Support NeoGAF

[Omikaru]

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

Labour want AV (which is a three party stitch-up). The LibDems will accept AV+ (different from just AV, as it'll allow SNP and Plaid Cymru in on the action a little bit) as a compromise, because it's a stepping stone to true PR. If the LibDems lead a government, however, they will push for Single Transferrable Vote.

ERS has a list of all the different systems, their pros and cons, and where they fit. As a LibDem supporter I could tolerate AV+, however it's only a little bit less of a stitch-up inasmuch as it lets the LibDems/SNP/Plaid Cymru in on the action; it still keeps smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP and the BNP firmly sidelined.

 

[Linkified]

Majority governments *aren't* a good thing.

One could say a majority government acts as a clear voice for government and represents the majority who voted for them.

 

[Omikaru]

One could say a majority government acts as a clear voice for government and represents the majority who voted for them.

You mean like that great "majority" who voted for Labour in 2005?

If we had PR and a majority government, then yes, they'd be a good thing. In the current system a party can form a government on less than 35% of the vote.

 

[Parl]

One could say a majority government acts as a clear voice for government and represents the majority who voted for them.

The problem being that majorities don't tend to vote for them. Including those eligible to vote who didn't, 22% of people voted Labour in 2005. They won over half the seats in parliament. 54% of the seats with 36% of the votes.

 

[Linkified]

The problem being that majorities don't tend to vote for them. Including those eligible to vote who didn't, 22% of people voted Labour in 2005. They won over half the seats in parliament. 54% of the seats with 36% of the votes.

Oh yeah one could argue hat if they increase the amount needed for the parties to stand then it discourages small parties so you could have a two party system and an array of independants up and down the country and with there, it would make it more 'fairer'

 

[brain_stew]

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/



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.

I was contemplating this possability myself earlier though I didn't really have any idea how possible it could be. Clegg is clearly the public's most favoured party leader and the hatred of the Tories runs so deep in many Labour heartlands/MPs that I honestly think they'd consider anything if it meant the Tories never forming a majority government ever again. It would seem a pretty formidable force a huge majority in the commons and Britain's most popular politician as PM. There's just no way Gordan Brown can hold on as PM the country would go into meltdown.

Crazy times are ahead, that's for sure.

 

[phisheep]

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. :/

It does seem to have some disadvantages - like the complete absence of independent MPs, the likelihood that some marginal constituencies could end up with an MP almost universally loathed in their constituency, the consequent gravitation of the leaders of unpleasant extremist parties to semirural marginals.

It would turn my constituency (semi rural Lib/Con marginal in the Southwest) into an unseemly electoral battle for third place between all sorts of unsavoury parties that nobody here has the least interest in. And whoever we got would be decided by someone else.

No thanks.

 

[Mr. Sam]

If we had PR and a majority government, then yes, they'd be a good thing. In the current system a party can form a government on less than 35% of the vote.

If you count non-voters, that figure falls further to 22%.

 

[Omikaru]

I was contemplating this possability myself earlier though I didn't really have any idea how possible it could be. Clegg is clearly the public's most favoured party leader and the hatred of the Tories runs so deep in many Labour heartlands/MPs that I honestly think they'd consider anything if it meant the Tories never forming a majority government ever again. It would seem a pretty formidable force a huge majority in the commons and Britain's most popular politician as PM. There's just no way Gordan Brown can hold on as PM the country would go into meltdown.

Crazy times are ahead, that's for sure.

Indeed. There is one thing that is certainly going to happen on May 7th; Gordon Brown will resign.

Nick Clegg was right when he said on the day Brown called the election that this is the "beginning of the end for Gordon Brown."

At the very least, a lot of the Blairite MPs are almost certainly weighing up their options right now. Jumping ship after the election might be a good way to keep the Tories out of government, whilst removing the stigma of propping up a hugely unpopular government.

 

[Parl]

If you count non-voters, that figure falls further to 22%.

Indeed. It'd expect voting turnout to shoot up if a new system is in place. Through both the chance to meaningfully vote for a party that isn't Labour or Tories, and simple the novelty of the new system.

I'd expect Labour and Tories to improve if a new system comes into place.

 

[bone idle]

Hello UK poli thread. I'm a long time reader here. It's a great discussion you've got going on. Usually I wouldn't chip in, but this electoral reform debate is to my mind the essential thing about this election. The tactical vote is a lie. Idealism is usually tempered by analysis when English voting occurs. Analysis based on the understanding of a system that won't deliver what the majority want. Analysis of what works (within this system) rather than what's right. I'm in favour of electoral reform.

I understand that local votes would have less power locally, but it isn't likely that we'll devolve governmental power to regions any time soon soon. (Although that's something I'd favour)

If you read it, cheers. I'll continue to follow this thread.

 

[Linkified]

Hello UK poli thread. I'm a long time reader here. It's a great discussion you've got going on. Usually I wouldn't chip in, but this electoral reform debate is to my mind the essential thing about this election. The tactical vote is a lie. Idealism is usually tempered by analysis when English voting occurs. Analysis based on the understanding of a system that won't deliver what the majority want. Analysis of what works (within this system) rather than what's right. I'm in favour of electoral reform.

I understand that local votes would have less power locally, but it isn't likely that we'll devolve governmental power to regions any time soon soon. (Although that's something I'd favour)

If you read it, cheers. I'll continue to follow this thread.

Labour tried to devolve power of their sham North East Parliament we were given a referenda we voted against it.

 

[Empty]

This is a few days old, but i think it is worth posting. It's an interesting piece about the Lib Dem's proposed illegal immigrant amnesty and why the other parties are being dishonest in their absolute opposition to it in the debates. Clegg touched on some of the points in his interview on the Marr show today, but it goes much further in demonstrating why this isn't a particularly radical policy.

.......
It is something both Cameron and Brown should acknowledge, because granting amnesties in all but name is what their home secretaries have been doing for the past 20 years:

• When Michael Howard was home secretary, no public announcement was made, but a rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers granted exceptional leave to remain, from 2,000 in 1991 to 14,000 in 1993, strongly suggested a deliberate policy of reducing backlogs by administrative means. In 1996, in a separate backlog-clearance exercise, he allowed thousands more overseas students and marriage applicants to stay "unless there was substantial cause for doubt".

• In 1998, Jack Straw insisted that there was no question of amnesty but he allowed 30,000 failed asylum seekers to be allowed to stay in Britain simply on the basis that they had faced lengthy delays.

• In 2003, when David Blunkett was home secretary, 15,000 families of asylum seekers who had waited more than three years for a decision were allowed to stay as a "one-off" exercise.

In addition to these specific occasions, the London School of Economics has estimated that 160,000 irregular migrants were given official status between 2003 and 2007. This was partly as a result of eastern Europeans who had been living illegally in Britain for many years becoming legal when their countries joined the EU. It is also a result of an ongoing "case resolution scheme", in which the UK Border Agency is going through a backlog of 450,000 asylum files. So far, 74,000 have been given permission to stay.

But as well as these organised exercises, the existence of the 14-year rule has seen 2,000 to 3,000 individuals being given the right to stay. The court of appeal recently upheld the legality of this "statute of limitations" calling it "in effect an amnesty clause".

The rule was only formalised in 2003, but its existence as an informal concession dates from the 1980s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-immigration-amnesties

To remind people, the Lib Dem's policy allows people who have been in Britain for 10 years, who speak English, who have a clean record and who want to live here long term to earn citizenship, so as to allow them to contribute properly to the economy and live in real society legally. To try and suggest that this is drastically different to what has been done throughout the last decade strikes me as strange, and untrue.

 

[Chinner]

What I find odd is that Clegg isn't highlighting the fact that amnesty is a one off. Never saw him mention it in the debate or before until the Marr interview..

Also:

 

[DSWii60]

What I find odd is that Clegg isn't highlighting the fact that amnesty is a one off. Never saw him mention it in the debate or before until the Marr interview..

Also:

I find this odder... :S

 

[Wes]

Workin' every vote

 

[Kowak]

He is blue blooded so makes sense.

 

[Sir Hamish]

What I find odd is that Clegg isn't highlighting the fact that amnesty is a one off. Never saw him mention it in the debate or before until the Marr interview..

Also:

what paper is that? if it's the sun or the times someone is going to suffer a grissly fate

 

[Kowak]

what paper is that? if it's the sun or the times someone is going to suffer a grissly fate

i think bpix poll indicates its the daily mail

 

[Shanadeus]

I find this odder... :S

Meh it's just a cheek kiss, it's just a very bad picture.

 

[Omikaru]

Good morning, all! The Guardian's headline this morning is laughable. Just like the rightwing misinformation, this wont work either.

Nick Clegg goes public on coalition – and looks to the Conservatives

I don't recal him saying anything about looking to the Conservatives. He only said he wouldn't support Brown if he never had the support of the public.

Basically, he's posturing. He's basically saying, "Vote Brown, Get Cameron. Vote Clegg, get Clegg". The Guardian's unique interpretation of it is interesting.

It's also obvious that Clegg is considering another option. He wants Gordon Brown gone, because if Labour and the LibDems are to join in a coalition, Clegg would then be considered next in line. The public wouldn't accept anyone else from Labour because they never took part in the election in any meaningful way, and both parties could argue that they have a strong mandate. Clegg because, personally, his public approval ratings are high, whilst both parties can argue that the public is being represented in the Houses of Parliament by the individual MPs who were elected.

Whatever happens, I think Clegg can taste victory. The second debate has proven that he's got a steady 30% in the polls, and if he's shown to be strong willed and prepared to oust Gordon, that may attract a few floating voters who are a little bit scared of the Tories whilst, at the same time, appealing to some of Labour's more centrist Blairite MPs, who would willingly work with him.

 

[Slightly Live]

Coalition government incoming.

 

[radioheadrule83]

There's talk in the paper this morning of Conservatives targetting Labour strongholds rather than potential contests they have with Liberal Democrat candidates because they feel they will have a better chance. I think they're probably right in that assertion, although in some strongholds they won't have a chance (areas of Liverpool for example)..

what worries me is that they could pull in fewer popular votes than the Lib Dems but claim enough Labour seats with this strategy to claim a majority.

This final debate could be a strong one for the conservatives too, it all depends on how Cameron and Brown frame their arguments, and how the Lib Dems are able to differentiate between the two and make unique offerings. All to play for. This is potentially some nail biting shit on May 6th!

 

[Chinner]

Steve Bell owns (for anyone who doesn't know, Steve Bell draws cartoons for the guardian and he owns):

 

[JonnyBrad]

what worries me is that they could pull in fewer popular votes than the Lib Dems but claim enough Labour seats with this strategy to claim a majority.

I can't see them pulling fewer popular votes than the Lib Dems tbh. Tho i doubt they will hit a majority atm.

 

[NekoFever]

One could say a majority government acts as a clear voice for government and represents the majority who voted for them.

There hasn't been a government elected with a majority vote (eg. 50% or more of votes cast) since 1931.

 

[Ghost]

I'm more and more worried that we aren't going to get a coalition and we're going to end up with another election next year, which would most likely be terrible for the economy. Clegg is steadily burning his Labour bridges and there are virtually no policy connections between the lib dems and the tories.

As Omikaru says, Clegg clearly wants only one man as PM, and that man is Clegg. But he's kidding himself if he thinks he can take over the labour party with his 80-100 MPs, even if it does sense with public opinion as it is, politicians are ultimately out for themselves. Labour would rather be in opposition than be ruled by Clegg.

 

[Zutroy]

Just got my first load of party leaflets through the post this morning. I have to say, out of them all, the Green's look most professional.

All the posters are gonna start to be plastered on every possible lamppost within the next week or two. I absolutely hate it when they do that. It makes the city look horrible. If it was any poster other than an MPs it would be ripped down right away. In fact, I think I'll start binning them as they go up :lol

 

[Withnail]

:lol

Source

 

[Linkified]

There hasn't been a government elected with a majority vote (eg. 50% or more of votes cast) since 1931.

I never said it was about the UK. In other countries though. But related to the UK they need to increase the cost of standing so you get back to a two party system.

 

[sohois]

There's talk in the paper this morning of Conservatives targetting Labour strongholds rather than potential contests they have with Liberal Democrat candidates because they feel they will have a better chance. I think they're probably right in that assertion, although in some strongholds they won't have a chance (areas of Liverpool for example)..

what worries me is that they could pull in fewer popular votes than the Lib Dems but claim enough Labour seats with this strategy to claim a majority.

This final debate could be a strong one for the conservatives too, it all depends on how Cameron and Brown frame their arguments, and how the Lib Dems are able to differentiate between the two and make unique offerings. All to play for. This is potentially some nail biting shit on May 6th!

How do you see the Tories gaining fewer votes than the lib dems but still getting a majority? They're not labour. Furthermore, do you really think that the lib-dems will really end up getting the most votes? Opinion polls still show the Tories on course to get the most votes, and in any case i really can't see them forming a majority without at least 38%, which would almost certainly leave them with most votes.

 

[Walshicus]

I never said it was about the UK. In other countries though. But related to the UK they need to increase the cost of standing so you get back to a two party system.

Why. the. fuck. would. we. want. that??

 

[jas0nuk]

Polls all over the place. And nearly at 30/30/30 per party. I have no idea what's going on.

Most exciting election ever?

ICM
CONSERVATIVES 33% (-2)
LIB DEMS 30% (-1)
LABOUR 28% (+2)

More polls due later.

 

[Zoolaga]

I never said it was about the UK. In other countries though. But related to the UK they need to increase the cost of standing so you get back to a two party system.

Why on earth would you want that? We need a system such as STV that empowers voters so that they can vote for smaller parties without worrying that they have wasted their vote.

 

[Empty]

I'm trying to pin down the possible ways the outcome could go.

Let's assume that the current polling average, from uk polling report, of C: 34, LD: 29 and L: 28 stays true on May 6th.

The seat results would leave us with, on a universal swing:

1) Conservatives 265 Labour 260 Liberal Democrats 94 ----> Hung parliament

Now it is quite an assumption that they will; we still have the final and most crucial debate, last minute surprises, local campaigning effects, ashcroft money in marginals, the unpredictability of where the new lib dem support lies and 10 days left of campaigning, all of which could change the vote percentages and seat percentages. So let's put in some other likely permutations. The most probable one after the one i just used, is that labour get the most seats, despite coming third. This could happen on even just a C:33, LD:29, L:28 result, as well as a C:34, LD:29, L: 29, and even a C:33, LD:30, L:27.

The seat results from the first of those would leave us with, on a universal swing:

2) Conservatives 247 Labour 276 Liberal Democrats 96 -----> Hung parliament

The other plausible option is an actual full Tory majority, but this would require a serious change in the current polling, with the conservatives moving onto at least 36 points and for the lib dems to drop significantly. It could happen but this is highly highly unlikely unless something massive happens in the next 10 days, so i won't bother factoring it into my analysis of how it could go down.

Now option number one, with the Tories as the biggest party.

a) Lib-Con alliance - If they have the most votes and the most seats Clegg argues they have a mandate, and that he would go with them first. However, Lib Dem party rules mean that 75% of the party must support any coalition decision which could cause difficulty, and the Tory party is unlikely to be that happy allying with the Lib Dems especially given their EU position. The other factor is electoral reform, which is central to any partnership, and developments today shed more light on that.

The Lib Dem leader told a news conference electoral reform was "an absolute precondition for renewal in this country". An hour later, at a Conservative press conference, Cameron said that he was not in favour of electoral reform. But he refused to give a categorical commitment to maintaining the current first-past-the-post system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/26/general-election-2010-live-blog

So a Lib-Con partnership could take place if they were willing to offer PR, which in game theory terms might be a good idea as i argued a few pages back, but would anger party loyalists a great deal and the ideological differences would make a coalition difficult to sustain.

b) Lib-Lab alliance - As Clegg made clear on the Marr show, he would only ally with Labour with this position if they got rid of Brown and made him Prime Minister, as well as offering electoral reform. Given the shrewd tactical positioning of Mandelson, this isn't as impossible as it sounds initially. Clegg is much more popular than Brown and an alliance between the parties wouldn't have too great an ideological difference. Labour love nothing more than staying in power and the conservatives may refuse to agree to the LD's demands. However, the chances of labour mp's accepting such dominance by a smaller party might not be that high, as it may destroy the party long term.

c) No coalition, queen asks Tories to run a minority government. Would probably lead to an election next year, and chaos.


Now option number two, with Labour as the biggest party.

a) Lib-Lab alliance - Clegg has deliberately refused to comment on what would happen if Labour lost the popular vote but won the most seats. This gives it room for this to happen, as Labour can easily give in to a bunch of the LD's demands, and the really insane ones like Clegg as PM don't come into play. The other side is that it would be politically disastrous for Clegg to be seen as propping up the massively unpopular Gordon Brown, having campaigned on being an agent of change and different to the other two.

b) Lib-Con alliance - Having no chance of forming a minority government might make them more interested in giving over to the LD's demands, especially given that it would mean another term out of power. However the idelogical differences remain, as well as the tories hesistancy over electoral reform.

c) No coalition. Labour minority government, queen asks Labour to run maybe most unpopular government ever despite coming third. I would hope for protests in the street.


Please correct me if i have things wrong, especially on how a minority government would operate as there my knowledge is very shaky.

 

[Kowak]

I dont think a minority government would cause chaos and I think it would be more interesting if the tories form one.

Tories-Can show they are a party that can run the country for the next 12-18 months. Can introduce their economic policies and allow them to boost their credibility. Dont have to give PR to the Libs but would be able to rely on their support for at least a year.

Labour-Will allow them to elect a new leader and will have the benefit of being revitalised with a new hunger for a year as the opposition.

Lib Dems-Will allow them to strengthen their position with a lot more people taking notice of them. An extra year will allow them to gain more seats at the next election and maybe become the opposition or the dominant party in a Lib-Lab coalition. Then they can boss the terms.

 

[Dabookerman]

Polls all over the place. And nearly at 30/30/30 per party. I have no idea what's going on.

Most exciting election ever?

ICM
CONSERVATIVES 33% (-2)
LIB DEMS 30% (-1)
LABOUR 28% (+2)

More polls due later.

More like.

Most exciting Erection Ever!!!

 

[Empty]

I dont think a minority government would cause chaos and I think it would be more interesting if the tories form one.

Well it's hard for me to see how it wouldn't cause choas as large parts of the Tories manifesto just straight wouldn't get passed. Just on economic policy, for example, Labour and the Lib Dems both oppose an emergency budget that starts cutting hard this year, they both oppose the marriage tax allowance, they both oppose cutting inheritance tax, they both oppose reversing the national insurance hike. How on earth can the Tories govern effectively in this situation if their main policies keep getting blocked by the majority in parliament?

 

[Kowak]

Well it's hard to see how it wouldn't cause choas as large parts of the Tories manifesto just wouldn't get passed. Just on economic policy, for example, Labour and the Lib Dems both oppose an emergency budget that starts cutting this year, they both oppose the marriage tax allowance, they both oppose cutting inheritance tax, they both oppose reversing the national insurance hike. How on earth can the Tories govern effectively in the situation if their main policies keep getting blocked by the majority in parliament.

The tories dont need large parts of their manifesto to be passed. Its been common knowledge for the past month that Clegg would support a minority government. The conservatives would also know what they could push through and what they couldn't, like the inheritance tax.

 

[jas0nuk]

If Cameron got over 300 seats but less than 326 he could run a minority government quite successfully. There's the usual 5 or so NI MPs who don't take their seats and therefore don't vote, and there's the speaker. That reduces the winning post down to 322.

Depending on the election result most of the new Lib Dems would simply be pleased to be there, they will probably end up with about 80 MPs. They wouldn't want another election in such a short time, leading to accusations that they're only interested in their own party interests and causing instability when the govt needs to sort out the budget deficit etc, and would therefore not cause any problems for at least 2 or 3 years.

Also, with the current collapse in Labour's vote (this will have a feedback loop effect if tribal Labour voters realise Labour can no longer keep the Tories out and switch to the Lib Dems), it is entirely possible that they will not have enough seats to form a majority when combined with the Lib Dems.

EDIT:
Opinium
CONSERVATIVES 34% (+2)
LIB DEMS 28% (-1)
LABOUR 25% (-1)

YouGov
CONSERVATIVES 33% (-1)
LIB DEMS 29% (-1)
LABOUR 28 (nc)

 

[Subliminal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKFTtYx2OHc

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Steve Bell owns (for anyone who doesn't know, Steve Bell draws cartoons for the guardian and he owns):

WOW :lol

The Coot, soot on the moot :lol

Wow, that shit made me laugh out loud!

 

[Linkified]

Most people have applied for a poll card - and the people want a hung parliament, I can see most people spoiling there voting by scribbling on the paper or voting twice on it to guarantee a hung parliament.

 

[Kowak]

That wont guarantee a hung parliament.

 

[Linkified]

That wont guarantee a hung parliament.

Hey I know that, I'm just saying what the people will do. Or they will forget.

 

[Empty]

The tories dont need large parts of their manifesto to be passed. Its been common knowledge for the past month that Clegg would support a minority government. The conservatives would also know what they could push through and what they couldn't, like the inheritance tax.

I guess this could just about work, but it would basically be Clegg holding the tories to ransom on every issue, which would cause so much frustration in the party that it would lead to at least struggles, if not chaos. Without a formal deal, such as PR in exchange for co-operation, something which could take place through a minority government situation but i call i coalition because that is essentially what it is in all but name, i feel like Clegg's desire for broad stability and not to look bad will only go so far. In this situation i can only see the Tories calling another election in the year as they'll want to actually pass their real policies, and gain a majority free from the lib dems' neutering.

 

[brain_stew]

The Tories are going all out on the scaremongering offensive over a hung parliament. Cameron trying to defend the FPTP system. Hopefully the electorate see through this stitch up, I can see it backfiring, just as it should.

Edit: The Tory MP on BBC News is trying to use Germany as an argument against a proportional system! :lol :lol

 

[jas0nuk]

Most people have applied for a poll card - and the people want a hung parliament, I can see most people spoiling there voting by scribbling on the paper or voting twice on it to guarantee a hung parliament.

Spoiled ballots just reduce the recorded percentage turnout. Hung parliaments cannot be forced, circumstances (like the 3 main parties polling at 30% each as we're seeing at the moment) cause them.

 

[Kowak]

I guess this could just about work, but it would basically be Clegg holding the tories to ransom on every issue, which would cause so much frustration in the party that it would lead to at least struggles, if not chaos. Without a formal deal, such as PR in exchange for co-operation, something which could take place through a minority government situation but i call i coalition because that is essentially what it is in all but name, i feel like Clegg's desire for broad stability and not to look bad will only go so far. In this situation i can only see the Tories calling another election in the year as they'll want to actually pass their real policies, and gain a majority free from the lib dems' neutering.

I can see Clegg not forcing issues too much for at least a year. As The Times article i posted yesterday said, they cant afford another election this year.

Might prediction is a Tory minority govt with a autumn 2011 general election.

 

[avaya]

I hate the Tories but I like Cameron. There I said it. I feel so conflicted.