What will be the outcome of the General Election

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If it annoys the tories bring it on.

 

 

It'll annoy the Tories but annoy Labour more, since they're broke!

[shaun.lawson]

I cant be arsed trawling through a million pages of political pish to be honest, but my personal opinion is that Clegg would gain a lot more respect by telling both parties to bolt and forcing another election in the Autumn.

 

Am I alone in feeling this way?

 

He might gain a lot of respect from some - but, er, would destroy his party completely. Chances of the already hard up Lib Dems being able to afford another election this year? Zero. Much more importantly, chances of the country being able to afford a whole summer of hiatus, with speculators hovering and poised for a kill? Worse than zero.

[shaun.lawson]

Hey Shaun, on economics threads, certain posters asked me to declare my interests! I think they thought I was one of those nasty banker types.

 

People seem to think I'm a bit of a banker too, Geoff! Sort of...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

He might gain a lot of respect from some - but, er, would destroy his party completely. Chances of the already hard up Lib Dems being able to afford another election this year? Zero. Much more importantly, chances of the country being able to afford a whole summer of hiatus, with speculators hovering and poised for a kill? Worse than zero.

 

 

And that's the big point.

 

The ? was down 4.5 cents on Friday as the shake-out took place. The markets will be expecting some news come Monday or the real fun begins for the UK.

[davemclaren]

People seem to think I'm a bit of a banker too, Geoff! Sort of...

 

I agree. A grand coalition or centre left arrangement would be lovely but I can't see it happening. Nick needs to get into bed with Dave one way or other for the good of the UK.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

People seem to think I'm a bit of a banker too, Geoff! Sort of...

 

 

 

There is a point though to all of this. A lot of people voted out of self-interest. A lot of people have reacted out of self-interest. All this talk about coalitions etc is fanciful in a lot of ways when basically the country is broke and there will be similar actions by whatever government finally takes hold.

 

So why is it so important to 'win', bar the political games? And is it self-interest driving that, rather than the overall good?

[shaun.lawson]

And that's the big point.

 

The ? was down 4.5 cents on Friday as the shake-out took place. The markets will be expecting some news come Monday or the real fun begins for the UK.

 

I'm absolutely staggered at the number of people on the left who've adopted the attitude of "if they prop the Tories up, I'll never vote Lib Dem again", as though economic circumstances are somehow irrelevant. Come to think of it, maybe it helps explain why the left are so useless on matters of the economy.

 

Personally, I quite like the idea of a Geoff/Shaun (oooh, that'll annoy someone) coalition in some ways. And the idea of Labour supporters - and many Lib Dem ones - that we can say "the people have spoken, so let's ignore them", is absolutely risible.

[shaun.lawson]

 

There is a point though to all of this. A lot of people voted out of self-interest. A lot of people have reacted out of self-interest. All this talk about coalitions etc is fanciful in a lot of ways when basically the country is broke and there will be similar actions by whatever government finally takes hold.

 

So why is it so important to 'win', bar the political games? And is it self-interest driving that, rather than the overall good?

 

Well - why's it so important for any organisation to be successful? Because if it fails, it lets down an awful lot of people. In politics, parties represent huge numbers of people, and their disintegration means a betrayal of those people.

 

Certainly, parties have imploded as a result of momentous historical events: the Tories under Robert Peel, the UUP under David Trimble. Even a whole country - no, an Empire - collapsed as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev's courage. If PR meant the Lib Dems disappeared from the political landscape, I'd have no issue with it, because something historic would've been achieved (something which was meant to be implemented in the 1930s FFS); but if we disappeared purely as a result of this deal or no deal, millions of people will be seriously demoralised.

