-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
PJV3
Member
jas0nuk said:
"Why have a 55% threshold at all?
There has been some suggestion it was put in to stop either the Tories or the Lib Dems walking out on the coalition halfway through when their poll ratings pick up. But some argue it is not high enough as theoretically the Lib Dems and Conservatives could whip their MPs - who together reach just over 56% - to support a dissolution motion and subvert their own fixed-term parliament plan".
You don't write the rules of the constitution on the back of a fag packet and base all the numbers around the present situation.If the Lib Dems split from the coalition the opposition can only muster 53%.and using 'National interest' the coalition can magically muster 56% and call an election.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
PJV3 said:
Hiding behind these guys, waving.
nick clegg op-ed in the guardian talking about the coalition.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/nick-clegg-coalition-aims-are-liberal
presumably written to try and douse the flames of 'betrayal' being spread across the left by irritating labour supporters and people who can't deal with compromise. i think he makes a strong argument, and despite my ideological differences, i've been pleasantly surprised by the coalition so far. the civil liberties stuff is the first government legislation been put through in a long while that i'm genuinely happy about, the ending of child asylum seeker imprisonment gives them an early moral high ground, the policy deals are good, and the initial mood from downing street has come off as very positive indeed; let's hope it continues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/nick-clegg-coalition-aims-are-liberal
presumably written to try and douse the flames of 'betrayal' being spread across the left by irritating labour supporters and people who can't deal with compromise. i think he makes a strong argument, and despite my ideological differences, i've been pleasantly surprised by the coalition so far. the civil liberties stuff is the first government legislation been put through in a long while that i'm genuinely happy about, the ending of child asylum seeker imprisonment gives them an early moral high ground, the policy deals are good, and the initial mood from downing street has come off as very positive indeed; let's hope it continues.
"Fan the flames"? Don't you mean "douse"?Empty said:
Surprisingly, I'm agreeing with the rest of your post. Very positive start, except for the 55% dissolution of parliament and (heavily rumoured) redrawing of constituencies to benefit the Tories malarky, which is suspicious.
PJV3
Member
Empty said:
I agree about the civil liberties legislation, For the life of me i could never understand how the Labour party went along with that shit. As for the coalition, i want the public and press not to repeat the mistakes of the early Blair years or we will end up another leader who thinks he walks on water.Applaud when they get it right and stamp on their bollocks when they don't.
Mr. Sam said:
Just to make it even more bizarre, he seems to be a *ridiculously* popular MP in his own right; if the BBC report is accurate, he's got the biggest majority in the whole house of commons, and had a swing *from* Conservative to Labour this time around; I don't think you could even put it down to wild political unpopularity.
It's gerrymandering, basically. The Tories want to ensure that their chances of getting re-elected are as high as possible, even if they have to use undemocratic means (such as changing constituency borders without local approval, in order to merge urban seats so that there are fewer of them, and therefore fewer Labour seats period) to achieve it.xbhaskarx said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It's a plot to unfairly skew our democracy in the Tories' favour. If you truly care about this country, you'll fight this with all your might.
If the rumours are true, of course.
Also, I'm sorry to hear about the MP who got stabbed by that loony in his surgery. I wish him a swift and full recovery.
:lol Thanks for providing a link to the Wikipedia page for gerrymandering but as an American I'm all to familiar with the concept.Dambrosi said:
I don't know much about constituency borders, but I do know that in a recent election Labour got pretty much the same percentage of the vote as the Tories did this time, but won far more seats. Why is that?
How were the current borders created? Does every single constituency currently encompass a roughly equal number of citizens, based on the most recent census data? Did Labour not tinker with the constituency borders at all in the last dozen or so years of power?
Dambrosi said:
Fuck yeah. Wikipedia as an argumentative tennis racket.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification
Turnout in safe Labour working class seats is much lower than it is in a Tory country seat.xbhaskarx said:
The "system" is that the independent boundary commission look at the seats every 8-12 years and adjust to keep them fair. I don't see how you can argue with that, and any attempt by a government to change the boundary by themselves can't be seen as anything other than gerrymandering.Salazar said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
xbhaskarx said:
IIRC an average Labour-voting seat has about 50,000 (either voters or population, can't remember which, but it isn't turnout - if you can't persuade your voters to turn out that is your fault) and an average Conservative one 70,000. I'll see if I can find the right numbers, but it is a significant skew.
The Boundary Commission did change boundaries (some of them for this election) - trouble is they are working on old data and lag a long way behind population moves out of the inner cities. So it is not as though this situation was created deliberately I think.
Sage00 said:
Remember that what the Tories are proposing is not to change the boundaries themselves but to have the Boundary Commission (the proper body) do a full redrawing of boundaries based on current data and a reduced House of Commons.
