The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, after thinking about it for a quite I've determined that at this point I am happy with either outcome (lib/lab or lib/con) because if:

A. lib/lab happens, the voting reforms have a good chance to move through which makes the US one of the very, very few developed countries to use FPTP and it provides a more solid basis on making some changes here which I desperately want.

B. lib/con happens, voting reforms might not happen since cons dont want to kill their strength under current system but after looking at this with a clear head it seems that the tories are what the UK needs right now in terms of fiscal spending and I will be happy that the UK will not fall into the same pit that greece has fallen under. Also, if the tories mange to get the deficit and massive debt under control then it serves as a good example in America to promote a more active government, and proves it can be run responsibly and economically sound and that systems such as a national health care system can be implemented with government not imploding under debt pressure or mismanagement. Overall, the UK can serve as the US liberals example of an involved government that runs properly and in the best interest of the people. That is of course if the Tories do their job right and doesnt resort to going all Margaret Thatcher everywhere to kill the debt.

Overall, A is a sure thing while B is more uncertain but B is a lot better then A since I put the well being and financial security of UK and its citizens over my ideological goals and ambitions and hopes.

[Furunculus]

So your fine with binning FPTP I thought that was sacrosanct for the Tory party and yourself too yes no. I would think Cons would be wary of opening up the system the Lib Dems have a popular percentage of 23% that could be a serious mistake for Cameron for the next election.

If I was Cameron I would offer some really major briefs to Lib Dems along with obviously the deputy prime minster job in return for giving them extra influence they drop electoral reform. The beauty of this if you give them some major but horrible cabinet briefs like health for instance the Cons dont get the blame for some of the decisions.

Of course STV style PR could help the two big parties just as much as the smaller ones we have had STV for years and we only ever have conservative parties in coalition with the Irish labour party.

i am separate from the tory party, i have no tribal allegiance to the tory party as I am just a right-winger who votes were his views are best represented, and while the tory's like FPTP in particular, i merely like adversarial and decisive politics so I am open to things like STV whilst being skeptical that the change would actually makes things better. I see nothing wrong with the current system and am even more wary of change for the sake of change after thirteen disasterous years of labour tinkering.

i can see the attraction in that, but then i am sure the Lib-Dems can see the peril equally easily, but Cameron doesn't have to offer PR he just has to offer a referendum on it, and sit back quite confidently while the motion is voted down by the electorate.

if we had PR introduced I wouldn't care, as I am right-wing not a tory, and I would laugh my mammary glands off while dozens of UKIP MP's were voted into parliament, england is fundamentally right-wing which PR would accentuate rather than attenuate.

[Furunculus]

I have heard the security council seat brought up a few times... so I have a question...

Can Britian have its security council seat taken from it ?
Who has the power and will to take Britian's seat ? (We are lapsdogs for the Americans and not really all that dissimlair to the french, so would Russia and China rush to take our seat away... without the Americans or the French surely they couldn't...)
Why would they take Britians seat ? (It wouldn't seem to be in the interests of the French or the Americans)

the UNSC is headed for reform, whether we keep our seat depends on whether we remain:
1. Independent, (if the Lib-Dems get their way on europe then we would be european, not British, so our vote would become a european one, possibly merged with Frances)
2. Capable, (if the Lib-Dems get their way on Defence then we would not be able to project strategic power, so we would have nothing to offer a reformed UN)
3. Willpower, (if the Lib-Dems get their way then we will become a bunch of salad munching lotus eaters, so we would be less useful to other SC members like america)

It's not that it could be taken away, just that we would have no bargaining power to persuade other powerful nations to back our attempt to keep it, and rightly so as we would not be offering anything of use.

[Furunculus]

Actual result: Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDem 57


Seats wrongly predicted:
Cons: Fur 19, LVI 21
Lab: Fur 58, LVI 3
LibDem: Fur 33, LVI 28


Total misses:
Furunculus 110, Louis 52.

my congratulations Louis, you win this time.......................... *shakes fist*

All this nonse about demanding representation for your region/city/street/backyard is, well... just that, nonsense. A strong local government is much more useful than populist demands for autonomy for arbitrary regions just because people got upset that their party of choice isn't sitting in Westminster.

Ugh... that is a major issue here, with people talking about a boost for independence of the Tories win. *gah*

agreed here, we really do not want or need a third tier of government, give me Daniel Hannan's The Plan.

[Furunculus]

a. We are taklking about Trident, or a nuclear deterent. Not all those points above are dependent on the UK possessing one.

b. Australia, for example, maximises it's contribution in "coalitions of the willing" by focusing on its comparative advantage in a composite force. Perhaps the UK's capability could better complement the US' in this way than as a mini me?

c. AFAIK our options internationaly are either to stick our heads int he sand as France did until Sarkozy, or continue to play patsy to whoever sits in the Oval office.

a. no, but it is a mistake only to see the deterrent as a military tool, rightly or wrongly it reinforces our SC position which is a political advantage.

b. all marvellous, but australia is not a Great Power and is unable to conduct strategic power projection, and thus it does not command influence at an international level, most obviously at the SC. the whole point of the SDR 98 was to be a plug-in adjunct to american forces, our literal aim was to match the quality 100% and the quantity by 15% so that we could demand the second in command position, and thus strategic input into the operation.

the problem of not being taken seriously is adequately described here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...688424,00.html

Since the United Nations had issued a mandate for Afghanistan, Germany took part in the mission, which was intended to secure the country’s reconstruction, with a clear conscience.

Now war has broken out again and the Germans are playing a peripheral role in the conflict. They are not consulted by the US when the strategy changes. They are presented with a fait accompli because they don’t carry political weight, neither in the confrontation with Afghan President Hamid Karzai nor in negotiations with the Taliban. That is rather meager for a country that would like to see itself as an important mid-sized power.

The distant war has come home to Germany, and, after the period of fleeing from reality, it is now high time that Germans talk openly about war and death.

c. no, our options are perfectly crystallised by the five doctrines in the RUSI paper linked in my sig:

RUSI commissioned a report to ask two questions:

1. Is it still desirable and appropriate for the UK to wish to act as a Great Power?

2. If it is desirable to remain a Great Power, how can this be achieved?

Question #1 was satisfactorily answered with the following motives:

a) Thucydides wisdom – all nations seek power for reasons of fear, interest and honour

b) The Strategic Bargain – where we work with partners to ensure collective security

c) National Obligations – Uninterrupted access to economic recourse & Defence of the Realm

d) Military Aid to Civilian Authorities – a resource to resort to in times of natural disaster

Question #2 looked at the various options that can be taken in light of the failure of the SDR vision, and in recognition of the current financial situation which makes the SDR an unachievable dream.

a) The Global Guardian Doctrine – i.e. we maintain our ability to mount large scale theatre level operations out-of-area, examples of which would be Desert Storm and Afghanistan, including protracted COIN operations.

This is a Great Power Status

It meets motives a, b, part of c and d.

b) The Strategic Raiding Doctrine – i.e. we maintain our ability to mount medium scale assaults via amphibious/naval capability in conjunction with rapid-reaction/expeditionary forces, examples of which would be the Falklands Conflict and Sierra Leone.

This is a Great Power Status

It meets motives a, b, c, and d.

c) The Contributory Doctrine - i.e. we maintain a reduced military that whilst broadly capable, and able to contribute usefully to international operations, would lose any possibility for national autonomy for intervention operations, because we would be dependent on other nations for the capabilities it had surrendered. We would be in a similar position to Germany or Poland; able to provide brigade level combat units or specialist functions to multinational operations.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motives b and d, as well as part of c.

d) The Gendarmerie Doctrine - i.e. we lose all ambition to high intensity warfare outside of our own national borders, and capable only of providing light weight peace-keeping forces for multinational operations. We would be in a similar position to Belgium or Denmark.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motives d, as well as part of c.

e) The Little Britain Doctrine – We abandon all but home defence, we would remain in a similar position to Ireland.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motive d.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, after thinking about it for a quite I've determined that at this point I am happy with either outcome (lib/lab or lib/con) because if:

A. lib/lab happens, the voting reforms have a good chance to move through which makes the US one of the very, very few developed countries to use FPTP and it provides a more solid basis on making some changes here which I desperately want.

B. lib/con happens, voting reforms might not happen since cons dont want to kill their strength under current system but after looking at this with a clear head it seems that the tories are what the UK needs right now in terms of fiscal spending and I will be happy that the UK will not fall into the same pit that greece has fallen under. Also, if the tories mange to get the deficit and massive debt under control then it serves as a good example in America to promote a more active government, and proves it can be run responsibly and economically sound and that systems such as a national health care system can be implemented with government not imploding under debt pressure or mismanagement. Overall, the UK can serve as the US liberals example of an involved government that runs properly and in the best interest of the people. That is of course if the Tories do their job right and doesnt resort to going all Margaret Thatcher everywhere to kill the debt.

Overall, A is a sure thing while B is more uncertain but B is a lot better then A since I put the well being and financial security of UK and its citizens over my ideological goals and ambitions and hopes.

Electoral reform is not relevant right now, it won't help the country.

Defecit first, please.

[tibilicus]

If I was Cameron I would offer Clegg the "National Government solution" I mentioned earlier. Agree to a referendum on the electoral system but advocate STV rather than PR, on the agreement that the Tory party is allowed to campaign against electoral change. As mentioned above by PVC though, this really shouldn't be a priority. If we suffer a run on the pound we're effectively done for. How about we sort out our effective bankruptcy and then talk about electoral reform?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I was Cameron I would offer Clegg the "National Government solution" I mentioned earlier. Agree to a referendum on the electoral system but advocate STV rather than PR, on the agreement that the Tory party is allowed to campaign against electoral change. As mentioned above by PVC though, this really shouldn't be a priority. If we suffer a run on the pound we're effectively done for. How about we sort out our effective bankruptcy and then talk about electoral reform?

Quite, that's why I think Cameron is actually right about a cross-part committe. That's a big step forward, for a Conservative leader to say that. The Lib-Dems would benefit from equal-sized constituancies as well as the Conservatives, they would get maybe another 5 seats out of that just on Thursday's results.

[Beskar]

Being honest, David Cameron should accept a referendum as the end of the day, it might not even pass with the voters. Make it for like 2 years-ish in the next ward elections/european elections or whatever. In return, Cameron gets to pretty much do everything as if gets a majority.

If Cons do these key issues, I'll tolerant and accept them in power.

Alternatively, if they don't, I can accept a Lab-Libdem coalition not under Brown.

STV is a very big issue, everyone I know of has commented on it being a needed change. The thing is, STV pretty much removes tactical first voting. This will give people more opportunity to vote for the parties they actually want, instead of constantly voting either Conservative or Labour to counter the other.


edit: On another note, I know from experience that the majority of people don't vote local. One of the Labour MP's in the North West is utter and he keeps getting re-elected. Gordon Marsden, for Blackpool South. He doesn't even live or bother with Blackpool. He lives in Brighton, known for frequenting the gaybars there, with numerous scandels and stories. Only time he comes up to Blackpool is when he tries to hijack some one elses PR stunt for personal gain.

[Subotan]

Furunculus dislikes the Liberal Democrats; I must agree with them

[Idaho]

Interesting election. No real momentum behind any of the parties. No real desertion of Labour, no real motivation to vote Liberal, no sizeable increase in the share of vote for the Tories.

I think Cameron will appeal to Clegg's personal ambition. Offer him a cabinet job if he sells out his party. Clegg will claim that this will show the Liberal's are credible in government and will benefit them in the long term. Meanwhile the promise of a commission on electoral reform will keep the party dangling while Cameron tries to shore up political opinion for a second stab at an election during some kind of honeymoon bubble.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus dislikes the Liberal Democrats; I must agree with them

if that is how you want to define the criteria by which you judge politics.................. be my guest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Being honest, David Cameron should accept a referendum as the end of the day, it might not even pass with the voters. Make it for like 2 years-ish in the next ward elections/european elections or whatever. In return, Cameron gets to pretty much do everything as if gets a majority.

If Cons do these key issues, I'll tolerant and accept them in power.

Alternatively, if they don't, I can accept a Lab-Libdem coalition not under Brown.

STV is a very big issue, everyone I know of has commented on it being a needed change. The thing is, STV pretty much removes tactical first voting. This will give people more opportunity to vote for the parties they actually want, instead of constantly voting either Conservative or Labour to counter the other.

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

However, if Clegg wants to act "in the National Interest" then PR/STV should not be deal breakers for him. Britain might benefit from electoral reform but it [i]needs/i] stable government now. The markets re-open on Monday, so Clegg needs to do the deal tomorrow if he wants any respect from me.

If in ayear Clegg decides Cameron is stringing him along on electoral reform he can have one of his members bring a Private Bill on changing the voting system, and push it through with Labour. Then he can topple Cameron and trigger an election.

HOWEVER, these are things for the future.

[Beskar]

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

I also agree on that, doing it based on registered voters/population for best results. This is something I said earlier in the topic.

Cameron should just simply agree on seriously implementing changes such as STV. Then he has a couple of years anyway to go through all the details and the costs. No one will attack him for not having it done tomorrow, they would fully understand that such a change needs to be done the right way. Then, through this period, have Nick Clegg as the "overseer" or whatever, so if it doesn't happen Cameron cannot take responsibility for it not occuring.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I also agree on that, doing it based on registered voters for best results.

That's about as good an idea as the Poll Tax, unless you make it a criminal offence not to be registered.

[Beskar]

That's about as good an idea as the Poll Tax, unless you make it a criminal offence not to be registered.

Not sure how to take your comment. If I remember correctly, you was a large advocate for the poll tax, saying about how poor grandma in her mansion has to pay far more than a family in a small house who uses the services far more.

So that means you either geniunely think it is a great idea, or you are being sarcastic. But knowing your views on the subject of poll tax, it doesn't make sense, as when people say things sarcastically, they compare it with a view they disagree with, as thus "That's about as good an idea as restoring the Feudal Rights to the Monarchy". Then again, you might agree with that statement when it comes to Gordon Brown as PM.

[Subotan]

if that is how you want to define the criteria by which you judge politics.................. be my guest.

I was being tongue-in-cheek

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not sure how to take your comment. If I remember correctly, you was a large advocate for the poll tax, saying about how poor grandma in her mansion has to pay far more than a family in a small house who uses the services far more.

So that means you either geniunely think it is a great idea, or you are being sarcastic. But knowing your views on the subject of poll tax, it doesn't make sense, as when people say things sarcastically, they compare it with a view they disagree with, as thus "That's about as good an idea as restoring the Feudal Rights to the Monarchy". Then again, you might agree with that statement when it comes to Gordon Brown as PM.

You need to link the two halves of my statement. Both your suggestion and the Poll Tax only work if you make not registering to vote a criminal offence. What I said about the Poll Taxt was that in theory it was a good idea, to use the electoral roll to count adults in a house and tax accordingly, but it failed because registering is optional.

[Idaho]

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

However, if Clegg wants to act "in the National Interest" then PR/STV should not be deal breakers for him. Britain might benefit from electoral reform but it [i]needs/i] stable government now. The markets re-open on Monday, so Clegg needs to do the deal tomorrow if he wants any respect from me.

If in ayear Clegg decides Cameron is stringing him along on electoral reform he can have one of his members bring a Private Bill on changing the voting system, and push it through with Labour. Then he can topple Cameron and trigger an election.

HOWEVER, these are things for the future.

I'm (pleasantly) surprised how open to the idea of PR you are PVC. I (wrongly) assumed that you would take a very Tory (in the traditional sense) stance on the idea.

Perhaps I am wrong in my bet with my good lady wife. She thinks there will be some kind of change in the next 2 years but I am sceptical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm (pleasantly) surprised how open to the idea of PR you are PVC. I (wrongly) assumed that you would take a very Tory (in the traditional sense) stance on the idea.

Perhaps I am wrong in my bet with my good lady wife. She thinks there will be some kind of change in the next 2 years but I am sceptical.

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Germany's system try to tackle the problem of too much party and not enough individual in a PR system?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

Should the electoral system ever be arranged to keep specific parties out of power?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Germany's system try to tackle the problem of too much party and not enough individual in a PR system?

Germany uses a Mixed Member Proportional system. However, this never translated as succesfully into British politics, where it is used for the Scottish Parliament. While in Germany people don't really see any distinction between the constituency or party list MP's (hence the individual v party bit), here in Scotland (and elsewhere, eg New Zealand), party list MP's tend to get all the glamour issues and constituency MP's are left with all the boring local stuff.

Plus there is the issue of shadowing, with party list MP's placing a lot of pressure on their constituency counterparts.

[tibilicus]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

I think PR would actually be more generous to parties like the BNP. If you set the quota at something like 8,000 votes (possibly to high?) the BNP would still win relatively few seats plus, unless it's an inner city working class area, I can't see anyone putting the BNP high up as they rank their candidates in order of preference.

[Idaho]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

I agree that a party list style PR would give too much power to the parties. And some form of local link seems suitable. Although perhaps we should properly reform Parliament and have straight PR for the commons, and then have a representative style Lords. With Lord X of Winchester, actually being the representative for that constituency (he/she can have the title for as long as they are elected). The Commons being about national policy, and the Lords being about local concerns, individual grievences, as well as having an oversight role on the commons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wonder where JAG went?

[Furunculus]

drowning his sorrows.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.

:

[Beskar]

What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.

:

Self-interest, it is the Conservative way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Self-interest, it is the Conservative way.

Yes, of course, I forgot. All the other parties are Sainted Martyrs.