 

Electoral and constitutional reform is about both self-interest and the common good. What could be more in the common good than fair votes, especially given the democratic deficit the Tories face in Scotland? But at the same time, the common good also involves the economy: hence the conundrum Clegg faces.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm absolutely staggered at the number of people on the left who've adopted the attitude of "if they prop the Tories up, I'll never vote Lib Dem again", as though economic circumstances are somehow irrelevant. Come to think of it, maybe it helps explain why the left are so useless on matters of the economy.

 

Personally, I quite like the idea of a Geoff/Shaun (oooh, that'll annoy someone) coalition in some ways. And the idea of Labour supporters - and many Lib Dem ones - that we can say "the people have spoken, so let's ignore them", is absolutely risible.

 

 

Yep, that would work!

 

I think Liam Halligan has written another good economic piece in the Torygraph about the situation.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/7696756/The-economic-challenge-we-face-is-too-big-to-be-left-to-politicians.html

[JamboAl]

Brown should resign immediately and let Mr Cameron assume the PM role;

 

1. Brown's been soundly whupped.

 

2. Mr Cameron is the leader of the party with the largest number of seats by far.

 

If Mr Cameron has to resign because he can't form a coalition administration or has to resort to a minority government then so be it.

 

But Cyclops has never been elected, has ruined the country, is hated by his "colleagues", and to see him desperately cling on to the keys of Number 10 is absolutely disgusting.

 

Cyclops - MAN UP and RESIGN

 

Strictly speaking none of the three has been elected. Dodgy Dave did not get a majority so he has no clear right to be in No 10.

He will however prostitute himself politically and sacrifice some of his dearly held aims. A real strong leader I don't think! It should be fun listening to Nick and Dave, or should that be Duck and Dive, as they negotiate.

 

I'll trade you a mansion tax for a Trident, an Inheritance tax exemption increase for a ?10k personal allowance, PR for some seats in the Cabinet etc etc. Laughable that they should run so strongly on supposed key policies and yet sacrifice them for personal/party gain. Oh no, they report it is for the good of the country: that suggests their respective manifestoes may not have been for the good of the country.

[Ulysses]

As I pointed out earlier, the German government is a coalition between the CDU (Tories) and Greens.

 

You did? It is?

 

[Ulysses]

Er, what link?

 

 

This link:

 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032.pdf

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Well - why's it so important for any organisation to be successful? Because if it fails, it lets down an awful lot of people. In politics, parties represent huge numbers of people, and their disintegration means a betrayal of those people.

 

Certainly, parties have imploded as a result of momentous historical events: the Tories under Robert Peel, the UUP under David Trimble. Even a whole country - no, an Empire - collapsed as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev's courage. If PR meant the Lib Dems disappeared from the political landscape, I'd have no issue with it, because something historic would've been achieved (something which was meant to be implemented in the 1930s FFS); but if we disappeared purely as a result of this deal or no deal, millions of people will be seriously demoralised.

 

 

Then it comes back to what is the Lib Dems raison d'etre. Is it to exist as a buffer zone between Labour and the Tories or to actually stand on their own two feet?

 

In my view, Clegg should go for confidence and supply to Cameron and avoid the fallout from the pain the Tories will HAVE to bring in. Short-term pain, long-term gain.

[P-Dizzle]

Middle England has spoken Shaun.

 

Shoudln't the Conservatives have won by a mile? There was such discontent with Labour, and how the country has been going of late. But they didn't win a majority, and their lead was dropping in the months and even weeks running up to the election.

 

I'm not saying I'd never vote Lib Dem again if they got into bed with the Tories, that would be silly and I think most of these people are just overreacting out of their fear of a Tory government. But I know I'm not alone if feeling unhappy with that outcome.

[Ulysses]

In my view, Clegg should go for confidence and supply to Cameron and avoid the fallout from the pain the Tories will HAVE to bring in. Short-term pain, long-term gain.

 

Does that mean Clegg should or shouldn't do business with Cameron?

[Danny Wilde]

Hmmm...

 

the odds on a LibDem schism arising from this must be high.

