Support NeoGAF

[Sir_Crocodile]

Anyway, this is becoming a bit circular (admittedly I haven't done much to stop that). Shall we discuss our first preference (ha!) electoral system?

First past the post with boundry change corrections for population forced before every general election by an independant body

 

[PJV3]

Full PR with a ban on parties competing in both houses. And a seperation of the executive and legislative or at least an end to 3 line whips.

 

[Nicktendo86]

First past the post with boundry change corrections for population forced before every general election by an independant body

This would be my answer as well, equal sized constituencies make so much sense.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Full PR with a ban on parties competing in both houses. And a seperation of the executive and legislative or at least an end to 3 line whips.

How would you stop parties competing in both houses, though? In practical terms I mean, obviously it'd be easy legally.

Edit: remember we only have a census every ten years.

 

[PJV3]

How would you stop parties competing in both houses, though? In practical terms I mean, obviously it'd be easy legally.

Edit: remember we only have a census every ten years.

funding and membership of both would be illegal, you will obviously end up with similar parties, but it would stop unions controlling leftish ones, and the same for right wing parties. And there would be different leaderships (ego's) to promote independence.

It's never going to happen anyway, its just what I would like.

 

[Walshicus]

This would be my answer as well, equal sized constituencies make so much sense.

Is it better to have more natural constituency borders, or equally sized? That is to say, is it really better if a town ends up with most neighbourhoods represented an MP and a fraction represented by another?

 

[kitch9]

nobody expects anything, labour did fuck all for the poor whist in power. The only group to get poorer under labour, the bottom 10%, are the ones being clobbered now and being blamed for all our woes.

Ask most labour voters and at most they will expect tinkering at the edges. And the tories will pretend that a few extra billions will send us hurtling into disaster.

Unfortunately, the ones who get hit hardest in a recession are those who depend on the state, and that includes those who work for the state.

Why?

Because after a century of boom and bust cycles we have retarded politicians who still think that they have fixed it and it can never happen to them, so they don't think to save a few quid during the good times to even out the bad times to keep things constant.

A decade of Labour believing their own hype has left us here, and the only answer they have is to keep spending, because they still stupidly still clearly believe we won't bust again, they are delusional and they think THIS time they know everything....

But yeah you are right, Labour did fuck all to cut taxes for the poor, which is why I am impressed with the near 10k no tax bracket we currently have.... Introduced by a conservative and liberal coalition none the less..

 

[CyclopsRock]

That's always been the Lib Dem's best policy. They are basically obsolete in my eyes now.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

That's always been the Lib Dem's best policy. They are basically obsolete in my eyes now.

Yes, I'm afraid it's back to the wilderness for the Lib Dems. I think most people who voted for them in 2010, especially younger people, will be very disappointed with how things have gone.

Well, at least Clegg's sorry

 

[JonathanEx]

Yes, I'm afraid it's back to the wilderness for the Lib Dems. I think most people who voted for them in 2010, especially younger people, will be very disappointed with how things have gone.

Well, at least Clegg's sorry

I wonder about this -- I don't necessarily disagree but was discussing this the other day. While I'm sure the LD vote won't be nearly as high in 2015 as in 2010... those LD voters who are betrayed, what are their options?

You can:
a) Go for another small party, Greens - but unless you're in certain constituencies that's effectively a vote wasted
b) Go Labour, but if you've gone LD previously will they really be left enough for you, and they're also working hard to become as bland as possible
c) Go Tory, because uhhhh something
d) Begrudgingly vote Lib Dem again
e) Not vote

And none of them stand out to me as what will happen on mass - possibly D and E - and I wonder if the LD share will come back up a bit compared to the opinion polls when they're in their own fight for the election rather than the coalition whipping boy.

I could be wildly wrong and the party could be dead. I'm no expert.

 

[Arksy]

I think it's very difficult at the moment for the split right wing vote to keep the tories in power. They really need to do a deal with UKIP sooner or later. It's funny, I felt like (as a non UK national) that tories campaigning so hard against the AV was because there was only a single right wing party and two left wing parties.

If AV was the current system then most UKIP voters would second preference the tories and this wouldn't be an issue at all. I would find it deliciously ironic if they had campaigned against the system that would have kept them in office.

 

[PJV3]

The LibDems are a funny bunch, I wouldn't rule them out at the general election. It's still going to be hard to let tactical voting go.

My MP has turned out to be a raving orange booker, so I won't have any problems, but if it was someone like Charles Kennedy I would be happier with him than half the Labour party.

 

[phisheep]

I wonder about this -- I don't necessarily disagree but was discussing this the other day. While I'm sure the LD vote won't be nearly as high in 2015 as in 2010... those LD voters who are betrayed, what are their options?

You can:
a) Go for another small party, Greens - but unless you're in certain constituencies that's effectively a vote wasted
b) Go Labour, but if you've gone LD previously will they really be left enough for you, and they're also working hard to become as bland as possible
c) Go Tory, because uhhhh something
d) Begrudgingly vote Lib Dem again
e) Not vote

And none of them stand out to me as what will happen on mass - possibly D and E - and I wonder if the LD share will come back up a bit compared to the opinion polls when they're in their own fight for the election rather than the coalition whipping boy.

I could be wildly wrong and the party could be dead. I'm no expert.

I may be in the minority (then again I might not be) - but this whole coalition thing has made me more, not less likely to vote LibDem (and me in a Tory/LibDem marginal too).

They behaved honourably and sensibly in the aftermath of the election. They've had one hell of a difficult run in the Coalition - and were never going to be able to push through the majority of their policies - but have made significant strides in increasing the tax threshold and in at least putting forward their policies in government and in the Coalition agreement.

More than anything else, they've now got government experience for the first time in 100 years and a sparse but impressive bunch of actual and potential ministers. That counts for a lot, both in their potential for forming successful coalitions and over time for becoming a significant force in domestic politics.

I won't write them off by any means, but it depends rather whether come the next election they have got their policies lined up straight and manage to attract enough good candidates.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The Lib Dems biggest weakness (in a pool of enormous weaknesses) is that it chiefly targets the demographic least likely to actually vote. In 2010 it was more popular than ever in polls but lost sets, because the whipper snappers are too busy with the skateboards and the music to vote. Say what you want about the Tories but targeting the old fucks that have nothing better to do than vote is a decent tactic.

Edit: another one is their sheer incoherence. How the same party can have Clegg and Laws on one side with Cable and Huhne on the other is bizarre to me. How can they all believe in the same manifesto?

 

[PJV3]

The Lib Dems biggest weakness (in a pool of enormous weaknesses) is that it chiefly targets the demographic least likely to actually vote. In 2010 it was more popular than ever in polls but lost sets, because the whipper snappers are too busy with the skateboards and the music to vote. Say what you want about the Tories but targeting the old fucks that have nothing better to do than vote is a decent tactic.

Edit: another one is their sheer incoherence. How the same party can have Clegg and Laws on one side with Cable and Huhne on the other is bizarre to me. How can they all believe in the same manifesto?

The labour party used to be the same before the purges in the 80's. lots of entertaining and very passionate arguments were had. Even the tories could be quite diverse in their own way.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The labour party used to be the same before the purges in the 80's. lots of entertaining and very passionate arguments were had. Even the tories could be quite diverse in their own way.

But at least both Labour and the Tories came from a certain ideological wing. Namely left and right. Within those, there is disagreement. But within the Lib Dems, they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the state and its role in society. The reality is that there are Lib Dems who have more in common with their coalition partners than they do with other members of their own party.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

It's all different shades of neoliberal wankery, if you ask me.

 

[PJV3]

But at least both Labour and the Tories came from a certain ideological wing. Namely left and right. Within those, there is disagreement. But within the Lib Dems, they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the state and its role in society. The reality is that there are Lib Dems who have more in common with their coalition partners than they do with other members of their own party.

Labour could have anybody from a revolutionary communist to social democrats, even Frank Field a self confessed Thatcherite managed to find a home in it. Liberalism means a lot of things I suppose, like you I don't know how they manage to agree on a manifesto.
They tend to fracture every once in a while, with a clump joining the conservatives. The Nationalist liberals were the last lot I think (bit rusty about lib history)

 

[CyclopsRock]

Labour could have anybody from a revolutionary communist to social democrats, even Frank Field a self confessed Thatcherite managed to find a home in it. Liberalism means a lot of things I suppose, like you I don't know how they manage to agree on a manifesto.
They tend to fracture every once in a while, with a clump joining the conservatives. The Nationalist liberals were the last lot I think (bit rusty about lib history)

Yeah, you're right. I guess my thought is that if you're of the left and want a mainstream party, you have to go to Labour, basically. This is true is you're left or left left left. Ditto Tories and the right. And I understand someone who might be left and not like the Labour party. What I don't understand is why those people choose to band together with right wing people who feel alienated from the Tories.

 

[PJV3]

There's one well known Liberal, who is further to the right than any Tory I can think of economically, so I presume it's just social issues stopping him joining them.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

There's one well known Liberal, who is further to the right than any Tory I can think of economically, so I presume it's just social issues stopping him joining them.

Jeremy Browne? I think Europe is an issue as well. Same with David Laws. With the new socially liberal outlook of the leadership they may gain a few Lib Dem MPs, but the EU stance will not be agreeable.

 

[PJV3]

Jeremy Browne? I think Europe is an issue as well. Same with David Laws. With the new socially liberal outlook of the leadership they may gain a few Lib Dem MPs, but the EU stance will not be agreeable.

Mark Littlwood.
He hates the NHS,BBC and campaigns for the tobacco industry. his head visibly throbs when the word union is mentioned. and he suggested a political pact with the tories in 2015(he resigned when that went down like a lead balloon)

yeah, he's pro Europe.

 

[phisheep]

But at least both Labour and the Tories came from a certain ideological wing. Namely left and right. Within those, there is disagreement. But within the Lib Dems, they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the state and its role in society. The reality is that there are Lib Dems who have more in common with their coalition partners than they do with other members of their own party.

I'm not at all convinced that having the main parties comes from different ideological wings is necessarily a Good Thing. Look at the USA for example.

In fact I rather detest the associated tribalism, and resent the assumption by some that if I vote Tory I must be a nasty discompassionate anti-tax eurosceptic (which I'm not) and that if I vote Labour I must be a pseudo-Marxist pro-union pro-benefit-cheating pacifist (which I am not either).

I'm all in favour of a broad-based centrist party that may have disagreements but can nonetheless formulate and execute sane sensible policy. Actually I rather like the way that in this Coalition many of the arguments and disagreements are out in the open rather than locked in cupboards in the Whip's office.

The LibDems may not win, they may split, but I think I'm going to give them a chance (well, my vote - which gets them partway there - only need another hundred or so in my constituency) to build such a party.

 

[kitch9]

The Lib Dems biggest weakness (in a pool of enormous weaknesses) is that it chiefly targets the demographic least likely to actually vote. In 2010 it was more popular than ever in polls but lost sets, because the whipper snappers are too busy with the skateboards and the music to vote. Say what you want about the Tories but targeting the old fucks that have nothing better to do than vote is a decent tactic.

Edit: another one is their sheer incoherence. How the same party can have Clegg and Laws on one side with Cable and Huhne on the other is bizarre to me. How can they all believe in the same manifesto?

Lib Dems have too big a hard on for the EU too. They'd sign us up for the single currency if they could...

It'll put a lot off that.

 

[kitch9]

I'm not at all convinced that having the main parties comes from different ideological wings is necessarily a Good Thing. Look at the USA for example.

In fact I rather detest the associated tribalism, and resent the assumption by some that if I vote Tory I must be a nasty discompassionate anti-tax eurosceptic (which I'm not) and that if I vote Labour I must be a pseudo-Marxist pro-union pro-benefit-cheating pacifist (which I am not either.

I'm all in favour of a broad-based centrist party that may have disagreements but can nonetheless formulate and execute sane sensible policy. Actually I rather like the way that in this Coalition many of the arguments and disagreements are out in the open rather than locking in cupboards in the Whip's office.

The LibDems may not win, they may split, but I think I'm going to give them a chance (well, my vote - which gets them partway there - only need another hundred or so in my constituency) to build such a party.

Pretty much how I feel....

 

[War Peaceman]

I wonder about this -- I don't necessarily disagree but was discussing this the other day. While I'm sure the LD vote won't be nearly as high in 2015 as in 2010... those LD voters who are betrayed, what are their options?

You can:
a) Go for another small party, Greens - but unless you're in certain constituencies that's effectively a vote wasted
b) Go Labour, but if you've gone LD previously will they really be left enough for you, and they're also working hard to become as bland as possible
c) Go Tory, because uhhhh something
d) Begrudgingly vote Lib Dem again
e) Not vote

And none of them stand out to me as what will happen on mass - possibly D and E - and I wonder if the LD share will come back up a bit compared to the opinion polls when they're in their own fight for the election rather than the coalition whipping boy.

I could be wildly wrong and the party could be dead. I'm no expert.

I would expect their vote to be more resilient than polls currently suggest, the opposite of the 2010 election. They have a number of locally-popular MPs, and especially in the South/South-West, I'd expect them to hold firm. They will have lost the student vote, but I'm not convinced that it will make a substantial difference (they tend to be to too spread out and unmotivated).

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not at all convinced that having the main parties comes from different ideological wings is necessarily a Good Thing. Look at the USA for example.

In fact I rather detest the associated tribalism, and resent the assumption by some that if I vote Tory I must be a nasty discompassionate anti-tax eurosceptic (which I'm not) and that if I vote Labour I must be a pseudo-Marxist pro-union pro-benefit-cheating pacifist (which I am not either).

I'm all in favour of a broad-based centrist party that may have disagreements but can nonetheless formulate and execute sane sensible policy. Actually I rather like the way that in this Coalition many of the arguments and disagreements are out in the open rather than locked in cupboards in the Whip's office.

The LibDems may not win, they may split, but I think I'm going to give them a chance (well, my vote - which gets them partway there - only need another hundred or so in my constituency) to build such a party.

I agree entirely. I wasn't really suggesting it was a good thing, I was talking more on practical terms - if you're unhappy with the party that holds the space in "your" wing, why would you band with people you disagree with? I guess the point is that they didn't - it was the Liberal + SDP merger that did it.

The tribalism is bullshit, but I understand it - I mean, if you genuinely think that your "team" would do more good than the other "team", you're going to support them even on issues that you don't personally agree with, because it's for the "greater good", I guess. I think the same about religious people though too, tbh - I'm an atheist, but if I weren't, I think i'd be an utterly mental preacher. If you genuinely think your actions in this life will define your infinitely long post life, why would you care about other people's "earthly" human rights? there's something much, much bigger at stake! Shariah up in this motherfucker!

 

[phisheep]

I agree entirely. I wasn't really suggesting it was a good thing, I was talking more on practical terms - if you're unhappy with the party that holds the space in "your" wing, why would you band with people you disagree with? I guess the point is that they didn't - it was the Liberal + SDP merger that did it.

The tribalism is bullshit, but I understand it - I mean, if you genuinely think that your "team" would do more good than the other "team", you're going to support them even on issues that you don't personally agree with, because it's for the "greater good", I guess. I think the same about religious people though too, tbh - I'm an atheist, but if I weren't, I think i'd be an utterly mental preacher. If you genuinely think your actions in this life will define your infinitely long post life, why would you care about other people's "earthly" human rights? there's something much, much bigger at stake! Shariah up in this motherfucker!

It is, I think, largely a matter of perspective - but a perspective that gets increasingly polarised by the political parties themselves and by their media acolytes (or was it the other way round, I forget).

Thing about the tribalism is is is mostly not true to life. Probably 80%+ of the people I know are massively irritated by the extremes of whatever (Labour or Conservative) party they nominally support and would massively support anything that marginalised the extremes. So fine, let UKIP branch off and take a few Tories with it, let the Far Left vanish into some sort of equally abyssal politics, and they'll find they have nowhere near the support they thought they had. Because the vast majority of people recognise that for example there's not necessarily any conflict at all between supporting the disadvantaged and cracking down on scroungers, and that there's not necessarily any conflict at all between lowering taxes for business and not letting big businesses get away with outrightly deceptive tax returns.

I'm all for the middle ground so long as there is one.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've greatly enjoyed the last few pages of UK Poligaf.

 

[kurtrussell]

I get the feeling that the increase in Lib Dem votes last election was a direct result of tactical voting from the left. You had a lot of people who saw the complete fuck-up caused by Labour and could see that we desperately needed a change, yet didn't want the Tories to get in. It was almost like a "can't in good conscience vote Labour, but can't bring myself to vote Tory" option.

This would explain the outrage at the coalition and all the "That's not the government I voted for" gubbins. They voted for the anything but Tory option, and instead ended up voting the Tories in. Them's the breaks when you play the tactical voting game, I suppose.

 

[defel]

Im another one who feels more inclined to vote Lib Dems at the next election. I think their experience in government makes them more credible, both through ministerial experience and the fact that future policies are more likely to be grounded in political reality rather than simply seeking the protest votes. There are several Lib Dems who I feel match my personal political views (and as we've just discussed there are individuals in all three parties who I think all align with each other). I know the Lib Dems will loose many of their traditional voting base and much of the student vote but its difficult at the moment to understand just how many voters, like myself, are giving the Lib Dems more considered scrutiny.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I get the feeling that the increase in Lib Dem votes last election was a direct result of tactical voting from the left. You had a lot of people who saw the complete fuck-up caused by Labour and could see that we desperately needed a change, yet didn't want the Tories to get in. It was almost like a "can't in good conscience vote Labour, but can't bring myself to vote Tory" option.

This would explain the outrage at the coalition and all the "That's not the government I voted for" gubbins. They voted for the anything but Tory option, and instead ended up voting the Tories in. Them's the breaks when you play the tactical voting game, I suppose.

In fairness, their voteshare only went up 1% (22% --> 23%) so I'm not sure how much tactical voting really went on. Especially given they ended up losing seats (so any tactical voting that went on clearly didn't work).

 

[PJV3]

I just miss the good old ding-dongs of British politics. The new intake of politicians are all very bright, but there's not much that seperates them. There wont be another Dennis Skinner or Tony Benn joining the labour party.

 

[phisheep]

Im another one who feels more inclined to vote Lib Dems at the next election. I think their experience in government makes them more credible, both through ministerial experience and the fact that future policies are more likely to be grounded in political reality rather than simply seeking the protest votes. There are several Lib Dems who I feel match my personal political views (and as we've just discussed there are individuals in all three parties who I think all align with each other). I know the Lib Dems will loose many of their traditional voting base and much of the student vote but its difficult at the moment to understand just how many voters, like myself, are giving the Lib Dems more considered scrutiny.

Yeah, and I think that is where those who say that the LibDems have "lost all their votes" are missing a trick. Way most of the polls are run there's nothing to show how many they are gaining.

 

[PJV3]

Yeah, and I think that is where those who say that the LibDems have "lost all their votes" are missing a trick. Way most of the polls are run there's nothing to show how many they are gaining.

It's going to be the economy in the end, if it turns around next year they should be ok. I still think they would lose a few marginals, but a year is enough time to negate the betrayal issue.

Does the coalition go all the way until the election is called before they start campaigning against each other?. It's going to be different and interesting in the run up.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think they'll lose a lot via the loss of the protest vote - Labour are the only party of opposition now, so anyone wishing to punish the government at the next election has no choice but to vote labour, waste it on a small party or just stay at home.

 

[phisheep]

I think they'll lose a lot via the loss of the protest vote - Labour are the only party of opposition now, so anyone wishing to punish the government at the next election has no choice but to vote labour, waste it on a small party or just stay at home.

Anyone wishing to punish the government for what exactly? For doing more for the economy than labour would have done?

Or for less than Labour would have done?

 

[PJV3]

it doesn't matter with a protest vote, it's basically going aaarghh!

 

[CyclopsRock]

Anyone wishing to punish the government for what exactly? For doing more for the economy than labour would have done?

Or for less than Labour would have done?

Well, for anything. People choose who they vote for for all sorts of reasons. Maybe you know someone who died in Afghan because they didn't have enough body armour. Labour would likely not have done differently, but you can't express your dislike of the governments policy and still vote for them. For someone else it might because they oppose gay marriage, or think child tax credits should remain, or dislike extended tuition fees etc.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I think they'll lose a lot via the loss of the protest vote - Labour are the only party of opposition now, so anyone wishing to punish the government at the next election has no choice but to vote labour, waste it on a small party or just stay at home.

2015 is going to be a stay home election.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

The Lib Dems biggest weakness (in a pool of enormous weaknesses) is that it chiefly targets the demographic least likely to actually vote. In 2010 it was more popular than ever in polls but lost sets, because the whipper snappers are too busy with the skateboards and the music to vote. Say what you want about the Tories but targeting the old fucks that have nothing better to do than vote is a decent tactic.

The Lib Dems actually increased their share of the national vote to an all-time high despite losing seats in the election. But I agree that both the Tories and Labour can count on certain people to vote for them come rain or shine.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The Lib Dems actually increased their share of the national vote to an all-time high despite losing seats in the election. But I agree that both the Tories and Labour can count on certain people to vote for them come rain or shine.

It's true, but only by a single percent point. Their raw number of votes went up by around 800,000, but everyone else's went up too. Their big increases in the polls were not reflected when it actually came to turnout, I think.

 

[PJV3]

2015 is going to be a stay home election.

Agreed.
I don't think any party is inspiring people, even party members seem detached. The tories may have pulled a blinder with the referendum, but I think they've announced it too soon, and people will be sick to death of the subject by 2015.

 

[defel]

What are opinions on the news that Clegg is likely to send his son to Public school?

He'll be accused of hypocrisy on one hand but on the other if he chooses to send his child to a state school when he can clearly afford to pay for them to go to a better quality, fee-paying school then that would stink of political opportunism. He can't win either way.

Honestly if I were in his position Id want my child to go to the best school possible.

 

[PJV3]

What are opinions on the news that Clegg is likely to send his son to Public school?

He'll be accused of hypocrisy on one hand but on the other if he chooses to send his child to a state school when he can clearly afford to pay for them to go to a better quality, fee-paying school then that would stink of political opportunism. He can't win either way.

Honestly if I were in his position Id want my child to go to the best school possible.

Labour MPs somehow do it, so I see no reason why a Liberal shouldn't (it isn't against party principles, I think)

 

[zomgbbqftw]

What are opinions on the news that Clegg is likely to send his son to Public school?

He'll be accused of hypocrisy on one hand but on the other if he chooses to send his child to a state school when he can clearly afford to pay for them to go to a better quality, fee-paying school then that would stink of political opportunism. He can't win either way.

Honestly if I were in his position Id want my child to go to the best school possible.

Hypocrisy. I feel like it is tbh. If a government minister doesnt send their children to a state school then why should any member of the public?

 

[War Peaceman]

Hypocrisy. I feel like it is tbh. If a government minister doesnt send their children to a state school then why should any member of the public?

Agreed. Well, for a government minister who has previously complained of the problems with inequality that they cause, it is. I can empathise with the position he is in, but it is clearly wrong.

As an aside, I love the names of his children.

 

[phisheep]

What are opinions on the news that Clegg is likely to send his son to Public school?

He'll be accused of hypocrisy on one hand but on the other if he chooses to send his child to a state school when he can clearly afford to pay for them to go to a better quality, fee-paying school then that would stink of political opportunism. He can't win either way.

Honestly if I were in his position Id want my child to go to the best school possible.

I don't think this is a matter of any individual politician being a hypocrite. It is a matter of all politicians not grasping the nettle of the practicalities of state education.

It's all well and good to espouse the benefits of comprehensive education (and it does have plenty of social benefits, less now than it did but still plenty), but it loses out big time against private education when it comes to specialisms at least. Consider the difference between teaching a class of 6 A-level maths or history students versus teaching a class of 30. And the difference is mostly not class size but that in the bigger class most of them aren't interested. That's mostly though not to do with selection on entry or money or social class (and heavens, I have taught more than my fair share of completely thick A-level private school pupils) but to do with steering pupils to subjects they can cope with at the earliest opportunity rather than leaving it too late (or leaving it to politicians to work out what is supposed to be "compulsory").

 

[PJV3]

Agreed. Well, for a government minister who has previously complained of the problems with inequality that they cause, it is. I can empathise with the position he is in, but it is clearly wrong.

As an aside, I love the names of his children.

Oh if he said that, then yeah he's a bloody hypocrite.

 

[CyclopsRock]

30 kids doing A-Level maths at a comp? You'll be lucky!!