Seems perfectly proper to me.
blazinglord
Member
There's no point trying to convince people like Dambrosi who will always resist any change that makes the electoral system more balance and fairer to the Conservatives. Dambrosi is the one whose main justification for PR is that it will form an 'anti-Conservative majority' that will keep the Tories 'out for a generation'. In other words, Dambrosi will always be hostile to the Tories and will want to keep any system that favours left-wing parties over the Tories.phisheep said:
Thankfully though, the Liberal Democrats recognise the need to both reduce the size of the HoC and properly address the inbuilt Labour bias that harms the LDems' electoral chances too.
Ah, really? Fair enough then. But I thought the Boundary Commission was supposed to be independent? If so, how can the government of the day tell them what to do?phisheep said:
And Blazinglord - damn right I'll always be Tory-hostile (or maybe "Torysceptic" is the right word for it
) - I was personally on the wrong end of that horrific period we like to call "Thatcher's Britain", and have great difficulty trusting any Tory much farther than I can throw them. However, I'll cautiously give this coalition a chance - and a lot of critical scrutiny. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but if you don't like it, you know where to go.WHAT?!? I thought the DEBill was Mandelson's idea. Even so, getting STABBED over that's just not on.Saiyar said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dambrosi said:
They are independent so far as setting boundaries goes, but the government (or, more strictly, Parliament) can tell them what to do in terms of how many constituencies - because that's set in law - and in when to do it (i.e. now, rather than dawdle for 12 years).
I believe there is also a consultation process with the political parties and perhaps some horsetrading as well - but nothing remotely resembling gerrymandering.
blazinglord
Member
Know your place pleb!Dambrosi said:And Blazinglord - damn right I'll always be Tory-hostile (or maybe "Torysceptic" is the right word for it
Seriously though, I think it would be exceedingly generous to call your commentary 'critical scrutiny'. You're GAF's Mehdi Hasan (the tetchy one off Question Time on Thursday). You could at least lay off Clintonism hyperbole - I mean gerrymandering, really? Not everything is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy underpinned by Murdoch et al.
Ed Miliband is now running for labour party leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm
Cant say he seems the leadership type personally
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm
Cant say he seems the leadership type personally
blazinglord
Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/16/charles-kennedy-coalition-viewsPJV3 said:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the coalition, but nor is it disloyal enough to require Clegg to withdraw the whip from the old alcoholic.
Gary Whitta
Member
Interesting article about why Number 10's front door is so shiny:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8677004.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8677004.stm
Dark Machine
Member
Just seen Andy Marr interviewing Cameron this morning, he already looks shattered, double bagged eyes, and though he handled Marr well, he did start to get tetchy when interrupted and called on not answering questions.
Hated the bloody Daily Mail Aussie woman on the papers though...God what a bitch.
>Daily Mail...
>Aussie Feminist Bitch...
Hated the bloody Daily Mail Aussie woman on the papers though...God what a bitch.
>Daily Mail...
>Aussie Feminist Bitch...
Subliminal
Member
killer_clank
Member
Subliminal said:
FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
I thought you were joking so I clicked through. It is an article on why the door at Number 10 is so shiny. Remarkably, it is also interesting. This has been a learning process for me and one that I feel has made me richer. Do not judge a book by its cover, even if the cover accurately portrays the contents of the book.Gary Whitta said:
My goodness this afternoon is dragging on
Dark Machine
Member
SmokyDave said:I thought you were joking so I clicked through. It is an article on why the door at Number 10 is so shiny. Remarkably, it is also interesting. This has been a learning process for me and one that I feel has made me richer. Do not judge a book by its cover, even if the cover accurately portrays the contents of the book.
My goodness this afternoon is dragging on
Something I didn't know about Downing Street is that the brickwork of the houses is actually a very old load of fakery.
PJV3
Member
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7128387.ece
Another slightly dodgy move. You shouldn't do these things in back room deals.
They are also combining the Lords/Commons whips office so bye bye scrutiny.
Another slightly dodgy move. You shouldn't do these things in back room deals.
They are also combining the Lords/Commons whips office so bye bye scrutiny.
Shanadeus said:
Found this nifty pic just now, will be interesting to see how much the LibCon coalition will cut.
I always do a double-take when I see David McCandless's (or indeed Marcus Berkmann's, he crops up a few times) name on a 'serious' piece. He wrote for Your Sinclair, dammit! He's supposed to be, like, bonkers.
PJV3
Member
Mr. Sam said:
Senior Lib Dems said that the coalition must fulfil its promise to appoint Lib Dem peers. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Lib Dem peer, said: The coalition agreement entitles us to at least 50 more new Lib Dem peers to reflect our share of the vote on May 6. This is a key part of the coalition package for Liberal Democrats and a real test of our new Governments good faith.
This was done before they got into No 10.(i think)