OT Hung Parliment!

rjsterry

Eau Rouge wrote:

How can you give an MP your mandate to form a coalition when you don't know who his party will form a coalition with?

The same way I give them a mandate on any other issue. I don't know how they, or their party, will react to all sorts of things over the life of this Parliament. I have an idea, from their manifesto and their stated principles etc, but I don't really know. They system isn't designed to give me a say either. You elect your MP to represent your constituency, but after that you have no control over anything they actually do, whether it's go to war with Iraq, agree to Scottish Independence, sack half the NHS to reduce the deficit , close down the coalmines with no strategy for the communities to cope etc ...or form a coalition government. if needs be.

The PM, after all, only has the mandate of their own constituency. The mandate to form a government and be PM comes from the House and the Queen, and that's the same for a single party as it is for a coalition.

I agree. MPs are basically constituency delegates, so once elected, it's up to them - this is why we don't have a referendum every five minutes. Their mandate is the fact that they are an MP in the first place. If they act in a way that differs dramatically from how they indicated they would, we have the opportunity to elect someone else 4-5 years later.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

Of course, if you voted LD, then you may have had a more open mind about a coalition, I accept. But then I fail to see how the LDs, with 23% of the vote and 57 seats can say "Now we're teamed with the Con/Lab party, we, with them, have the mandate of the people". The "people" concerned didn't vote for a Con-LD coalition.

I don't think the LDs are claiming to have the mandate of he entire country - no party has ever had that - but they do have the mandate of 23% of the 70-odd % who voted.

No realistic LD voter thinks they are voting in the next (LD) government, but we don't get to vote for which government we want anyway, just which MP we want. This is one of the reasons I wasn't that keen on the debates; they don't really fit with our system. I would have been more interested in a debate between my local candidates.

Once elected, it's up to them and the other MPs to come up with whatever government they can.

DonDaddyD

I voted Lib Dem*.

I was surprised they did so poorly in my constituency, Wimbledon, but I wasn't expecting them to win. I didn't vote for them because I thought Clegg had any chance of getting in power.

As a person voting Lib Dem a hung Parliament is the best result because it helps (no matter how little) the cause to change the election process, yes I'm for proportional representation. Which is what the party needs most to better achieve their goals of socialist/equal/fair values.

I didn't vote for a Lab-Lib coalition, I would hate that. I didn't vote for a Con-Lib coalition, but weirdly (in light of the votes) I think that would be more palatable - though proportional representation, will be harder to achieve.

*I voted Lib-Dem mainly because they seemed like the lesser of three evils. I could stomach Lib-Dem policies (not on immigration or Europe) more than many of the other parties policies.

northstar

I was surprised they did so poorly in my constituency

They didn't do that poorly really, new candidate, 2nd place, an increase of nearly 7% but Stephen Hammond just happens to be a really good MP despite being a Conservative.

cjcp

DonDaddyD wrote:

As a person voting Lib Dem a hung Parliament is the best result because it helps (no matter how little) the cause to change the election process, yes I'm for proportional representation. Which is what the party needs most to better achieve their goals of socialist/equal/fair values.

There was a debate on Radio 4 tonight between a Vulcan (Jon Redwood) and a Star Gazer (Lembit Opik). While the former was hardly endearing, the latter was banging on about how if the Tories didn't agree to PR, there could be no deal, to the point where I actually tuned into another station. I'd hardly describe PR/electoral reform as a priority atm. (As for electoral reform, we have the opportunity to test a coalition, so how about seeing if it works before introducing electoral reform?)

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

I voted Lib Dem*.

I was surprised they did so poorly in my constituency, Wimbledon, but I wasn't expecting them to win. I didn't vote for them because I thought Clegg had any chance of getting in power.

As a person voting Lib Dem a hung Parliament is the best result because it helps (no matter how little) the cause to change the election process, yes I'm for proportional representation. Which is what the party needs most to better achieve their goals of socialist/equal/fair values.

I didn't vote for a Lab-Lib coalition, I would hate that. I didn't vote for a Con-Lib coalition, but weirdly (in light of the votes) I think that would be more palatable - though proportional representation, will be harder to achieve.

*I voted Lib-Dem mainly because they seemed like the lesser of three evils. I could stomach Lib-Dem policies (not on immigration or Europe) more than many of the other parties policies.

I voted for my local MP not for the next government, hence I'm not keen on PR as it's just about national than local. and frankly I like the link between an area and it's MP.

bigmat

Interesting YouGov survey today, 62% of people surveyed favour a more proportional system of voting. Thinking about it, don't we have PR for Euro elections? Let the BNP in, but only 2 seats..

rjsterry

roger merriman wrote:

I voted for my local MP not for the next government, hence I'm not keen on PR as it's just about national than local. and frankly I like the link between an area and it's MP.

Me too, and although a LidDem voter, I do have reservations over PR, for the same reasons you give. However, something like what Eau Rouge suggests, with, say, 4 constituencies grouped together, returning 4 MPs might work. I can see that in an urban area, where constituencies are geographically small, this could be a solution, but in the more sparsely populated areas, would work less well. Would you travel 60 or 70 miles for a meeting with your MP?

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I voted for my local MP not for the next government, hence I'm not keen on PR as it's just about national than local. and frankly I like the link between an area and it's MP.

Me too, and although a LidDem voter, I do have reservations over PR, for the same reasons you give. However, something like what Eau Rouge suggests, with, say, 4 constituencies grouped together, returning 4 MPs might work. I can see that in an urban area, where constituencies are geographically small, this could be a solution, but in the more sparsely populated areas, would work less well. Would you travel 60 or 70 miles for a meeting with your MP?

I don't think fear of a unsavory party getting in is enough of a reason not to have proportional representation. That means any alternative to it (PR) is a mechanism for keeping parties out as oppose to letting them in. Such an system goes against democracy. What should keep parties like the BNP out is the lack of ignorance amongst the general public and strength of quality within the opther parties.

I did vote for the local MP I wanted in, I also knew she had little chance of getting in. My vote was also to help influence changes to the next Government.

What both of you make me think is that there should be a vote for your local MP and a vote for the next Government... that may not work...

Matt, BNP got in in the Euro Elections, because people didn't vote... I didn't.

greg66_tri_v2.0

cjcp wrote:

There was a debate on Radio 4 tonight between a Vulcan (Jon Redwood) and a Star Gazer (Lembit Opik). While the former was hardly endearing, the latter was banging on about how if the Tories didn't agree to PR, there could be no deal, to the point where I actually tuned into another station. I'd hardly describe PR/electoral reform as a priority atm. (As for electoral reform, we have the opportunity to test a coalition, so how about seeing if it works before introducing electoral reform?)

Quite - it's not the most pressing thing on the agenda by a mile.

As for Mr. Cheeky Boy's stance, it rather sells the pass, doesn't it? A referendum on a form of PR (TBA) is one thing. Moving straight to implementation of PR seems to miss out the rather important step of establishing genuine majority support for it. Curious to hear a LD wanting to skip that...

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

There was a debate on Radio 4 tonight between a Vulcan (Jon Redwood) and a Star Gazer (Lembit Opik). While the former was hardly endearing, the latter was banging on about how if the Tories didn't agree to PR, there could be no deal, to the point where I actually tuned into another station. I'd hardly describe PR/electoral reform as a priority atm. (As for electoral reform, we have the opportunity to test a coalition, so how about seeing if it works before introducing electoral reform?)

Quite - it's not the most pressing thing on the agenda by a mile.

As for Mr. Cheeky Boy's stance, it rather sells the pass, doesn't it? A referendum on a form of PR (TBA) is one thing. Moving straight to implementation of PR seems to miss out the rather important step of establishing genuine majority support for it. Curious to hear a LD wanting to skip that...

The point is that PR is a huge priority for the Lib Dems - they'd be mad to not at least assure a referendum on the issue (recent polls suggest the public would vote for it, but then polls suggested the Lib Dems would do well in the election ).

@DDD - you should have voted! One of the BNP Euro MP's is my wife's old law lecturer - she had no idea that was his political persuasion, although a wikipedia search showed he's been hanging with the NF for decades. Scary. He was lecturing people of all ethnicities, who presumably had no idea that he secretly wanted some of them to be deported. Anyway, my point was that even under a PR system, in elections with a low tturnout and where people are more likely to register a protest vote, the BNP only got 2 MEPs. I reckon they'd struggle to better that in a general election.

cjcp

MatHammond wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

There was a debate on Radio 4 tonight between a Vulcan (Jon Redwood) and a Star Gazer (Lembit Opik). While the former was hardly endearing, the latter was banging on about how if the Tories didn't agree to PR, there could be no deal, to the point where I actually tuned into another station. I'd hardly describe PR/electoral reform as a priority atm. (As for electoral reform, we have the opportunity to test a coalition, so how about seeing if it works before introducing electoral reform?)

Quite - it's not the most pressing thing on the agenda by a mile.

