OT Hung Parliment!

Agent57

Eau Rouge wrote:

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?

Well, I'll take your word for it. But I would have thought that unless every MP goes and talks to every other, the best place to discuss and debate issues would be at a central gathering where everyone could listen to the arguments and ask questions.

This "pairing" thing sounds awful. If they're just going to agree to cancel each other out, they may as well be sacked and save us the money.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

there are lots of types, but they all seem designed with national government in mind.

Agent57

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

there are lots of types, but they all seem designed with national government in mind.

I don't think electoral reform has to necessarily mean proportional representation. For example, the alternative vote system (IIRC) could be used within the current constituency system, but better ensure that the candidate who wins has broader general support than his opponents.

Alternatively, there's the Additional Member System, in which a proportion of MPs are elected from constituencies (probably using the current FPTP mechanism), while others are elected proportionally. In this system, you'd probably cast two votes; one for a local candidate, and another for a party. So there's still that local link, but with an aspect of PR. I think constituencies would have to be larger though, since we'd probably have to elect fewer such MPs in order to accommodate the PR representatives.

Not perfect, of course, but nor's our current system.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

there are lots of types, but they all seem designed with national government in mind.

I point you to mixed member PR

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/dam ... ystems.htm

Which includes both 'national' representatitives from parties and 'district' i.e. local representatives.

kurako

Brown just made a statement that Lab and Lib are in talks to form a government and he'll be standing down as leader of the Labour party. Seems as though Mr Clegg is going to get his way on that.

David Cameron, please collect your coat on the way out

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg66 wrote:

I was thinking about that this morning (All right. I admit. I was thinking that Clegg is simply going through the motions with Cameron as a prelude to dumping him hard, and then moving on to Lab where he knows he'll get more say in a Cabinet and more of his policies implemented. So sue me).

Labour dumping Brown would lead to all sorts of cumbersome consequences for them. Brown was anointed successor precisely because the constitutional leadership election process within the Labour party would have taken weeks. At least. So if Lab dumps Brown, who leads the party in the meantime; who is PM? I suppose they could break with convention and appoint a PM who is not leader of the party (or even Clegg? <Cleggs steeples fingers, then strokes white cat and adjusts monocle>, but that's a massive can of worms, given the historical position with Brown.

Seems my crystal ball was on good form.

So, who now thinks that the leader of the third placed party, with 23% of the popular vote, has a negotiating position with either of Con or Lab that properly reflects his level of national support?

bigmat

I sense that Lib and Lab will be approaching these negotiations from fundamentally different perspectives. For Lib, it is in their interests to do a deal with Lab that assures PR - the alternative long term is the political wilderness. For Lab, they would probably be better off going into opposition, regroupng and waiting for the Tories to mess things up, but they still have the chance to implement their own policies and avoid a double dip rescession.

So, its arguably in Labour's interests to let it go, but they are hanging in there in the interests of the country at large. That's probably being ridiculously generous to them, but that's pretty much how I see this playing out at the moment.

It will be amusing to see Cameron jilted at the altar, although perhaps not entirely fair and I think the long term prospects for the "progressive left alliance" will be pretty bleak...

alfablue

MatHammond wrote:

It will be amusing to see Cameron jilted at the altar..

I agree with your analysis, and this last bit will be hilarious, and worth the entry fee alone

What may then happen is the far right of the conservative party hit back at the leadership following this humiliation. It could split the tories from top to bottom as all of the old factions flex their muscles and join in recriminations. It certainly wouldn't look too good for Cameron, delivering the 4th electoral defeat in a row, and also (if he fails to prevent it) PR, so they never have unfettered power again!

greg66_tri_v2.0

The numbers:

Due to Sinn Fein's 5 seats, the effective majority is 323.

Con + DUP = 314 (315 if Con wins the 650th seat)
Lab + Lib = 315.

The SDLP side with Labour. So they choose the winner of the election. And if they don't, the SNP's 6 seats, or Plaid Cymru's 3 decide who gets to govern from Westminster.

Is that really what the electorate voted for? I never knew.

UKIP have a lot to answer for.

alfablue

Greg66 wrote:

Is that really what the electorate voted for? I never knew.

UKIP have a lot to answer for.

No one voted for this, however, we may get the chance to vote on PR. If we vote for PR then this is in effect, the scenario we will be voting for.

I for one will welcome it, having lived all of my life in constituencies where my political preference is always unrepresented. I have been disenfranchised by our current system.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

The numbers:

Due to Sinn Fein's 5 seats, the effective majority is 323.

Con + DUP = 314 (315 if Con wins the 650th seat)
Lab + Lib = 315.

You are assuming that the DUP will support the Conservatives when Cameron will cut the public sector upon which Northern Ireland depends. I can't see it.

Lab/ Lib do a deal, GB goes to her maj and says we're forming your government

Queen's speech Lab/ Lib vote yes (as do Green 1 Alliance 1(Lib Dem's NI sister party),

Con vote no.

Everyone else abstains or votes yes

Blair called it a 'clunking fist'

Edited to expand point

Stevo_666

alfablue wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

It will be amusing to see Cameron jilted at the altar..

I agree with your analysis, and this last bit will be hilarious, and worth the entry fee alone

What may then happen is the far right of the conservative party hit back at the leadership following this humiliation. It could split the tories from top to bottom as all of the old factions flex their muscles and join in recriminations. It certainly wouldn't look too good for Cameron, delivering the 4th electoral defeat in a row, and also (if he fails to prevent it) PR, so they never have unfettered power again!

That could well happen - in the end a Lib-Lab pact is a more natural fit than a Con-Lib pact. The danger is that PR puts us in a state of permanent coalitions, unable to get much done - there are advantages to the 'elective dictatorship' of the two party system we have had for some time.

Cameron may well be jilted at the alter, but as Mervyn King said recently, whoever takes charge will have to take such drastic action to sort the deficit they will make themselves terminally unpopular. So if the Lib-Lab pact goes ahead, they either fail to deal with the deficit and are deposed in the ensuing debt crisis, or succeed but still get voted out by voters who feel they've been shafted by cuts/tax rises etc. It may be better for the Tories to let the rest of them c0ck it up, which is almost sure to happen.

But look on the bright side - Comrade Brown is going. I'll drink to that.

bigmat

I can see this becoming a case of "who actually wants it?". The Libs do because they need PR to have any meaningful future. Tories do because they've been out for 13 years and Cameron's political future depends on it. Brown did because it was what he'd built his whole life around. But if you take Brown away, what's in it for Labour? They really would be better off getting out, only reason I can see for them clinging on is because they think that the Tory alternative would be a disaster.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

You are assuming that the DUP will support the Conservatives when Cameron will cut the public sector upon which Northern Ireland depends. I can't see it.

I think Cameron would ship the cash to NI to hold onto them. Lab ship money to Scotland and Wales; Cameron could cut that off as he has no support there.

Thanks for that thing about the Alliance. I wondered who (TF) they were...

TailWindHome wrote:

Lab/ Lib do a deal, GB goes to her maj and says we're forming your government

Queen's speech Lab/ Lib vote yes (as do Green 1 Alliance 1(Lib Dem's NI sister party),

Con vote no.

Everyone else abstains or votes yes

But I can't see that to$$er Alex Salmond passing this up. He could go to the Lab/Lib boys and screw them for £££ on the threat of a no vote. Ditto Plaid Cymru. So abstention/yes from the everyone else won't come cheap. And that's certainly not good for the country right now.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cameron may well be jilted at the alter, but as Mervyn King said recently, whoever takes charge will have to take such drastic action to sort the deficit they will make themselves terminally unpopular. So if the Lib-Lab pact goes ahead, they either fail to deal with the deficit and are deposed in the ensuing debt crisis, or succeed but still get voted out by voters who feel they've been shafted by cuts/tax rises etc. It may be better for the Tories to let the rest of them c0ck it up, which is almost sure to happen.

But look on the bright side - Comrade Brown is going. I'll drink to that.

I reckon they'll avoid dealing with it and lead us deeper into the hole. Neither Lab nor the Libs are instinctively financially prudent.

They get screwed over for having done the country in, then the Tories get screwed over for trying to sort it out with cuts.

Somewhere along the line the IMF has intervened.

Who the hell wins the election after that round of dust settles?


Postscript: Comrade Brown, in classic Stalinist doublespeak deployed in so many of his budgets, isn't actually going yet. He's going to go, but he's activated the clunky Lab process to elect a new leader. Hopefully by September. Probably within 8 weeks though - it will be down to the NEC to set the timetable.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

You are assuming that the DUP will support the Conservatives when Cameron will cut the public sector upon which Northern Ireland depends. I can't see it.

I think Cameron would ship the cash to NI to hold onto them. Lab ship money to Scotland and Wales; Cameron could cut that off as he has no support there.

Thanks for that thing about the Alliance. I wondered who (TF) they were...

Certainly shipping cash to Northern Ireland can be explained away easier .. 30 years of the troubles and all that. But Dave will be a cutting frenzy if he gets a sniff of power

ETA Slick Dave has work to do

I just don't think the minor parties have the influence they may believe they have, Alec Salmond was quickly slapped into place.

The Alliance the only real attempt at a cross community party in Northern Ireland and had their first MP elected in East Belfast. Niaomi Long is a very well respected politician at a local level and was able to call on both loyalist and nationalist voters to defeat Peter Robinson the DUP leader. You may have heard of his wife Iris.

Another interesting factor from Northern Ireland is the election of Sylvia Hermon as an independent, formerly of the Ulster Unionist she left due to their pact with the Conservatives. Dave needn't bother phoning her.

Agent57

Greg66 wrote:

the third placed party, with 23% of the popular vote

Because of tactical voting, and the "Lib Dems have no chance so I won't waste my vote" effect, it's difficult to know what their true level of support is. I suspect a lot more people would vote for them if they felt that vote "counted", and if they didn't feel the need to vote Lab/Con to try and keep out Con/Lab in their constituency.

For example, take the YouGov poll from April:

"How would you vote on May 6 if you thought the Liberal Democrats had a significant chance of winning the election nationally?":
LD 49%
Con 25%
Lab 19%

So maybe that 23% "of the popular vote" you cite isn't actually representative of the population's true feelings, but more indicative of the inequities of our system.

(Also in that PDF are some other figures, such as 45% saying they'd be "dismayed" at a Con/Lib coalition, and "only" 39% being dismayed at a Lab/Lib coalition.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

But I can't see that to$$er Alex Salmond passing this up. He could go to the Lab/Lib boys and screw them for £££ on the threat of a no vote. Ditto Plaid Cymru. So abstention/yes from the everyone else won't come cheap. And that's certainly not good for the country right now.

AS has to abstain or vote with Labour, the alternative is that Lib Lab fails an election is called and Conservatives win at a canter. Same goes for PC.

Perversely in this scenario the number work in GBs favour if anyone needs a slap.

tailwindhome

Agent57 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

the third placed party, with 23% of the popular vote

Because of tactical voting, and the "Lib Dems have no chance so I won't waste my vote" effect, it's difficult to know what their true level of support is. I suspect a lot more people would vote for them if they felt that vote "counted", and if they didn't feel the need to vote Lab/Con to try and keep out Con/Lab in their constituency.

It more difficult as people tell pollsters anything

For example, take the YouGov poll from April:

"How would you vote on May 6 if you thought the Liberal Democrats had a significant chance of winning the election nationally?":
LD 49%
Con 25%
Lab 19%

So maybe that 23% "of the popular vote" you cite isn't actually representative of the population's true feelings, but more indicative of the inequities of our system.

(Also in that PDF are some other figures, such as 45% saying they'd be "dismayed" at a Con/Lib coalition, and "only" 39% being dismayed at a Lab/Lib coalition.

see

Agent57

TailWindHome wrote:

It more difficult as people tell pollsters anything

see

No, not really.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Right. This is all kicking off bigstyle.

But, consider this as a by no means impossible outcome: Labour lose the election. But the next Government is a Lab/Lib one, with Ed Balls, a man who came close to losing his seat, as PM.

