Deal between Labour and Lib Dems?

[butchersapron]

The 'reports' now are that the lib-dems have settled on a referendum for the not-very-PR-at-all AV or AV+ system - which labour had already penciled in for next year.

 

[danny la rouge]

The 'reports' now are that the lib-dems have settled on a referendum for the not-very-PR-at-all AV or AV+ system - which labour had already penciled in for next year.

AV+ is what we have for Holyrood elections. It can throw out some interesting results.

 

[Fedayn]

There's other better ways of that happening - libs support no one-->shambles of tory minority govt --> GE-->libs in trouble.

And arguably in trouble much earlier in Scotland, ie at next years Scottish Parliamentary Elections.

 

[butchersapron]

AV+ is what we have for Holyrood elections. It can throw out some interesting results.

I think it was was the Jenkins Commission ended up recommending as well.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Once bitten twice shy? Not the Libdems, AV+ is what Labour (well Blair) promised at the peak of Lib-Labbery in '97.

 

[Combustible]

The tensions will come over Cabinet posts, rather than policy.

And over the popularity of any resulting government particularly with their more left leaning voters. They may find they prefer a painful withdrawal rather than being tied to a sinking ship.

 

[danny la rouge]

And over the popularity of any resulting government particularly with their more left leaning voters. They may find they prefer a painful withdrawal rather than being tied to a sinking ship.

They're already hated here. (The Stirling area, rather than Urban75). I've spoken to a few people, including LibDem voters, and the opinion is pretty unfavourable. *(Unscientific findings alert).

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it was was the Jenkins Commission ended up recommending as well.

I think you're right.

It's not democratic, in my view. It's a party list system. PR is supposed to give more power to the electorate, but any party list system, by definition, takes power away. You're voting blind for party preference.

 

[little_legs]

the 'rumour' was no rumour then

 

[TAE]

It's not democratic, in my view. It's a party list system. PR is supposed to give more power to the electorate, but any party list system, by definition, takes power away. You're voting blind for party preference.

How many voters have any influence on which candidates the parties put before them? I'm talking about FPTP here.

 

[ericjarvis]

How many voters have any influence on which candidates the parties put before them? I'm talking about FPTP here.

The whole point of FPTP is that you vote for a specific candidate. Nobdoy can replace that individual with one more popular with a central party organisation. With PR and a party list you get to vote only for which central party orgabisation will choose your representative for you. FPTP is better as a method of weeding out the arselickers, crooks and cyborgs. Provided people vote on the individuals. A party list form of PR is better if all you care about is which party you are represented by and it really doesn't matter to you whether the representative is a complete slimeball or not.

 

[stupid kid]

The whole point of FPTP is that you vote for a specific candidate. Nobdoy can replace that individual with one more popular with a central party organisation. With PR and a party list you get to vote only for which central party orgabisation will choose your representative for you. FPTP is better as a method of weeding out the arselickers, crooks and cyborgs. Provided people vote on the individuals. A party list form of PR is better if all you care about is which party you are represented by and it really doesn't matter to you whether the representative is a complete slimeball or not.

Parachuting in happens in FPTP though, and really, is it a necessary feature of the list system that the reps be chosen centrally? If there are 650 constituencies, why not have 650 local party groups chose one member each?

It seems to me though, with regards to your last statement, that it doesn't matter to people, can most people even tell you who their local MP is? Nevermind what they've done.

 

[little_legs]

i am still struggling trying to understand the brit system... from what i was able to find, STV looks to be an accetable system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010


borrowed from MQ:

 

[ymu]

Parachuting in happens in FPTP though, and really, is it a necessary feature of the list system that the reps be chosen centrally? If there are 650 constituencies, why not have 650 local party groups chose one member each?

It's the order in which they're listed that matters.

 

[ymu]

i am still struggling trying to understand the brit system... from what i was able to find, STV looks to be an accetable system

a) It damages the larger parties, and they're the ones with power under FPTP

b) It means we'd have a hung parliament every time. It's not clear that people would vote for it in a referendum after all these shenanigans.

 

[little_legs]

a) It damages the larger parties, and they're the ones with power under FPTP

b) It means we'd have a hung parliament every time. It's not clear that people would vote for it in a referendum after all these shenanigans.

oh dear...

i give up

 

[ymu]

oh dear...

i give up

There's a lot of very tribal voting in the UK, and it tends to be very concentrated in certain areas, with the inner cities overwhelmingly Labour and rural areas overwhelmingly Tory. The "middle" party (the Lib Dems) have no such ideological base - they get a reasonable number of votes almost everywhere, because they're Not Tories in Tory strongholds and Not Labour in Labour strongholds, but most of their votes are cast in seats they cannot win.

So, we have an essentially two party system in terms of who can actually win a majority of MPs and therefore form a majority single-party government. Hung parliaments are fairly rare.

The PR debate isn't just about fairness - it's about whether we want coalition politics at a national level. Neither of the two main parties want that because it would mean they will never govern alone again. The electorate might not want it because it means these sorts of wranglings every time (and they can't trust the liberals not to side with the Tories).

 

[stupid kid]

The big question on my mind is why have so many Blarites come out against a liblab pact? I assume I'm right in thinking Abbot a Blarite, I know Reid and Blunkett are. Did the Brownite wing do a deal with Clegg? Also, what is Mandleson's role in this happening? If they did it without him there are going to be some sore bottoms tonight.

 

[claphamboy]

Labour have confirmed there would have to be a referendum before the introduction of AV, just that they would have the law in place in case it was agreed.

 

[ymu]

The big question on my mind is why have so many Blarites come out against a liblab pact? I assume I'm right in thinking Abbot a Blarite, I know Reid and Blunkett are. Did the Brownite wing do a deal with Clegg? Also, what is Mandleson's role in this happening? If they did it without him there are going to be some sore bottoms tonight.

Abbot is not a Blairite. Reid and Blunkett are no longer MPs.

 

[stupid kid]

Abbot is not a Blairite. Reid and Blunkett are no longer MPs.

Oh. Too bad for them then Still wonder what they've got against it, maybe they think a tory minority works out better for them, let the tories destroy themselves whilst Labour rebuild under one of Miliballs...

 

[JHE]

I assume I'm right in thinking Abbot a Blarite...

Diane Abbott's not a Blairite, you silly sausage. She's a member of the Campaign Group.

 

[little_legs]

There's a lot of very tribal voting in the UK, and it tends to be very concentrated in certain areas, with the inner cities overwhelmingly Labour and rural areas overwhelmingly Tory. The "middle" party (the Lib Dems) have no such ideological base - they get a reasonable number of votes almost everywhere, because they're Not Tories in Tory strongholds and Not Labour in Labour strongholds, but most of their votes are cast in seats they cannot win.

So, we have an essentially two party system in terms of who can actually win a majority of MPs and therefore form a majority single-party government. Hung parliaments are fairly rare.

The PR debate isn't just about fairness - it's about whether we want coalition politics at a national level. Neither of the two main parties want that because it would mean they will never govern alone again. The electorate might not want it because it means these sorts of wranglings every time (and they can't trust the liberals not to side with the Tories).

again, that's very helpful, thank you. so an average voter out there does not necessarily want any reform and would be happy for things to remain the way they are.

 

[ymu]

again, that's very helpful, thank you. so an average voter out there does not necessarily want any reform and would be happy for things to remain the way they are.

Dunno. They've never really been asked.

 

[stupid kid]

again, that's very helpful, thank you. so an average voter out there does not necessarily want any reform and would be happy for things to remain the way they are.

Depends who they're voting for really. If they're Labour or Tory, then definitely not, this system doesn't guarantee they'll remain in power, but it makes it very likely, therefore if you support the Lib Dems or any other small party, you probably should favour PR. A few percent of the country is worth nothing unless they all live in the same place under FPTP, however under PR, a few percent will get you a few percent of the MPs.

The thing that really got me supporting PR was seeing the 1983 election results. Off the top of my head, Labour and the Liberals both got about 27%, Labour got about 210 seats, the Liberals got 23 - however that's the price you pay for having a system which is more likely to result in a majority govt, thus avoiding all the deal making we currently are faced with.

 

[ymu]

Oh. Too bad for them then

They didn't stand in the election. I'm sure they're very happy about that.

It's obvious why a lot of Labour MPs won't want a Lib/Lab/Nationalist coalition:

1) The nationalists will demand lower cuts for their countries than are needed nationally

2) It would be very unstable and probably wouldn't last long, and Labour would get punished in the subsequent election

3) The Lib Dems are dirty campaigners who out-Tory the Tories in Labour strongholds and won't be forgiven by many

4) Noone in their right minds wants power right now, especially when the Tories cannot realistically survive long whatever stitch-up they agree with Clegg

 

[stupid kid]

All good points, but then, surely having not won the election, if Cameron doesn't deliver something he's toast? So he wants power now. I don't think minority govt. is enough personally.

His plan, according to Guido Fawkes, is another election in November, tory office contracts only being renewed until then. Will the right wing launch a coup? These are decidedly interesting times.

 

[danny la rouge]

Douglas Alexander, who ran Labour's election campaign, has ruled out any sort of arrangement - at all, ever - with the SNP. Which makes the arithmetic less favourable for a LibLab deal.

 

[Lo Siento.]

what's the grounds of Labour's visceral antipathy toward the nats, btw?

 

[Quartz]

All good points, but then, surely having not won the election, if Cameron doesn't deliver something he's toast?

Look how they treated their last leader, Howard, who did quite well.

Will the right wing launch a coup?

I'm sure David Davis is sharpening his stiletto.