The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[JAG]

Some of the LD's hate Brown, especially their leader Clegg, however they will bite the bullet and they hate the Tories more - much more. Plus with a chance to get PR under Labour and no PR under the Tories, you know which was they will go.

[naut]

Some of the LD's hate Brown, especially their leader Clegg, however they will bite the bullet and they hate the Tories more - much more. Plus with a chance to get PR under Labour and no PR under the Tories, you know which was they will go.

Hmm, or not:

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg says he sticks to his view that the party with most votes and seats - the Conservatives - should seek to form a government.

[al Roumi]

Yeah, they were talking about this on the BBC last night. Clegg's opinion is all very nice but the constitution (ha!) states that Brown gets the first move.

I hope it's not just my wishful thinking making me think Clegg is maneuvering to get the best bargain -he has for the last few hours been lined up by the media as a part of Labour's coalition, with no previous word from him...

Edit:

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

Can Clegg yet achieve his party's goal of introducing proportional representation by playing patsy to either party? Are Labour looking more likely to offer that (they are in greater need!)?

It would be quite an achievement for the Libs to get that given the massive let down they've had in votes...

[al Roumi]

[Appologies for the double post]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-election-2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.

Well, I wake up to discover Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street.

It is confirmed that it is formally a hung parliament. Her Majesty has said that she won't see anyone until after lunch, but the civil service mandarins are now able to be released with their contingency plans. I see no prospect of Brown resigning yet.

I didn't go to bed until I knew I was going to wake up to a hanging.

Yeah, they were talking about this on the BBC last night. Clegg's opinion is all very nice but the constitution (ha!) states that Brown gets the first move.

I hope it's not just my wishful thinking making me think Clegg is maneuvering to get the best bargain -he has for the last few hours been lined up by the media as a part of Labour's coalition, with no previous word from him...

Edit:

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

Can Clegg yet achieve his party's goal of introducing proportional representation by playing patsy to either party? Are Labour looking more likely to offer that (they are in greater need!)?

It would be quite an achievement for the Libs to get that given the massive let down they've had in votes...

Clegg is definatley manauvering, but I hope he doesn't get PR, STV I wouldn't mind, but PR gives too much power to parties.

[tibilicus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

I agree, but you missed one thing.

If Scotland became independant Labour would be wiped out in Westminster, down below 160 seats, if they're lucky.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Weeeeee!. Win some and lose some, JAG.

Also, the electoral college is NOT broken. The system was never intended to bring the popular vote winner to the presidency, in fact I find it odd that people are bombarded with the message that every vote equals 1 national vote in that election because it doesn't. the EC ensures that we share one government, instead of having cities determine every single election to the chagrin of 90% of the rest of the country. In a 2 party system this isn't a bad thing, local and congressional representation is a different story.

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

[Furunculus]

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

lol couldn't agree more.

21 seats left to announce, will the Cons get another thirteen to hit 310 and probably equal the lib/lab total?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. Regarding a "hung" Parliament (as an American of Irish descent, it's hard for me to think of Englishmen using that adjective, but whatever....):

Setting aside tradition, is there any possibility that Brown could now lead a coalition government comprised of pretty much everybody except the Tories in order to keep the Tories out of power? Clegg's statement certainly doesn't seem to make that likely, but machinations can happen when power is at stake (see U.S. healthcare bill voting shenanigans).


2. Regarding the Electoral College in USA elections. The founders designed it expressly to prevent the popular election of the President. Each state -- and remember that the Federal government was originally conceived as the shared umbrella for the several states and NOT as the focus of all governance -- would select their electors in whatever fashion they deemed fit and those electors would vote for the President. Currently, all but two use a winner-take-all first past the post approach while two select electors by first past the post within a congressional district with the two "senatorial" electors from those states going to the first past the post state-wide.

Right now, that means we have candidate concentrating on "battleground" states to the exclusion of areas where the vote is pretty well set. The battlegrounds shift a bit as voting in particular states edges one way or the other.

Were all states to adopt the model in use in Maine and Nebraska, there would be a lot of smaller "battlegrounds" and campaigns would become much MORE time intensive and expensive, though there would be a lot more Candidate interaction and 3rd parties would have more electoral college "traction." With this approach, you could very likely see an election settled in the HoR or settled in the Electoral College only after a 3rd party whose votes weren't mandated by their state's laws were "bought off" by one of the big two.

Were all states dropped from the equation and a national popular vote instituted, the time involvement required for campaigning would drop, though costs would probably stay about the same. Sadly, I think CR is correct in that campaigning would be restricted to major areas with highly concentrated populations and the campaign would be a mediated process even more so then at present. In addition, for the next 30-40 years or so, the GOP would be screened out of the Presidency entirely. Turning out the vote in the 30 biggest urban areas and their close-in suburbs would be everything and "country mouse" voters (who vote heavily for GOP) would be almost irrelevant.

As usual, I am on the wrong side of this. I want us to be, as much as possible, the several states. Mostly, the vote is for us to scrap states in favor of one government running everything. The popular election of Presidents will occur in my lifetime (well, I hope to hit 80 something, so.....)

[Beskar]

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

If that is true then their would have been a nation-wide referrendum, "Do you want local-parliaments" and it would have been binding on all three Kingdoms, the Principality, and the Duchy. There wasn't because the project was a sop to Labour voters, hence Wales a Scotland first, then London, then the North.

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

[Beskar]

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

Midlands is classed as the North with the North/South divide is at the Watford Gap. In terms of Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are lumped with the North.

Only place different is the South-West, which want their own assembly/parliament anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

I think the problem with your argument here is that if the north did indeed get screwed over, this would be due to the fact that the Tory MP's were fairly elected, and represent the views of the country as a whole. In contrast to this, the issue raised by PVC (the West Lothian Question as we call it) relates to inequalities which are codified into the constitutional settlement itself. When Scottish MP's can vote on specifically English issues, and the reverse isn't true, then you have created two classes of MP's.

All the solutions to this, whether English votes on English laws, or an English Parliament, have their flaws (look what happened to the West Indian Federation with Jamaica, the same situation would happen when a regional parliament is more powerful than the state one).

IMO we should scrap devolution and replace it with more meaningful localy government. It kept the Union strong in the past with Victorian liberalism and all that, why not now? The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

[Beskar]

The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

It does both, as it would be the MP's in those areas which decide on the policies, not those from Scotland or London (other than in the Scottish/London areas, which is obvious)