• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wes

venison crêpe
Tory-Lib Dem coalition threatened by secret hardline memo on Europe

David Cameron's hopes of forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats were dramatically undermined last night by the leaking of a top-secret letter outlining the hardline Eurosceptic stance he and William Hague planned to adopt in government.

The document, obtained by the Observer, is headed "draft letter from Foreign Secretary to Prime Minister" and was written last week. It assumed an outright Tory victory and spelt out how Hague intended to adopt a tough approach to Europe at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels tomorrow.

In the letter, compiled by civil servants but written in the first person, Hague tells Cameron how his message would be that "the British relationship with the EU has changed with our election" to one firmly against any further integration.

Exposing the massive gulf between Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the Conservative leadership on Europe, Hague says he would demand the right to repatriate powers over criminal justice as well as social and employment policy during the first term of a Tory government – demands many EU leaders say they would resist.

Hague planned to tell his EU counterparts: "Rest assured that we seek engagement, not confrontation. But our aim is to achieve these commitments during this parliament." He would also tell his first foreign ministers' meeting "we will never join the euro" and conclude: "You will find us firm but fair, playing a leading role, fighting our corner, practical and straight-talking."

Last night the Tories said they had no knowledge of the letter. But the Observer understands it was drawn up on the basis of detailed briefings between senior civil servants and Hague. The document came to light as Clegg, a strong pro-European, yesterday met his MPs and senior party figures to discuss a possible coalition with the Tories, who emerged from Thursday's general election with the largest number of seats but short of an overall majority.

Cameron and Clegg held face-to-face talks late yesterday as they continued their attempts to thrash out a power-sharing deal. A senior Conservative party spokeswoman said the talks were "constructive and amicable". The 70-minute meeting took place at Admiralty House in Whitehall. A Lib Dem spokesman also described the discussions as "constructive and amicable".

Tory and Lib Dem sources said last night that discussions would not conclude until the beginning of the coming week at the earliest. An emergency meeting of the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers will be held tomorrow to discuss the possible coalition. Today, Hague, Oliver Letwin and George Osborne will resume talks with the Lib Dems' Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and David Laws.

But the stark language used in the letter is bound to alarm Clegg, who has been savage in his criticism of the Conservatives' attitude to Europe which he believes is rooted in the past and will limit Britain's ability to fight cross-border crime and meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

The document will also be seen by Lib Dem MPs and the party's rank and file as evidence that their pro-Europeanism would be compromised by linking up with the Tories. A Lib Dem spokesman said the party was strongly pro-European, but would not be drawn on the document.

Yesterday Cameron came under pressure from senior figures in his own party not to give in to Clegg's demands by watering down Conservative manifesto commitments. Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox warned that a Tory government could not be "held to ransom" by Lib Dems demanding proportional representation.

Clegg may also face opposition from within his party to any attempt to form a coalition with the Tories, particularly on economic issues.

Yesterday the Social Liberal Forum, which represents left-leaning Lib Dems and includes a third of the party's MPs, issued a set of "red lines" which it said the party must not cross, including any measure that would increase the gap between the rich and poor – ruling out supporting the Tory pledge to cut inheritance tax. Three other red lines were any suggestion of cuts to frontline services in the current financial year, any worsening treatment of asylum seekers and any watering-down of the human rights act.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown and his closest advisers were working on how to expand their counter-offer to the Lib Dems, including a referendum on changes to the voting system. Senior officials said Labour was planning to draw up a formal "coalition contract" – as happens in Germany – that would bind the Lib Dems and other smaller parties into a deal if the Tory discussions with the Lib Dems were to fail.

Most Labour ministers now believe Brown would have to step down before Clegg would consider a pact, though senior government insiders insisted this was not being discussed as an option.

One re-elected Labour MP, John Mann, of Bassetlaw, called on Brown to step down as Labour leader, claiming that the party would have influence on the outcome of the current negotiations only if Brown agreed to give up the leadership.

"Brown should not lead Labour into any future election and he should stand down before the next Labour party conference," he said. "Gordon Brown's continuation as leader rules out the credibility of a Lib-Lab pact that has to prioritise the modernisation and reform of the antiquated UK political systems."

Well this leak wont help matters although it just underlines something we already knew regarding the two parties' differences.
 
