British Election Thread

[nomix]

Well, perhaps.

But remember, we're all losers.

 

[Plissken]

But didn't YOU say in the commentary about the US electoral college that it was undemocratic that the person that got the most votes (majority or not) wasn't made the leader of the United States?

In a straight up, two way fight, yes.

This isn't. We don't elect Prime Ministers, no matter how much the media is trying to paint it. Gordon Brown isn't, to use a term, "squatting" in No 10, he is actually required to stay there until this is sorted out. As someone pointed out elsewhere, Cameron hasn't won because he hasn't got past the post.

If you were to demonstrate the flaws in FPTP, you couldn't do better than the way this has turned out.

Sky News are hilarious at the moment. They are spinning like hell against coalition Governments and their example.... Israel.

 

[Peter3hg]

put together Labour and Lib dems would have the largest number of votes, he can moan all he likes but simply more people voted against the Tories than for them.

More people voted against for Labour than for them. More people voted against the Lib Dems than for them. Do you not see how circular that argument is? There has not been a party for 80 years that hasn't had more votes against them than for them and there never will be again.

Supposedly the Tories have offered a referendum on an AV system of PR. Labour have offered to put the AV system into law and then seek a referendum on it, which is an arse about face way of going about things. I wouldn't be surprised if they want to put it into law, and then call an election, and never bother with the referendum, therefore never allowing the Conservatives back into power. It would be stupid for them to do as it would also mean they would never be in power.
Frankly I can't see the "Rainbow Coalition" ever happening. There are too many parties who want too much. Why Labour think their sworn enemies in Scotland (the SNP) would support them is anyones guess.

 

[nomix]

Do you think the people who voted for the LibDems cast their vote in an attempt to strengthen the Tories? Close to every LibDem voter will prefer to work with Labour rather than the Tories.

Right?

 

[Plissken]

The SNP doesn't have to support them. All they have to do is not vote against them.

Labour have offered to put AV+ into law and provide a referendum on STV. Conservatives have offered a referendum on AV and admitted they would campaign against it.

There is another, crucial, reason why the non-Conservatives have to get together. They are all stony broke and can't afford to fight another election. The Tories can rely on Lord Ashcroft of Belize for funding.

 

[Peter3hg]

Do you think the people who voted for the LibDems cast their vote in an attempt to strengthen the Tories? Close to every LibDem voter will prefer to work with Labour rather than the Tories.

Right?

Every Lib Dem I know doesn't want them to work with either party.

The SNP doesn't have to support them. All they have to do is not vote against them.

But they will vote against them on certain occasions, thus making the coalition very weak and liable to failing at any point. A Lab/Lib/Plaid/SDLP/Green/Alliance coalition would only have 323 seats, just two more than the theoretical majority of 321. That just isn't enough, especially as it isn't certain that Plaid would want to join any more than the SNP do. Any Lab/Lib coalition will fail as they will never be strong enough to survive, in the same way that a Conservative minority government couldn't survive.
Long term, the only plausible alternative will be some kind of Con/Lib agreement, but I still expect a new election by the end of the year. If some form of PR was introduced before the election, then a Lib/Lab coalition would be possible as they would have enough seats to make a working majority.

 

[brydie76]

Do you think the people who voted for the LibDems cast their vote in an attempt to strengthen the Tories? Close to every LibDem voter will prefer to work with Labour rather than the Tories.

Right?

This. You don't vote for a left-wing party with strong views on political reform for them to go and get in bed with a scarily conservative (IMO!!!), right-wing party who would stand to lose out worst out of all the parties in AV system. Lib Dems really need to consider their supporters carefully when deciding who to make a coalition with (if at all)

 

[nomix]

Every Lib Dem I know doesn't want them to work with either party.

Great. So then they won't work with either party, how should the UK be run? By the Queen?

This. You don't vote for a left-wing party with strong views on political reform for them to go and get in bed with a scarily conservative (IMO!!!), right-wing party who would stand to lose out worst out of all the parties in AV system. Lib Dems really need to consider their supporters carefully when deciding who to make a coalition with (if at all)

Indeed. It would be like SV (our type of sort of liberal democrats) working with H?yre (our Tories).

 

[Peter3hg]

Great. So then they won't work with either party, how should the UK be run? By the Queen?

No, they want another election with a clear outcome. They don't vote for the Lib Dems so they can compromise with other parties, they vote for the Lib Dems as the Lib Dems, not some pawn in political games.

 

[WillDAQ]

No, they want another election with a clear outcome. They don't vote for the Lib Dems so they can compromise with other parties, they vote for the Lib Dems as the Lib Dems, not some pawn in political games.

Every voter wants their party to form a government.

Sadly the UK has a hundreds of years old constitutional tradition of Tough Shit?

 

[nomix]

No, they want another election with a clear outcome. They don't vote for the Lib Dems so they can compromise with other parties, they vote for the Lib Dems as the Lib Dems, not some pawn in political games.

But they won't. It's as simple as that. Work the system, or stop working.

 

[Plissken]

A Lab/Lib/Plaid/SDLP/Green/Alliance coalition would only have 323 seats, just two more than the theoretical majority of 321. That just isn't enough, especially as it isn't certain that Plaid would want to join any more than the SNP do. Any Lab/Lib coalition will fail as they will never be strong enough to survive, in the same way that a Conservative minority government couldn't survive.

They don't have to survive, they have to pass just one bill. First order of business, PR. Everything else; Gravy. SNP, Plaid, Greens will line up on that one. Oddly, the ones who might not would be some Labour MPs, and they would be complete fools to vote against it. Absolute bloody fools.

The other thing is that the Tories won't want to be the ones who force the Government out. Say the Lib/Lab coalition comes up with some kind of economic package - will the Tories vote it down out of spite? Voters won't like that. The Tories would have to hang on and wait for the coalition to split of its own accord, which I would guess would be in 18 months or so. Tories deliberately spoiling a Government vote would not "be in the national interest".

 

[Peter3hg]

They don't have to survive, they have to pass just one bill. First order of business, PR. Everything else; Gravy. SNP, Plaid, Greens will line up on that one. Oddly, the ones who might not would be some Labour MPs, and they would be complete fools to vote against it. Absolute bloody fools.

Why would the Labour MPs be fools? PR is as much the death of Labour as it is the Conservatives. Labour don't want PR anymore than the Conservatives do. Frankly I can't see the Lib Dems wanting to pass PR without a referendum anyway. People have seen what will happen everytime with PR, so it is only right that they are consulted, and I think Clegg is clever enough to recognise this. Therefore the coalition would need to survive long enough to hold a referendum and then act on its findings, which is a lot longer than I can see a rainbow coalition lasting.
The Conservatives may vote down the economic package, but it will be based on its content, not out of spite. I can't see them voting for the Labour plan of doing nothing for a year as the public would hold them just as accountable. Much the same if they decided to abstain.

 

[WillDAQ]

They don't have to survive, they have to pass just one bill. First order of business, PR. Everything else; Gravy. SNP, Plaid, Greens will line up on that one. Oddly, the ones who might not would be some Labour MPs, and they would be complete fools to vote against it. Absolute bloody fools.

Not wise, British public object to rag tag bunch of small parties fundamentally changing a system hundreds of years old for personal gain, return strong Tory majority, FPTP reinstated.

 

[Cobol74]

There is only one answer and it does not sit easily with anyone Clegg, HAS to support Cameron for the time being - just for the finance to be sorted out - there is no other answer that will work for the country - everything else is utterly stupid, and will bring Politics into even more disrepute.

Oh and can you guess what that Green will want for her support?!

 

[brydie76]

Why would the Labour MPs be fools? PR is as much the death of Labour as it is the Conservatives. Labour don't want PR anymore than the Conservatives do. Frankly I can't see the Lib Dems wanting to pass PR without a referendum anyway. People have seen what will happen everytime with PR, so it is only right that they are consulted, and I think Clegg is clever enough to recognise this. Therefore the coalition would need to survive long enough to hold a referendum and then act on its findings, which is a lot longer than I can see a rainbow coalition lasting.
The Conservatives may vote down the economic package, but it will be based on its content, not out of spite. I can't see them voting for the Labour plan of doing nothing for a year as the public would hold them just as accountable. Much the same if they decided to abstain.

Check out the dismissal of Gough Whitlam on Wikipedia. Kinda different (Senate MPs were the asses there), but people not voting for a bill purely out of spite has happened before. No passing of an economic package means no money for services, mean public outcry and people overreacting. Scaremongering does weird things to people...

 

[Plissken]

Why would the Labour MPs be fools? PR is as much the death of Labour as it is the Conservatives. Labour don't want PR anymore than the Conservatives do.

Some don't, but most do. Labour has an inherent disadvantage in a FPTP system, their heartlands are Scotland, Wales, the North (broadly speaking). Lib Dems have pockets of support, East Anglia, the South West. The Tories have a true national spread.

(Besides, the Tories have plans to redraw the maps of MPs and that is only going to end one way.)

British public object to rag tag bunch of small parties fundamentally changing a system hundreds of years old for personal gain, return strong Tory majority, FPTP reinstated.

Really? You asked them?

Good luck getting that change through when you only have 35% of the vote. Every single other party benefits from PR, not FPTP. Look at the Greens, who had nearly 300,000 votes and one MP.

This is the fundamental issue - 36% of the vote, 100% of the say. Don't forget that 60% of the public voted for a Centre-Left party of some fashion last week.

Oh and can you guess what that Green will want for her support?!

Lib/Lab coalition doesn't need it.

 

[Peter3hg]

Some don't, but most do. Labour has an inherent disadvantage in a FPTP system, their heartlands are Scotland, Wales, the North (broadly speaking). Lib Dems have pockets of support, East Anglia, the South West. The Tories have a true national spread.

(Besides, the Tories have plans to redraw the maps of MPs and that is only going to end one way.)

That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. Labour clearly has an inherent advantage in the FPTP system. Just look at the past two election results.
2005 - Labour 35% of the vote (3% more than Con) and a majority of 66.
2010 - Con 36% of the vote (7% more than Lab) and missed a majority by 19.

Another example, using the Electoral Calculus to predict seats with a 30% share each way (10% to others) the results are Lab - 306, Con - 210, LD - 102.

Claiming that Labour is disadvantaged by FPTP is laughable.


Personally I think that a referendum should be held, which will say that most of the voting public wish to keep FPTP. In my opinion the majority of Labour and Conservative supporters wouldn't want it, and that accounts for well over half of the voting public.
Perosnally I think we should have PR (even as a Conservative voter) but I just don't think the public at large do, and this isn't the kind of thing that should be forced upon the public.

 

[tigger]

No, they want another election with a clear outcome. They don't vote for the Lib Dems so they can compromise with other parties, they vote for the Lib Dems as the Lib Dems, not some pawn in political games.

No one expected Lib Dems to get a majority. No one even expected them to come close. Not to mention that we've been talking about a potential coalition government for months. And I'd hardly call Lib Dems a pawn at this stage of the game; not with both major parties actively courting them. They have the opportunity to get a major piece of legislation through right off the bat.

Not wise, British public object to rag tag bunch of small parties fundamentally changing a system hundreds of years old for personal gain, return strong Tory majority, FPTP reinstated.

You think so? For me this whole thing highlights the need for electoral reform.

 

[Plissken]

That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. Labour clearly has an inherent advantage in the FPTP system. Just look at the past two election results.

[/quote]

Anyone can pick and choose. Lets try... 1987.

Con 42.2%, majority of 147.

How about 1983 - Con 42.4%, majority of 188.

Two ways of looking at it.

The Conservative share of the vote dropped 0.2% and they lost 25% of their majority. Or comparing 1983 and 2005. Labour have 7% less of the vote and a 60% smaller majority.

Another example, using the Electoral Calculus to predict seats with a 30% share each way (10% to others) the results are Lab - 306, Con - 210, LD - 102.

Claiming that Labour is disadvantaged by FPTP is laughable.

So? The beauty of the FPTP system is that share of the vote doesn't matter, every party can claim to be advantaged or disadvantaged under the system. I could give Labour 40% of the vote and probably get them down to about 200 seats...

Actually, even easier. 650 constituencies

325 are Labour vs Conservative. All vote 40/60 to the Tories
325 are Labour vs Liberal. All except one vote 40/60 to the Liberals.

Parliament is a 325/324/1 Tory majority who can then ram through anything they like. 40% of the entire country voted Labour - the majority across the country - and have 1 MP, who can do nothing.

(Actually, I know my maths are slightly off, what with the Speaker and so on, but I'm on lunch. You can see the point I'm trying to make.)

Under PR, that can never happen.

Perosnally I think we should have PR (even as a Conservative voter) but I just don't think the public at large do, and this isn't the kind of thing that should be forced upon the public.

And a minority government isn't forced upon them?

And the public do want PR. Over 25% of them voted for it already, without it being high up on the agenda.