-
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
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I see. Since it's gonna be painful no matter who gets in, might as well let the toffs drink from that poisoned chalice.Empty said:
And the whole reason people wanted a hung parliament was so that politicians would have to work together and compromise. A so-called "majority" government just forcing through its agenda by force isn't good for anyone in the long term. See: the three horribly true points Phisheep brought up. Hence why PR-like reforms are so important.
Still, only the Lib Dems know what will happen next.
Nothing whatsoever, Blair and his terror laws in particular were a shameful disaster that should be repealed as soon as possible.phisheep said:
Personally I just want the so-called 'progressive alliance' because Labour are more likely to concede on PR. After that the alliance could just fall apart followed by another election under a fairer system. As a single party, I wouldn't vote for Labour, and those 3 points are among the reasons why.
dr_octagon
Banned
Didn't Mervin King say that the next party won't be elected for a long time because of the measures they will have to take. Labour could hope for the worst, in terms of the economy, which would help them next time.DECK'ARD said:
killer_clank
Member
Is it true you aren't actually allowed to protest outside the Palace of Westminster anymore? I'd heard this was the case but all of the news coverage from there over the past few days has seen protesters pissing off the presenters, so I'm unsure.
dr_octagon
Banned
In regards to the legislation, someone posted this before - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdfVarion said:
killer_clank said:
you have to apply for a permit to protest , i think. they can reject it if it's violent sounding, put police limits on it and you have to give them at least 7 days notice, but i think the majority of peaceful ones go through IIRC from the FOI requests on the subject. still seriously fucking disgusting, though.
As far as I remember, Labour promised to delay the deepest cuts until the country's economy could absorb it. So a Progressive coalition could just focus on getting electoral reform through, dissolve and call a new election, form a new, stronger coalition, and then impose the cuts if the conditions were right. Theoretically, that is.dr_octagon said:
killer_clank
Member
Cameron's left his house to go somewhere.
killer_clank
Member
Varion said:
NICK CLEGG'S CAR
killer_clank
Member
RedShift said:
I wish Newswipe was on right now in order to cover the election crap. Would be amazing. :lol
brain_stew
Member
I hope Clegg gets his policy to raise the tax free limit to £10k through, that sure as hell would help me and thousands of others. Ditch the silly inheritance tax break to pay for it, and this coalition is looking a lot nicer than a Tory majority would.
Get us that and AV or AV+ and I think the grassroots (on the Libral side at least) would give him their backing.
Edit: I;ve got to admit my respect for Cameron has risen quite a bit with the way he's went about these debates. Just a shame he has a party full of so many insane luddites to carry with him.
Get us that and AV or AV+ and I think the grassroots (on the Libral side at least) would give him their backing.
Edit: I;ve got to admit my respect for Cameron has risen quite a bit with the way he's went about these debates. Just a shame he has a party full of so many insane luddites to carry with him.
killer_clank
Member
"Political reform"
Interesting.
Interesting.
"Nick Clegg and David Cameron talked on the phone at 1430 BST. Sources say that there's no intention for the two men to meet tonight, says BBC political editor Nick Robinson. David Cameron is now in his office to meet any of his MPs who want to meet him."
Guess negotiations didn't really work out?
Go Lab Clegg. Do it.
Guess negotiations didn't really work out?
Go Lab Clegg. Do it.
brain_stew
Member
Sage00 said:
The media machine couldn't get Cameron a majority, what's to say they could onvince the public of something even more suspect. FPTP is pretty much indefensible, but be sure that we all will have to do our bit to educate the country as to why it needs to go. Like the BNP, it can't stand up to reasoned arguments and evidence, so that's what we all have to make sure we provide.
That recent, post election, Yougov poll showed 2/3 of the country in favour of substantial electoral reform, there's a desire for it now and its a big issue.
That's a very Tory friendly policy, I'm sure that'll definitely go through. All of the Tory's civil liberty based policies like scrapping ID cards Lib Dems will love too (and I couldn't see that going through in a Labour coalition). Provided they water down some of the Conservative anti-EU movement and perhaps slow down the speed of the cuts it seems like a pretty positive agreement.brain_stew said:
brain_stew
Member
Chinner said:not a key point though
They've got to keep the grassroots on side and not show a sign of weakness. It is the key point, make no mistake, but publically neither side can allude to that.
Again, my feeling is that Cameron is willing to move on this point as well, after an election run with the theme of change, he can't place himself as the key stumbling block to the most fundamental change to our political system in decades, a change that is desired by the majority of the country and is long overdue. As ever, the issue is bringing the crazies in his party with him, and after a less than convincing performance on Thursday, that's not going to be easy.
brain_stew
Member
RedShift said:
All of that authoritarian, Orwellian shit has cost Labour a lot of thier support, no doubt about it.
brain_stew
Member
Xavien said:
Of course we do, but most of us are realists as well. AV+ is a huge step forward and would be a saitsfactory compromise for most. Negotiations are about compromise, offering a referendum on AV+ would mean Cameron moving a long way from his current position, so the LDs have to be willing to move some way as well.
killer_clank
Member
Ooh, Gordon Brown met with Nick Clegg today, although it was made with Cameron's knowledge to update Brown.
brain_stew
Member
Xavien said:
It'd give the Lib Dems a crap load more seats (with their currnt share of the vote), introduce a proportional element and not destroy the constituency link either (which does have its merits). It'd also get rid of most tactical voting and not give fringe parties like the BNP many, if any, seats (either a postive or negative consequence depending on your viewpoint).
We're not going to get a referendum on full STV this year, not even Labour would offer that, despite how desperate their current position is.
brain_stew said:
really? from what i understand unless you have the most votes to begin with (exactly like FPTP) you wont get a seat (because lesser shares of the vote will be added to the highest share of the vote until you get a majority).
STV wouldn't destroy the constituency link either.
Sage00 said:
less than a quarter of seats because of the shitty system we're in, if STV was already in place, we'd already have a Labour/Tory-LD coalition by now and the government and cabinet would've already be forming.
You also have to realise that the tories want power, they know that if another election is called, Labour will get rid of brown and the tories may very well not win the next election. They know that both the LD and the Tories could very well lose what they have if another election is called (and it will if the Tories will form a minority government because of how impossible it would be). What i cant understand is why Labour doesn't just sit back and watch the coalition fall on its face and focus on getting a new leader in place before the next election.
Well no, AV is an instant runoff. So as long as the Lib Dems come second (which they do in a massive number of constituencies), when it gets to the third place Tory/Labour being eliminated, most of their voters will likely have chosen Lib Dems as #2 and the votes will be added to them, which could push them into a majority position. In Labour/Tory marginals, most Lib Dem voters would likely have Labour as #2 and they would get the votes. The big losers out of AV are the Tories, which is why they're against the system. It's not really that big of a deal for the Lib Dems though, it certainly is nowhere near proportional, and it's debatable the difference it would make to any party really.Xavien said:
But that's just AV. What is suggested by Labour (and maybe these talks) is AV+. This is where the MP for the constituency is elected by AV, then an additional 15-20% of MPs are elected from regional party lists by full PR. So it attempts to offset the disproportionate vote with these PR MPs. It's not perfect but it's a good step forward from what we have now, and it retains the constituency link.
Gary Whitta
Member
Good editorial in The Observer today arguing for a Lib/Lab deal...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/observer-editorial-clegg-brown-coalition
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/observer-editorial-clegg-brown-coalition
brain_stew
Member
Mr. Sam said:
Its debatable but having a specific MP to address your concerns with and to bring about a dialogue with (which is something I've made use of more than one time in the past) does have its deirable elements. I can see a lot of people wanting to keep it, which is why I see a system like AV+ going down a lot easier with the general public. Its a somewhat realistic goal for these negotiations, STV definitely is not.
Local surgeries and the ability to write to your local MP are important to a lot of people and get a lot of small issues solved. These issues not being worthy of parliament is exactly why a local MP is needed. A constituency MP knows the area and has considerable influence over local council, schools, hospitals, etc. The influence of local issues in government may be all but gone, but the local MP remains a key figure to most people.Mr. Sam said:
Sage00 said:
whoops, i get it, ok its better but it still ends up with a fairly large amount of the electorate with no say.
Sage00 said:
I once wrote to my MP about the DE bill, all i got was a automatically generated statement from Lord Mandleson himself, i cant see how Local issues would get any consideration at all in this centralized government.
Sage00 said:
Yes, i got it.
Mr. Sam said:
Yeah, it was pretty confusing when i read it, but when it all clicked, i realized that AV+/AV would help Labour/Lib-dems by far. Because i cant see Tory voters listing either LD or Labour in their preferences.
But ultimately it would lead to wasted votes though.
What makes you think they aren't? They may be thinking the same thing you are, for all we know.Xavien said:
And I concur that AV+ would be acceptable as a compromise, but that it MUST be accepted by the public and implemented before the next election to mean anything. That is crucial to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked