UK election thread

[Humodour]

So the LibDems now are negotiating with Labour, the two election losers, probably building a coalition.

 

As opposed to the other election loser (Conservatives) ruling with a minority of the people's vote (about 36%)? That's democracy alright.

 

At least the LibDems and Labour collectively make up a majority of the vote share (50% or so), if not seats due to FPTP quirks.

 

Argue that the LibDems should form coalition with the conservatives all you want, but please Morgoth, don't be so obviously stupid as to argue that coalitions are bad, because that implies that a single party should try to govern without the support of the majority of voters.

[Morgoth]

Argue that the LibDems should form coalition with the conservatives all you want, but please Morgoth, don't be so obviously stupid as to argue that coalitions are bad, because that implies that a single party should try to govern without the support of the majority of voters.

I nowhere said that coalitions are bad, quite on the contrary, I think they're an better option than having an absolute. I still think though that the party who won the most seats should lead the negotiations, but right now I get the feeling everything depends too much on Nick Clegg.

[Walsingham]

Hold it right there, mush.

 

1. FPTP doesn't 'ignore' votes. It just means that the votes count the same within each seat rather than spread across the nation. Parliament then becomes more akin to a confederation than monolithic. It's not undemocratic in the least.

 

2. Coalitions are bad because it gives the deciding control the the teensy parties sitting at the fulcrum of the seesaw. Rather than the bulk parties at either end. Is that democratic? That the party with 20% should decide who governs? Never mind that in order to form an actual majority they will need to cosy up to the parties with only one or two seats?

[213374U]

I take it all three of you missed the posts earlier in this thread where myself and (I believe) Zoraptor pointed out that prop rep in no way requires group voting tickets. Sigh.

And I take it you missed how what I (and Boo) was saying has nothing to do with that. FPTP can result in relatively popular candidates not getting a seat and therefore skewed parliamentary majorities, but unlike some other undemocratic bull****, it will not result in gravely impopular politicians getting "elected", ever. Apparently, some people believe Gordy is the bestamest PM, evar. That's freedom of opinion for ya.

 

Regardless, I like STV better than FPTP.

 

 

2. Coalitions are bad because it gives the deciding control the the teensy parties sitting at the fulcrum of the seesaw. Rather than the bulk parties at either end. Is that democratic? That the party with 20% should decide who governs? Never mind that in order to form an actual majority they will need to cosy up to the parties with only one or two seats?

Coalitions are bad because big parties are willing to compromise on important issues if that's what it'll take for them to keep power for themselves -- this is what places political dwarves in a position of strength that doesn't correspond to popular support. However, coalition governments formed by large parties in Germany have worked well for some time, so coalitions aren't necessarily bad.

 

The problem comes when the people don't punish the party they voted for forming a coalition with a small party whose stated goals and policies are at odds with their own. Leaders in a democracy are, for good or ill, a very accurate reflection of the quality of the electorate.

[Humodour]

I take it all three of you missed the posts earlier in this thread where myself and (I believe) Zoraptor pointed out that prop rep in no way requires group voting tickets. Sigh.

And I take it you missed how what I (and Boo) was saying has nothing to do with that. FPTP can result in relatively popular candidates not getting a seat and therefore skewed parliamentary majorities, but unlike some other undemocratic bull****, it will not result in gravely impopular politicians getting "elected", ever. Apparently, some people believe Gordy is the bestamest PM, evar. That's freedom of opinion for ya.

 

Ah, I see. Wals made it sound like you were talking about prop rep in general, not closed lists.

 

2. Coalitions are bad because it gives the deciding control the the teensy parties sitting at the fulcrum of the seesaw. Rather than the bulk parties at either end. Is that democratic? That the party with 20% should decide who governs? Never mind that in order to form an actual majority they will need to cosy up to the parties with only one or two seats?

Coalitions are bad because big parties are willing to compromise on important issues if that's what it'll take for them to keep power for themselves -- this is what places political dwarves in a position of strength that doesn't correspond to popular support. However, coalition governments formed by large parties in Germany have worked well for some time, so coalitions aren't necessarily bad.

 

The problem comes when the people don't punish the party they voted for forming a coalition with a small party whose stated goals and policies are at odds with their own. Leaders in a democracy are, for good or ill, a very accurate reflection of the quality of the electorate.