PJV3 said:
Is there a should Nick Clegg make a pact with Labour (minus Brown) option in that poll?
Don't think so but I think that scenario is unlikely as I think convention dictates that when the PM resigns, the Queen asks the leader of the party with the most seats if he can form a government which would be Cameron.

Wes said:
Well this leak wont help matters although it just underlines something we already knew regarding the two parties' differences.
A deliberate leak to undermine any chance of a deal. Pretty predictable of the Observer really. But in The Times there's talk that Cameron might be prepared to offer more ground on the issue of PR.
 

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
Murdoch/Tories Link

Last summer, as the media regulator gathered evidence for its pay-TV review, Conservative leader David Cameron said that Ofcom "as we know it, would cease to exist" if his party came into power

Accusations - hotly denied by the Tories - have been made that Conservative media policy is in effect being written by Rupert Murdoch and his son James - the chairman of BSkyB, chief executive of the Sun's owners News International, and not a fan of Ofcom.

Labour claimed there'd been a deal on media policy after the Sun newspaper switched its allegiance to the Conservatives.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Is there an heir apparent within Labour if (when) Brown steps down?
That's the problem, there isn't. And unless the PM resigns as leader of the Labour party and the new caretaker leader cobbles up a deal with the Lib Dems before Brown going to the Queen to resign and 'recommending' Harman to form the next government, the Queen will probably ask Cameron to form a government. If he did and lost a motion of no confidence, he would probably be able to use his PM prerogative power to call for a new election.
 

gerg

Member
I realise I'm late to the discussion, so...

Veidt said:
How his publications and TV network feed the masses with nonsensical bullshit, lies, defamation of individuals and minorities, and absolutely disgraceful things such as celebrities gossip.

I'm not willing to comment on Rupert's attempts at swaying the public's political opinion, but I don't think that this should be painted as though an innocent public is being corrupted by the grasp of an evil media empire; if there's one reason why "disgraceful" celebrity gossip is popular it's because people want celebrity gossip, and I don't see the point in complaining that one news source might consistently pump it out when there's dozens of other news sources to visit anyway.

Yes, I'm sure Rupert does have his own beliefs and agendas which he makes sure the companies he owns follow. However, I don't think we're at the stage of an Orwellian nightmare yet.

Gary Whitta said:
Nobody has ever said that business should be moral? Nobody? Ever? Really? Okay, then let me be the first. Business, particularly a business which controls a large percentage of a nation's broadcasting and print news media, should have a moral obligation not to blatantly deceive the public purely for financial gain.

While I think that this is good in theory, the actual implementation would probably need to be a lot more subtle, possibly so that it wouldn't do what you'd intend it to do in the first place.
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
Wes said:
Well this leak wont help matters although it just underlines something we already knew regarding the two parties' differences.

there's your get out of jail free card Clegg.

talks break down because of something the Tories did/plan to do and you don't get the blame for not siding with the party with the most votes.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Is there an heir apparent within Labour if (when) Brown steps down?

Harriet Harman is the Deputy but it will most likely go to an internal Labour vote including

David Milliband
Ed Milliband
Ed Balls
 
blazinglord said:
That's the problem, there isn't. And unless the PM resigns as leader of the Labour party and the new caretaker leader cobbles up a deal with the Lib Dems before Brown going to the Queen to resign and 'recommending' Harman to form the next government, the Queen will probably ask Cameron to form a government. If he did and lost a motion of no confidence, he would probably be able to use his PM prerogative power to call for a new election.
By the way, the reason I say about Brown going to recommend Harman is because as deputy leader of Labour she is the most likely caretaker leader. But she isn't that popular and is by no means the heir apparent.
 
Subliminal said:
Harriet Harman is the Deputy but it will most likely go to an internal Labour vote including

David Milliband
Ed Milliband
Ed Balls
Which would take time! I can't see it happening to be honest. Either a Lib-Lab pact headed by Brown or some sort of government led by Cameron are the only real options.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Is there an heir apparent within Labour if (when) Brown steps down?

David Miliband. He's been the better performer on TV and seems like Blair except without the Zionist nutcase element. He's also less of a waif than Blair was, seems stronger and more forthright in the argument rather than trying to be concilitory all the time. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls-up are supporters of Brown, this could affect them adversely in any election, Balls-up is supported by the Unions and quite a bit of the party, but with how close he came to being voted out on Friday and his percieved unpopularity with the public in general should see him pushed out of the running if the party has any sense. My mum HATES him, he's made her life hell since he became Education Secretary. Plus he's called Balls...
 

Empty

Member
Gary Whitta said:
Is there an heir apparent within Labour if (when) Brown steps down?

put your money on david miliband. he meets the criteria for the post-blair and obama politics; relatively young, charismatic and media friendly, they'll want to go in the complete opposite direction to brown in terms of presentation and having been in the foreign office for the last few years he can distance himself from brown's domestic policy failures.

balls is too close to brown, and is tarred by that association, then ed miliband is too much of a intellectual to be a leader. if they vote for harman their party should surrender the right to ever govern again.
 
Subliminal said:
Harriet Harman is the Deputy but it will most likely go to an internal Labour vote including

David Milliband
Ed Milliband
Ed Balls

There only seems to be one choice to me and that's David Milliband. Ed Milliband is anonymous and would not be able to compete with Cameron. Ed Balls would be an unmitigated disaster if he was chosen. He would be completely destroyed in any election scenario and it would leave labour with a sub-25% share of the vote.

Harriet Harman is not a serious option if Labour want to be in power again while we remain in this century.
 
Harry_Tequila said:
There only seems to be one choice to me and that's David Milliband. Ed Milliband is anonymous and would not be able to compete with Cameron. Ed Balls would be an unmitigated disaster if he was chosen. He would be completely destroyed in any election scenario and it would leave labour with a sub-25% share of the vote.
I don't know why people hate Balls so much. From what I've seen of him on interviews he comes across as quite articulate and populist which is always a vote-winner. David Miliband by contrast can come across as a bit too ideological sometimes. Having said that, I can't stand Balls' wife Yvette Cooper, she would be worse than Cherie Blair!
 

sohois

Member
If Cameron is supposedly Blair-lite and David Milliband is Cameron-lite, then all in all he seems like a pretty lightwight choice to me:lol . Seriously though, If Milliband were to line up against Cameron & Clegg i can imagine he'd seem pretty forgetable and generate a distinct sense of deja vu.

One other point - its gone 1:00am here, wtf are most UK gaffers still doing awake?
 

Kowak

Banned
SNN2304A-384_593961a.jpg


or Alan Johnson.

Those are the two I would expect to be the main contendors. The younger chuckle brother is an outside bet and Balls disgraced himself in his acceptance speech if you ask me.
 

mclem

Member
blazinglord said:
A deliberate leak to undermine any chance of a deal. Pretty predictable of the Observer really.

Well, it's not like The Observer would have created it. Some Tory grassroots activist, perhaps?
 

Empty

Member
the other choice is alan johnson. well the other real choice should be hilary benn, but they unfortunately aren't going to go with him, but i digress. he's inoffensive, experienced, solid and dependable, and aside from the nutt catastrophe he has done well in all his cabinet jobs. he could be a bit of fresh air in contrast to clegg and cameron presentationally, and he has been very willing to accept reforms before.
 

Kowak

Banned
sohois said:
If Cameron is supposedly Blair-lite and David Milliband is Cameron-lite, then all in all he seems like a pretty lightwight choice to me:lol . Seriously though, If Milliband were to line up against Cameron & Clegg i can imagine he'd seem pretty forgetable and generate a distinct sense of deja vu.

One other point - its gone 1:00am here, wtf are most UK gaffers still doing awake?

I am watching NBA/UFC
 
Gary Whitta said:
I don't think any scenario in which Brown remains as Prime Minister is a real option.
I just find it really hard to believe that Brown would willingly step down after fighting the election tooth and nail and then the Liberal Democrats imposing a second Labour Prime Minister onto the electorate without a mandate. I can just see the headlines now, "fury as second unelected prime minister reaches no.10". It would be doomed from the start.
 

Varion

Member
blazinglord said:
But in The Times there's talk that Cameron might be prepared to offer more ground on the issue of PR.
Interesting.

Cameron’s initial suggestion that a “committee” should be set up to discuss voting reform was met with scepticism from senior Lib Dems, some of whom regard PR as a “red line” issue. In the 1990s the Lib Dems had received a similar offer from Labour that ultimately came to nothing.

Tory sources insisted their proposal was a “once in a lifetime” opportunity for the Lib Dems. Under the detailed plans, expected to be tabled today, the new committee would be ordered to issue its conclusions well before the end of the parliament. The Tories believe this would allay Lib Dem fears that PR would be kicked into the long grass.

The Lib Dems would have a say in the membership of the committee and its exact terms of reference. These details would be determined in advance as part of the coalition negotiations, according to Tory sources.

The most important concession, however, is that after the committee’s final report, a menu of options could be put before the people in what Tories are calling a “preferendum”.

Voters would be asked to choose between the preferred Tory ideas such as reducing the number of MPs and equalising constituency sizes alongside the Lib Dems’ PR proposals.

In any such vote, the parties would be free to campaign against each other, even though they might be coalition partners in government.

“The Lib Dems have to realise their negotiating hand is limited,” said a senior Tory. “If they go with our offer, they have a real chance of securing PR. If they turn it down, they have no chance of changing the system in the way they would like.”
I'm not sure that would really do much to ease the worries of the Lib Dems, considering I don't think anyone really expects the coalition to last until the end of parliament anyway. Couple of months until Cameron's popularity ratings go up and he'll be calling a second one saying we need a more stable majority government, kicking the whole thing aside.
 
blazinglord said:
I just find it really hard to believe that Brown would willingly step down after fighting the election tooth and nail and then the Liberal Democrats imposing a second Labour Prime Minister onto the electorate without a mandate. I can just see the headlines now, "fury as second unelected prime minister reaches no.10". It would be doomed from the start.


I'm getting tired of everyone going on about this 'we didn't elect the Prime Minister' bull. For the very very very last time (in b4 ban)...

IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT! You don't elect the PM, you elect local reps who are part of a party, who elect a leader from within their numbers...the myth that you elect a PM is a media fantasy because the public watches too much US TV. If you want a Republic and an elected Executive Head of State, ie. a President, then bloody get out there and demand one! Otherwise SHUT UP about it. (This is not directed at blazinglord, but rather the British public and media as a whole :D )

You didn't elect Cameron, and have no right to complain if he's replaced, you didn't elect Blair, or Thatcher, or Major, or Churchill. God damn...
 
mclem said:
Well, it's not like The Observer would have created it. Some Tory grassroots activist, perhaps?
Well yes. I'm not impressed by Tebbit going on TV saying that a coalition with the Lib Dems would be crackers either. But he has always been a reactionary and what clearly worries him is that if Cameron did get the backing of the Lib Dems, he wouldn't have to rely on the votes of all of his notoriously unreliable and reactionary backbenchers like Tebbit.

Varion said:
I'm not sure that would really do much to ease the worries of the Lib Dems, considering I don't think anyone really expects the coalition to last until the end of parliament anyway. Couple of months until Cameron's popularity ratings go up and he'll be calling a second one saying we need a more stable majority government, kicking the whole thing aside.
But the article also notes that for the Lib Dems a fixed-term parliament would be a prerequisite which I can't really see Cameron objecting to.
 

Kowak

Banned
Varion said:
Interesting.


I'm not sure that would really do much to ease the worries of the Lib Dems, considering I don't think anyone really expects the coalition to last until the end of parliament anyway. Couple of months until Cameron's popularity ratings go up and he'll be calling a second one saying we need a more stable majority government, kicking the whole thing aside.

I also think that the Cons can risk a lib/lab coalition for a few months. It would cause outrage amongst voters towards Labour and would allow for a landslide majority next time round.

The liberals in no way should really be looking for PR from either party. The cons will offer it and then fuck off ir, Labour will promise it and then the cons will fuck it off when they win the landslide.
 

sohois

Member
Varion said:
Interesting.


I'm not sure that would really do much to ease the worries of the Lib Dems, considering I don't think anyone really expects the coalition to last until the end of parliament anyway. Couple of months until Cameron's popularity ratings go up and he'll be calling a second one saying we need a more stable majority government, kicking the whole thing aside.

You expect Labour to act differently? They would be pretty badly disadvantaged by PR as well, and would certainly seek to prevent its passing as much as the Tories would. The only reason they have been spouting support for it in recent days is to try and lure the lib dems into coalition.
 
Dark Machine said:
I'm getting tired of everyone going on about this 'we didn't elect the Prime Minister' bull. For the very very very last time (in b4 ban)...

IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT! You don't elect the PM, you elect local reps who are part of a party, who elect a leader from within their numbers...the myth that you elect a PM is a media fantasy because the public watches too much US TV. If you want a Republic and an elected Executive Head of State, ie. a President, then bloody get out there and demand one! Otherwise SHUT UP about it. (This is not directed at blazinglord, but rather the British public and media as a whole :D )

You didn't elect Cameron, and have no right to complain if he's replaced, you didn't elect Blair, or Thatcher, or Major, or Churchill. God damn...
Oh I know! But we do have a very presidential style of politics in this country and I'm just saying what the press will say and people who pro-Presidential style will feel. On the election special newsnight tonight someone in the audience said that its a scandal that Brown is still in no.10 when he wasn't 'elected' and still wasn't on Thursday. It's telling that neither the two respected historians nor Jeremy Clarkson didn't correct him. I suppose it can be argued that people vote for parties with the expectation that the leader of the said party will be PM. You can't deny that the weakening of parliament over the years has eroded the old party system and created a very presidential style of politics. The leadership debates didn't help to disabuse this notion either.
 

Empty

Member
Kowak said:
I also think that the Cons can risk a lib/lab coalition for a few months. It would cause outrage amongst voters towards Labour and would allow for a landslide majority next time round.
.

this is my great fear. especially given that if cameron is kept out of government he'll be forced rightwards by his party to stay in power, and then we'll get a very nasty tory government winning a majority.
 

Kowak

Banned
Mr. Sam said:
A committee is not enough for me. Thinking FPTP is unfair isn't subjective, it's fucking mathematics.

I personally dont think its unfair or mathematically unfair. The way are system is that you elect your MP and the candidate with the most votes win. FPTP isnt suppose to reflect the wider picture but rather each constituency. If the liberals get 20% of the vote finishing as runners up in loads of seats tell me that they just are not popular enough in a given area.

The torys will get more seats if there was PR because of scotland and wales but they wouldnt deserve them.

I know this view will be unpopular with GAf.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Kowak said:
I personally dont think its unfair or mathematically unfair. The way are system is that you elect your MP and the candidate with the most votes win. FPTP isnt suppose to reflect the wider picture but rather each constituency.

Which would be fine if, like has been said, we were 600+ independent island states. But we're not, millions upon millions of votes are plainly ignored and it's just not suitable for electing a government.
 

Empty

Member
Kowak said:
I personally dont think its unfair or mathematically unfair. The way are system is that you elect your MP and the candidate with the most votes win. FPTP isnt suppose to reflect the wider picture but rather each constituency. If the liberals get 20% of the vote finishing as runners up in loads of seats tell me that they just are not popular enough in a given area.

The torys will get more seats if there was PR because of scotland and wales but they wouldnt deserve them.

I know this view will be unpopular with GAf.

yes, but we are run by a central government, not by our constituencies. the way we choose who gets to see us in a local surgery is fair, yes, but it's unfair that so many of us don't get to influence the composition of our actual government.
 

Kowak

Banned
Empty said:
yes, but we are run by a central government, not by our constituencies. the way we choose who gets to see us in a local surgery is fair, yes, but it's unfair that so many of us don't get to influence the composition of our actual government.

You do get to have a say in who your govt is, but that doesnt mean you are going to get it. we are deciding on who our representative should be in Westminster and the candidate with the most votes is clearly the most popular candidate out of the options available.

PR has just as many problems with it as FPTP does.
 

Empty

Member
Kowak said:
You do get to have a say in who your govt is, but that doesnt mean you are going to get it. we are deciding on who our representative should be in Westminster and the candidate with the most votes is clearly the most popular candidate out of the options available.

PR has just as many problems with it as FPTP does.

no i didn't get a say. my vote was completely ignored because i happen to live in a safe seat, and it didn't have to be. i'm not disputing that FPTP means we decide who is our representative in westminster, i'm arguing that it is entirely incongruous with the way politics is run in this country now which is very centrally, based around an executive and with parties using whips. the decisions don't come from individual mp's with free votes representing their constituents directly.

as for your last point, we aren't arguing about the problems of PR and FPTP, we are arguing whether or not FPTP is fair; it isn't.
 
Kowak said:
I personally dont think its unfair or mathematically unfair. The way are system is that you elect your MP and the candidate with the most votes win. FPTP isnt suppose to reflect the wider picture but rather each constituency. If the liberals get 20% of the vote finishing as runners up in loads of seats tell me that they just are not popular enough in a given area.

The torys will get more seats if there was PR because of scotland and wales but they wouldnt deserve them.

I know this view will be unpopular with GAf.

The size and mapping of constituency borders benefits the two old parties, with Tories better able to win rich, rural constituencies and labour tending to benefit in small urban wards. The boundaries have a sort of jury rigging effect of maintaining the status quo.

The lib dem vote is massive, its just quite thinly spread across the country. And it would conceivably be much higher if people thought they could actually win. Under the current system, people don't believe that and supporters of certain parties are marginalised because of the boundaries in which they live. With the Lib Dems in particular - they were what - around a million or possibly less off the Labour vote count? They had 23% of the total share, compared with Labour's 27% but they didn't even get a quarter of the seats that Labour got.

More importantly though, its not the finishing post that is the main problem - its decades of this system having fostered a fear of "wasted" votes. It results in tactical voting and parties having safe seats for decades....

If we had some form of PR, or STV (Single Transferable Vote) -- voters would be able to say for example: I want to pick Lib Dem #1, Labour #2 and Conservative #3 etc. There are practically no wasted votes in this system as the formula always finds a winner based off peoples preferences -- an instant run-off occurs, which reflects - in a much better way - what the voter actually intended / prefers. They don't have to fear voting with conviction, which they do now!

Tactical voting and safe seats would be minimised. PR or STV would be far more reflective of the will of the electorate than what we have now. It would be more democratic. What we currently have is a jury-rigged farce.
 

Varion

Member
blazinglord said:
But the article also notes that for the Lib Dems a fixed-term parliament would be a prerequisite which I can't really see Cameron objecting to.
Ah, didn't see that bit. Well that's an improvement. It's not perfect, but I can't see us getting perfect out of these negotiations.

sohois said:
You expect Labour to act differently? They would be pretty badly disadvantaged by PR as well, and would certainly seek to prevent its passing as much as the Tories would. The only reason they have been spouting support for it in recent days is to try and lure the lib dems into coalition.
True enough. It's not like Brown has mentioned 'PR' specifically yet, just immediate legislation for a referendum on electoral reform to let people pick the system they want. More likely most of the party would prefer to push AV+ at best.

I'm honestly surprised Labour don't just concede defeat. This going to be a parliament full of cuts and likely deep unpopularity as a result no matter who's elected, and at least if it's the Conservatives then Labour can say they would've done it much better and get elected again in the next parliament. At least that's how it looks to me anyway.
 

Kowak

Banned
Empty said:
no i didn't get a say. my vote was completely ignored because i happen to live in a safe seat, and it didn't have to be. i'm not disputing that FPTP means we decide who is our representative in westminster, i'm arguing that it is entirely incongruous with the way politics is run in this country now which is very centrally, based around an executive and with parties using whips. the decisions don't come from individual mp's with free votes representing their constituents directly.

as for your last point, we aren't arguing about the problems of PR and FPTP, we are arguing whether or not FPTP is fair; it isn't.

Your vote wasnt ignore, its just the guy you voted for wasnt the person with the most votes. Thats fair to me. By voting for your candidate you gave him a chance of being elected, that isnt wasted.
 

Kowak

Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
The size and mapping of constituency borders benefits the two old parties, with Tories better able to win rich, rural constituencies and labour tending to benefit in small urban wards. The boundaries have a sort of jury rigging effect of maintaining the status quo.

The lib dem vote is massive, its just quite thinly spread across the country. And it would conceivably be much higher if people thought they could actually win. Under the current system, people don't believe that and supporters of certain parties are marginalised because of the boundaries in which they live. With the Lib Dems in particular - they were what - around a million or possibly less off the Labour vote count? They had 23% of the total share, compared with Labour's 27% but they didn't even get a quarter of the seats that Labour got.

More importantly though, its not the finishing post that is the main problem - its decades of this system having fostered a fear of "wasted" votes. It results in tactical voting and parties having safe seats for decades....

If we had some form of PR, or STV (Single Transferable Vote) -- voters would be able to say for example: I want to pick Lib Dem #1, Labour #2 and Conservative #3 etc. There are practically no wasted votes in this system as the formula always finds a winner based off peoples preferences -- an instant run-off occurs, which reflects - in a much better way - what the voter actually intended / prefers. They don't have to fear voting with conviction, which they do now!

Tactical voting and safe seats would be minimised. PR or STV would be far more reflective of the will of the electorate than what we have now. It would be more democratic. What we currently have is a jury-rigged farce.

So lets have a govt composed of runner ups. Something like AV will lead to a liberal landslide each time and STV is just unworkable here.
 
Kowak said:
So lets have a govt composed of runner ups. Something like AV will lead to a liberal landslide each time and STV is just unworkable here.

What are you basing that belief on? Have you got anything to back any of that up?
 

mclem

Member
Kowak said:
Your vote wasnt ignore, its just the guy you voted for wasnt the person with the most votes. Thats fair to me. By voting for your candidate you gave him a chance of being elected, that isnt wasted.

An exercise:

Calculate the amount of influence by which my vote (for Lib Dem in Oxford East; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/d47.stm ) had in determining the outcome of the national election.


For instance, in a simple election between three parties for one seat, where party A gets 10 votes, party B gets 8 votes, and party C gets 2 votes, an individual voter has 1/20th of a say. Every voter has 1/20th of a say, equally.
 

Varion

Member
At the end of the day the odd individual 'representative at Westminster' really don't matter very much. Unless you're part of the party holding the majority of seats, you don't get much say in anything. 6.8 million voters said they wanted a Lib Dem government (because at the end of the day, that's what people are voting for), while 8.6 million said they wanted a Labour government. What was the result? 57 Lib Dem representatives, and 258 Labour representatives. That honestly doesn't seem like a bit of a discrepancy? As Empty said, the current system would be fine with regards to local issues, but how the government acts is decided by the government as a whole. Taken in that light, the results we got really aren't representative of the people at all, and a small number of people in marginal seats have much more influence over how the entire country is governed than the rest of the country does. That just seems... bizarre.
 

FuturusX

Member
Kowak said:
So lets have a govt composed of runner ups. Something like AV will lead to a liberal landslide each time and STV is just unworkable here.

Looking at the demographics of the country it's clear that anything but FPTP would result in a very difficult time for the Tory party. Tory support is not broad enough (see Scotland). Electoral reform would force the party to re-invent itself. The die-hards are loathed to do that.

You could argue a "liberal landslide' reflects the will of the people more accurately. At least that's one way of looking at:

Popular Vote

CON 36.1%
LAB 29.0%
LD 23.0%

The country is clearly centre-left.
 

tHoMNZ

Member
So at a lot of voting stations there weren't enough ballots for all? I'd put money on this 'mistake' being on purpose as I have already seen the calls for a fully electronic election in future, and we all know the issues surrounding that method.
 
I would also say that you wouldn't have "liberal landslides" ad infinitum, because all governments become unpopular. Their failure mounts up. Successions of 'failed' liberal governments would make people vote the other way, the country always rebalances itself when its time for a change.

We're currently stuck in a feedback loop though and thats why I and many others here and out in the real UK want a complete change in the system.

The current system is only fostering disgust and mistrust in politics because governments are getting elected on the say so of a paltry percentage of the population - they are carrying out legislation that they have no mandate for. People here either don't bother to vote at all, tactically vote for one of only two parties, or see their vote go wasted because of disproportionate constituency weighting, poor local candidates or widespread tactical voting.

There is NO REASON we can't improve our electoral system. In fact we should always aspire to.
 

louis89

Member
The major issue I have with PR is that every election will turn out like this one. This hung parliament bollocks is total shit and I don't want it to ever happen again. In FPTP a hung parliament is the exception rather than the rule. If I vote for party X, I want party X in power. I don't want party X plus party Y in power. I don't want parties to have to compromise on their policies with other ideologically separate parties in order to be able to govern at all. I don't want to have smaller parties acting as kingmakers with disproportionate amounts of power. And I don't want the BNP and all kinds of other loonies in the house of commons, which you can pretty much guarantee will happen.

Saying your vote is wasted in FPTP in a safe seat is like saying that if you voted for McCain in the US, your vote was wasted. The majority of people around you wanted something else. That sucks for you, but just because your vote wasn't taken into account in the composition of the government doesn't mean it was "wasted". You just lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom