Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Sam]

The economy and the EU - two of my least favourite topics. I'm not going to like this thread for the forseeable future, I think.

 

[DECK'ARD]

In other news!

Labour: "It's the media's fault"

We believe that an unintended consequence of the attention (the debates) get has been a lack of policy scrutiny and discussion that was normal in previous election coverage.
We think the public are being short-changed by the focus on process not policy. Yesterday both of the other main parties said this idea had merit today they don't - that's tells you all you need to know about their enthusiasm for a policy discussion. They are the anything but policy parties.

Draft letter to be sent to the broadcasters, Conservatives and Lib Dems have refused to sign:

To: BBC, ITV, Channel Four, If there is one thing which all parties can agree on it's that the televised leaders' debates have been a welcome development which has given a real sense of energy and excitement to the election campaign.
However, as we reach the final stages of the campaign we also share a common belief that the focus on the debates, both the process surrounding them, and the polling before and after which they have attracted, has dramatically reduced the amount of airtime dedicated to the scrutiny of the policies of the parties. This is particularly so in the case of the main bulletins which remain the main source of news for many people.

We feel that whilst our manifestos were fully, fairly and properly covered, since then the usual specialist examination of specific policy areas has not been done.

We are writing to broadcasting organisations with a public service remit to ask you all to ensure that during the last ten days of the campaign your programmes analyse our policy proposals to the same level of detail as at previous election campaigns.

If the public are not exposed to the different policy details and arguments which we are presenting we are concerned that you will not be fulfilling your traditional duty of explaining and probing the plans of all the main parties. If the public don't hear the arguments we believe that, despite the impact of the debates, many will still be in the dark as to the differences between our plans and values.

We are copying this letter to Sky News.

Quite hilarious when Labour's main contributions to the election discussion have been Gene Hunt, Little Britain and Elvis.

Me thinks there is a bit of a panic going on ...

 

[defel]

Did anyone else watch Paxman interview Nick Griffin on Newsnight last night? I think Paxman was under orders to treat Griffin kindly because Paxman hardly laid into him.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I hear the Lib Dems are drafting a similar letter:

To: Sky News, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Daily Mail

Fuck Rupert Murdoch and fuck you.

 

[DECK'ARD]

The Lib Dem response:

We have discussed your proposal – however, we do not think that it is appropriate for political parties to seek to dictate the nature of political coverage to broadcasters.

We are pleased that because we have set out our policy priorities clearly in our manifesto and included detailed costings, broadcasters and others have been able to analyse our policy and subject it to proper scrutiny and discussion.

It might assist coverage if other parties followed suit. We would, of course, welcome further focus on policy given our clear message, focused priorities and detailed costings.

Well played.

 

[Souldriver]

You make a convincing argument for the interdependency of social policy and economics. But when you say 'social policy for a large part remains in the hands of the member states', a study in Germany showed 84% of domestic legislation came from Brussels with only 16% coming from Berlin - there is little reason to believe that Britain is any different.

Eeeuh, isn't that number about every law, not social law?


Because, sure, people have to realize that the vast majority of law is made on European level. The vast majority of law is made concerning free trade, internal markets, competition, industries, .... And just about 100% of that is made on a European level. As I said repeatedly in previous posts, this is nothing extra-ordinary, and it is in fact a very crucial part of the Union. There have to be laws for even the smallest things. And the vast majority are not to restrict rights or trade or whatever, but exactly to prevent there from being restrictions. Next to trade law, there's also environmental law, which is, last time I checked also about 90% European. And again, a considerable part of that is in function of the internal market, not only the environment itself.

Social law is also for a considerable part made at a European level. But really, for the most part these laws are not on subjects that are used in the election campaigns of member states. It's about small, almost trivial things, that are just so obvious for everyone, but are yet again very important for the functioning of the internal market and are the foundation of social law and rights. For example, the Renault Directive says that the Unions of a plant must be informed about mass firings before the press is. Don't tell me you're against that, right? Well, it's for these kinds of situations that the EU has to make sure the basics of social law are equal all over Europe. When you have to make a whole bunch of these "obvious" laws, off course the percentage will shoot up.

But fact of the matter stays that the >80% of European law is largely based on the laws made for the function of the common market, and only a small part is social law. I think the EU has the littlest to say in fiscal law. That's still overwhelmingly in the hands of Member States.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Create New Thread > "UK PoliGAF Thread of Europe Discussion Not Shitting Up The General Election Thread" > Submit > Please.

