The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Beskar]

the difference between me and the tories is that I am right-wing first and tory as a result whereas they are tory-first and right-wing as their logical allegience. thus the difference between between me myself and them on PR, they would never get to have a tory majority again, whereas I would get right-wing governments frequently. still, that doesn't change the fact that I believe PR to be a lesser form of governance and would be perfectly happy to keep FPTP.

This is going to get confusing, especially when people are calling both STV and Party Lists as PR. Party Lists is a terrible system, on the otherhand, STV is a good system. But me and Furunculus agree on something again, apparently according to these surveys, I am a raging socialist just because I don't think we should discriminate against people with different colour skin, or should be exploited by those with power. I have to admit, makes me wonder what boxes you have to tick to be a right-wing on many of the surveys.

it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.

yes, i am sure it will be a more civilised affair than across the water in france, but the resentment in england over the west lothian question is a real and growing thing, and it would become moreso if PR led to an even greater dominance of english affairs by progressive politics.

I am all far kicking out the quango's and brining through the regional government, and devolving power from Westminister. This makes the day-to-day in London ran by London, day-to-day in York ran by York, etc. Leave the national issues to the national parliament, aka, Westminister.

I would also like to see a scrapping of the divides between Scotland/Wales/etc. The national government is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, all seperately.

[Beskar]

Also, this isn't me, I swear it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...nd/8670022.stm

[Furunculus]

This is going to get confusing, especially when people are calling both STV and Party Lists as PR. Party Lists is a terrible system, on the otherhand, STV is a good system. But me and Furunculus agree on something again, apparently according to these surveys, I am a raging socialist just because I don't think we should discriminate against people with different colour skin, or should be exploited by those with power. I have to admit, makes me wonder what boxes you have to tick to be a right-wing on many of the surveys.

at what point were right-wing parties for discrimation of people of differnt colour?

the tories never have been, and UKIP aren't to my knowledge advocating that either?

i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.

if this makes me 'racist' or 'ultra-nationalist' in the eyes of some then so be it, i quite frankly view their ideas as even more ridiculous (transnational progressivism).

[Beskar]

at what point were right-wing parties for discrimation of people of differnt colour?

Well, the far-right definitely are. However, I never said they were, I simply said that putting on these surveys as advocating discrimination or exploitation makes you some raving far-left socialist anarchist, since that is basically what I tick. Which I then said "I wonder what you have to put, to be the right-wing".

i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.

I agree with putting the citizens of an area before outsiders, especially on a ecological sustainability point of view. Britain is far beyond that point, as to where we are dependent on other nations in order to get our fix. One of the reasons I am an advocate of Europe is because Europe together is ecologically sustainable. While some people are saying about capping immigration, admittedly, we are at the point we should seriously consider a two-child policy and no more. If you want more kids, you have no government assistance inregards to them. (aka, get the snip,etc)

I wikipedia'd Transnational Progressivism. I expected to find something agreed with, but I actually don't agree with it. The only area I can say I actually agree with, is the destruction of the constructed socio-political states into a world government. For example:

Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.

This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)

However, some other ideas like gender gets tricky. All I have to say, have dealt followed by the values I hold, which other entities posses, like Secular Humanism. If two guys want to get funky in the bedroom, let them. It is up to them, not the government. I even extend this to marriage, as in, remove it from the government hands. If people want a religious ceramony for joining, let them go to a church, up to them. Same for civil unions, they are just a mindless waste of red-tape.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

I'm sorry, perhaps i am not being clear; I dislike PR even more than STV for exactly that reason. The greatest advantage for FPTP is that is almost completely excludes loons, and when they do get in it is a real sign that the main parties are losing the popular mandate.

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.

:

Well, that's Patriachalism for you, isn't it? Still Labour, has the opposite opinion of both issues. So they are just as bad!

Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.

I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings.

This is why I loathe Labour, they personify the State and then claim to serve it.

it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

[Furunculus]

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

and a serious threat to the Union.....................

[Beskar]

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

We are 'Britain' we are not 'England'. National issues involve everyone, such as foriegn affairs amongst other things. Labour also has huge support inside London (strangely) and in the North. While I agree on regional issues such be addressed by regional representatives, hence why I keep advocating kicking out the quangos, so we can do just that.

[therother]

The outcome is fascinating, that's for sure, especially factoring in the medium to longer term issues. Although I'm surprised I've not really heard much about them from the pundits and the media though. It's a shame, they all seem to be focusing on what will happen next week...

Anyway, concerning the Conservative predicament, it strikes me that David Cameron is in a weak position with his party, far too weak to be able to actually deliver wide-scale electoral reform or indeed any of the Liberal Democrat central issues. And if the Liberals allow the Conservatives to govern without getting major concessions on these issues (particularly with what seems a more generous offer from their more natural allies, Labour), it could well spell electoral suicide for them: whilst plenty of people didn't want to vote Clegg, get Brown, I imagine the number of people who voted for Nick Clegg but would be happy with Cameron is substantially smaller. Even if Clegg is able to persuade his MPs and executive committee to back a deal, it seems unlikely he could hold it together for long. After all, on the key policy issues Cameron outlined on Friday, the Tories actually have more in common with Labour...

Which is one reason I find this "strong, stable" government line from both Tories and the Liberals to be somewhat puzzling. A Tory-Liberal pact cannot last that long without Cameron compromising on issues the rest of the Tory party simply won't stomach. For all the talk of a great Cameron victory, I think his party know in reality it was not: with a very unpopular Labour PM, the economy in a very bad state (which they could personally pin on the former Chancellor), and with a general disaffection with Labour over issues such as the Iraq war, this was an ideal chance for the Tories to win a substantial majority with a 40%+ vote share. Cameron didn't even get 40% in England, and that it may well be that the Tories will never get a better opportunity to form a majority government. In getting only 36% of the votes, demonstrates that his previous large leads in the opinion polls turned out to be soft. The debates suggested that last month, and the election has confirmed it.

Another option raised, usually by Tories, is a minority Conservative government without any agreement with the Liberals. I can't see how this could succeed. Unlike the SNP in Scotland, which bar independence broadly agrees with most other parties on the major issues and is therefore able to government relatively successfully on an issue by issue basis, the Tories essentially have no natural allies in Parliament. If they were to attempt to put forward a legislative programme based on their manifesto, then it would in all likelihood be voted down by Labour and the Liberals, whose combined voting block exceeds the Tories. Even if the DUP's 8 MPs came to Cameron's aid, it would be likely that the SNP and other parties hostile to the Tories would rally to the Lib-Lab side. In which case the Queen would be forced to either ask Labour to form a coalition or call a new election. At least 52% voted for a centre-left agenda. 36% voted for a Conservative one. If the Tories attempt to form a minority government, knowing that it will be inherently unstable and be subject to a no-confidence motion at almost any time, without allowing a possible Lib-Lab coalition, then it would be difficult to see how such a government could be in "national interest" at this time of "crisis"?

Concerning reforming the electoral system, both the Labour and LD parties stood on a platform of reform (Labour for alternative vote, Liberals STV). They got more seats than the Tories and substantially more votes. If more seats and more votes equals a mandate… In addition, when directly asked the question about reforming the system, opinion polls put support for a change at over 50%. Which is why, I imagine, the Tories don’t want a referendum.

Playing around with the numbers, is the goal really 326 MPs, ie half plus one of the 650 total? What really matters is can the Government get more than the opposition on key votes. With Sinn Fein unlikely to sit in parliament (at least without a change of the oath), this means there will only be 645 voting MPs, or 623 for a majority. Tories have 307 (including the seat they will likely win at the end of the month), Labour have 258, LDs 57, DUP 8, SNP 6, PC 3, SDLP 3, Green 1, and Alliance 1. A Lib-Lab agreement would command, itself, 258+57+3 SDLP+1 Alliance= 619, or 4 short of a de facto majority but 12 more than the Tories. The question becomes, will the SNP or Plaid Cymru or the Green MP vote with the Tories? I think it's highly unlikely, just coming up to a Scottish Parliament election, that the SNP would risk voting with the Conservatives as they must know the almost visceral hatred the Tories still engender in Scotland. The SNP suffered electorally when they brought down the Labour government of Jim Callaghan in 1979, and that was before Margaret Thatcher essentially lost Scotland for the Tories for at least a generation, so the backlash could easily cost them the Scottish parliament.

I do think that Nick Clegg and David Cameron personally like each other and think they could genuinely work together, certainly better than they could with Gordon Brown. But unless Clegg and Cameron put on a dazzling display of political legerdemain that manages to blind their parties to the harsh political realities of a Tory-Lib deal, I'm thinking that the only viable solution is a short term Lib-Lab pact. They could plan to quickly reform the electoral system and implement their similar policies for dealing with the national debt, with a mind to an early election with the new voting system.