 

If I was a LibDem'r I'd be in the wing that tells Clegg to GTF on any kind of understanding with the Tories. In Scotland in particular - as you well know - the tories are regarded as a toxic brand. And if any understanding involves passing down the Scottish Secrretary post as some kind of concessionary bauble for LibDem Alistair Carmichael (rather than the Tories own oafish David Mundell), then believe me, the LibDems will die up here.

 

 

Oh, the activists are against it alright. No-one predicted it, because up until literally the final 24 hours, it looked as though we'd do a lot better; and the idea that Labour plus Lib Dems wouldn't equal a majority didn't occur to anyone.

 

There won't be a formal coalition because they'll never get it past the membership, who have to ratify it. But this is a time of very real economic crisis; and by hook or crook, a government has to be formed. It's what happens across Europe under PR all the time: PR very often demands odd bedfellows. As I pointed out earlier, the German government is a coalition between the CDU (Tories) and Greens.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Does that mean Clegg should or shouldn't do business with Cameron?

 

 

It means he abstains on the Budget and Queen's Speech, and lets the Tories be hoist by their own petard.

 

A new General Election quickly follows - Lib Dems play that they supported the "national interest" as Brown had been rejected and it shows minority government doesn't work. PR is the way forward.

[P-Dizzle]

It means he abstains on the Budget and Queen's Speech, and lets the Tories be hoist by their own petard.

 

A new General Election quickly follows - Lib Dems play that they supported the "national interest" as Brown had been rejected and it shows minority government doesn't work. PR is the way forward.

 

What's the guarantee that they'll get PR? If not then we're back to square one.

 

I thought the Lib Dems couldn't afford another general election?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What's the guarantee that they'll get PR? If not then we're back to square one.

 

I thought the Lib Dems couldn't afford another general election?

 

 

A general election wouldn't be in October. More like 2011 or 2012 at most.

 

Labour, in the meantime, will have to have PR in their next manifesto.

[JamboAl]

Middle England has spoken Shaun.

 

Shoudln't the Conservatives have won by a mile? There was such discontent with Labour, and how the country has been going of late. But they didn't win a majority, and their lead was dropping in the months and even weeks running up to the election.

 

I'm not saying I'd never vote Lib Dem again if they got into bed with the Tories, that would be silly and I think most of these people are just overreacting out of their fear of a Tory government. But I know I'm not alone if feeling unhappy with that outcome.

 

That's the amazing thing that some Tories don't want to hear.

They were very well funded by a non-dom compared with the others. Labour were savaged by a hostile media whose big wigs are affected by the 50% rate as were the business men who waded in with support for DC, who would pander to them, on the pretext that businesses would be harmed. These same people did not express their gratitude when Brown temporarily reduced VAT to 15%. It's astonishing that when VAT comes down by 2.5% it's a meaningless sop but when 1% goes on for NIC, the world is about to come to an end.

[JamboAl]

A general election wouldn't be in October. More like 2011 or 2012 at most.

 

Labour, in the meantime, will have to have PR in their next manifesto.

 

Why?

What about the Alternative Vote system?

[shaun.lawson]

Yep, that would work!

 

I think Liam Halligan has written another good economic piece in the Torygraph about the situation.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/7696756/The-economic-challenge-we-face-is-too-big-to-be-left-to-politicians.html

 

That's a very good and deeply chastening article. Thing is though: how does everyone else cope after an election when coalitions need to be formed?

 

Strictly speaking none of the three has been elected. Dodgy Dave did not get a majority so he has no clear right to be in No 10.

He will however prostitute himself politically and sacrifice some of his dearly held aims. A real strong leader I don't think! It should be fun listening to Nick and Dave, or should that be Duck and Dive, as they negotiate.

 

I'll trade you a mansion tax for a Trident, an Inheritance tax exemption increase for a ?10k personal allowance, PR for some seats in the Cabinet etc etc. Laughable that they should run so strongly on supposed key policies and yet sacrifice them for personal/party gain. Oh no, they report it is for the good of the country: that suggests their respective manifestoes may not have been for the good of the country.

 

Have you read the piece Geoff linked to, Al? I seriously think you should.

 

You did? It is?

 

 

Um - I thought it was! You're right though, as usual (in all seriousness, have you ever been wrong about anything? It's scary!). Mind you, the German government between 2005 and 2009 was a CDU/SPD grand coalition - so it can be done, often very effectively. Imagine a Tory-Labour coalition here!

 

This link:

 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032.pdf

 

 

Yeah, I searched for it after posting earlier. Sorry, but it seems like BS to me: Harrow has far more in common with Brent than Hillingdon, nor does the report explain precisely why Pinner was moved. Beyond that, I honestly think impact on one-sidedness of constituencies should be taken into account.

 

Below are the total number of votes secured by 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. Fair?!

 

 

Then it comes back to what is the Lib Dems raison d'etre. Is it to exist as a buffer zone between Labour and the Tories or to actually stand on their own two feet?

 

In my view, Clegg should go for confidence and supply to Cameron and avoid the fallout from the pain the Tories will HAVE to bring in. Short-term pain, long-term gain.

 

And confidence and supply it will presumably be. I still think it's highly likely to be short-term pain, long-term even more pain in Clegg and the Lib Dems' case though.

[kitster]

Vote GK! What a loss we had him moving to Australia.

[JamboAl]

 

Have you read the piece Geoff linked to, Al? I seriously think you should.

 

I have already suggested to Geoff that he should not swallow everything that the press prints.

[P-Dizzle]

A general election wouldn't be in October. More like 2011 or 2012 at most.

 

Labour, in the meantime, will have to have PR in their next manifesto.

 

That would give Labour time to regroup as a strong opposition, where they could just berate

the Conservatives for their cuts.

 

Are the Conservatives that desperate for power that they'll risk it for a year or two in government?

[shaun.lawson]

Middle England has spoken Shaun.

 

Shoudln't the Conservatives have won by a mile? There was such discontent with Labour, and how the country has been going of late. But they didn't win a majority, and their lead was dropping in the months and even weeks running up to the election.

 

I'm not saying I'd never vote Lib Dem again if they got into bed with the Tories, that would be silly and I think most of these people are just overreacting out of their fear of a Tory government. But I know I'm not alone if feeling unhappy with that outcome.

 

Agree about how utterly unrepresentative this result is, especially in the case of Scotland. However, some numbers for you to crunch:

 

In 1992, the Tories secured 42% of the vote, won by eight points, yet accrued a majority of just 21 seats.

 

In 1997, Labour secured 43% of the vote, won by twelve points, yet secured a majority of 179.

 

In 2005, Labour secured 35% of the vote, won by three points, yet secured a majority of 66.

 

In 2010, the Tories secured 36% of the vote, won by seven points, yet finished 20 seats short of a majority.

 

Seem fair to you? Were you complaining in 2005, when a pathetic Labour vote and tiny margin of victory produced a substantial majority anyway? It's not just that the electoral system is a closed shop: it's that it's fundamentally and shamefully biased towards Labour.

[shaun.lawson]

Hmmm...

 

the odds on a LibDem schism arising from this must be high.

 

If I was a LibDem'r I'd be in the wing that tells Clegg to GTF on any kind of understanding with the Tories. In Scotland in particular - as you well know - the tories are regarded as a toxic brand. And if any understanding involves passing down the Scottish Secrretary post as some kind of concessionary bauble for LibDem Alistair Carmichael (rather than the Tories own oafish David Mundell), then believe me, the LibDems will die up here.

 

I know we would, Danny. I know we would.

 

Why?

What about the Alternative Vote system?

 

LOL! Trust Al to favour a system which is somehow even more tilted towards Labour than the present carve-up. Mind you, you have a point: I think it's a cast iron certainty AV will be in their next manifesto, and the public would probably swallow it as the "electoral reform" the Lib Dems have been demanding...

[JamboAl]

Agree about how utterly unrepresentative this result is, especially in the case of Scotland. However, some numbers for you to crunch:

 

In 1992, the Tories secured 42% of the vote, won by eight points, yet accrued a majority of just 21 seats.

 

In 1997, Labour secured 43% of the vote, won by twelve points, yet secured a majority of 179.

 

In 2005, Labour secured 35% of the vote, won by three points, yet secured a majority of 66.

 

In 2010, the Tories secured 36% of the vote, won by seven points, yet finished 20 seats short of a majority.

 

Seem fair to you? Were you complaining in 2005, when a pathetic Labour vote and tiny margin of victory produced a substantial majority anyway? It's not just that the electoral system is a closed shop: it's that it's fundamentally and shamefully biased towards Labour.

 

So why did the Tories not do something about it in the intervening 5 years?

It seems that by doing nothing they were quite happy and still seem to be?

[shaun.lawson]

So why did the Tories not do something about it in the intervening 5 years?

It seems that by doing nothing they were quite happy and still seem to be?

 

Why have neither Labour nor the Tories done anything about it since 1930, when it was meant to be changed, but wasn't because of the financial disaster which intervened? Because it suits them not to. How unbelievably British that 80 years on, it still hasn't happened; and eerily, history could be about to repeat itself.

[P-Dizzle]

Were you complaining in 2005, when a pathetic Labour vote and tiny margin of victory produced a substantial majority anyway? It's not just that the electoral system is a closed shop: it's that it's fundamentally and shamefully biased towards Labour.

 

No, I was 13.

 

 

I know the system needs a total overhaul. In all honesty, I don't have an answer for the bias seen in these results.

 

I remember hearing that if we were to get PR, the Conservatives would strugle to ever gain a majority again. I don't understand how it effects them to such a large extent.

 

I'm quite happy to be wrong about things, this is my first election where I can appreciate what's really happening. So reading this has been helpful.

[JamboAl]

 

LOL! Trust Al to favour a system which is somehow even more tilted towards Labour than the present carve-up. Mind you, you have a point: I think it's a cast iron certainty AV will be in their next manifesto, and the public would probably swallow it as the "electoral reform" the Lib Dems have been demanding...

 

I think you have a serious problem when you try to belittle someone with breathtaking arrogance or maybe just ignorance.

Geoff said Labour would have to have PR in their next manifesto.

I merely suggested ONE alternative to that and there may be others. That does not mean I favour AV.

[shaun.lawson]

No, I was 13.

 

 

I know the system needs a total overhaul. In all honesty, I don't have an answer for the bias seen in these results.

 

I remember hearing that if we were to get PR, the Conservatives would strugle to every gain a majority again. I don't understand how it effects them to such a large extent.

 

I'm quite happy to be wrong about things, this is my first election where I can appreciate what's really happening. So reading this has been helpful.

 

Which is why they're implacably opposed to it, even though the present system makes it incredibly hard for them to get a majority for decades ahead (in Scotland, they'll never fully recover). But think about it: the Tories will never, ever win 50% of the vote at a general election. But combined, Labour and the Lib Dems always end up with over 50%: not forgetting the SNP too.

 

There's actually a centre-left majority in Britain; and the Tories are quite naturally terrified by it.

[shaun.lawson]

I think you have a serious problem when you try to belittle someone with breathtaking arrogance or maybe just ignorance.

Geoff said Labour would have to have PR in their next manifesto.

I merely suggested ONE alternative to that and there may be others. That does not mean I favour AV.

 

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Ulysses]

It means he abstains on the Budget and Queen's Speech, and lets the Tories be hoist by their own petard.

 

A new General Election quickly follows - Lib Dems play that they supported the "national interest" as Brown had been rejected and it shows minority government doesn't work. PR is the way forward.

 

Ah yes - in this neck of the woods that would be known as a variation on the Tallaght strategy.

 

I see why it might work (the Tallaght strategy sort of worked for Fine Gael in 1989). But equally it might not. It's not unreasonable to see a situation in which an election is held in May 2010 in which Labour's vote remains static and the Conservatives gain 2 or 3 percentage points from the Liberal Democrats. If that happened, the Conservatives would probably have an effective majority and the Liberal Democrats would be weakened for a generation.

 

The alternative is for the Liberal Democrats to go into coalition government with the Conservatives on the basis of a full 4-year programme for government. That would involve reaching agreement (and compromise) on key policy issues, as well as the Liberal Democrats taking 4 or 5 Cabinet seats (I'd say 6, but then that would be the Irish way). For that to work for the Liberal Democrats, an essential prerequisite would be that legislation for a PR electoral system would have to be in place by the end of 2012, so that the following General Election (probably in May 2014) would be contested on a PR basis.

 

It is likely that the Liberal Democrats would lose popular support in the following election, but with PR in place this would not translate into a loss of seats. In fact, with a vote of (say) 16-17%, they could well end up with 100-105 seats.

[P-Dizzle]

There's actually a centre-left majority in Britain; and the Tories are quite naturally terrified by it.

 

So knowing that, how can Clegg possibly hope to obtain a referendum on this from the Tories? If this were to get through it would be self-sabotage by the Tories, all for the sake of a year in government.

 

They couldn't allow it, and neither would their supporters. Why would they even entertain such an idea?

[JamboAl]

Why have neither Labour nor the Tories done anything about it since 1930, when it was meant to be changed, but wasn't because of the financial disaster which intervened? Because it suits them not to. How unbelievably British that 80 years on, it still hasn't happened; and eerily, history could be about to repeat itself.

 

Maybees aye, maybees naw.

I cannot understand why there is so much noise now with a system which with one hiccough has been acceptable for so long. Why can't the losers on this issue take it on the chin and sort things out when Parliament resumes?

And if your esteemed leader gets into bed with Dodgy Dave without this being a non-negotiable demand,the Lib Dems IMO should forfeit the right ever to moan about this again.

[Beverley]

It's not unreasonable to see a situation in which an election is held in May 2010

 

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

[JamboAl]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

Yet another cheap shot. Pathetic.

[shaun.lawson]

So knowing that, how can Clegg possibly hope to obtain a referendum on this from the Tories? If this were to get through it would be self-sabotage by the Tories, all for the sake of a year in government.

 

They couldn't allow it, and neither would their supporters. Why would they even entertain such an idea?

 

They won't. I highly doubt PR is even part of the discussions, which are taking place because Britain must have stable government at a time like this, and the numbers mean only a Tory-LD coalition can provide it.

 

What will be part of the discussions? Certainly not Europe, immigration or Trident, which are red lines as far as the Tories are concerned. But the Tory commitment to abolish the NI rise and LD commitment to take those below ?10,000 out of income tax (potentially attractive to a party which likes to cut tax, and wants to broaden its appeal) certainly will be being discussed, as will the question of cuts or no cuts this year and what will be cut in future; and on education, health, housing, the environment, ID cards and maybe detention without charge, there's common ground.

 

I really must reiterate though. Britain is in a grave economic condition. No stable government means a run on the pound, and catastrophe for millions and millions of people. If you were Nick Clegg, would you want to be responsible for that?

[shaun.lawson]

Maybees aye, maybees naw.

I cannot understand why there is so much noise now with a system which with one hiccough has been acceptable for so long. Why can't the losers on this issue take it on the chin and sort things out when Parliament resumes?

And if your esteemed leader gets into bed with Dodgy Dave without this being a non-negotiable demand,the Lib Dems IMO should forfeit the right ever to moan about this again.

 

Er, how, when the Tories and most of Labour are opposed to it?