 

[Chinner]

I know what you mean, but it's the weekend. Nothing happens on the weekend so I'm not really fussed if people talk about the EU now cause it'll just bump us along till something does happen.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I know what you mean, but it's the weekend. Nothing happens on the weekend so I'm not really fussed if people talk about the EU now cause it'll just bump us along till something does happen.

There's been quite a lot happen today actually, with Nick Clegg making position on coalition clear etc. Plus talks of splits in both Tory and Labour sides, and now Labour turning on the media which could be yet another case of shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus Monday's polls tonight for a clearer idea of the political tide post-debate.

It's been very hard to notice any news points with pages and pages of circular arguments regarding games industry funding and Europe, and because of the sea of text regarding those issues it prevents any discussion on anything else. This has been going on for about a week.

I think regarding those issues both sides know clearly where the other stands, every point that could be made has been made, and like circumcision you just have to accept someone either likes their foreskin or does not

 

[Chinner]

There's been quite a lot happen today actually, with Nick Clegg making position on coalition clear etc. Plus talks of splits in both Tory and Labour sides, and now Labour turning on the media which could be yet another case of shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus Monday's polls tonight for a clearer idea of the political tide post-debate.

It's been very hard to notice any news points with pages and pages of circular arguments regarding games industry funding and Europe, and because of the sea of text regarding those issues it prevents any discussion on anything else.

I think regarding those issues both sides know clearly where the other stands, every point that could be made has been made, and like circumcision you just have to accept someone either likes their foreskin or does not

They've been posted, and you are right. I suppose I could start quoting and shit, but I don't want to get into a role where I just quote shit just to say "look at dis, its interesting".

Clearly Linkified is Rupert Murdoch.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Clearly Linkified is Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Souldriver]

There's been quite a lot happen today actually, with Nick Clegg making position on coalition clear etc. Plus talks of splits in both Tory and Labour sides, and now Labour turning on the media which could be yet another case of shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus Monday's polls tonight for a clearer idea of the political tide post-debate.

It's been very hard to notice any news points with pages and pages of circular arguments regarding games industry funding and Europe, and because of the sea of text regarding those issues it prevents any discussion on anything else. This has been going on for about a week.

I think regarding those issues both sides know clearly where the other stands, every point that could be made has been made, and like circumcision you just have to accept someone either likes their foreskin or does not

If you're talking about my "walls of text", my first post here was made yesterday. Maybe Linkified and consorts have done a bunch of hit-n-runs all week, but not me. Also, I think it's kind of sad that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss a subject that is an important voting issue for many people in the UK. I guess we should all go back to simple "Europe is socialist" and "Free trade is good" sound bytes to make sure the Facebook poll results are not overshadowed?

Sorry if this sounds bitter, but I hate the idea that you'd rather not have an in depth discussion on something entirely on-topic because it is too "polluting". You know, if some worthwhile news comes along, I'm sure everyone will discuss it. And I'm not planning on continuing the EU topic much longer, because I know that at a certain point every discussion just drags out and starts repeating itself. And also off course, because you and Chinner don't appreciate it, and I wouldn't want that.

 

[Kowak]

If you want to make this car industry decision from France legal, France will have to leave the EU. Because it affects the very core of the European Union, which is still the common market. Once you give 1 country the possibility to either subsidize certain industries, or tax other ones extra hard, in order to "protect the own economy", it ends the whole principle of that common market. You're talking about "making this an exception to the rule because it was critical for France". But you can't make exceptions to this ground principle of the Union, especially not only at the point when it starts to become critical. Once France can protect it's car industry, every other country will too. This is not some sort of assumption. It would happen. Not to mention, once countries with a car industry start protecting those industry, other countries, who don't have an interest in the car industry, will start wanting to protect the industries they do have an interest in. The European Union as a whole just will cease to exist. Simple as that. The race to the bottom I explained, would happen. Because once one member state starts a protective measures, it is cheating on the others. It's a form of free riding. Not one other country would stand for it.

