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

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?

xp lol

AV is even less proportional than FPTP from what I can see. Not sure why the LibDems are so keen on it given it's more likely to squeeze them out than the current system is.

It's all they can get, except they're not even going to get that!

this pile-on is getting dumber by the minute.

real talk im afraid: a lot of people would not vote LD if they thought it'd actually lead to the LDs having power. they do it because they are disappointed in labour/ashamed to vote tory.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/r/d/2/colbert-pitchfork.jpg

AV is sometimes less proportional than FPTP, but it is preferential which is a marked improvement. Plus all you have to do once you have AV is band constituencies together in groups of two or three and hey presto, STV. It also gets rid of the need for tactical voting.

As for the effect on the Lib Dems it is widely believed it would help us a fair bit, given many voters would have us as a second preference.

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

That's not been dropped has it, I thought it was postponed? And it was fucking easy to drop anyway as it only affected Cameron and the rest of the cabinet.

Don't mean to add to the 'pile-on' (which doesn't seem much of one tbh) but I'm sure Clegg's getting the same kind of action.

As for the effect on the Lib Dems it is widely believed it would help us a fair bit, given many voters would have us as a second preference.

Would have. Should help the Green vote though.

history mayne - true. but equally a lot of people don't vote Lib Dem because they perceive it as a wasted vote. now we're in coalition with a chance of getting SOME policy through. can you maybe see why we chose not to continue in the purity of opposition, as the ultimate pressure group?

Tom D - it'll help all smaller parties. Which is a Good Thing.

If it helps keep Lib Dems out of parliament, it certainly is

Tom D - it'll help all smaller parties. Which is a Good Thing.

Yay! Go UKIP!

Yay! Go UKIP!

No longer a serious threat since their Luftwaffle has been decimated.

Venga - or we can carry on with the synthetic arguments of three very similar parties, I suppose. Your call. UKIP are basically where the Tories used to be, just like the Green Party are where Labour used to be. Says quite a lot about FPTP and the battle for the centre ground.

all elections are battles for the centre ground. it's a question of whether you'd like the compromises to happen before the polls or after.