As for Mr. Cheeky Boy's stance, it rather sells the pass, doesn't it? A referendum on a form of PR (TBA) is one thing. Moving straight to implementation of PR seems to miss out the rather important step of establishing genuine majority support for it. Curious to hear a LD wanting to skip that...

The point is that PR is a huge priority for the Lib Dems - they'd be mad to not at least assure a referendum on the issue (recent polls suggest the public would vote for it, but then polls suggested the Lib Dems would do well in the election ).

That's the part of the problem - they need to look at their priorities. Deciding on PR doesn't sort the country's problems, so the discussions between the party really should move away from that. But then maybe they're not interested in sorting problems. They think that securing an agreement on PR might give them a better chance of securing more seats in the next GE, which may not be too far away.

How would the referendum work? Would there be two i.e. the first to decide whether people wanted a form of PR, with the second to decide the form of PR?

And would the result of at least the first be decided on the basis of a first-past-the-post system?...

greg66_tri_v2.0

cjcp wrote:

How would the referendum work?

And what would be the required majority for a yes? And would there be a review? IIRC, I've read of some referenda on this that required (and got) a 60% majority. And NZ, I think, is due to have referendum fairly soon to determine whether they stick with their PR (that review referendum was part of the deal on adopting it originally).

I wonder too about the point Mat averts to: the polls said the LDs would poll around 6% more of the vote than they did. I wonder whether there is an much suuport for PR as the news stories would suggest (ie news stories tend to pick up the most vocal or even most shocking view, not necessarily the majority view).

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

How would the referendum work?

And what would be the required majority for a yes?

More fundamentally - what would the question be?

cjcp

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

How would the referendum work?

And what would be the required majority for a yes?

More fundamentally - what would the question be?

In NZ, it seems there were two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... ew_Zealand

Eau Rouge

cjcp wrote:

That's the part of the problem - they need to look at their priorities. Deciding on PR doesn't sort the country's problems, so the discussions between the party really should move away from that. But then maybe they're not interested in sorting problems. They think that securing an agreement on PR might give them a better chance of securing more seats in the next GE, which may not be too far away.

How would the referendum work? Would there be two i.e. the first to decide whether people wanted a form of PR, with the second to decide the form of PR?

And would the result of at least the first be decided on the basis of a first-past-the-post system?...

Any government needs to be able to deal with more than one issue at a time. If the Tories or Labour can't sort out the economy and deal with electoral reform they really wouldn't be qualified for government. To the LibDems it's a priority because they came third and only have 57 seats, 23% of the vote. They can only get a small few things out of the Tories/Labour. They don't have any sacred cows economically now that their council tax plans were dropped a few years ago to push in the talks, leaving them to talk about PR.
With the future holding a government needing to make unpopular decisions, surely making that government more representative of the country would be a good thing.

rjsterry

Oh, save us from referenda! They are necessary sometimes, but as the debate over whether we should have one over the European Constitution showed, on anything even remotely complex, it is nigh on impossible to get a truly representative result from them.

Besides the problem of how the question is asked in a sufficiently neutral way, and whether the issue can sensibly condensed to a yes or no question, there is the way they tend to get hijacked and used as a substitute election, with all the misinformation and point-scoring that goes with that. One of the reasons we have politicians is so that they can make these decisions on our behalf; when we are either not well enough informed to make the decision ourselves, or don't have the time to, say, read the draft European Constitution from cover to cover to see if we think it's a good idea.

EDIT: Oh and BTW, as a LibDem voter, I hope that Clegg has the guts to flexible enough on PR to make a coalition possible. PR is important, but not as important as getting the public finances sorted out. Several Labour MPs don't even think a Lib/Lab coalition makes sense.

cjcp

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That's the part of the problem - they need to look at their priorities. Deciding on PR doesn't sort the country's problems, so the discussions between the party really should move away from that. But then maybe they're not interested in sorting problems. They think that securing an agreement on PR might give them a better chance of securing more seats in the next GE, which may not be too far away.

How would the referendum work? Would there be two i.e. the first to decide whether people wanted a form of PR, with the second to decide the form of PR?

And would the result of at least the first be decided on the basis of a first-past-the-post system?...

Any government needs to be able to deal with more than one issue at a time. If the Tories or Labour can't sort out the economy and deal with electoral reform they really wouldn't be qualified for government. To the LibDems it's a priority because they came third and only have 57 seats, 23% of the vote. They can only get a small few things out of the Tories/Labour. They don't have any sacred cows economically now that their council tax plans were dropped a few years ago to push in the talks, leaving them to talk about PR.
With the future holding a government needing to make unpopular decisions, surely making that government more representative of the country would be a good thing.

A govt certainly needs to multi-task, but they're not technically in govt, so they don't have the time atm to discuss it now which they would have when in govt. Agreeing to look at electoral reform is woolly, I agree, but it's the most that could sensibly be agreed to in the time available.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Eau Rouge wrote:

Any government needs to be able to deal with more than one issue at a time.

Every government needs to govern in the national interest. Sticking - hard - on this, which is patently driven by party interest, isn't a promising start.

Agent57

rjsterry wrote:

One of the reasons we have politicians is so that they can make these decisions on our behalf; when we are either not well enough informed to make the decision ourselves, or don't have the time to, say, read the draft European Constitution from cover to cover to see if we think it's a good idea.

This is one of the annoyances of government. You're right, we delegate to our MPs to make decisions on our behalf. But there are so many matters in which MPs don't bother to enter into debate, or they simply toe the party line. Take the second reading of the Digital Economy Bill, for example. Quite an important piece of legislation, in my opinion, which hasn't had the amount of debate and scrutiny it warrants. Only about 30-40 MPs were in the House for that debate. During the third reading, it was about the same; then when it came time to vote on the Bill, another 200 or so MPs emerged from the bar or wherever they were. No doubt told which way to vote by the whips, without listening to the debate and (potentially) modifying their position based upon the arguments.

Also, in terms of delegating power to our MPs, this seems to me another reason why those MPs should have the broad support of their constituents. Rather than being elected by 35% of people (in a FPTP system), they should, I reckon, have to get 50% of the constituents' backing, whether that's entirely as 1st choice, or a combination of 1st and 2nd choices.

Eau Rouge

rjsterry wrote:

European Constitution

There was was such a thing, which actually makes your point for you.

cjcp wrote:

Agreeing to look at electoral reform is woolly, I agree, but it's the most that could sensibly be agreed to in the time available.

Lets not pretend the other two parties don't already fully understand what the LibDems are asking and hadn't already looked at the implications of it weeks, if not months, ago. It becomes a pretty straight forward negotiation.

Greg66 wrote:

Sticking - hard - on this, which is patently driven by party interest, isn't a promising start.

No less so than refusing to consider it on even bigger party interest. The Lib Dems aren't being stopped from a being a single party government by a lack of PR. It could mean the Tories never get to form one again. Who has the bigger party interest?
A more representative Parliament is very much in the longer term best interests of this country. The question is do the Tories have enough of the countries best interests at heart to swallow it, or will they let party interest get in the way of this 'change' they seemed so keen on just a few days ago.

rjsterry

Agent57 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

One of the reasons we have politicians is so that they can make these decisions on our behalf; when we are either not well enough informed to make the decision ourselves, or don't have the time to, say, read the draft European Constitution from cover to cover to see if we think it's a good idea.

This is one of the annoyances of government. You're right, we delegate to our MPs to make decisions on our behalf. But there are so many matters in which MPs don't bother to enter into debate, or they simply toe the party line. Take the second reading of the Digital Economy Bill, for example. Quite an important piece of legislation, in my opinion, which hasn't had the amount of debate and scrutiny it warrants. Only about 30-40 MPs were in the House for that debate. During the third reading, it was about the same; then when it came time to vote on the Bill, another 200 or so MPs emerged from the bar or wherever they were. No doubt told which way to vote by the whips, without listening to the debate and (potentially) modifying their position based upon the arguments.

Also, in terms of delegating power to our MPs, this seems to me another reason why those MPs should have the broad support of their constituents. Rather than being elected by 35% of people (in a FPTP system), they should, I reckon, have to get 50% of the constituents' backing, whether that's entirely as 1st choice, or a combination of 1st and 2nd choices.

Indeed, I think one of the things you should use to make your mind up when voting (if considering a standing MP) is their voting record. If they can't be bothered, to do their job properly - and there are some particularly bad examples, and not just recently - then what's the point of them being your MP.

Eau Rouge

Agent57 wrote:

another 200 or so MPs emerged from the bar or wherever they were. No doubt told which way to vote by the whips, without listening to the debate and (potentially) modifying their position based upon the arguments.

They will tell you they were in their office across the road watching the debate on BBC Parliament, having gone through (or had an aide go through) the pre-prepared questions being asked in the debate. Rather than sit in the House when they have no intention of doing anything, they stay in their offices and catch up on paperwork for constituents. Thats what they will tell you anyway. They would also point out that most of the actual scrutiny of a Bill happens in the Committee stage.
Voting records are misleading. Unless some government backbenchers are likely to defy the whip, which everyone will know about before hand, the result is a forgone conclusion, and in a way its a bit of a waste if time for an opposition MP to bother turning up, if they have real work to do instead...

tailwindhome

Eau Rouge wrote:

and in a way its a bit of a waste if time for an opposition MP to bother turning up, if they have real work to do instead...

My understanding was that they pair off with opposing MPs agreeing not to vote.

Cunningly called pairing

Agent57

Eau Rouge wrote:

if they have real work to do instead...

As far as I'm concerned, taking part in debates in the House is part of their real work.

rick_chasey

There are a few simple arguments for a change in the electoral system.

First past the post, by it's very nature, very often produces gov't which are, by definition unpopular. Let me explain. Say a party gets the 40% of the popular votes needed to get a majority, which gives them a massive number of seats in parliament which happens most of the time. That means that 60% of the population, voted against them, i.e. for another party.

A PR coalition, by definition, would include parties, which, with their combined share of the vote, would have received a majority of votes.

Similarly, proponants of first past the post make out that, despite it's chronic and obvious unfairness, "at least it gives a stable gov't". Err, apparantly not.

Also, to argue that PR is fundamentally weak is not quite true either, if done correctly. If I remember correctly, the German government has not broken down particuarly often or serverely, and an AV+ system would also correct the German inability to remove politicians they don't like.

Finally, and most obviously, the first past the post system removes choice. It is safe to say that many people would vote for different parties, if their vote would be counted. The amount of people I have heard say " a vote for blah is a wasted vote here". This tactical voting means that the gov't is simply not truly representative of the public's actual choice.

The fear the Conservatives have with PR, is that the 'progressive left', i.e. Labour and the Lib Dems combined, usually poll more votes than the tories on their own. I heard one guy say it would be a "left of centre dictatorship". Nothing like the last 13 years then?

cjcp

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Agreeing to look at electoral reform is woolly, I agree, but it's the most that could sensibly be agreed to in the time available.

Lets not pretend the other two parties don't already fully understand what the LibDems are asking and hadn't already looked at the implications of it weeks, if not months, ago. It becomes a pretty straight forward negotiation.

Given the way the Tory election campaign was run, it's distinctly possible this wasn't looked at.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are a few simple arguments for a change in the electoral system.

First past the post, by it's very nature, very often produces gov't which are, by definition unpopular. Let me explain. Say a party gets the 40% of the popular votes needed to get a majority, which gives them a massive number of seats in parliament which happens most of the time. That means that 60% of the population, voted against them, i.e. for another party.

A PR coalition, by definition, would include parties, which, with their combined share of the vote, would have received a majority of votes.

Similarly, proponants of first past the post make out that, despite it's chronic and obvious unfairness, "at least it gives a stable gov't". Err, apparantly not.

Also, to argue that PR is fundamentally weak is not quite true either, if done correctly. If I remember correctly, the German government has not broken down particuarly often or serverely, and an AV+ system would also correct the German inability to remove politicians they don't like.

Finally, and most obviously, the first past the post system removes choice. It is safe to say that many people would vote for different parties, if their vote would be counted. The amount of people I have heard say " a vote for blah is a wasted vote here". This tactical voting means that the gov't is simply not truly representative of the public's actual choice.

The fear the Conservatives have with PR, is that the 'progressive left', i.e. Labour and the Lib Dems combined, usually poll more votes than the tories on their own. I heard one guy say it would be a "left of centre dictatorship". Nothing like the last 13 years then?

it removes the local connection and frankly thats a bad thing. nothing is perfect but at least it's a connection rather than being big gov.

Eau Rouge

roger merriman wrote:

it removes the local connection and frankly thats a bad thing. nothing is perfect but at least it's a connection rather than being big gov.

It doesn't have to. PR in Ireland introduces a local connection that isn't in the UK system. Good local MP's from parties you don't like can still get your vote. Indeed, not being a good local MP will see you in trouble as your party supporters vote for your party's other candidate and not you.

Agent57 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, taking part in debates in the House is part of their real work.

Why? All it does is get the Minister to make a public statement in answer to your question. Amendments are done by the Committees before the bill gets to the House. Its rare for someone to come up with a killer point that would make government MP's rebel, and even then you'd skip a debate to do the real work of talking to likely rebels in person to make that point. Getting Ministers to answer questions in public is about all the Opposition can really do, so the House itself has some use, but it's mainly ceremonial. The real work is done elsewhere. What do you think listening to a debate in the chamber achieves?

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

it removes the local connection and frankly thats a bad thing. nothing is perfect but at least it's a connection rather than being big gov.

Take it you're not that familiar with all the different types of PR then?