This is also the reason why Europe has to come up with rules, that are so easily ridiculed. It's to create a level playing field. A famous example is how the EU explained how cucumbers should to look like. The UK tabloids had a hoot portraying it as a prime example of how the EU is just fucking with us, total nitpickers. However, even when it comes to something as simple as cucumbers, the EU has to make sure that (hidden) protective measures are not put in place by countries. Lets say that spain produces cucumbers that always weigh more than 500 grams, while France's cucumber industry almost exclusively mini ones, only weighing at most 400 gram. A hidden protection could be put into place by France by saying that cucumbers have to weigh less than 500 grams or they can't be sold in France. EU steps in and says: cucumbers weigh from 100 to 1000 grams, and all those that fall between those limits, have to be allowed for sale in every member state. Don't underestimate the inventiveness of countries to try and cheat the system. Belgian lawnmowers produce 70 decibels on average, Dutch ones produces 60 decibels. Holland could put a law in place limiting the amount of decibels a lawnmower is allowed to make to 69 decibels, making it effectively impossible for Belgium to export their lawnmowers. EU steps in, and in this case, the chances are high that if the technology to reduce the sound of lawnmowers is common place and cheap, they'd agree with Holland and say that the maximum limit must be 69 decibels. That way the Belgian industry is forced to comply to better, more demanding rules. Consumers get better from it, industries are modernized, and a level playing field for all lawnmower producers so that they can only compete with each other by reducing prices or going even further down the limit in sound production.

It's this basic principle that is the foundation of the EU. It's this reason why you can't allow France to suddenly start protective measures for its car industry. No matter how good it might sound for the French, and would indeed be awesome if this was somehow made an *exception*, something that only the French could do, it might (not even sure) be beneficial for them. However, this is all hypothesis, because it wouldn't be an *exception* only for this industry, only for France. Every country would do it in every sector, making it a lose-lose situation for all, going back to the pre-WWII situation in Europe which was pretty much dramatic economic wise, with obvious repercussions for social and foreign relation situations as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying, that this level playing field without exceptions benefits everyone, and that free riding might be even better for individual countries, but undermines the whole system nullifying the benefits for everyone. Because if you don't understand or believe this, it would drag us into a debate on basic economics, which (and this sounds very arrogant :-/ ) I would win. Every evidence says that the common market has been immensely advantageous for everyone involved. I find it hard to understand, how someone who lives inside the market, and experiences it every day, can't see this. Perhaps some broader and historical perspective is necessary I guess. I think it is caused by an understandable reflex to fault the EU for every thing that goes wrong, because the EU is something abstract, something that affects our lives without us knowing exactly how or why. Not to mention, because most people don't know how the EU works, it's the perfect scape goat for national politicians when things go wrong. You should wonder why Sarkozy proposed these measures. He knows it's not allowed, and he knows it wouldn't work. But it sounds good in the ears of the French, and because it won't be allowed by the EU, Sarkozy can profile himself as the good guy being held back by the backward EU.




Lastly, you don't like an "additional form of government that can decide on things". After what I've said, I hope you see how this government is necessary. The member states are notorious opportunists, and if they couldn't be reminded of the rules of the common market, and be forced to comply to them, you can pack the Union up in a minute and all go home. Why does it need an administration? Because it has to monitor the market, study and decide on conflicts like the lawnmower example I made, and create new rules to continue in strengthening the market, preventing loopholes and free riding, and a system to enforce the law on countries. So the European Commission and Council of Ministers are a necessity for the common market to work. But who gives them the right to decide how much decibels a lawnmower can make? Well, despite the members of the EC and CoM being democratically elected by the European people, it might be a good thing that there is a directly elected organ that controls everything. An extra checks-and-balances link (similar to that of most nation states) to make sure that the EU functions well, and in the interest of the people, consumers and producers alike. And that is the Parliament. But what if countries don't apply to the rules set out by the common market, or some rules are simply dubious? Well, you need a judicial system to decide on these matters.

So you see, even if you completely limit the European Union to an economic area, all the institutions that are in place right now, are absolutely necessary for it to work. The only one that is just an addition, is the European Council of State Leaders. This body doesn't have any legislative, executive or judicial powers. It's put in place to appease the state leaders who have a hard time losing some control over everything. The European Council has given itself the job to provide some road-map for the far future, some goals for the EU in the general sense, and to talk about matters that are very pressing and current.





Edit: oh, and I'd like to add that the Agricultural policy is one of the few thing people can have legitimate complaints about. Because that is an exception to the common market principles. Because it is good for only a few member states. And because the system of either subsidies or quotes don't work at all. This policy is a relic of the post-WWII mentality. It was put in place to prevent there from ever being another famine or general food shortage ever again. Everyone supported it back then. Agriculture was very important, and people (including state leaders) didn't have a big problem with a protectionist and sub-optimal system if it meant the food supply was guaranteed.

Don't really think I can counter that with any decent argument.

I still think that a government should be able to take care of its own industry rather then have to ensure that it is available to all and that the EU acts as a restrictive measure in allowing member states best deal with any crisis that it faces. Creating a race to the bottom and protecting your nations citizens are two different things. In fact by not allowing governments to do simple measures could see voter dissatisfaction with Europe and lead to the EU breaking up in its current form. The anti-protectionism of the EU will also never see eastern Europe truly match the rest of Western Europe as they will never be able to grow in the same way that Western Europe once did.

By subsiding or taxing certain parts of a nations industry does not prevent the free movement of goods across Europe. Sometimes a decision by a government to introduce change might have a negative effect on companies in that country. Then they are left with the choice of either staying and facing greater financial cost or move abroad. The later would then have terrible effects on the nations economy, thus, the only possible solution is to subsidise a certain part of industry.

Your argument shows the need for a bureaucratic level of Europe, but with that we then already have our democratically elected representatives through the leaders and ministers who could perfectly perform the function of the parliament of Europe, every major treaty needs to be approved by them anyway. I would much prefer it if they were the ones approving the size of cucumbers then the EU parliament. Then all you need is an economic dispute resolution board that can be made up of the member states and decide on the issues.

Edit: I really should have told you not to respond last night. Great post by you.

 

[Chinner]

No Souldriver, your posts have been excellent! I was not referring to you at all, and I doubt Deck was either. It's just that the EU argument has come up a few times now and some are getting fed up of it.

I'm happy you're here really, cause I think most of us are too lazy to actually discuss this shit with the Linkified and such because they always bring it up; you're a bro.

 

[Souldriver]

No Souldriver, your posts have been excellent! I was not referring to you at all, and I doubt Deck was either. It's just that the EU argument has come up a few times now and some are getting fed up of it.

I'm happy you're here really, cause I think most of us are too lazy to actually discuss this shit with the Linkified and such because they always bring it up; you're a bro.

No prob. It was a misunderstanding. Either way, I'm going to stop talking about the EU thingy, because the discussions have come full circle in most cases anyway.

 

[Chinner]

Seriously, I wish I knew half as much as you or Sir Fragula know about the EU. Your knowledge impresses me and if I knew it would make debating with UKIPPers much easier.

 

[DECK'ARD]

If you're talking about my "walls of text", my first post here was made yesterday. Maybe Linkified and consorts have done a bunch of hit-n-runs all week, but not me. Also, I think it's kind of sad that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss a subject that is an important voting issue for many people in the UK. I guess we should all go back to simple "Europe is socialist" and "Free trade is good" sound bytes to make sure the Facebook poll results are not overshadowed?

Sorry if this sounds bitter, but I hate the idea that you'd rather not have an in depth discussion on something entirely on-topic because it is too "polluting". You know, if some worthwhile news comes along, I'm sure everyone will discuss it. And I'm not planning on continuing the EU topic much longer, because I know that at a certain point every discussion just drags out and starts repeating itself. And also off course, because you and Chinner don't appreciate it, and I wouldn't want that.

No, I find your posts to be excellent and very well informed.

However based on the track-record of this thread, I think there will be no end to this debate and it unfortunately will just provoke a retread of lines of argument that have been done to death several times.

Some might have a moment of epiphany, but I doubt it.

 

[Walshicus]

I still think that a government should be able to take care of its own industry rather then have to ensure that it is available to all and that the EU acts as a restrictive measure in allowing member states best deal with any crisis that it faces. Creating a race to the bottom and protecting your nations citizens are two different things.

And

By subsiding or taxing certain parts of a nations industry does not prevent the free movement of goods across Europe. Sometimes a decision by a government to introduce change might have a negative effect on companies in that country. Then they are left with the choice of either staying and facing greater financial cost or move abroad. The later would then have terrible effects on the nations economy, thus, the only possible solution is to subsidise a certain part of industry.

Subsidies on a member state level distort the market and *do* lead to race to the bottom/top conditions. It's also against the entire point of the Single Market. Our 27 states agreed that the benefits of having a singular economic policy area were substantial; that while some industries may lose out, overall there would be gains through the exploitation of Comparative Advantage. If you say that French cars are special, then what about British cars? Or Italian shoes? Or Finnish electronics? No - we have one policy and one economic area and we *all* benefit from it. You said it doesn't prevent the free movement of goods? True, but it does distort competition.

The anti-protectionism of the EU will also never see eastern Europe truly match the rest of Western Europe as they will never be able to grow in the same way that Western Europe once did.

Eastern Europe is growing much faster than Western Europe, isn't it? I'm fairly certain that's still the case.

Your argument shows the need for a bureaucratic level of Europe, but with that we then already have our democratically elected representatives through the leaders and ministers who could perfectly perform the function of the parliament of Europe, every major treaty needs to be approved by them anyway. I would much prefer it if they were the ones approving the size of cucumbers then the EU parliament. Then all you need is an economic dispute resolution board that can be made up of the member states and decide on the issues.

The EU parliament was appointed not elected at first. That was hugely undemocratic, and I'm very surprised to see someone advocate *less* democratic accountability. People should be able to express separate policy preferences at the EU level than the national level. It's precisely this reason that we have separate elections for our local leaders.

 

[blazinglord]

Eeeuh, isn't that number about every law, not social law?


Because, sure, people have to realize that the vast majority of law is made on European level. The vast majority of law is made concerning free trade, internal markets, competition, industries, .... And just about 100% of that is made on a European level. As I said repeatedly in previous posts, this is nothing extra-ordinary, and it is in fact a very crucial part of the Union. There have to be laws for even the smallest things. And the vast majority are not to restrict rights or trade or whatever, but exactly to prevent there from being restrictions. Next to trade law, there's also environmental law, which is, last time I checked also about 90% European. And again, a considerable part of that is in function of the internal market, not only the environment itself.

Social law is also for a considerable part made at a European level. But really, for the most part these laws are not on subjects that are used in the election campaigns of member states. It's about small, almost trivial things, that are just so obvious for everyone, but are yet again very important for the functioning of the internal market and are the foundation of social law and rights. For example, the Renault Directive says that the Unions of a plant must be informed about mass firings before the press is. Don't tell me you're against that, right? Well, it's for these kinds of situations that the EU has to make sure the basics of social law are equal all over Europe. When you have to make a whole bunch of these "obvious" laws, off course the percentage will shoot up.

But fact of the matter stays that the >80% of European law is largely based on the laws made for the function of the common market, and only a small part is social law. I think the EU has the littlest to say in fiscal law. That's still overwhelmingly in the hands of Member States.

Well if it is the case that the introduction of all these obvious 'social laws' is to level the playing field, then there should be drop in directives from Brussels. Not a year by year increase as Brussels become bolder and seeks to transfer more and more legislative-sovereignty from member states to Brussels. Presumably the end-goal is indeed, a federal super-state which is exactly what scares Eurosceptics so much.

There's been quite a lot happen today actually, with Nick Clegg making position on coalition clear etc. Plus talks of splits in both Tory and Labour sides, and now Labour turning on the media which could be yet another case of shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus Monday's polls tonight for a clearer idea of the political tide post-debate.

It's been very hard to notice any news points with pages and pages of circular arguments regarding games industry funding and Europe, and because of the sea of text regarding those issues it prevents any discussion on anything else. This has been going on for about a week.

I think regarding those issues both sides know clearly where the other stands, every point that could be made has been made, and like circumcision you just have to accept someone either likes their foreskin or does not

Well I only contributed to the European debate this weekend, but it is relevant to the elections seeing as a large proportion of the leadership debate last Thursday was devoted to the issue of Europe.

Anyway, nothing of note has happened this weekend -DC hanging out in London with Boris and then going to a wedding, NC reunited with his sons who were stuck in Spain and GB continuing to remain irrelevant as ever. As for Clegg making his position on coalitions clearer - Clegg has always maintained the party who gets the biggest share of the vote will have the 'moral right' to seek to govern first. But Clegg hasn't ruled out sharing a coalition with Labour if presumably the Tories do not cede to the Lib Dems' demands of electoral reform. Same old basically. If there is anything significant that has happened over the weekend that I have missed out, be sure to let us know.

 

[blazinglord]

No prob. It was a misunderstanding. Either way, I'm going to stop talking about the EU thingy, because the discussions have come full circle in most cases anyway.

Yeah I've finished with this European discussion too, but it has been fun. You have definitely made me more sympathetic to the idea of European enlargement than I originally was. I didn't know about Western Europe being worried about flooded Eastern European goods when it ended up being the other way round which benefited the West economically.

 

[Kowak]

And

Subsidies on a member state level distort the market and *do* lead to race to the bottom/top conditions. It's also against the entire point of the Single Market. Our 27 states agreed that the benefits of having a singular economic policy area were substantial; that while some industries may lose out, overall there would be gains through the exploitation of Comparative Advantage. If you say that French cars are special, then what about British cars? Or Italian shoes? Or Finnish electronics? No - we have one policy and one economic area and we *all* benefit from it. You said it doesn't prevent the free movement of goods? True, but it does distort competition.



Eastern Europe is growing much faster than Western Europe, isn't it? I'm fairly certain that's still the case.



The EU parliament was appointed not elected at first. That was hugely undemocratic, and I'm very surprised to see someone advocate *less* democratic accountability. People should be able to express separate policy preferences at the EU level than the national level. It's precisely this reason that we have separate elections for our local leaders.

Not going to carry the argument on here because it will continue and people will keep getting annoyed, but I do recognise your points. Only thing I will say is that my comment about eastern Europe was in terms of historically compared to the measures that western European nations adopted to ensure their own economic growth. Its a case of you cant do what we once did to achieve prosperity.

 

[Empty]

I find it hard to believe the Tories won't cede to the Lib Dem's electoral reform demands. Not because they want to, they really don't, but because it is good political strategy. They know Labour are willing to offer proportional representation to stay in power, so either they reject the LD's proposals, then they don't get into power and have PR put up anyway, or they accept that demand, take PR and get into power. They can justify it to their base because any change would have to be put through a referendum, and by arguing against it in the referendum debates, while still saying that the election's peculiar result meant that they had to consult the country.

I think issues like their stances on Europe, cutting the budget this year instead of next and even seemingly lesser stuff like their positions on fox hunting will prove more troublesome for any potential Lib-Con partnership.

 

[Chinner]

I don't think even the Tories know what they'll do. At the moment, it's all lip service in attempt to persuade the progressives currently sitting on the wall. Once the election is over, they're never going to accept the Lib Dem's four policy requirements (there's a better chance of that from Labour). If anything, they'll probably try to negotiate it to one policy at a time, so they can pick and choose any Lib Dem support they can garner.

 

[avaya]

Lib Dem demands will go

1. Single Transfer Vote, fuck your FPTP shit you cunts.
2. Dr. Vince Cable Second Lord of the Treasury.

 

[Kowak]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article7105637.ece

Take two scenarios. In the first, the Tories are 20 to 30 MPs short of an overall Commons majority, but 40 to 50 ahead of Labour. Gordon Brown would probably not be able to command support in the Commons, not least because Nick Clegg would not want to prop up a clear loser. David Cameron would be in a strong position to stay in power for a year or more: to introduce deficit reduction measures and prove himself capable of governing. The Lib Dems would be in a dilemma. They would want to appear fiscally responsible ahead of an expected second general election, but would not want another election too soon because of a lack of money to fund another campaign. The Lib Dems might sign a “confidence and supply” agreement, keeping the Tories in office and backing key financial measures, but retaining their freedom of manoeuvre over other Bills.

I read this in the times friday and thought it was quite interesting possibility.

 

[Walshicus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article7105637.ece


I read this in the times friday and thought it was quite interesting possibility.

Possibly...

But the Lib Dem's single biggest goal at the moment is the replacement of FPTP with something, *anything* closer to Proportional Representation. Once they have PR, they're secured a role in government for the indefinite future.

Similarly, that's also why the Tories will do anything to avoid PR - because they almost certainly never be able to make a government for the United Kingdom. On the plus side though it might counter their pro-Unionism; and anything that leads to the end of the UK has to be a good thing.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I find it hard to believe the Tories won't cede to the Lib Dem's electoral reform demands. Not because they want to, they really don't, but because it is good political strategy. They know Labour are willing to offer proportional representation to stay in power, so either they reject the LD's proposals, then they don't get into power and have PR put up anyway, or they accept that demand, take PR and get into power. They can justify it to their base because any change would have to be put through a referendum, and by arguing against it in the referendum debates, while still saying that the election's peculiar result meant that they had to consult the country.

I think issues like their stances on Europe, cutting the budget this year instead of next and even seemingly lesser stuff like their positions on fox hunting will prove more troublesome for any potential Lib-Con partnership.

FPTP seems very much dead-in-the-water at this point, the first time it's become a legitimate election issue to a lot of people because the rise of the Lib Dems and the polls highlighting very clearly how unrepresentative the current system is.

It's too late in the game now for Cameron to cede on electoral reform though, and in the eyes of the party and it's supporters it's blasphemy as it would most likely mean the end of Conservative majority Governments for good. It would be the final betrayal of 'Conservative principles' and almost certainly lead to a split in the party in the post-election fallout.

Cameron is literally praying for them to just short enough of an overall majority that they don't have to rely on the Lib Dems, the recovery in the polls and Labour's continued lows is enough to keep that hope alive.

How the Lib Dem rise will play out in the number of seats is a massive variable in this election, especially in the marginals and Scotland. Both main parties must be shitting themselves a bit as no one can call this election with any accuracy.

 

[defel]

Isnt it in the Conservatives interest to introduce PR? IM a bit confused as to why they arent sick of FPTP

 

[DECK'ARD]

Isnt it in the Conservatives interest to introduce PR? IM a bit confused as to why they arent sick of FPTP

It's the only system that can result in a Conservative majority based on their levels of polling.

Any move away from it, even something as half-arsed as AV, lessens their chances.

 

[Walshicus]

Isnt it in the Conservatives interest to introduce PR? IM a bit confused as to why they arent sick of FPTP

Their only real chance of government comes from FPTP. The UK as a whole is centre-left leaning, meaning that Labour and Lib Dems usually get ~2/3rds of the vote.

The Lib Dems would be more likely to go into government with Labour than the Tories.

 

[Linkified]

Clearly Linkified is Rupert Murdoch.

I wish.

 

[Dabookerman]

Did anyone else watch Paxman interview Nick Griffin on Newsnight last night? I think Paxman was under orders to treat Griffin kindly because Paxman hardly laid into him.

I just watched it :lol

Paxman was pointing out the idiotic points of the BNP. He let Nick Griffin ask the questions that make him look like a complete tool.

Like the idea of an "Indigenous British Person"

 

[Linkified]

I just watched it :lol

Paxman was pointing out the idiotic points of the BNP. He let Nick Griffin ask the questions that make him look like a complete tool.

Like the idea of an "Indigenous British Person"

Yep totally the BNP have to get a snazzy image if they ever want to be elected, hell all you would have to do is put a slug up there and it would more charisma than Griffin.

 

[DECK'ARD]

YouGov:

Conservatives - 34%(-1)
Lib Dems - 30% (+2)
Labour - 28%(+1)

Very much the same, and all within the margin of error. Good for Lib Dems though to be holding this level of support after the media onslaught though, doesn't look like a bubble that will burst soon.

Support for all 3 parties seems to be solidifying around these amounts, pressure's going to be on in the last debate.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Lib Dem demands will go

1. Single Transfer Vote, fuck your FPTP shit you cunts.

I swear Clegg (or some other senior Lib Dem) was talking about wanting AV+ in the past few days. I also thought they wanted STV before that.

I also propose shorting Lib Dem demands to Lib Demands.

 

[Empty]

I swear Clegg (or some other senior Lib Dem) was talking about wanting AV+ in the past few days. I also thought they wanted STV before that.

I also propose shorting Lib Dem demands to Lib Demands.

Really? Given how they attacked Labour when they proposed a referendum AV+ last year, and given that AV+ isn't any more proportional than our current system, it wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Chinner]

I thought it was PR the Lib Dems wanting, with Labour suggesting AV+?

 

[Mad_Ban]

My Lib Dem candidate said they were hoping for STV.

They can't make their minds up! :lol

 

[Mr. Sam]

Really? Given how they attacked Labour when they proposed a referendum AV+ last year, and given that AV+ isn't any more proportional than our current system, it wouldn't make much sense.

AV+ is. You're thinking of plain AV.

Edit: I think this explains it quite nicely: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=56

 

[Empty]

AV+ is. You're thinking of plain AV.

I got confused a little, though AV+ is only a bit more proportional than FPTP, as a mere 20% of seats are elected proportionally through open party lists, and some of that is used in re-balancing the problems of the AV system, which is often less proportional than FPTP, for example it would have given Labour an even larger disproportionate amount of MP's for the same size of vote share at the last election. So it still wouldn't make sense for them to go for it, even if it is a step in the right direction.

 

[Walshicus]

I swear Clegg (or some other senior Lib Dem) was talking about wanting AV+ in the past few days. I also thought they wanted STV before that.

I also propose shorting Lib Dem demands to Lib Demands.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've been talking about STV consistently. May be wrong though, if you've got a link!

Either's better than we have now.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I got confused a little, though AV+ is only a bit more proportional than FPTP, as a mere 20% of seats are elected proportionally through open party lists, and some of that is used in re-balancing the problems of the AV system, which is often less proportional than FPTP, for example it would have given Labour an even larger disproportionate amount of MP's for the same size of vote share at the last election. So it still wouldn't make sense for them to go for it, even if it is a step in the right direction.

I was fairly certain the "plus" part was entirely to make it proportional; to give the parties the amount of seats they deserve depending on their vote. It was touted as the solution to retain the constituency link and gain proportionality.

Fuck it, I'm sure whatever the Lib Dems mean as "proportional representation" is just that.

 

[Xavien]

I thought it was PR the Lib Dems wanting, with Labour suggesting AV+?

AFAIK, it is?

EDIT: should really refresh before posting, way too late :lol

 

[Empty]

I was fairly certain the "plus" part was entirely to make it proportional; to give the parties the amount of seats they deserve depending on their vote. It was touted as the solution to retain the constituency link and gain proportionality.

Fuck it, I'm sure whatever the Lib Dems mean as "proportional representation" is just that.

Chris Huhne, silhouette home secretary, wrote this article advocating STV in febuary of this year. So i'm pretty sure that's what they propose.

As for AV achieving full proportionality, that's impossible given that only 20% of representatives are elected in that way. My vote for the Lib Dems is still wasted here in the constituency Aberdeen North because it's a Labour safe seat, and when they win my vote is eliminated, whereas in a fully proportional system it isn't. It is touted as a way of eliminating tactical voting and increasing proportionality in the system while maintaining the current constituency link and encouraging majorities.

 

[Mr. Sam]

As for AV achieving full proportionality, that's impossible given that only 20% of representatives are elected in that way.

Ah, but again I must stress the difference between the Alternative Vote and Alternative Vote Plus Systems. However, I feel you may still be correct. Next I have a chance, I'm going to bust open my old Government & Politics textbook and sort out the mess in my head.

 

[phisheep]

Reading between the lines of the recent stuff that the Libdems have said about Labour coming third here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

"I think a party which has come third and so millions of people have decided to abandon them, has lost the election spectacularly, cannot then lay claim to providing the Prime Minister of this country".

Seems to me that if, as the polls suggest, Labour is third overall in popular vote - even if it has the most seats - that Libdems would only enter coalition with them if Clegg were PM.

That would be interesting, as something of a poison pill for Labour - the threat that many Labour MPs would switch parties, leaving the rump of Labour to die off. Would that be worth the short-term gain of keeping the Tories out?

It'll be fascinating to watch, that's for sure.

 

[Empty]

Ah, but again I must stress the difference between the Alternative Vote and Alternative Vote Plus Systems. However, I feel you may still be correct. Next I have a chance, I'm going to bust open my old Government & Politics textbook and sort out the mess in my head.

Yeah, sorry. I keep confusing AV, AV+ and AMS, which isn't really helping in this discussion. For some reason i have it my head that AV+ and AV are the same things and that AMS, not AV+, is the version from the Jenkins report that makes AV much better. Stupid brain.

I meant that in AV+ only 20% of the representatives come from proportional party lists, whereas the rest are elected through instant runoff in each constituency, which has advantages, but is no more proportional than FPTP. Meaning that overall it is impossible for it to be fully proportional.

 

[jas0nuk]

Anyone heard of PR squared? The advantages of FPTP (majority governments, MP-constituency link) with some of the advantages of PR (eliminates safe seats, equal votes to equal seats).

There's a PDF about it here: http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.pdf

I haven't properly looked at it yet but it seems to be a good idea.

Also: Someone please make a topic about discussing the pros and cons of the European Union. It isn't a major issue of the election yet it seems to be taking up page after page of this topic. :/

 

[Linkified]

Ed Balls fined £60 for Driving while texting :lol

 

[Walshicus]

Majority governments *aren't* a good thing.