What will be the outcome of the General Election

[shaun.lawson]

Sky News' view on democracy. Apparently it starts and ends with ticking a box.

 

This abomination is actually a step up for Kay Burley though,

 

 

 

Except that in the first interview, she was right - and the spokesman was absolutely hopeless. He needed to make clear that the protestors were warning Cameron and Clegg of the urgent need to create an electoral system based on fairness, which doesn't distort the results or disenfranchise all those living in safe seats, but really did nothing of the sort. And when she told him to go home and watch it on SKY News, he should've responded that when he went home later, he'd be watching the BBC.

 

The second interview you linked to was indeed an abomination, though, and almost unbelievable.

[shaun.lawson]

Merely an observation BF

 

Whats the latest from the grass-roots ?

Is electoral reform meaningfully on the table ... or has it slipped down the back of the sofa ?

Your feelings just now ?

 

My feelings are that Cameron cannot deliver PR, and Clegg cannot enter into a coalition without it. Meaning they'll probably agree a compromise of a free vote on a referendum in the Commons, but as the numbers plainly aren't there to carry it, that still won't be enough for a formal coalition, and confidence and supply is the only realistic way forward.

 

My feelings are also that the so-called rainbow coalition mooted by Labour would be wonderfully romantic, but totally impractical and doomed from the outset; and that if they end up in opposition, Labour will be the big winners from all this, and the Lib Dems the massive losers almost regardless of what we do.

[Ulysses]

My feelings are that Cameron cannot deliver PR, and Clegg cannot enter into a coalition without it. Meaning they'll probably agree a compromise of a free vote on a referendum in the Commons, but as the numbers plainly aren't there to carry it, that still won't be enough for a formal coalition, and confidence and supply is the only realistic way forward.

 

 

Then it would seem that the leader of the Liberal Democrats lacks a killer instinct.

[shaun.lawson]

Then it would seem that the leader of the Liberal Democrats lacks a killer instinct.

 

If so, that would make him entirely like the leader of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Labour Party. It could also be that the free vote being mooted is Cameron flying a kite to his backbenchers, who are in increasing ferment, and will give him a lot of trouble in the event of any deal: they already blame him for not winning outright.

 

Incidentally, on your proposal for what Clegg should do: I do not believe for a moment that the British public would accept them being denied stable government at a time of economic crisis because of the need for electoral reform. They're already increasingly angry that the Lib Dems haven't walked straight into coalition without negotiations.

[Ulysses]

Incidentally, on your proposal for what Clegg should do: I do not believe for a moment that the British public would accept them being denied stable government at a time of economic crisis because of the need for electoral reform. They're already increasingly angry that the Lib Dems haven't walked straight into coalition without negotiations.

 

But it doesn't matter what the British public think. It matters what the people who voted Liberal Democrat think, and how the party leadership can manage communication with those people if they have to withdraw from negotiations. They have a core policy, and if they approach the negotiations with honesty and integrity in relation to that core policy they should be able to "square things" with their voters in the event things do not go well.

 

It isn't in Cameron's interest to put himself in an unstable position, so let's see what he's prepared to do to put a stable government in place.

[shaun.lawson]

But it doesn't matter what the British public think. It matters what the people who voted Liberal Democrat think, and how the party leadership can manage communication with those people if they have to withdraw from negotiations. They have a core policy, and if they approach the negotiations with honesty and integrity in relation to that core policy they should be able to "square things" with their voters in the event things do not go well.

 

It isn't in Cameron's interest to put himself in an unstable position, so let's see what he's prepared to do to put a stable government in place.

 

Really? That's a remarkable comment. Do you think any politician would make it?

 

I must say though: I am surprised and bemused at the apparent lack of priority Clegg has given electoral reform. During the campaign and afterwards, there's been a continual pattern to his comments on it: he came across like he wished those protestors weren't there on Saturday, and instead talks about "cleaning up politics", code for an effective response to the expenses scandal, but not a new electoral system. Maybe all that talk of him being a closet Tory wasn't so unfair after all...

 

On Cameron: he'll know that Labour will be in a marvellous position once they've chosen a new leader, and can renew, reorganise and blame everyone else for the very tough decisions which need to be made. I think his strategy has to be either:

 

- A very quick election before Labour have had a chance to re-organise; or

 

- A deal with the Lib Dems which lasts for a full Parliament. As you say, instability is not his friend in all this at all.

[Ulysses]

Really? That's a remarkable comment. Do you think any politician would make it?

 

Yes, really. It may be considered a remarkable comment, but it's an entirely unremarkable thought. I don't think any politician would admit to it, but plenty would think it.

