UK Politics VI

[ljkeane]

I don't really see the incentive for either Labour or the Conservatives to pursue PR in order to gain a coalition with the Lib Dems, it seems very self destructive.

From a Labour perspective I don't think a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would be a bad thing. The coalition government gets to implement some massively unpopular cuts, everyone hates the Tories again and the Lib Dems by association, the Lib Dems can't argue that they are a change from the old order any more and they have have a decent chance of winning a majority again in a relatively short period of time.

[Datepalm]

You can do it that way - we already do for European Elections for example. You have a few big constituencies and each one returns multiple MPs.

With MPs from the same party competing against eachother? (rather than merely being on a list). Parties are going to love that as an allocation of resources. The LibDems have a proposal to allow constituencies to recall MPs, which makes more sense (to me, anyway.)

I think the PR method you have in Israel is rather rare - they use the same system in Holland I think - where the whole country is one big happy constituency.

Those being the two democratic countries i've lived in might explain why this system seems like the most blindingly sensibly obviousest one to me :).

[Lummel]

With MPs from the same party competing against eachother? (rather than merely being on a list). Parties are going to love that as an allocation of resources. The LibDems have a proposal to allow constituencies to recall MPs, which makes more sense (to me, anyway.)

Sorry, sorry. No we use party lists for the european elections. Not that I think it's a great system - didn't we borrow it from Belgium - but it does gives you PR and constituencies. Not that there is anything wrong in stealing ideas from Belgium (Moules et frites anyone).

[MinDonner]

George Galloway is out. Awesome.

[Slick Mongoose]

George Galloway is out. Awesome.

Yeah. :thumbsup:

[mormont]

I don't really see the incentive for either Labour or the Conservatives to pursue PR in order to gain a coalition with the Lib Dems, it seems very self destructive.

The argument from Labour's point of view is built on the assumption that the Lib Dems are instinctively closer to Labour: they envisage a semi-permanent 'progressive' coalition. Less cake, but cake all the time, if you will. The trouble is that, as we are now seeing, that assumption is somewhat self-deceiving. Clegg, in particular, represents a section of the Lib Dems that is innately sceptical of links with Labour.

[Third Knight on the Left]

The argument from Labour's point of view is built on the assumption that the Lib Dems are instinctively closer to Labour: they envisage a semi-permanent 'progressive' coalition. Less cake, but cake all the time, if you will. The trouble is that, as we are now seeing, that assumption is somewhat self-deceiving. Clegg, in particular, represents a section of the Lib Dems that is innately sceptical of links with Labour.

Indeed he just gave a speech that pretty much rules it out. Looks like Conservative minority government.

[The Iceman of the North]

I can hope for a Lab-Lib coalition, though I don't think it would be very fair if Lab-Lib governed if the Conservatives were the party with most votes.

It will be disgusting if Brown and Clegg do a deal to keep the tories out. While legal, it would hardly be in the spirit of democracy, and would be completely at odds with Clegg's pitch for change.

Funny comments, given that democratic principles are hardly the most important in the British election system.

Lab-Lib have a majority of the votes (at the moment). Even with the current system, they have more MPs combined than the Conservatives.

Those being the two democratic countries i've lived in might explain why this system seems like the most blindingly sensibly obviousest one to me :).

Both Israel and the Netherlands are small countries were political and ideological differences far outweighs regional differences, thus one constituency makes sense. For larger countries where regional differences/concerns play a more important role, this wouldn't be fair.

In Norway, for instance, we have 19 constituencies (counties), where the number of MPs from each constituency is decided by a formula depending on the population and distance from the capital.

[MinDonner]

It's sensible of Clegg to have done this; it won't really help his case for electoral reform if he appears too eager to side with the smaller of the two main parties. And he can always say "Well I gave you a chance" if Cameron subsequently fails to reach an agreement.

[Slick Mongoose]

Sarah Teather holds on in Brent Central.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Labour had that seat last time

[Datepalm]

Both Israel and the Netherlands are small countries were political and ideological differences far outweighs regional differences, thus one constituency makes sense. For larger countries where regional differences/concerns play a more important role, this wouldn't be fair.

The question is whether those concerns are actually getting well represented in this system - the SNP actually got shafted, objectively speaking. They'd have more seats under PR, even if Scotland wasn't, say, one big constituency (they got more votes than the LibDems but only 6 to their 10 seats). This system is swallowing up regional issues, not promoting them.

Why distance from the capital?

[Lummel]

In Norway, for instance, we have 19 constituencies (counties), where the number of MPs from each constituency is decided by a formula depending on the population and distance from the capital.

How does that work? Do you get more MPs elected if you are further away from Oslo then? Is the idea that lack of population is offset by distance?

[ljkeane]

It's sensible of Clegg to have done this; it won't really help his case for electoral reform if he appears too eager to side with the smaller of the two main parties. And he can always say "Well I gave you a chance" if Cameron subsequently fails to reach an agreement.

I don't think there's massive amounts of pressure on either the Tories or Labour to give the Lib Dems anything on electoral reform, that was one of the Lib Dems main issues and there's been a lukewarm response to them. The Tories pretty much aren't going to do it from what I understand and I wouldn't say that the opportunity to be part of a hugely unpopular minority coalition government is that much of a carrot for Labour.

[The Iceman of the North]

The question is whether those concerns are actually getting well represented in this system - the SNP actually got shafted, objectively speaking. They'd have more seats under PR, even if Scotland wasn't, say, one big constituency (they got more votes than the LibDems but only 6 to their 10 seats). This system is swallowing up regional issues, not promoting them.

Oh, I'm not defending the British system, I was just comparing Israel and the Netherlands with the other PR systems.

Why distance from the capital?

When this system was devised, the argument was that the further from the seat of government you were living, the less chance you had to influence the government beyond voting.

[The Iceman of the North]

How does that work? Do you get more MPs elected if you are further away from Oslo then? Is the idea that lack of population is offset by distance?

To some degree. Oslo have 17 MPs, or 1 MP for 24,480 eligible voters, while Finmark have 5 MPs, or 1 MP for 10,537 eligible voters.

ETA: Actually, looking at the law, it's the size of the county, not the distance from capital that counts. But the effect is the same. Each inhabitant count as 1 point, and each square kilometre counts as 1.8 points. Thus giving an advantage to more sparsely populated counties.

[Chaldanya]

Labour had that seat last time

Yes they did, and based on her voting record I would have rather spooned out my own eyeballs than voted for Labour in Brent.

N

[MinDonner]

Well hey, my MP advocates jail time for underage mothers. And he's one of the LESS mental Tories. :bang:

[jamesM]

Because their odious and repellent views show no sign whatsoever of intellectual content: because they appeal solely to emotion and deny the facts when they don't like them: because they would not attach the label to themselves, as they have a contempt for education and science, which they realise lead to an utter rejection of their sickness.

This exactly. I think a recent poll showed that 40% of BNP members read the Sun or the Star, and only 6% broadsheets - that speaks volumes to me. I'm guessing the remaining 54% read the BNP picture books that are probably done in crayon.

[MinDonner]

From the BBC live feed:

Former Tory MP Anne Widdecombe, on the prospect of her party working with the Lib Dems: "If you're going to get out of this economic mess, you cannot do it by bargaining every five minutes."

How else does she plan to run a minority government, I wonder? Perhaps winning some more seats might have worked, but it's a bit late for that now.