Jump to content

What Prize May The Lib/Dems Demand?


View From The Top
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regardless on the pros/cons of a "balanced" House of Commons what price do you think that the Lib/Dems will demand from either Labour or the Tories?

 

I'll go for a a referendum on PR within 12 months and for a PR system to be in place for the next general election and either Clegg as Foreign Sec' or Cable at Number 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go for a a referendum on PR within 12 months and for a PR system to be in place for the next general election and either Clegg as Foreign Sec' or Cable at Number 11.

I'd go for that, but depending on how much Labour need LibDem support, maybe another couple of cabinet positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Tories win with the most seats and the most votes, but refuse to change the FPTP system, it'll be interesting to see whether the Liberals put their own ambition ahead of the mandate given to the Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working in the energy field I am baffled how the LDs will square their "no new nukes" policy with either Lab or Con.

 

I think there are a number of other incompatibilities that will be difficult to horse trade also.

 

Maybe the incompatibilities will be put on hold for the time being? I don't know - just an idea.

 

Because if there's a hung parliament, you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be another election pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that every coalition government in the last century failed (4 coalitions I think),and it's looking as if the Tories will be the biggest party with the most votes so the Liberals will, by their own criteria, have to form a coalition with them. I forsee that if this arises the tories won't change the voting system and we'll have another election by the year end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Tories win with the most seats and the most votes, but refuse to change the FPTP system, it'll be interesting to see whether the Liberals put their own ambition ahead of the mandate given to the Tories.

sorry ;)the tories will have no mandate unless they get 51 % of the vote or get 316 mps in parliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that every coalition government in the last century failed (4 coalitions I think),and it's looking as if the Tories will be the biggest party with the most votes so the Liberals will, by their own criteria, have to form a coalition with them. I forsee that if this arises the tories won't change the voting system and we'll have another election by the year end.

 

 

If you call winning the second world war a failure then yes, you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that every coalition government in the last century failed (4 coalitions I think),and it's looking as if the Tories will be the biggest party with the most votes so the Liberals will, by their own criteria, have to form a coalition with them. I forsee that if this arises the tories won't change the voting system and we'll have another election by the year end.

the wartime coalition worked just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call winning the second world war a failure then yes, you're right.

 

That was different circumstances - our country was on the brink of being conquered, although i'll admit I hadn't factored that in. Like I say i'm basing what I said on what I heard on one of the many political TV programmes that've been on recently and feel free to prove what i've said to be wrong without the wartime coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that every coalition government in the last century failed (4 coalitions I think),and it's looking as if the Tories will be the biggest party with the most votes so the Liberals will, by their own criteria, have to form a coalition with them. I forsee that if this arises the tories won't change the voting system and we'll have another election by the year end.

Dune, as I posted on the Electoral Reform thread, the extreme end of FPTP could give us the following;

In half the seats Party1 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. In the other half of the seats, Party2 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. The result of this is that Party1 and Party2 will have half of the seats each, yet will have polled only 25.5% of the total vote, leaving Party3 with 49% of the vote and no seats.

Is this acceptable ?

 

If not, why is acceptable to extrapolate it to, for instance, @33% each for the 3 main parties, yet LD get only 10% of the seats. That is hardly in the spirit of democracy. It seems clear that the majority of the public want reform, yet the 'big 2' resist it because the national demographic, with the LD being the only party with a truly national appeal, works in their favour due to the local concentrations of red and blue supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was different circumstances - our country was on the brink of being conquered, although i'll admit I hadn't factored that in. Like I say i'm basing what I said on what I heard on one of the many political TV programmes that've been on recently and feel free to prove what i've said to be wrong without the wartime coalition.

 

It's a self defeating argument. British Parlimentary democracy is not designed for coalition government, so when there has been coalitions they are seen by all parties as "broken" pretty much at point of birth and they don't last long as a result.

 

There are plenty of non coalition governments that have "failed" as well - Wilson/Callaghan in the late seventies, Major from 1992, the Tory administrations of the fifties.

 

If we end up with a coalition this time, it will probably last for eighteen months tops. But I'd expect an election in October this year, especially if we end up with some co ck-eyed coalition with a Labour prime minister who didn't even take part in the leadership debates (not the likeliest outcome, but not impossible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we end up with a coalition this time, it will probably last for eighteen months tops. But I'd expect an election in October this year.

 

Agreed and this is why it's grossly irresponsible to vote Liberal. Our country needs strong government more now than it has done since at least 1979. I'd rather Labour got back in with a majority than have a squabbling coalition and a period of inaction before another election before the years out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dune, as I posted on the Electoral Reform thread, the extreme end of FPTP could give us the following;

In half the seats Party1 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. In the other half of the seats, Party2 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. The result of this is that Party1 and Party2 will have half of the seats each, yet will have polled only 25.5% of the total vote, leaving Party3 with 49% of the vote and no seats.

Is this acceptable ?

 

If not, why is acceptable to extrapolate it to, for instance, @33% each for the 3 main parties, yet LD get only 10% of the seats. That is hardly in the spirit of democracy. It seems clear that the majority of the public want reform, yet the 'big 2' resist it because the national demographic, with the LD being the only party with a truly national appeal, works in their favour due to the local concentrations of red and blue supporters.

 

It's not perfect, but at least with the current system you can achieve majority governments. Whether it be a Labour govt. or a Tory govt. i'd rather have a government that could make decisions than a squabling coalition where back room deals are the order of the day. That said i do think we need to go more down the swiss route of giving the public more referendums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed and this is why it's grossly irresponsible to vote Liberal. Our country needs strong government more now than it has done since at least 1979. I'd rather Labour got back in with a majority than have a squabbling coalition and a period of inaction before another election before the years out.

 

 

Fair enough but I think we're going to end up with weak government anyway.

 

A victorious Brown or Cameron will have bugger all discipline with the puny majorities they can only wish for at this stage, and the loons on the extremes of those parties will have a bloody field day running rings round the whips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough but I think we're going to end up with weak government anyway.

 

A victorious Brown or Cameron will have bugger all discipline with the puny majorities they can only wish for at this stage, and the loons on the extremes of those parties will have a bloody field day running rings round the whips.

 

True, but i think the Tory whips would find it easier. Brown has already survived one badly orchestrated plot, but the Millibandites are biding their time to strike. Labour are a tired disillusioned party devoid of purpose, wheras the Tories have been out in the cold for 13 years so would be less inclined to screw up for a while at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough but I think we're going to end up with weak government anyway.

 

A victorious Brown or Cameron will have bugger all discipline with the puny majorities they can only wish for at this stage, and the loons on the extremes of those parties will have a bloody field day running rings round the whips.

spot on ,all partys are made up of coalitions and i find it hard how torys 34% in our present system is strong goverment when 66 % of the country don,t want you.

funny old democracy which only dinosaurs who want no change are happy with.

i repeat if you have 51 % of the popular vote you have the mandate of the country even if its a coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day. Every one needs a leader. Simply them person with the most voted win

 

Can't get much simpler

 

FPTP doesn't necessarily mean that though and we aren't voting for a person we are voting for a party.

 

If it were just a person that it would be akin to the US or French presidential model, which is based on a Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF the next parliament delivers PR and a fully elected House of Lords then it'll have done a lot more than most previous governments. It will have put paid to the argument that unless you live in a marginal then your vote doesn't count. It will remove hereditary idiocy. What is there not to like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF the next parliament delivers PR and a fully elected House of Lords then it'll have done a lot more than most previous governments. It will have put paid to the argument that unless you live in a marginal then your vote doesn't count. It will remove hereditary idiocy. What is there not to like?

 

Best case a polarisation of politics, worst case civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best case a polarisation of politics, worst case civil war.

 

Best case: stable, decisive government for years, with fair, representative voting system and the end of heriditary advantage.

 

Worse case: government fractures over the inability of the egos involved to work together. PR is incorrectly blamed, and abandoned in favour of outdated and unfair FPTP system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF the next parliament delivers PR and a fully elected House of Lords then it'll have done a lot more than most previous governments. It will have put paid to the argument that unless you live in a marginal then your vote doesn't count. It will remove hereditary idiocy. What is there not to like?

spot on and would make the uk into a modern democracy ,hopefully people would get interested in politics again.

i live in a marginal and get lots of people from all 3 party's wanting my vote but my friend who is in a safe seat gets none.

the marginals are the only ones that matter ,which is a shame that most of the countrys seats are written off under this crazy voting system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with pure PR is it gives smaller parties a bigger say than their vote deserves. You could end up with UKIP having 3 seats, but those 3 seats giving the Tories the balance of power. This means that the UKIP MP's decide who the British Prime Minister is despite having a very low % of the vote.

 

Cast your mind back to the Ulster peace process that started under the Major Govt. Imagine if the Major Govt were part of a coalition that included the Unionists, or they needed the Unionists to stay in power.

 

You have to have a constituency based system so that all the people of these islands get representation. If it was just the popular vote, then the party that could concentrate on the South east/London area, to the detriment of others. Even in America Presidents are elected not by the popular vote, but by an electoral collage. Surely the simplest thing in the world would be for the candidate that gains over 50% of the vote wins, but the founding fathers made sure that the smaller states had representation.

 

Our Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats, not the party that gains the most votes. The debates have skewed our system somewhat and people are starting to think along the lines of "I'll vote for Clegg/Brown/Cameron, instead of voting for a local MP. Pure PR means parties get a say in who is your representative, no kicking Portillo out in '97 or Jackie Smith this time over her expanses, no Martin Bell kicking out Neil Hamilton.

 

Say what you want about the Tories, but they've always been consistent about this, even in their dark years where Hague and Howard were getting an electoral kicking, they never critised the system. Gordon Brown can see power ebbing away, so despite having 13 years to do so, is now talking about electoral reform. Talk about a cynical move, that tells you all you need to know about the modern Labour Party. The other parties are always going to go for reform, it's the only way the BNP, UKIP or the Greens will get seats.

 

I can see the need for electoral reform as the Country seems to be crying out for it, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any reform must be constituency based and not based on Party Lists. Personally the AV system seems best for me, it would mean that candidates are sent to Westminster with more than 50% of their constituents voting for them.

 

The whole electoral reform debate should take place involving all aspects of the way we're governed, not just one. The House of Lords, Monarchy, and devolution for England should all be looked out. It's one thing for Alex Salmond to go on about the unfairness of the electoral system, whilst he can vote on things that affect me, but my MP can't vote on things that affect his constituents. Fairness should not just be about what's fair for your party, but what's fair for the whole UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})