 

But 'n'all'n'anyways, we're not having an election campaign here, so we can afford a bit of honesty. 77% of the British public didn't vote for the Liberal Democrats, so the party (i) owes them nothing and (ii) has nothing to lose because of what they think of how they approach negotiations with other parties. What should matter to the Liberal Democrats is what their own supporters think. They are the people to whom the party does owe something, and the party does have something to lose if it can't explain itself to them.

[Ulysses]

i'm not sure that would be possible, given the scottish elections are to be held next may

 

Is there any reason why the two elections couldn't take place on the same day?

[Danny Wilde]

Really? That's a remarkable comment. Do you think any politician would make it?

 

I must say though: I am surprised and bemused at the apparent lack of priority Clegg has given electoral reform. During the campaign and afterwards, there's been a continual pattern to his comments on it: he came across like he wished those protestors weren't there on Saturday, and instead talks about "cleaning up politics", code for an effective response to the expenses scandal, but not a new electoral system. Maybe all that talk of him being a closet Tory wasn't so unfair after all...

 

On Cameron: he'll know that Labour will be in a marvellous position once they've chosen a new leader, and can renew, reorganise and blame everyone else for the very tough decisions which need to be made. I think his strategy has to be either:

 

- A very quick election before Labour have had a chance to re-organise; or

 

- A deal with the Lib Dems which lasts for a full Parliament. As you say, instability is not his friend in all this at all.

 

I think the Tories would vastly prefer the former. Operate as a minority. Quickly open up the fabled "national books" and paint the bleakest possible economic picture. Hope that Labour is still in a leadership battle - or even better, already has Balls or Harman at the helm. And then go to the country for a full mandate to fix the appalling mess left behind by Labour.

 

Cleggmania would be a distant memory and many LibDems voters would probably opt for Labour, Green or even Tory options (based on which wing of the LibDems they used to be sympathetic to). Could imagine a LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%+/- range by that time ... maybe returning only 20-30 seats.

 

This "national interest" angle - media and establishment propaganda - is really getting to the LibDems. If I was a LibDem'r I'd be DEMANDING that a tangible deal is struck on electoral reform, quite simply they may never get another chance in the decades to come. They shouldn't kid themselves that the electorate as a whole will perpetually share their outrage on this. The sheeple are fickle, and they don't stay angry at anything for too long.

 

Its now or never for the LibDems to demand a referendum, or tangible legislation, on electoral reform. If they don't get it, then they should withdraw from any talks with Cameron or Brown.

 

If they take cabinet posts however, they're ferked. Vote LibDem, get Tory. What a mess. Feel sorry for the millions of genuine LibDem voters out there. They're on the cusp of a great betrayal IMO.

 

Edit: in saying that, the "triple lock" might save them from themselves yet...

[shaun.lawson]

Yes, really. It may be considered a remarkable comment, but it's an entirely unremarkable thought. I don't think any politician would admit to it, but plenty would think it.

 

But 'n'all'n'anyways, we're not having an election campaign here, so we can afford a bit of honesty. 77% of the British public didn't vote for the Liberal Democrats, so the party (i) owes them nothing and (ii) has nothing to lose because of what they think of how they approach negotiations with other parties. What should matter to the Liberal Democrats is what their own supporters think. They are the people to whom the party does owe something, and the party does have something to lose if it can't explain itself to them.

 

Not true at all, and palpably so. The party has absolutely shitloads to lose in terms of public perception, and in my view, alarmingly little to gain. I've never heard the Lib Dems coming under such sustained condemnation from all sides before, but we are; and said sides don't care about the complexities or context facing Clegg. They care about either the Lib Dems blocking the formation of a stable government; foisting a Tory government on the 64% of the electorate who didn't vote for it; propping up a party they've just thrown out should talks with the Tories fail; compromising on key policies they voted for; and many even resent the Lib Dems being involved at all given we only have 57 seats. We can't win - and this is only a taster of what will follow at the ballot box.

 

On how and whether Clegg can successfully sell any arrangement to the party: well, we'll have to see. But in the absence of a firm commitment on PR, the prospects aren't good. In my experience, the grassroots and activists of all parties tend to be more ideological and what they would regard as principled, but less pragmatic and realistic; like commentators or the general public, all too quick to condemn without appreciating the inevitable necessity for compromise. Whether principle or loyalty to the leader would win out in an internal debate within the Liberal Democrat Party, I couldn't say; but my money would be on the former at this point.

[shaun.lawson]

I think the Tories would vastly prefer the former. Operate as a minority. Quickly open up the fabled "national books" and paint the bleakest possible economic picture. Hope that Labour is still in a leadership battle - or even better, already has Balls or Harman at the helm. And then go to the country for a full mandate to fix the appalling mess left behind by Labour.

 

Cleggmania would be a distant memory and many LibDems voters would probably opt for Labour, Green or even Tory options (based on which wing of the LibDems they used to be sympathetic to). Could imagine a LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%+/- range by that time ... maybe returning only 20-30 seats.

 

This "national interest" angle - media and establishment propaganda - is really getting to the LibDems. If I was a LibDem'r I'd be DEMANDING that a tangible deal is struck on electoral reform, quite simply they may never get another chance in the decades to come. They shouldn't kid themselves that the electorate as a whole will perpetually share their outrage on this. The sheeple are fickle, and they don't stay angry at anything for too long.

 

Its now or never for the LibDems to demand a referendum, or tangible legislation, on electoral reform. If they don't get it, then they should withdraw from any talks with Cameron or Brown.

 

If they take cabinet posts however, they're ferked. Vote LibDem, get Tory. What a mess. Feel sorry for the millions of genuine LibDem voters out there. They're on the cusp of a great betrayal IMO.

 

Edit: in saying that, the "triple lock" might save them from themselves yet...

 

I think 20-30 seats is being optimistic myself! My percentage chances of working for a Lib Dem MP, which I want to do, are receding by the hour. Sure know how to pick a winner, don't I?

 

For the life of me, I can't see a formal coalition with Cabinet seats without a firm commitment on PR (which incidentally, should involve a referendum: not being passed straight onto the statute books, as some of my friends in the party want. It's a matter for the public, not politicians to decide). I think confidence and supply is the best they'll come up with. In terms of it being a "great betrayal": well, millions will see it like that, and I'm fully braced for what that will mean. But the thing is, even in the campaign itself, we barely talked about PR: it appears increasingly that Clegg just doesn't prioritise it, for whatever reason.

 

Funny old world. Everyone thought the TV debates had helped us enormously; but actually, given they pushed the polls into hung Parliament territory (so scaring Labour and Tory voters alike), and led to huge scrutiny of our immigration, defence and Europe policies, they probably harmed us ultimately. No TV debates, and we might well have made small gains: maybe enough to avoid being in the hellish arithmetical position we find ourselves. And how different might history have been had Chris Huhne, not Nick Clegg, won the leadership instead of losing by a fraction? Ah well.

[Danny Wilde]

Ferk me, they're even starting to look more and more like each other...

 

 

Edit: The Blues Brothers !

[Danny Wilde]

OK, this is lifted from The Telegraph (usual caveats apply), but surely Clegg wouldn't sell out electoral reform this badly and this cheaply, would he ?

 

In addition, the parties hope to agree on a cross-party commission to look at voting and political reform. Crucially, it is understood that any recommendations from the commission would then be subject to a free Commons vote on whether the issue should be put before the country in a referendum.

 

So 3 hurdles would have to be crossed:

 

1. ...a cross-party commission to look at voting and political reform

2. ...these recomendations then subject to a free Commons vote on having a referendum

3. ...actually holding a referendum and the outcome from that being successful

 

Conclusion ?

 

PR is never going to happen.

[shaun.lawson]

OK, this is lifted from The Telegraph (usual caveats apply), but surely Clegg wouldn't sell out electoral reform this badly and this cheaply, would he ?

 

In addition, the parties hope to agree on a cross-party commission to look at voting and political reform. Crucially, it is understood that any recommendations from the commission would then be subject to a free Commons vote on whether the issue should be put before the country in a referendum.

 

So 3 hurdles would have to be crossed:

 

1. ...a cross-party commission to look at voting and political reform

2. ...these recomendations then subject to a free Commons vote on having a referendum

3. ...actually holding a referendum and the outcome from that being successful

 

Conclusion ?

 

PR is never going to happen.

 

If this is what happens, it isn't acceptable on any level at all. But the Guardian (usual caveats apply here too) think Clegg is on the point of giving up on the Tories and starting discussions with Labour instead.

 

Conclusion? No-one in the know actually knows anything - and we shall see what we shall see.

[Danny Wilde]

If this is what happens, it isn't acceptable on any level at all. But the Guardian (usual caveats apply here too) think Clegg is on the point of giving up on the Tories and starting discussions with Labour instead.

 

Conclusion? No-one in the know actually knows anything - and we shall see what we shall see.

 

As you say we'll see.

 

I read Polly T earlier ..basically saying not to get in a tizz, and it was all going to be OK. The triple-lock, the grandees and the activists would see to that.

 

However if LibDem triple-lock/grandees/activists do strangle the proposal, then how does Clegg stand as party leader relative to the party as a whole. Is he mortally wounded or just grazed ? Can he just carry on ?

 

Mindyou Polly T is completely hatstand.

[Ulysses]

Not true at all, and palpably so. The party has absolutely shitloads to lose in terms of public perception, and in my view, alarmingly little to gain. I've never heard the Lib Dems coming under such sustained condemnation from all sides before, but we are;

 

All sides except your own voters, as far as I can see. So what? Liberal Democrat voters are there to be represented, or to have the party's actions explained to them. Sod everyone else - they didn't vote for the party so it's no loss if they don't vote for them next time around.

 

 

 

On how and whether Clegg can successfully sell any arrangement to the party: well, we'll have to see. But in the absence of a firm commitment on PR, the prospects aren't good.

 

Which is why he should cut his losses and walk away from the negotiations if they don't deliver something concrete on PR. Because if he lets these people down they can damage the party badly next time around.

 

 

The only reason people are so jittery about this is that they are caught up in their "first past the post" mentality and just don't get the point of what's going on. Coalition governments - or support arrangements for minority governments - are all about discussion and compromise. They are most certainly not about assuming that because one party is bigger it is entitled to dictate what happens.

 

And the stuff about cross-party commissions and a referendum is just a smokescreen - what we call "kicking the issue into the long grass". Britain already has PR, and you know how it works. So the Liberal Democrat leadership should insist on cutting to the chase and delivering legislation and the necessary constituency review by defined dates. If that's not on offer, they should walk and explain why to their own supporters.

[shaun.lawson]

As you say we'll see.

 

I read Polly T earlier ..basically saying not to get in a tizz, and it was all going to be OK. The triple-lock, the grandees and the activists would see to that.

 

However if LibDem triple-lock/grandees/activists do strangle the proposal, then how does Clegg stand as party leader relative to the party as a whole. Is he mortally wounded or just grazed ? Can he just carry on ?

 

Mindyou Polly T is completely hatstand.

 

In that scenario, I assume he would have to resign: talk about a dramatic fall from grace! But if the membership was faced with a choice of either backing a wholly unpalatable deal, or risking Cameron calling a snap election at which we and Labour would be obliterated, what then?

 

I have the utmost respect for Polly Toynbee - but it's almost embarrassing how partisan she is. She seems in total denial that Labour lost the election at all. So she advocates the rainbow coalition - but how does any Labour leader guarantee all their MPs voting for PR? And how does any coalition survive when neither the SNP nor PC vote on matters only relating to England? See the problem?

[shaun.lawson]

All sides except your own voters, as far as I can see. So what? Liberal Democrat voters are there to be represented, or to have the party's actions explained to them. Sod everyone else - they didn't vote for the party so it's no loss if they don't vote for them next time around.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why he should cut his losses and walk away from the negotiations if they don't deliver something concrete on PR. Because if he lets these people down they can damage the party badly next time around.

 

 

The only reason people are so jittery about this is that they are caught up in their "first past the post" mentality and just don't get the point of what's going on. Coalition governments - or support arrangements for minority governments - are all about discussion and compromise. They are most certainly not about assuming that because one party is bigger it is entitled to dictate what happens.

 

And the stuff about cross-party commissions and a referendum is just a smokescreen - what we call "kicking the issue into the long grass". Britain already has PR, and you know how it works. So the Liberal Democrat leadership should insist on cutting to the chase and delivering legislation and the necessary constituency review by defined dates. If that's not on offer, they should walk and explain why to their own supporters.

 

Fair enough on all counts except one, and your third paragraph is particularly perceptive. However - actually, we're under onslaught from many people who voted Lib Dem too. We've always been a fragile coalition of different interests appealing to different people; and many of those people are already very unhappy with what Clegg is doing. Some are absolutely furious.

[shaun.lawson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk

[JamboAl]

I would suspect that much of that 11.4% is explained by Labour voters who stayed at home or voted Lib Dem in 2005 because of Iraq turning out this time: because Iraq has faded in the memory, of panic at the prospect of the Tories winning (in 2005, there was no chance of it happening), and because Labour did a fantastic job mobilising their core support over the last week of the campaign. Clegg's monumental blunder in ruling out a coalition with Brown also pushed people back towards Labour.

 

So it was nothing to do with Clegg being hollow? Cameron mark 2.

In SW England, there are plenty of liberal, One Nation Tories who've felt unable to vote for a horribly right wing Conservative Party for much of the last 13 years. Naturally, Cameron is starting to win some of them back. And because he is, the Lib Dem vote in Lab-LD marginals fell: Tories failing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, but voting Tory when it was pointless instead. Clegg's claims that the Lib Dems were the new progressive force in politics, and apparent desire to usurp Labour will have played a large part in this, sadly.