Ye Gods.

Class war would step up by an order of magnitude.


Seriously, how do the LDs get into bed with Lab when they don't know, and can't control who the leader of the Labour party will be? The neo-Blairite Milliband D, or the Stalinist, err hardcore Brownite Balls?

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Right. This is all kicking off bigstyle.

But, consider this as a by no means impossible outcome: Labour lose the election. But the next Government is a Lab/Lib one, with Ed Balls, a man who came close to losing his seat, as PM.

Ye Gods.

Class war would step up by an order of magnitude.


Seriously, how do the LDs get into bed with Lab when they don't know, and can't control who the leader of the Labour party will be? The neo-Blairite Milliband D, or the Stalinist, err hardcore Brownite Balls?

Greg66.

What's the 66 for? Year graduated from Uni? High school maybe? Things may have moved on a tad, old chap.

Labour are a bargaining chip, nothing more in all probability. Cameron wants to be head boy very very much. Seems to be working.

kurako

This is the first time politics has been interesting since the good old days of Kinnock v Thatcher

tailwindhome

Agent57 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It more difficult as people tell pollsters anything

see

No, not really.

From the poll you quote

49% would vote Lib Dem if they thought they stood a chance but only 29% would be 'delighted' to see Nick Clegg form a government

Do you think people may have been swayed a tad by the wording of the question?

Stevo_666

I can see a Lib-Lab pact happening now Brown is on the way out. We will find out in the not too distant as there is a 25 May backstop before another election needs to be called if no-one can form a Government.

As far as labour's succession goes, I'm not sure if Balls will get the top job - reckon he is too divisive/made too many enemies and is seen as Gordo's 'Mini-Me'. Hattie Harperson will probably chuck her hat in the ring but Miliband will probably get it as he seems to be the closest to the acceptable face of socialism that they have.

rick_chasey

People talk about Lib-Lab. To be accurate, it should really be the rainbow coalition, given the number of 'other' parties that would need to be onboard.

Any GB citizen who doesn't live in England should be praying for a rainbow coaltion, because they would certainly profit from it.



It is quite safe to say that, because tactical voting is a rife practice among many voters, so much so that campaigning politicians and newspapers offer advice on how to vote tactically, (see the guardian's "how to vote tactically" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ction-2010), that an election result cannot be a true reflection of what the nation actually wants. Instead it delivers a skewed, inbalanced version.

It does irrtate me when people equate seats to the popularity of a party. Shouldn't the share of the vote be used, when considering which party is more popular?


And by the way, after his fantastic performance at the Copenhagen summit, rescuing it from absolute failure to only partial failure, I believe the UK generally would benefit from having Ed Millband as leader of the labour party.

cjcp

They're practically scratching each other's eyes out to stay out!

Lord Steel says they should team up with Labour. But, FFS, did you see what he was wearing on TV? Checks, stripes, all sorts. Don't listen to anyone who dresses like that.

Got to be a negotiating tool. Given the need to team up with everyone else, Clegg would have much of a role in a Con-Lib Alliance.

Johnson v Miliband v Balls?

DonDaddyD

It's all a bit like Braveheart, where the Irish teamed up with the Scottish to fight the English....

Serious though Labour's attempt at trying to cling to power just seems desperate. They've no leader and would need to conjure some multiparty patchwork Government to lead...

It seems right that the Consevatives have a go at least, what with the largest number of votes. Should they fail then hold another election surely?

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's all a bit like Braveheart, where the Irish teamed up with the Scottish to fight the English....

Serious though Labour's attempt at trying to cling to power just seems desperate. They've no leader and would need to conjure some multiparty patchwork Government to lead...

It seems right that the Consevatives have a go at least, what with the largest number of votes. Should they fail then hold another election surely?

Can't you people count?

About 210 of labour's seats are English.

About 54 lib dem seats are in England.

Are you really so self involved down there in the olympic city that being represented by 50 mp's from somewhere that isn't in England irks you?

Jesus. How is that consistent with all of your clamour for PR?

bearfraser

Hung Parliament, now theres a good idea. Now where's my rope.???? :twisted: