist model because it brings shiny things, all a modern politician has to do is try an ensure sufficient baubles. Apart from being one of the most spectacular political cowards of modern times, this is Gordon Brown's big sin - being on watch as the toys are being taken away, having spent ten years promising the bright-eyed and demanding children it would be Christmas every day.

I'd like to read your friend's book though. Reference?

[Adrian II]

And if anyone thinks the Cameroons would step back from introducing just as many intrusions into privacy, they are as soft as the man who thinks the Lib Dems have a snowball in hell's chance.

Their chance depends on the support they get during elections, right? If you only vote for 'winners' you might as well not vote at all.

The gentleman, who happens to be a philosopher by training, is named Patrick IJzendoorn. I don't believe this book Londen denkt ('London thinks') about the status of philosophy in present-day Britain has been translated.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Their chance depends on the support they get during elections, right? If you only vote for 'winners' you might as well not vote at all.

In principle, yes, but don't forget the United Kingdom has a first past the post system.

That means a lot of the people who vote Lib Dem waste their votes and that there has to be a significant swing in both Conservative and New Labour constituencies to the Liberal Democrats - a party that does not have a significant starting base of support (except maybe in the south-west). Thus, not only do they have to break traditional voting patterns established over many years, they also have to have policies that will attract moderate voters from both right and left. Whereas that might occur in by-elections as the voters protest, it rarely happens in a general election. The Lib Dems are a party largely of the left, but socialist Labourites, no matter how disillusioned with the current leadership, hardly ever consider actually voting Liberal. Oddly, disaffected Conservatives do (which is partly why the south-west has a Lib Dem foothold) but not in any numbers. The disillusioned are tending towards the extremes, not the centre, if they vote at all.

The Liberal Democrats would need between three and four election cycles even at "majority" levels of 40% support in the popular vote before they had the constituency presence to become a government. IIRC, since their formation they have never exceeded 25% of the popular vote in a general election (having checked, I lied - they got 25.4% in 1983 : and to illustrate my point, only had 23 seats. In 2001 however, they got only 18.3% yet took 52 seats).

They might yet have a significant role in a hung parliament, but this begs the question - why should a party voted for by a tiny minority have that much influence?

The gentleman, who happens to be a philosopher by training, is named Patrick IJzendoorn. I don't believe this book Londen denkt ('London thinks') about the status of philosophy in present-day Britain has been translated.

Thank you. Pity, it sounds an intriguing premise.



Note to self: I keep misspelling the UK as the Untied Kingdom. Dyslexia or premonition?

[Adrian II]

In principle, yes, but don't forget the United Kingdom has a first past the post system. That means a lot of the people who vote Lib Dem waste their votes [..]

I fail to understand why this is a wasted vote. The idea behind the vote is that your view gets to be represented more or less decently on the legislative level. And since every seat counts, why shold'nt every party count, even if it is small?

Note to self: I keep misspelling the UK as the Untied Kingdom. Dyslexia or premonition?[/SIZE]

I think Untidy Kingdom would cover it best. And that's a compliment.

Is Cyril Smith standing again?

His wiki says 'hobbies include collecting autographs'. He may be harsh, but I still think my colleague has a point...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I fail to understand why this is a wasted vote. The idea behind the vote is that your view gets to be represented more or less decently on the legislative level. And since every seat counts, why shold'nt every party count, even if it is small?

I'm not talking ideologically, but practically.

For example, the constituency of Henley has elected only Tory MPs since its creation in 1885. (Well, one brief flirtation with Liberalism in 1906). The winning majorities are consistently large. That means anyone who lives there, but does not vote Conservative has no chance of influencing a government, ever. Their vote does not count as no tally of the popular vote is made by anyone save the pundits. That's what I mean by a wasted vote.

Now, one might argue that by keeping at it, eventually New Labour will so devastate the Home Counties that Henley will fall into ruin and chavdom, thus finally allowing the possibility of a vote for said New Labour to count in that corner of England. Until then, a non-conservative vote is effectively wasted.

This does not preclude more direct political action however, as when the formidable ladies of Henley Women's Institute led the vanguard of the rebellion by instigating a slow-hand clap of Tony Blair's speech some years ago. The powerful did tremble mightily that day.

[PBI]

They might yet have a significant role in a hung parliament, but this begs the question - why should a party voted for by a tiny minority have that much influence?

Well, that's the paradox of British politics isn't it? We almost never have a party elected who recieved the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, speaking of wasted votes, the truth is that anyone who doesn't live in one of the relatively few swing constituencies might as well not bother to vote.

Why don't we have PR again?

[InsaneApache]

Why don't we have PR again

Again?

Blimey I know the left are desperate but postponing elections and buggering about with the electoral process just to avoid a wipeout at the next election is a bit rich.

Like I said in another post, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.

[rory_20_uk]

The lack of accountability politicians, local councillors and indeed police chiefs have in this country compared to say America is astounding. Almost no data on what they get up to is easily available, most positions are decided centrally and not by the populace, and it's probably 10% of seats that usually might change hands, leaving 90% free to do what they always do.

I don't think that PR is the pancea to all problems. What I do think should happen is that one lot of politicians should be used to debate matters of central government, and another lot for local government. The first set would then be elected by PR, the others directly by their area.

I'm not after PR to support the left, as I'm not the most left-leaning of members. But I fear that even the Right are likely to continue with central government, handouts to any group that might be bribed into voting for them and dithering over unpopular measures.

[InsaneApache]

I've been thinking about what to do about the 'political elites', corrupt self-servers and tribalists, who value party above country.

I have come to a solution. Forget party rivalries and allegiences, just vote for whoever is not the emcumbant. A complete 100% turnover of MPs should very nicely paralyse any government formed. It would take them the best part of a parliamentary session just to sort out the leaders.

Jobs a good 'un.

[Kralizec]

As noted, the Lib-Dems almost always capture a fairly large chunk of the vote but never see it rewarded with an amount of seats that does these achievements justice. When they receive more seats it's because they concentrate their campaigning on individual districts.

The USA has a similar problem and in fact have half a party less (two party system instead of 2.5), but it works better in practice. The reason, as it seems to me, is that congressmen are more beholden to their constituents than the GOP or the DNC. In the Netherlands, party discipline is stricter but we have proportional representation wich increases the viability of smaller parties. The UK combines constituency representation with centralized party discipline.

The Labour party has in the past argued for PR along with the Lib-Dems but has abandoned this idea when they seized the majority again. The only hope that I see for it in the UK is in the scenario that neither Labour or the Conservatives gain a majority and require at least tacit support of the Lib-Dems for running the government. I'm not very hopeful about that.

[JR-]

Well, that's the paradox of British politics isn't it? We almost never have a party elected who recieved the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, speaking of wasted votes, the truth is that anyone who doesn't live in one of the relatively few swing constituencies might as well not bother to vote.

Why don't we have PR again?

because we like to give the winning party a mandate for change, which means a majority to push through legislation.

this grown-up form of national politics allows original thinking to be implemented in its intended form, rather than watered down in coalition compromise, and to be given the chance to succeed OR fail with the result firmly pinned to the chest of the party in power in the eyes of the public.

[Adrian II]

because we like to give the winning party a mandate for change, which means a majority to push through legislation.

this grown-up form of national politics allows original thinking to be implemented in its intended form, rather than watered down in coalition compromise, and to be given the chance to succeed OR fail with the result firmly pinned to the chest of the party in power in the eyes of the public.

Original thinking, that's a good one.

Anyway, I think the British public would be mature enough to separate parties and issues in a coalition government and know where to put the blame for any failures.

[JR-]

true, but the coalition itself would prevent the idea from being implemented as quickly or as thoroughly.

give people a mandate for change, and hang them if the cock it up, this is the way i like things.