Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

This isn't directly 2015 election related, but since this is basically UKPoliGaf atm, I thought I'd throw this out there...

In the latest Spectator (yeah, and what?) there was an interesting article about how we can learn from bees - apparantly what happens with them in hives is that little worker bees go out on oil pollon exploration missions. When they return to the hive, they do a little dance to indicate the level of success of their mission, and the greater the energy they exert (after their long mission - they're quite tired already) the great the pollen there is, and the other bees know there must be because they wouldn't go through all this effort to do this elaborate dance unless it was a real go'er. In other words, the more the bee cares, the more impact their voice - or dance - has.

The author of the piece then suggest that we could use a similar method when it comes to democracy (after pointing out that technology often makes it easier to do things, but not always makes the thing itself better, and that whilst voting and PEB's will likely see the benefits of technology, they won't actually help make a better form of government) - and that we could learn from the bees. What he suggests effectively ammounts to an RPG-skill-tree esque system wherein you have a certain number of "points" to distribute into whatever issue you deem most important, and that each subsequent vote for the same issue "costs" you quatrilaterally - so "two votes" actually costs you 4, "three" costs you 9 etc. This people can choose to vote on every given issue with one vote, or emphasise their own degree of attention to one particular issue - but if they do this to too large a degree, they may miss out on having a voice on other issues .

The writer didn't actually say how they thought this would work in practice - direct demcoracy where we vote for a series of options? Directly electing cabinet memebrs responsible for certain things based on how their beliefs line up with the eventual pool? He didn't say. But IMO it's quite an interesting idea.

Bees?!

 

[giant_frying_pan]

If I had gone up Buchanan Street instead of Queen Street this morning, I might have seen it. From the sounds of it, it was hardly Poll Tax levels of unrest, which happened not too far from that spot.

In lighter Scotland election news, UKIP launched its Scottish manifesto today - that's right, a whole three days before polling day. This made me chuckle too:

There was no hard copy of the Scottish manifesto available at the launch as it was "delayed in the Bank Holiday post".

UKIP too hard up to pay for Saturday Special Delivery, clearly. Oh it would be so funny if David Coburn loses his deposit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Nick Clegg might as well just take the Conservative Whip at this point, and take the Orange half of his party with him.

I've love that. Actually, I'd support an Orange Booker party, tbh. Socially liberal, care about individual rights, pro free-markets and not little bitches on foreign policy. Sign me up!

 

[Black Republican]

So whats UKGaf final census on forming government?

Lab or Con as the main party? i still think Cameron will be in power

 

[CyclopsRock]

So whats UKGaf final census on forming government?

Lab or Con as the main party? i still think Cameron will be in power

I think the general concensus in this thread is about 50/50, but almost everyone will acknowledge that it definitely could be either.

Are you from the US? Has there been much coverage of the election over there? I assume there isn't usually, but it must be pretty hard explaining wtf is going on. It's hard enough here because both our electoral system and method of government formation is so arcane, so I can't imagine how well it translates into other countries which much more modern systems.

 

[Jezbollah]

I have a friend over there tell me absolutely zero media interest in the election over there.

In my opinion it's brutally simple - the winner is the larger number between Con/LD vs Lab/SNP.

But at the end of the day there are no real winners - I think we're going to be left with a clusterfuck whatever happens.

 

[RedShift]

So whats UKGaf final census on forming government?

Lab or Con as the main party? i still think Cameron will be in power

Probably 50/50, and whatever government there is won't last long.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think the general concensus in this thread is about 50/50, but almost everyone will acknowledge that it definitely could be either.

Are you from the US? Has there been much coverage of the election over there? I assume there isn't usually, but it must be pretty hard explaining wtf is going on. It's hard enough here because both our electoral system and method of government formation is so arcane, so I can't imagine how well it translates into other countries which much more modern systems.

Our electoral system is the same one as used in the States; we just have more parties. Our method of government formation is the same as half of Europe. Really we're just stuck halfway between the two, as with so many other things.

 

[giant_frying_pan]

I think the general concensus in this thread is about 50/50, but almost everyone will acknowledge that it definitely could be either.

Are you from the US? Has there been much coverage of the election over there? I assume there isn't usually, but it must be pretty hard explaining wtf is going on. It's hard enough here because both our electoral system and method of government formation is so arcane, so I can't imagine how well it translates into other countries which much more modern systems.

The Royal Baby will be getting much more play over there! Plus, they have about a thousand different Republican hopefuls to go through.

Cameron has mentioned a few odd things that seems to indicate that his heart isn't in it. He ruled out a third term under any circumstance. He named three potential successors in passing. There was even his little slip last week where he said 'career' instead of country defining.

I don't think he would fight tooth and nail if he had a much weaker collective of seats to work with. The big pressure is on Clegg to both retain his seat and not haemorrhage dozens of them UK wide. Either of those scenarios could lead to the end of his leadership and if that happens, there wouldn't be any swift renewal of a pact with the Conservatives.

Basically, if the arithmetic is tight, I don't think David Cameron will be PM, even if the Conservatives have the most seats. He would face much more opposition in the House than in 2010. He doesn't exactly have solid support from all corners of his party. Neither does Milliband, but since they are in opposition, they have more reasons to rally around him in a hung parliament.

I'm trying to envisage a scenario where a 2nd General Election could happen but that's a bit much for me to process right now...!

[EDIT - Oh heh, my old trade union leader was amongst the protesters. He's Old Labour to the bone.]

 

[CyclopsRock]

Our electoral system is the same one as used in the States; we just have more parties. Our method of government formation is the same as half of Europe. Really we're just stuck halfway between the two, as with so many other things.

Yeah sure but shove it together and it's a fucking nightmare, eh? I don't think there are many other countries where a party could get more votes than another party, less seats and yet still form a government with another party which only stands in about 5% of constituencies, where the PM is someone who didn't win a seat in Scotland, doesn't win even a plurality in England and isn't even running in NI and yet still end up captain of the ship.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm trying to envisage a scenario where a 2nd General Election could happen but that's a bit much for me to process right now...!

[EDIT - Oh heh, my old trade union leader was amongst the protesters. He's Old Labour to the bone.]

Someone else, here I think, mentioned the possibility of a Blairite rebellion should the SNP drag Labour too far to the left. To me that seems like the most likely.

 

[JonathanEx]

I guess the biggest question mark is over the Lib Dems. Will they:
1. Hold back the losses enough to still be a decent force? Difference between 20 and 30 seats could be everything...
2. Have Clegg re-elected? (Likely, but could still fail)
3. Will the party accept another Coalition with the Tories when it's put to a vote? (Probably impacted by 2)

 

[Lirlond]

The American system is hardly modern though.

 

[Kinky John]

The media definitely made it seem bigger than it actually was, calling it "total chaos" was hyperbole to the extreme.

.

 

[Hellers]

It might not be good for the country but dammit if this isn't the most interesting general election in years.

Hopefully though this will start the push towards a PR style system. At the moment with Lab and Con refusing to publicly admit there's going to be a hung parliament what we're voting for isn't what we're going to get. I'd rather they be like most of Europe and get the horse trading between parties done up front before people vote.

 

[kmag]

I guess the biggest question mark is over the Lib Dems. Will they:
1. Hold back the losses enough to still be a decent force? Difference between 20 and 30 seats could be everything...
2. Have Clegg re-elected? (Likely, but could still fail)
3. Will the party accept another Coalition with the Tories when it's put to a vote? (Probably impacted by 2)

3 is also impacted by 1. I honestly don't see the likes of Farron, George and Huppert reupping for a coalition with the Tories if they survive and the Lib Dems are down to about 30 seats or less. There's a definite split between the Orange Bookers and the more Social Democrat wing of the party. The SD part of the party held its noise last time due to the economic situation, those who remain are not going to vote for Tory welfare cuts.

 

[CyclopsRock]

.

The only reference to it I can find on the BBC website calls it a "scuffle". Do you know where that image gets its source from?

 

[Gurgelhals]

As an outsider, I find it quite curious that a hung Parliament seems to be such a big issue. I understand why UK politics isn't used to coaltion governments and why the electoral system normally provides one party with a sizeable majority.

What I don't get, however, is why this (i.e. a strong majority of the governing party) is seen as a desirable outcome. In most democratic states, the system usually provides quite a few inherent counterbalances that serve to keep the government in check during a legislative period - i.e. an upper house that has more or less the same powers as the lower house but where the majorities might be different, or a constitutional court that has the power to declare certain acts of government unconstitutional, etc.. As far as I understand it, there's nothing like this in the political system of the UK. Or is there? For example, the actual power of the House of Lords seem very limited to me compared to the House of Commons. Doesn't this mean that normally (i.e. excluding this week's and the previous elections) the party with a majority in the House of Commons is more or less able to do as it pleases during an entire legislative period (because it all boils down to that majority in the Commons and there are no systemic safeguards in place that could put a stop to certain actions of a government)?

I can certainly see that this leads to very powerful governments (perhaps unusually so, compared to other democratic systems), but doesn't this run counter to the idea of the separation of powers and/or of checks and balances? Or am I missing a crucial element here? I'm genuinely curious here, because the political system in the UK is so different than in most other democratic states.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I can certainly see that this leads to very powerful governments (perhaps unusually so, compared to other democratic systems), but doesn't this run counter to the idea of the separation of powers and/or of checks and balances? Or am I missing a crucial element here? I'm genuinely curious here, because the political system in the UK is so different than in most other democratic states.

Entirely, yes. But the major counter balance is the electorate.

(And whilst parliament is sovreign, some of the laws it passes are considered to be non-constitutional and could theoretically be challenged by the judiciary in the House of Lords, but this never practically occurs because the changes required to make them "legal" get made during the passing between the houses of the bill in question).

 

[Kinky John]

The only reference to it I can find on the BBC website calls it a "scuffle". Do you know where that image gets its source from?

BBC's James Cook refered to it as "Absolute chaos" on his Twitter feed. I don't know if he used that term in any news reports on TV.

 

[RedShift]

BBC's James Cook refered to it as "Absolute chaos" on his Twitter feed. I don't know if he used that term in any news reports on TV.

Shock horror, cybernats post misleading images on Twitter.

 

[fenners]

The Royal Baby will be getting much more play over there! Plus, they have about a thousand different Republican hopefuls to go through.

I'm in Texas & it's got near zero mention. NPR, the public radio station, mentioned it this morning. That's been the first coverage I've seen/heard.

 

[killer_clank]

Sean Clerkin is a serial protestor who's been doing this for 20 years. Famously got Iain Gray to take refuge in a Subway during the 2011 election campaign. The whole thing was blown a bit of proportion, but he's a bit of an idiot.

 

[Kotetsu534]

I can certainly see that this leads to very powerful governments (perhaps unusually so, compared to other democratic systems), but doesn't this run counter to the idea of the separation of powers and/or of checks and balances? Or am I missing a crucial element here? I'm genuinely curious here, because the political system in the UK is so different than in most other democratic states.

Your instinct is right - you're not missing anything. If a prime minister and his Cabinet can command a strong majority in the Commons his government can do, essentially, whatever they want*. In reality, of course, our government is limited by conventions, by the courts, by EU law and by the Human Rights Act, but, in extremis, it could ride roughshod over all of those checks. The House of Lords, under the Parliament Act 1911, retains the right to veto any Bill which would extend the maximum term of a Parliament to more than 5 years, so a government can't try to turn the country into a dictatorship.

*Indeed, it was a common essay of politics students, one I wrote several times myself, to argue that our prime minister had a degree of domestic power that must make a US President green with envy, such are his powers of patronage and control over his party.

 

[Walshicus]

Shock horror, cybernats post misleading images on Twitter.

Hardly - does he stop being a BBC reporter when he posts on Twitter?

Brittwits...

 

[Jezbollah]

Cybernats? Brittwits?

Fairly sure my ten year old niece might have come up with those

 

[kmag]

Shock horror, cybernats post misleading images on Twitter.

It was 4 mentalists from Scottish Resistance (yes they actually went there), who got told when the photo op was happening from Murphy's own office. Clerkin went to school with Murphy and also did the same course at the same Uni (Clerkin actually got a degree though). Clerkin is a serial nutball who isn't affiliated with the SNP at all. Looks like it was pretty staged by Jim, to get some sympathy on the news, makes a change from lying to pensioners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2...tland-32581803

Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy and comedian Eddie Izzard were heckled by opponents during general election campaigning in Glasgow.

There were scuffles involving Labour Party supporters and their opponents in the city centre. Protesters, who played loud music and shouted "Red Tories out", drowned out Mr Murphy as he tried to speak.

The protest was organised by Sean Clerkin, who described his group as "anti-austerity campaigners". He told the BBC that details of the event had been passed to him by a disillusioned member of the Labour Party in East Renfrewshire.

The veteran campaigner said only one of those involved in his group was a member of the SNP, although he personally planned to vote for the party because of its call for increased public spending.

Mr Murphy said the protest was evidence that the SNP was trying to disrupt the democratic process, while Mr Izzard condemned the "violent emotion". Demonstrators interviewed by the BBC denied they were there on behalf of the SNP and the party said it had nothing to do with the protests.

An SNP spokesman condemned the scenes and said that every party had the right to make their case and to be heard respectfully.

 

[Walshicus]

Cybernats? Brittwits?

Fairly sure my ten year old niece might have come up with those

Whatever you say, poo-Dan.

 

[Jezbollah]

Whatever you say, poo-Dan.

She's called me worse

 

[Faddy]

Paging ScotGAF: "Trending" on Facebook tells me that apparently Murphy and Eddie Izzard were doing a rally today and they were gatecrashed by SNP protesters. What actually happened?

Murphy's campaign team tipped off a bunch of nutters, lead by Sean Clerkin who is a noted troll, to his Event with Eddie Izzard. As the pictures show Jim had his usual 20 or so crowd around him and they were accosted by a band of around 5 or 6 idiots. The same people who protested the Miliband appearance on Friday.

Murphy manufactured the whole thing, not sure he actually had a message. He went out there to get into a dispute with Clerkin and co and succeeded. The political ruse is now falling apart as the press realise they were played.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Probably 50/50, and whatever government there is won't last long.

Sounds like a real dead heat.

 

[Jackpot]

Is there a reason why it seems the Libs Dems are favouring a Con coalition over Labour? I'd have thought their back benchers would be much more in favour of not compromising their ideals with the Cons this time around.

 

[giant_frying_pan]

They were the kingmakers last time round and the Conservatives were the only viable option. A marriage of convenience. It would be odd for Labour to try and rely on their support given they've been in direct opposition for the past term.

Clegg and Cable are trying to project themselves as the dead-centre party, at odds with a lot of its hardcore support. The Lib Dems want to cling on to power as much as the Conservatives do and the Conservatives are really their only legitimate option.

It will be interesting to see at what point the Torys fully discard their coalition partners; that is what the seat threshold is that the Lib Dems must stay above lest they become 'useless' in the Tories' eyes.

 

[nib95]

Is there a reason why it seems the Libs Dems are favouring a Con coalition over Labour? I'd have thought their back benchers would be much more in favour of not compromising their ideals with the Cons this time around.

It's weird, historically the Lib Dems have been a leftist party, left of Labour even. But in order to ensure this little coalition of theirs remains a cozy potential, they are pretending to be some sort of centre party. Embarrassing.

 

[King_Moc]

It's weird, historically the Lib Dems have been a leftist party, left of Labour even. But in order to ensure this little coalition of theirs remains a cozy potential, they are pretending to be some sort of centre party. Embarrassing.

Yup, they're sell outs. Lost my vote for a long, long time.

 

[kmag]

Is there a reason why it seems the Libs Dems are favouring a Con coalition over Labour? I'd have thought their back benchers would be much more in favour of not compromising their ideals with the Cons this time around.

Because the Lib Dems were taken over by bunch of centre-right politicians who would be Tories if not for the Tory position and infighting on the EU following Clegg's election. The Orange Bookers managed to convince the Beveridge mob (who were probably to the left of New Labour) that going into coalition was the only option for the good of the country in 2010 (they were correct). I'm not really sure that'll hold this time.

 

[Stacey]

£8.00 national minimum wage?

Mr Miliband, you get my vote!

It really is the most differentiating factor between Labour and the Tories for me.

 

[kmag]

On Izzard and Lizardgate

It looks like Labour have been caught doing a bit of black ops using Clerkin as a useful idiot. They leaked the location of the photo-op/walkabout to Clerkin who turned up with his 3 pals and a megaphone. A couple of Labour activists got in their face and the press pack had stories out with seconds.

 

[iMax]

£8.00 national minimum wage?

Mr Miliband, you get my vote!

It really is the most differentiating factor between Labour and the Tories for me.

He also wants to scrap unpaid internships, which is really fucking cool.

 

[Tak3n]

£8.00 national minimum wage?

Mr Miliband, you get my vote!

It really is the most differentiating factor between Labour and the Tories for me.

by 2020, Tories argument is it will likely be that or more anyway

 

[King_Moc]

by 2020, Tories argument is it will likely be that or more anyway

They haven't committed, so it won't be. Why would they do it?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah sure but shove it together and it's a fucking nightmare, eh? I don't think there are many other countries where a party could get more votes than another party, less seats and yet still form a government with another party which only stands in about 5% of constituencies, where the PM is someone who didn't win a seat in Scotland, doesn't win even a plurality in England and isn't even running in NI and yet still end up captain of the ship.

I think most countries have heads of government who didn't win seats in Scotland, majorities in England, and don't run in Northern Ireland.

 

[Tak3n]

They haven't committed, so it won't be. Why would they do it?

I don't know, I just remember on question time a while back, one of the panel said it would be £8 by 2020 anyway so the labour policy was merely smoke and mirrors

 

[reggieandTFE]

I think the general concensus in this thread is about 50/50, but almost everyone will acknowledge that it definitely could be either.

Are you from the US? Has there been much coverage of the election over there? I assume there isn't usually, but it must be pretty hard explaining wtf is going on. It's hard enough here because both our electoral system and method of government formation is so arcane, so I can't imagine how well it translates into other countries which much more modern systems.

I've seen nor heard absolutely no coverage in most outlets. There was a NPR story about David Axelrod ripping off the Labour Party but that's it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I think most countries have heads of government who didn't win seats in Scotland, majorities in England, and don't run in Northern Ireland.

I mean, ignoring the obvious joke you've made, a quick scan of parliamentary elections throughout Europe show multiple coalitions where the #1 party isn't part of it, there's a small party who only appeals to a small part of the population, and so on, and so forth.

But frankly, I do wonder if many of the people so worried about the stability of the FPTP system with those tricky Scots screwing it all up would be wringing their hands so much if it looked like the Conservatives were going to finish 2nd, but could get a majority thanks to the UKIP.

 

[kharma45]

Yeah sure but shove it together and it's a fucking nightmare, eh? I don't think there are many other countries where a party could get more votes than another party, less seats and yet still form a government with another party which only stands in about 5% of constituencies, where the PM is someone who didn't win a seat in Scotland, doesn't win even a plurality in England and isn't even running in NI and yet still end up captain of the ship.

Cameron? The Conservatives are running in NI.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Seems like a reasonable balanced source.

Sure, just like the Daily Record who was reporting and all the other newspapers who came out in favour of Labour.

For real though, it doesn't seem like it was anything much at all. There is even a video going about which shows a very small group of people just acting a bit confrontational with banners. Nothing to see here. Jim Murphy is not well like by a lot of people, so I am sure there were more out there who would like to give him a piece of their mind.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think most countries have heads of government who didn't win seats in Scotland, majorities in England, and don't run in Northern Ireland.

That's what you think.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Cameron? The Conservatives are running in NI.

Well I was talking about Ed but it was basically a made up scenario to demonstrate the confusing nature of the system.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, ignoring the obvious joke you've made, a quick scan of parliamentary elections throughout Europe show multiple coalitions where the #1 party isn't part of it, there's a small party who only appeals to a small part of the population, and so on, and so forth.

But frankly, I do wonder if many of the people so worried about the stability of the FPTP system with those tricky Scots screwing it all up would be wringing their hands so much if it looked like the Conservatives were going to finish 2nd, but could get a majority thanks to the UKIP.

That's what you think.

Party poopers, the both of you.