 

So you're inferring that it's really heading back towards a two party system dispensing with the need to consider PR any further.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So you're inferring that it's really heading back towards a two party system dispensing with the need to consider PR any further.

 

 

Someone is desperate for a bite....

[JamboAl]

Someone is desperate for a bite....

 

So you've read it the same way as me then.

[rossthejambo]

So you're inferring that it's really heading back towards a two party system dispensing with the need to consider PR any further.

 

 

Its always going to be a 2 party system unless there is some form of PR. Smaller parties aren't going to get a look in in this FPTP system. I genuinely think that puts people off voting for them.

 

I think ideally, I'd have voted Green in this election had there been PR (like I did in the 2nd vote in the Scottish elections) but since in this system they had no chance of getting in I voted Lib Dem, even then I knew it was a waste of time because Labour were always going to win.

[shaun.lawson]

So you're inferring that it's really heading back towards a two party system dispensing with the need to consider PR any further.

 

Nope, nothing to do with Clegg being 'hollow'. His personal rating is still higher than that of Cameron or Brown. But the electorate must have looked at the team surrounding him and seen, other than Cable, not very much; our policies on Europe, immigration and defence aren't exactly popular (media criticism of which seems to suggest we should hang our heads in shame about not being insular, xenophobic, militaristic bigots); and it was a close election at a time of national crisis, meaning fear drove voters back into the same old two camps.

 

Meanwhile, it's so good to hear you think having a straight choice of either black or white will do forever, and the electorate should be denied any further options. It corrupts our democracy, disenfranchises millions upon millions, and undoubtedly contributed to the expenses scandal: because MPs in safe seats (or should I say, rotten boroughs) who don't have to do a thing to keep being re-elected fall out of touch with reality. The system is rigged: pure and simple. But hey, what's that when set against the 'hollowness' of Cameron or Clegg, or the great, unimpeachable, infallible Gordon, three times unelected, who presided over his party's second lowest share of the vote in history?

[Guess The Crowd]

Nope, nothing to do with Clegg being 'hollow'. His personal rating is still higher than that of Cameron or Brown. But the electorate must have looked at the team surrounding him and seen, other than Cable, not very much; our policies on Europe, immigration and defence aren't exactly popular (media criticism of which seems to suggest we should hang our heads in shame about not being insular, xenophobic, militaristic bigots); and it was a close election at a time of national crisis, meaning fear drove voters back into the same old two camps.

 

Meanwhile, it's so good to hear you think having a straight choice of either black or white will do forever, and the electorate should be denied any further options. It corrupts our democracy, disenfranchises millions upon millions, and undoubtedly contributed to the expenses scandal: because MPs in safe seats (or should I say, rotten boroughs) who don't have to do a thing to keep being re-elected fall out of touch with reality. The system is rigged: pure and simple. But hey, what's that when set against the 'hollowness' of Cameron or Clegg, or the great, unimpeachable, infallible Gordon, three times unelected, who presided over his party's second lowest share of the vote in history?

 

 

 

 

Shaun,

 

I would add to that the desire to levy VAT on new housing. A number of people I know didn't vote Libdem for that, rather than any other reason.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Nope, nothing to do with Clegg being 'hollow'. His personal rating is still higher than that of Cameron or Brown. But the electorate must have looked at the team surrounding him and seen, other than Cable, not very much; our policies on Europe, immigration and defence aren't exactly popular (media criticism of which seems to suggest we should hang our heads in shame about not being insular, xenophobic, militaristic bigots); and it was a close election at a time of national crisis, meaning fear drove voters back into the same old two camps.

 

Meanwhile, it's so good to hear you think having a straight choice of either black or white will do forever, and the electorate should be denied any further options. It corrupts our democracy, disenfranchises millions upon millions, and undoubtedly contributed to the expenses scandal: because MPs in safe seats (or should I say, rotten boroughs) who don't have to do a thing to keep being re-elected fall out of touch with reality. The system is rigged: pure and simple. But hey, what's that when set against the 'hollowness' of Cameron or Clegg, or the great, unimpeachable, infallible Gordon, three times unelected, who presided over his party's second lowest share of the vote in history?

 

 

Four legs good, two legs bad.

 

Then New Labour came along.

 

Four legs good, two legs better.

[JamboAl]

Nope, nothing to do with Clegg being 'hollow'. His personal rating is still higher than that of Cameron or Brown. But the electorate must have looked at the team surrounding him and seen, other than Cable, not very much; our policies on Europe, immigration and defence aren't exactly popular (media criticism of which seems to suggest we should hang our heads in shame about not being insular, xenophobic, militaristic bigots); and it was a close election at a time of national crisis, meaning fear drove voters back into the same old two camps.

 

Ah, that's made things so much clearer for me.

 

Meanwhile, it's so good to hear you think having a straight choice of either black or white will do forever, and the electorate should be denied any further options. It corrupts our democracy, disenfranchises millions upon millions, and undoubtedly contributed to the expenses scandal: because MPs in safe seats (or should I say, rotten boroughs) who don't have to do a thing to keep being re-elected fall out of touch with reality. The system is rigged: pure and simple. But hey, what's that when set against the 'hollowness' of Cameron or Clegg, or the great, unimpeachable, infallible Gordon, three times unelected, who presided over his party's second lowest share of the vote in history?

 

I didn't say that. I thought that was the conclusion YOU were coming to as you went round in circles.

I have deliberately not said what I favour.

[shaun.lawson]

I didn't say that. I thought that was the conclusion YOU were coming to as you went round in circles.

I have deliberately not said what I favour.

 

Ah, that old trick again. So what do you favour?

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun,

 

I would add to that the desire to levy VAT on new housing. A number of people I know didn't vote Libdem for that, rather than any other reason.

 

Interesting, and fair enough. One more for my growing list of "what went wrong".

[JamboAl]

Ah, that old trick again. So what do you favour?

 

Can't tell you that. It would just lead you into another farcical round of irrelevant debate.

[Danny Wilde]

Is AV in anyway an acceptable compromise to LibDems BF ? Wouldn't have thought so.

 

From the Guardian LiveBlog:

2.07pm: Sam Coates from the Times says Tory MPs are being sounded out about the alternative vote and the alternative vote plus.

 

Last Thursday's results under AV: Con, 281 seats; Lab, 262; LD 79

 

Interesting, and fair enough. One more for my growing list of "what went wrong".

[JamboAl]

Interesting, and fair enough. One more for my growing list of "what went wrong".

 

It might have been better if you had prepared the list before the election and headed it "Why things may not go right".

This was one of the Lib Dems' problems that they ultimately believed their own hype after the 1st debate.

Incidentally I cannot see the Tories agreeing to the mansion tax or removing Trident as part of any deal.

[rossthejambo]

Serious question here, what are the chances of the PR system that is used in the Scottish Parliament elections getting used in the UK elections?

 

Its much more straight forward than the Alternative Vote and the other version that the Lib Dems are wanting (not sure of the name) IMO.

[shaun.lawson]

Is AV in anyway an acceptable compromise to LibDems BF ? Wouldn't have thought so.

 

From the Guardian LiveBlog:

2.07pm: Sam Coates from the Times says Tory MPs are being sounded out about the alternative vote and the alternative vote plus.

 

Last Thursday's results under AV: Con, 281 seats; Lab, 262; LD 79

 

AV, no. It's even less proportional than FPTP, and as you can see, would've distorted Labour's seat numbers and gap behind the Tories even more: hence Brown favouring it. AV plus, given our bargaining position is so weak? Maybe.

[shaun.lawson]

Can't tell you that. It would just lead you into another farcical round of irrelevant debate.

 

So to summarise: debating our electoral system on a day when a coalition might or might not be formed based on reform to the electoral system is "irrelevant". Why? Because JamboAl has spoken.

 

It might have been better if you had prepared the list before the election and headed it "Why things may not go right".

This was one of the Lib Dems' problems that they ultimately believed their own hype after the 1st debate.

Incidentally I cannot see the Tories agreeing to the mansion tax or removing Trident as part of any deal.

 

Neither can I - but there's plenty of common ground on many other issues. How about you discuss how Labour ended up with their second lowest vote share ever? Or is that "irrelevant" too?

[shaun.lawson]

Serious question here, what are the chances of the PR system that is used in the Scottish Parliament elections getting used in the UK elections?

 

Its much more straight forward than the Alternative Vote and the other version that the Lib Dems are wanting (not sure of the name) IMO.

 

Not great - because list systems largely remove the ability of the public to throw individual MPs out. And I don't see what's not straightforward about multi-member constituencies in which a voter counts from 1 to 5 at all.

 

Incidentally, STV helps hugely with a number of other things too. Because several MPs are elected for each constituency, a member of the public can choose who he can go to with any concern (almost certainly someone he's voted for), and isn't fobbed off with party political bollocks when he does.

 

It even helps root out bad MPs. Say you live in Surrey, and want to vote for five Tories. You prioritise your votes for the five Tory candidates, putting the one who has claimed for his duck moat and homophobic club membership in fifth place. Or you vote for four Tories and a local independent. Chances are that under the quota system the constituency will return a number of Tories, and possibly a Lib Dem or UKIP or even the local independent. Guess which Tory will not be elected?

[JamboAl]

AV, no. It's even less proportional than FPTP, and as you can see, would've distorted Labour's seat numbers and gap behind the Tories even more: hence Brown favouring it. AV plus, given our bargaining position is so weak? Maybe.

 

I think you have just demonstrated that your views are based on self-interest. AV (which I am not promoting, incidentally) may favour Labour at the moment but as preferences/moods etc change that may not always be the case.

It's also interesting to see how much you, and no doubt other Lib Dems, value PR and yet there is a possibility that your leader/party may give this up for a piece of power. I wonder what long term good that would do for them and the country.

[shaun.lawson]

I think you have just demonstrated that your views are based on self-interest. AV (which I am not promoting, incidentally) may favour Labour at the moment but as preferences/moods etc change that may not always be the case.

It's also interesting to see how much you, and no doubt other Lib Dems, value PR and yet there is a possibility that your leader/party may give this up for a piece of power. I wonder what long term good that would do for them and the country.

 

AV isn't proportional in any way, and is purely and simply a bad system. That's why I oppose it. STV is almost exactly proportional, and the fairest, most equitable constituency-based system there is. That's why I support it.

 

Yes, pretty much all Lib Dems cherish PR like nothing else; and yes, Clegg might well come to some sort of arrangement with the Tories without any firm commitments regarding it. Why? Because the national interest demands we have a stable government, and Clegg knows PR is, at present, undeliverable. Do you not want a stable government, or is that "irrelevant" too? On the basis that a deal with either the Tories or Labour will have catastrophic implications for the Lib Dems at the next election, quite conceivably for a generation, and very probably split the party completely, if you think this has anything to do with "a piece of power", I suggest you seek immediate medication.

[JamboAl]

AV isn't proportional in any way, and is purely and simply a bad system. That's why I oppose it. STV is almost exactly proportional, and the fairest, most equitable constituency-based system there is. That's why I support it.

 

What's this obsession with "proportional"? It seems simply to be an excuse to try and get more power than the current system, or others, warrants. The LDs are a minority party, so tough. Last week I watched the snooker World championships and the trophy was awarded on frames won. Dott might have won 17 frames by 147-0 and Robertson 18 frames by 67-66. Would the Lib Dems award the trophy to Dott on the basis of the number of points he scored? Or should Hibs represent Scotland in the CL if they scored more goals than Rangers. Of course not. The election is won on seats and you should gracefully accept that instead of whinging on like spoilt little children.

 

Yes, pretty much all Lib Dems cherish PR like nothing else; and yes, Clegg might well come to some sort of arrangement with the Tories without any firm commitments regarding it. Why? Because the national interest demands we have a stable government, and Clegg knows PR is, at present, undeliverable. Do you not want a stable government, or is that "irrelevant" too? On the basis that a deal with either the Tories or Labour will have catastrophic implications for the Lib Dems at the next election, quite conceivably for a generation, and very probably split the party completely, if you think this has anything to do with "a piece of power", I suggest you seek immediate medication.

 

The national interest/stable government didn't seem to matter two or three weeks ago when Chas (sorry Nick) and Dave were jockeying for position and trying to talk the country down to feather their nests. Both fell short. I think you're the one who needs medication to stop your petted lip behaviour. You lost the election and have no moral right to be demanding anything. Grow up and stop this idealistic posturing.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Well after 3 days the Lib Dems need more detail from the Tories amid rumours that they have secretly met with Labour leaders over the weekend! Looks like the proposed coalition is collapsing already.

[shaun.lawson]

The national interest/stable government didn't seem to matter two or three weeks ago when Chas (sorry Nick) and Dave were jockeying for position and trying to talk the country down to feather their nests. Both fell short. I think you're the one who needs medication to stop your petted lip behaviour. You lost the election and have no moral right to be demanding anything. Grow up and stop this idealistic posturing.

 

Again, I'm going to detail the total votes cast for the three main parties in the two constituencies covering Oxford:

 

Liberal Democrats 41,087

Conservatives 33,633

Labour 27,937

 

The Conservatives picked up one MP from the area; and Labour also picked up one MP. The Liberal Democrats received zero MPs.

 

How you can possibly argue against reform in the face of that, I have no idea. The obession with "proportional" is that "proportional" reflects the will of all voters everywhere. That's why it's used in all European countries except our one. Frankly, to not enthusiastically support reform along such lines marks you out as a blockhead: dare I say it, a Tory.

 

Except you've not argued against it, have you? Pathetically, you've offered no opinion at all, while castigating and stating as "irrelevant" any view which doesn't hail the Labour Party as by far the greatest thing the world has ever seen. Debate, it isn't.

 

But events are moving fast. Brown is gone - and a rainbow coalition could yet be a possibility after all.

[Therapist]

Cyclops has - at last - bowed to the will of the people and resigned.

 

GTF Brown - the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister of the last two centuries. Quite a double.

[shaun.lawson]

Cyclops has - at last - bowed to the will of the people and resigned.

 

GTF Brown - the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister of the last two centuries. Quite a double.

 

Wrong as usual, Therapist. Viscount Goderich, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord Liverpool and Prime Minister for five months between August 1827 and January 1828, was far worse. And no: neither Google nor Wikipedia were employed in order for me to arrive at this assessment.

[I P Knightley]

Wrong as usual, Therapist. Viscount Goderich, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord Liverpool and Prime Minister for five months between August 1827 and January 1828, was far worse. And no: neither Google nor Wikipedia were employed in order for me to arrive at this assessment.

 

 

I think you know that you have no right to comment on that given that you weren't there

 

I just started another thread specifically dealing with Brown's departure. Does it mean that Pickford's will be in Downing St tomorrow? Who moves in?

[Danny Wilde]

OK ... still a long way to go yet but now the broad UK left is perhaps aligning on the right track here ...

Time for some more conjecture !

 

So...with Brown announcing his effective resignation...

 

And with Clegg/LibDems perhaps having played world-class poker here...

 

Then what now for Cameron ?

 

If a progressive left deal can be struck, then Cameron is as good as dead as Conservative leader.

 

- Failed to lead his party to an overall majority.

- Failed subsequently to negotiate his way into Downing Street after being led up the path by the LibDems

 

He was already facing internal criticism from withing his own party, this would sink him.

 

Perhaps a new Tory leader inside the next 3 months and a sharp swing to the right.

 

This is making me dizzy !

Again, I'm going to detail the total votes cast for the three main parties in the two constituencies covering Oxford:

 

Liberal Democrats 41,087

Conservatives 33,633

Labour 27,937

 

The Conservatives picked up one MP from the area; and Labour also picked up one MP. The Liberal Democrats received zero MPs.

 

How you can possibly argue against reform in the face of that, I have no idea. The obession with "proportional" is that "proportional" reflects the will of all voters everywhere. That's why it's used in all European countries except our one. Frankly, to not enthusiastically support reform along such lines marks you out as a blockhead: dare I say it, a Tory.

 

Except you've not argued against it, have you? Pathetically, you've offered no opinion at all, while castigating and stating as "irrelevant" any view which doesn't hail the Labour Party as by far the greatest thing the world has ever seen. Debate, it isn't.

 

But events are moving fast. Brown is gone - and a rainbow coalition could yet be a possibility after all.

[The Real Maroonblood]

OK ... still a long way to go yet but now the broad UK left is perhaps aligning on the right track here ...

Time for some more conjecture !

 

So...with Brown announcing his effective resignation...

 

And with Clegg/LibDems perhaps having played world-class poker here...

 

Then what now for Cameron ?

 

If a progressive left deal can be struck, then Cameron is as good as dead as Conservative leader.

 

- Failed to lead his party to an overall majority.

- Failed subsequently to negotiate his way into Downing Street after being led up the path by the LibDems

 

He was already facing internal criticism from withing his own party, this would sink him.

 

Perhaps a new Tory leader inside the next 3 months and a sharp swing to the right.

 

This is making me dizzy !

Quality post Danny I just love your scenario.

[JamboAl]

Again, I'm going to detail the total votes cast for the three main parties in the two constituencies covering Oxford:

 

Liberal Democrats 41,087

Conservatives 33,633

Labour 27,937

 

The Conservatives picked up one MP from the area; and Labour also picked up one MP. The Liberal Democrats received zero MPs.

 

How you can possibly argue against reform in the face of that, I have no idea. The obession with "proportional" is that "proportional" reflects the will of all voters everywhere. That's why it's used in all European countries except our one. Frankly, to not enthusiastically support reform along such lines marks you out as a blockhead: dare I say it, a Tory.

 

Except you've not argued against it, have you? Pathetically, you've offered no opinion at all, while castigating and stating as "irrelevant" any view which doesn't hail the Labour Party as by far the greatest thing the world has ever seen. Debate, it isn't.

 

But events are moving fast. Brown is gone - and a rainbow coalition could yet be a possibility after all.

 

Firstly can I say I couldn't give a sh*t what happened in Oxford and I doubt if many others could either. This is the system. Accept it You're just wheeling out the same old tripe. If we get PR we'll in effect always be liable to have a hung Parliament. If. if, if.

If Brown had gone 6 months ago we probably wouldn't be having this debate but I'm not complaining.

As regards what I do prefer to PR that will become clear when it's appropriate to the thread.