 

Well said. Coalitions CAN be bad, but they CAN be good. To exclusively portray coalitions as bad is ill logic.

 

Further, it's kind of like the argument against democracy... how does it go? "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others." Don't like coalitions? What's the alternative - that a party without a majority or mandate - elected by a minority - forms government to represent the majority?

 

And I don't mean coalition as "both parties get cabinet members" here - it could simply be the acknowledgement between two parties that one should form government and hence the other won't block supply and such.

[Raithe]

So the LibDems now are negotiating with Labour, the two election losers, probably building a coalition. And the guy who nobody wants probably remains PM.

Thats nothing compared to Belgium, bro. Belgium is ruled by the minority.

 

Of course, don't you know according to current standards of political correctness and general soft-shell fuzzy thinking, the majority is always in the wrong. Because it's automatically prejudiced against any minority group. Really. Always. So the minority groups have to be the only unprejudiced group to make decisions. Honestly guv.

[Walsingham]

Ah, I see. Wals made it sound like you were talking about prop rep in general, not closed lists.

 

...

 

Well said. Coalitions CAN be bad, but they CAN be good. To exclusively portray coalitions as bad is ill logic.

 

 

I may well have done. It wasn't intentional.

 

But I have yet to be convinced that prop rep will fix the 'problems' with our political culture. This sounds reactionary, and it may be. But I do believe that where one is dealing with a highly complex system one should have a definite understanding of how it works before you start delivering interventions. Prop rep could be the cane toad to our outback, so to speak.

 

I'm not against coalitions. I'm broadly in favour of negotiations and compromise in general. Compromise solutions are frequently superior for all parties, because it focusses all concerned on what they actually need. What I am against is the hijacking of control by minorities. I am against it because I hold the quaint view that sometimes a view is held by a minority because it's ****ing insane.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Walsingham

[Humodour]

I am against it because I hold the quaint view that sometimes a view is held by a minority because it's ****ing insane.

 

All parties in Britain are minority parties. Where does that leave you?

[Walsingham]

I am against it because I hold the quaint view that sometimes a view is held by a minority because it's ****ing insane.

 

All parties in Britain are minority parties. Where does that leave you?

 

Fat and pompous. But still magnificent.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I am against it because I hold the quaint view that sometimes a view is held by a minority because it's ****ing insane.

 

All parties in Britain are minority parties. Where does that leave you?

 

Fat and pompous. But still magnificent.

 

You remind me of Napoleon.

[Gorgon]

Stealing all the seats because you got 51 % of the votes is surely worse. You can scarcely even call it democratic. Proportional representation doesn't sever the link between voter and vote, it makes each vote count the same.

 

I see no connection with corruption whatsoever. Corruption happens to officials who aren't accountable. Favouritism, nepotism. etc. creates a culture which perpetuates itself.

 

You pointed out the inherent corruption on your own. An MP in the proportional system isn't really accountable because he owes his position to the party that put him on the list, not to the voters. The average voter is not likely to know anyone beyond the top 10-20 names in the list, with everyone else on it being party fodder. So, the voters who supposedly picked him/her likely have no idea who they actually picked. On the other hand he/she has no idea who his voters are, since everything about his political career developed through internal party politics - which is how he got on the list in the first place.

 

@Walsingham: I dunno, Earthworm Jim says all lawers go to hell.

 

And, unlike a FPTP system his or her mandate from the people is guaranteed to tangibly exist.

 

I also don't see how FPTP is free from the same problem. Brown anyone ?. Would he have gone on to be PM without favouritism and party politics. Isn't that the whole reason he got where he is. Promises that he was 'next in line'.

 

A federation type electoral organisation is less democratic because it is entirely possible for major sections of the electorate to be over, under, or un-represented. Maybe you need that in countries that are so big that local identity rivals national identity (the US for instance). Is that the case with the UK. I don't think so.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Gorgon

[RPGmasterBoo]

I never said it was free, just there's (presumably) a lesser degree of corruption.

 

Course I was just saying what it looks like from the perspective of someone knee deep in the bs of the proportional system. Given that more or less the same people would comprise the political scene regardless of the voting system, its all the same anyway. I wouldn't trust them with a hunk of bread, let alone with the running of state affairs.

[Walsingham]

Brown was never elected to be PM. This election was the first and last time he has stood for the role. The party ran with him because quite frankly there was no credible alternative, and at the time he looked pretty good. He definitely talked the talk. Fooled me, to begin with.

 

I think the concept of a mandate is both foolish and irresponsible. In reality people don't vote for a party's entire manifesto. Good policy, during the life of a given parliament, is hashed out and decided on by the representatives IN parliament. I think that process is more sensibly controlled by the close relationship which exists between an MP and his/her constituency. Successful MPs spend a huge amount of time in their constituency, running 'surgeries' and even helping fix people's problems. It keeps them rooted.

[Gorgon]

Isn't that a rather picture perfect view of an MPs connection to his constituency. People tend to vote for whoever has made the most of profiling himself with issues that the voter can connect to. It's mostly a national popularity contest. What does it matter where the candidate lives.

 

I'll admit I have never voted for city council, I just could not muster the interest. Maybe it's a vibrant centre of local democracy, who knows.

[Walsingham]

If an MP wishes to remain in the seat for more than one election they generally have to work hard actually in the constituency. People are very forgiving of national trends if the MP is good enough, and vice versa. We saw something very illustrative in my constituency and others. Several senior Labour party scandal/incompetence monkeys were voted out this time.

 

Having said that I'd be a bit of a tit if I claimed a lot of people don't vote on a national popularity basis. I'm simply saying that it won't save you if you are really rubbish.

[Walsingham]

NEWS JUST IN: Tories form coalition with Cleggie. Cleg gets deputy PM.

 

This is going to be popcorn worthy political history.

 

I also heard arumour that Ashdown may get Defence. Ashdown is ex SBS, and he talks a lot of sense. I think it would be fantastic if true.

[213374U]

I also heard arumour that Ashdown may get Defence. Ashdown is ex SBS, and he talks a lot of sense. I think it would be fantastic if true.

Wow. Warrior, philosopher, statesman. And he bagged his maths tutor, all according to Wiki. He also speaks Mandarin Chinese and has a career in MI6.

 

Looks like someone to listen to.

Edited May 12, 2010 by 213374U

[Humodour]

NEWS JUST IN: Tories form coalition with Cleggie. Cleg gets deputy PM.

 

This is going to be popcorn worthy political history.

 

I also heard arumour that Ashdown may get Defence. Ashdown is ex SBS, and he talks a lot of sense. I think it would be fantastic if true.

 

*snort* Hahahaha good.

 

I dislike the Tories, but they're better than Labour right now, and with the Lib Dems moderating them on civil liberties and social justice maybe they'll do alright.

 

Or maybe they'll tear eachother apart. It's hard to tell, although the fact that they've been willing to negotiate with the Lib Dems indicates to me that it'll work reasonably well. It helps that the Lib Dems have an economic libertarian wing.

[Humodour]

This post is about what policies you can expect to come from this coalition:

 

The Guardian:

 

In the intense negotiations with the Lib Dems, the Tories agreed to drop their plans to raise the threshold for inheritance tax, but the Lib Dems accepted that spending cuts will start this year as part of an accelerated deficit reduction plan.

 

Civil liberties laws will be reviewed, including abolition of ID cards and a referendum will be held on the alternative vote electoral system in which Tories could oppose the change. The Tory annual immigration cap will be kept, and extra money for disadvantaged pupils has been agreed. The Tories have insisted that their plans to recognise marriage in the tax system remain, but the Lib Dems will be entitled to abstain on the issue.

 

Lib Dem MPs and the party's federal executive endorsed at midnight the detailed coalition deal, due to be published today, but after Cameron was installed in Downing Street.

 

Also, from the Australian Broadcasting Service:

 

Mr Cameron reportedly dubbed himself the "heir to Blair" as his modernisation of the Conservatives was compared to Mr Blair's renovation of old-left-style Labour into centrist New Labour to take power in 1997.

 

His emphasis on environmentalism and fixing social problems in what he called "broken Britain" was among the clear breaks with the party's past.

 

He also managed to smooth over historic Tory splits on Europe, notably by pulling out of the main centre-right group in the European Parliament and allying with fringe parties.

 

Although this decision caused consternation in Europe, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last week he believed Cameron will be forced to abandon his euro-scepticism if elected.

 

Mr Cameron has also used his own family to show voters the party has changed.

 

He was joined by his glamorous wife Samantha on the campaign trail and often talks about his disabled son Ivan, who died last year aged six, saying his experiences shaped his support for the state-run National Health Service.

 

The Australian:

 

The Lib Dems dropped their longstanding opposition to the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear submarine program, but won Conservative support for a referendum on moving to the Australian-style preferential voting or “Alternative Vote” system.

 

I like Cameron and I like Clegg.

 

The referendum on AV voting is interesting because while it's superior to FPTP, it's not proportional. Wals should like it because it functions very similarly to FPTP except that you have preferences. So of 3 parties, A, B, C all competing for a seat, if you voted A but A only gets 10% of the vote, your vote goes to your next preference (say B) which was 40% of the vote, let's assume all A votes flow to B, so B gets 50% of the vote and wins. Even though C might have got 45% of the vote in their own right (and thus won under FPTP). In this case it's clear that more voters PREFER candidate B than C.

 

Basically, preferential voting means all votes count (though less so than prop rep IMHO).

 

It helps to prevent situations such as in Canada under FPTP where 60% or more of the people voted for progressive and centre-left parties, yet the Conservatives had the highest vote share on 40% and formed government (partly because the other parties were too retarded to form a coalition, admittedly).

Edited May 12, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Well, that was kinda what I was asking about, Krez. AV works fine if you are OK with other candidates too, but what if you aren't? My guess is that you will see independent candidates hoovering up. NOt that that's entirely wrong. I generally like independents, even if the one locally was only interested in (of all things) parking fines!

[Walsingham]

Cabinet postings just in.

 

I'm disappointed that they've rejected Ashdown in favour of Liam Fox, who - with no disrespect to his efforts as shadow defence secretary - isn't on the same level.

 

Otherwise it looks like a masterly negotiated settlement.

 

Deputy PM is Nick Clegg, which means he'll be public enough to get exposed if he sticks his neck out.

 

Vince Cable is in charge of banks, which is prime scapegoating territory

 

Chris Huhne is energy scretary, which will be interesting because it will be funny to see their wishwash being subjected to the harsh light of reality.

 

and there's some other newb been sent to the Scottish office, which is pretty much a '**** you' to the SNP.

[Moose]

Sobering.

[Monte Carlo]

Cabinet postings just in.

 

I'm disappointed that they've rejected Ashdown in favour of Liam Fox, who - with no disrespect to his efforts as shadow defence secretary - isn't on the same level.

 

Ashdown is a left-winger who was against the coalition --- he was the attempted architect of the deal with Bliar (intentional spelling) to 'condemn the tories forever' in 1997.

 

Why on earth should he be rewarded with a cabinet post?

[Walsingham]

Because - believe it or not - I reckon having people who disagree with you, and have some basis for doing so, actually helps. Because one thing which needs to be fixed sharpish about the MoD is the confidence the front line have in the top echelon. Ashdown has the raw credibility, even if his views don't gel perfectly. Plus the yanks might start listening to us again.

 

BTW, the Mash nails it again.

BRITAIN'S long, national nightmare was over last night as the nation was once again placed in the safe, reliable hands of some vaguely effeminate public school boys.

 

Which is probably shocking. But the effect this must be having on those filthy traitors at the Independent is worth it alone.

[Monte Carlo]

I've never bought into the idea that an ex-military man is a better defence secretary than an able politician and administrator. The aforementioned John Reid, for example, was very popular at the MoD and clearly grasped the brief. That he couldn't squeeze an extra penny from Broon is another matter.

 

Ashdown was a middle-ranking special forces officer in the 1960's. I have a great deal of respect for his service, but fail to see how this immediately makes him a better candidate than a solid, experienced centre-right professional like Liam Fox. Fox will fight the armed services' corner, maybe more than Ashdown.

 

Ashdown has become too self-important and terribly establishment. I don't rate him as highly as others, and his historic animus to the tories isn't consistent with a role in a coalition imo.