 

Meanwhile, the Tories aren't going to concede PR, and everyone knows it. Again: do you want a run on the pound and all its horrendous repercussions, just so 'Dodgy Dave', leader of the party with most votes, doesn't get into power?

[JamboAl]

They won't. I highly doubt PR is even part of the discussions, which are taking place because Britain must have stable government at a time like this, and the numbers mean only a Tory-LD coalition can provide it.

 

What will be part of the discussions? Certainly not Europe, immigration or Trident, which are red lines as far as the Tories are concerned. But the Tory commitment to abolish the NI rise and LD commitment to take those below ?10,000 out of income tax (potentially attractive to a party which likes to cut tax, and wants to broaden its appeal) certainly will be being discussed, as will the question of cuts or no cuts this year and what will be cut in future; and on education, health, housing, the environment, ID cards and maybe detention without charge, there's common ground.

 

I really must reiterate though. Britain is in a grave economic condition. No stable government means a run on the pound, and catastrophe for millions and millions of people. If you were Nick Clegg, would you want to be responsible for that?

 

Don't think I've read such rubbish for a long time.

[shaun.lawson]

It's not unreasonable to see a situation in which an election is held in May 2010

 

Yes please! I'd love an election in May 2010: on May 6 to be precise.

 

I agree 100% with your analysis, incidentally.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

So knowing that, how can Clegg possibly hope to obtain a referendum on this from the Tories? If this were to get through it would be self-sabotage by the Tories, all for the sake of a year in government.

 

They couldn't allow it, and neither would their supporters. Why would they even entertain such an idea?

 

A referendum on PR is not on offer to Clegg. An all party inquiry into all aspects of the political system is. This is much broader and will include aspects such as the basis for allocating parliamentary seats, the anomalies that devolution have introduced, the total numbers of MPs and the voting system.

 

The people that say the conservatives would never get back into power if we had PR assume no-one would govern jointly with them. Lets see what pans out in the immediate future as this piece of 'conventional wisdom' is about to be put to the test.

 

Oh and the day the Lib Dems and Labour start 'acting as a single centre left alliance' will be the last day that combination ever polls > 50%. While Lib Dem activists are probably sympathetic to this grand coalition idea, their MPs are less so because Lib Dem voters are largely hostile to it. Take a look at the electoral map of the UK and see exactly where the orange dots are, mostly in rural areas with the odd metropolitan area (e.g. Edin West, Cardiff Central) where the Lib Dem voters actually came over from the conservative, not labour side.

[shaun.lawson]

Yet another cheap shot. Pathetic.

 

Yet another total sense of humour failure. Comical.

 

[/b]

 

Don't think I've read such rubbish for a long time.

 

On Friday, the markets had their most volatile day since the credit crunch. If there's no deal forthcoming, what do you think will happen on Monday? Have you seen what's happened in Greece? Have you read the piece Geoff linked to? Geoff gets it; you don't.

[shaun.lawson]

A referendum on PR is not on offer to Clegg. An all party inquiry into all aspects of the political system is. This is much broader and will include aspects such as the basis for allocating parliamentary seats, the anomalies that devolution have introduced, the total numbers of MPs and the voting system.

 

The people that say the conservatives would never get back into power if we had PR assume no-one would govern jointly with them. Lets see what pans out in the immediate future as this piece of 'conventional wisdom' is about to be put to the test.

 

Oh and the day the Lib Dems and Labour start 'acting as a single centre left alliance' will be the last day that combination ever polls > 50%. While Lib Dem activists are probably sympathetic to this grand coalition idea, their MPs are less so because Lib Dem voters are largely hostile to it. Take a look at the electoral map of the UK and see exactly where the orange dots are, mostly in rural areas with the odd metropolitan area (e.g. Edin West, Cardiff Central) where the Lib Dem voters actually came over from the conservative, not labour side.

 

As an aside, it's because of what you said in your final paragraph - the electoral reality facing the Lib Dems, in which we win seats with soft Tory support, and can't compete with Labour's base when we go head to head with them - that I think people like Clegg and Laws were always more inclined to treat with the Tories, not Labour. You know as well as I do that the 'all party committee of inquiry' is a worthless sop, though.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Yep, that would work!

 

I think Liam Halligan has written another good economic piece in the Torygraph about the situation.

 

http://www.telegraph...oliticians.html

 

 

in percentage terms of GDP the national debt was on a downward trend from when Labour took power. it is only the last 2 years that it has rocketed up again.

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think you have a serious problem when you try to belittle someone with breathtaking arrogance or maybe just ignorance.

Geoff said Labour would have to have PR in their next manifesto.

I merely suggested ONE alternative to that and there may be others. That does not mean I favour AV.

 

 

To your highlighted point, I think Labour have crossed the Rubicon on PR given Voldemort's desperation to seduce the Lib Dems into coalition with Labour. If Labour made a U-turn post this election, they would rightly be deemed as opportunists and suffer as such.

 

AV, however, would not be PR at all.

[P-Dizzle]

So what makes these rural voters favour the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, that they previously voted for?

 

Is it a resentment of Labour, or common ground such as tax?

 

I pulled up the detailed view of Edinburgh West, my constituency. It's quite noticeable in that sea of red along the central belt. It was a 50% vote for Lib Dems in 2005, but that's been reduced to 35.9%. With an 11.4% swing to Labour.

 

I don't really know much about the history of the seat, I think it was held by the Conservatives before I was born.

 

Do we count these seats as anomalies? Because that swing clearly wasn't seen nationwide. This constituency is far more balanced than the average of all the seats.

[davemclaren]

 

 

AV, however, would not be PR at all.

 

 

Absolutely correct. Labour's pseudo PR initiative.

[Ulysses]

It's not just that the electoral system is a closed shop: it's that it's fundamentally and shamefully biased towards Labour.

 

First of all it isn't a closed shop. If any party gets enough votes they'll also get the seats. During the campaign, I made the point that a lot of nonsense was being talked about vote and seat shares because of the silly assumption that any swing would be uniform across the country. But this didn't happen. To illustrate the point, prior to the election a uniform national swing where the Conservatives scored 36.1, Labour 29.0 and the Liberal Democrats 23.0 would have pointed to seat totals of CON 283, LAB 273 and LD 62. The actual result (including the one seat left to vote) will be CON 307, LAB 255, LD 57. In other words, because enough people voted for the Conservatives, and because they did so in the right places, they outperformed expectations by 24 seats. Regardless of what a "swingometer" might say, the fact is that if the Liberal Democrats scored 36% and came first in the popular vote they would end up with more seats than the other parties.

 

Secondly, it isn't the electoral system that is biased towards Labour - it's the political culture of areas in Britain that are and regard themselves as being on the periphery of political influence. I haven't yet looked at the position after the 2010 election, but if you look at the results in 2005, there were 127 constituencies where Labour scored more than 45% and had a lead of more than 25 percentage points. Here's a regional breakdown also showing the total number of seats in the region:

 

East Midlands: 5/46

Eastern England: 0/40

London: 16/73

North-East: 18/29

North-West: 25/75

Scotland: 22/59

South-East: 0/102

South-West: 1/55

Wales: 11/40

West Midlands: 10/59

Yorkshire and Humberside: 19/54

 

You do the percentages yourself, but it's nil or next to nothing in the south and east of England, as opposed to a third in the North-West, 35% in Scotland and over 60% in the North-East.

 

Whether you like it or not, the inbuilt bias towards Labour is not caused by the electoral system, but by the belief ingrained into the political culture that Labour (even on its bad days) is less likely to exclude certain parts of the country than other parties are. The electoral system amplifies the effects of that cultural bias, but it doesn't cause them.