DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

Mark G - none of this is a done deal, Parliament isn't even sitting yet. The media frenzy is just because we have, in effect, launched a coalition manifesto. It remains to be seen what will be done when over the course of the five years.

I didn't think it was, just it was how Hague was telling it.

Telegraph reporting that there are some Tory MPs who think 55% is bullshit as well. Given that this is kicking off *already*, I can't see it getting through the Commons let alone the Lords.

I don't know that 55% is actually Tory-driven. Do you?

did you read the previous post? that was from 'sources close to the negotiations' whoever they might be, and yeah they may be wrong but assuming parenthetically that they're correct.....

Adonis' commentary (which I quote above) says the LDs wanted Labour to sign up to it as a precondition for coalition. Because it helps the LDs as much as their coalition partners. Maybe more. In the new system, the Government isn't allowed to call elections whenever it wishes - it must get 55% of the Commons to agree with it. At only 47% this would be an uphill battle for the Conservatives if the LDs were opposed. 51% would be much more reachable.

sure, i said this the other day

i initally thought it wd benefit the libdems more, but they seem to have far less influence in the coalition than initial reports suggested, hence my suggestion that the conservatives wd rather forgo the chance to try for a majority in favour of the security of five years with the supine libdems

srs q: do you really think the liberal democrats (as presently constituted, i.e. voted for) will be in government in 2015?

if not, how democratic is it if our next government within this term is not only a bunch of fannies, but composed of groups who no-one voted for?

Hopefully that will be one of the amendments when the Bill comes to the Commons.

But, even if it isn't, we can rely on you lot to dutifully vote with your lords and masters anyway

It's kicking off largely due to a sustained campaign of misinformation. The actual principle behind it - 'are fixed term parliaments a good idea?' is yet to be discussed in any depth. Given Cameron, the Lib Dems and Labour all claim to support FTPs I'm optimistic we will get

a) FTPs
b) A better and less cynical-looking implementation of FTPs than this deal suggests

You can keep pretending the fixed-term Parliament issue is the main issue all you want, that doesn't make it true.

history mayne - it can't possibly be composed of groups whom no one voted for. We elect individual MPs to the legislature

Tom D - has your bile duct had enough exercise yet?

Matt DC - that *is* the issue. The 55% thing is only there because of fixed term parliaments.

Tom D - has your bile duct had enough exercise yet?

I wouldn't bet on it

Considering the fuss that was made about Brown being 'unelected' for the past few years, it seems odd to put in a system that could potentially end up passing Number 10 to David Milliband without any voter having a say!

Matt DC - that *is* the issue. The 55% thing is only there because of fixed term parliaments.

It's only there because both parties know full well they can't justify fixed-term Parliaments when no one in government has a proper mandate.

history mayne - it can't possibly be composed of groups whom no one voted for. We elect individual MPs to the legislature

yes, who, under a FTP-and-no-dissolution arrangement, can form new groups, i.e. in the event of the present coalition breaking down

we elect individuals, yes, but in the real world they are easily corruptible bastards who should have to face the electorate as often as possible

carson dial - the whole point of this is to take one of the most presidential powers in our supposed Parliamentary system away from the PM and give it to Parliament. It is giving power to the legislature and removing it from the executive - it is a democratic move.

Matt DC - what is a proper mandate? apart from this election and 1974 every government has had 100% of the power on less than 50% of the votes. Is that what you consider a mandate?

carson dial - the whole point of this is to take one of the most presidential powers in our supposed Parliamentary system away from the PM and give it to Parliament.

fine, make it 50% + 1

but actually just don't bring in 5 year FTPs

history mayne - so are you in favour of direct democracy?

Not really, but it's more of a mandate than what we have now, which is certainly not enough of a mandate to bring in such a big change. (xpost)

Also, the 55% limit doesn't prevent LibCon from calling an election any time they want if they have the discipline (as they'll have 364 MPs in a few weeks), so as ilmigliorfabbro says, if it really is to prevent a majority from fiddling, it should be at least 66%, and combined with a time period as in the Holyrood Parliament.

history mayne - so are you in favour of direct democracy?

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 2:27 PM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark

yes, but only with a 55% threshold. no real reason, just like 55%, s.thing to do with the alliteration probably.

history mayne - No, 50%+1 would leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he chooses. This is why 55% should be more like 66% or 80%.

I would settle for the Swedish model, too: four year fixed term parliaments where the government can call an election during the Parliament, but they then only continue until the end of the same fixed term.

idk why westminster shd be modelling itself on holyrood, i'll be quite open about that

No, 50%+1 would leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he chooses.

oh no, how have we coped with this in the past

Matt DC - the idea of a 'mandate' under our system is meaningless. you can make a good argument that this is actually a more representative government than any we have had before

history mayne - what system of partial direct democracy do you favour? Switzerland's?

im joking brah

talk of mandates is bs, tbh.

you can wrangle enough votes to push in your projects or not, either on individual issues or as a coalition over a period of time.

xps

"...two Conservative backbenchers, Christopher Chope and Charles Walker, have expressed concern about the plans.

Mr Walker said: "This is perhaps just a little too much for our unwritten constitution to bear" and his colleague, Mr Chope told BBC Radio 4's World at One the coalition deal seemed to have been "cobbled together in quite a short space of time"."

Convincing stuff there. Chope is almost as insensible as Jack Straw.

Mind the bile there

Convincing stuff there. Chope is almost as insensible as Jack Straw.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 2:35 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark

convincing stuff there

'More representative' unfortunately doesn't mean shit when the LibDems can flit between whichever of Labour or the Tories is most likely to give them power. Who are they meant to be representing exactly? Because roughly half of their base is likely to feel cheated whichever way they go.

50% less than being out of govt.

i mean seriously a lot of the rest of the world does this, good luck uk

They're representing their base, by trying to get their policies acted upon.

but we can't get rid of trident. we need it to fight the chinese.

:)

oh let 'em win. we'll have a fancier olympics.

Matt DC - do you disagree that it is 'more representative' for a party on 36% of the vote to get some of its manifesto through, and a party on 23% of the vote to get some of its manifesto through, than for a party on 35% of the vote to have a majority of 60 seats and have the opportunity to pursue 100% of its manifesto pledges(as in the last Parliament)?

On the contrary, they're cutting back on the Olympics! (xp)

blueski - there will be Olympic cuts - I'm personally looking forward to seeing Usain Bolt win the 83m gold medal

Because roughly half of their base is likely to feel cheated whichever way they go.

would be expected for a party that claims to be centre tho surely

I'm personally looking forward to seeing Usain Bolt win the 83m gold medal

Vince Cable for the high jump

I don't think the LibDems will get much of their manifesto through. You do realise that the Tories will only act upon the policies they either agree with or don't really care about, right? Any LibDem policies that the Tories oppose won't see the light of day.

Matt DC - do you disagree that it is 'more representative' for a party on 36% of the vote to get some of its manifesto through, and a party on 23% of the vote to get some of its manifesto through, than for a party on 35% of the vote to have a majority of 60 seats and have the opportunity to pursue 100% of its manifesto pledges(as in the last Parliament)?

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 2:43 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

ummm, the system is based on seats in the house, not percentage of the vote.

but ne ways it is not very representative for the smallest major party to get all this leverage! and the tories will eventually come round to this view and go ham on the leadership about it.

You do realise that the Tories will only act upon the policies they either agree with or don't really care about, right?

You do realise that is quite a lot of our manifesto, right? And also that the Tories were pretty keen to drop most of the policies they campaigned hardest on - e.g. inheritance tax cuts.

Tories were pretty keen to drop most of the policies they campaigned hardest on - e.g. inheritance tax cuts

Stick around

history mayne - i'm aware of that, that's why we want to change the system because it's ridiculous. Almost every other developed country has a more representative democracy

history mayne - i'm aware of that, that's why we want to change the system because it's ridiculous. Almost every other developed country has a more representative democracy

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 2:49 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

you only have 23% of the vote -- and that's before the molotov-ribbentrop pact kicked in

if you love every other developed country so much why don't you marry it?

Tories were pretty keen to drop most of the policies they campaigned hardest on - e.g. inheritance tax cuts

why did they do that? because a government is not a manifesto. when circumstances change and the tories start turning the screw, at what point will clegg bail out of the coalition that he's staked his reputation on?