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

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.

LD's hold a 'casting vote'.

They either go in with the less popular (as just voted for by the country) Labour Party, or the more popular (as just voted for by the country) Coservatives.

What's the alternative, here, and why should the LD's have gone with Labour?

Again, sorry for missing what must be a very depp and complicated issue here, but there doesn't seem to be much going on here other than Labour not getting a get out of jail free card that they didn't merit in any way anyway.

http://kmexradio.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/johnny-depp1.jpg

Haven't seen too many people here arguing that a Lab/Lib coalition was a good idea. Meanwhile:

"David Cameron has defended plans to change the rules on how an election is called, saying they will help the stability of his coalition government."

Well that's me convinced

there's also the question of local accountability. i know that's a bit of a polite fiction in many places, i.e. with the ridiculous berger girl in liverpool. but it's a sound ideal.

xp- yeah, i know that. but what's the alternative?

another general election, with the electorate being told to make up their minds this time?

?

We've done all this darragh. Can someone please stop Cameron using the word "big" every two seconds

xp well as i've said god forbid each and every mp just goes in to the chamber and votes for their constituents' interests on a case-by-case basis, we're in dreamland now.

ye've done all this for a week now, i'm just wondering why a LD voter has to justify not voting for a shitty labour party every five posts, or w/e is happening here.

I MEAN 352 PEOPLE CAN WE PRIORITISE?

He's only just stopped using the word "change" 3 times in every sentence.

Propping up a Conservative government for five years is the issue, not failing to vote for a shitty labour party (xp)

darraghmac - it's pretty hard to vote for your constituents' interests when less than half of them voted for you, as is the case for most MPs.

http://gusmueller.com/2006/images/pear-jimi.png

It's not even "propping up", it's "participating in"

darraghmac - it's pretty hard to vote for your constituents' interests when less than half of them voted for you, as is the case for most MPs.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 3:18 PM (1 minute ago) Bookma

so what you're saying is, LD MPs should not be in power because they didn't get the required 55% of votes needed in their constituency

I'm totally ambivalent on AV, I just can't make up my mind either way, in fact i'd go as far as to say I'm 55/45 on it

And therefore it is not 'a Conservative government' but 'a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government'.

Simple question: would you rather have a Tory majority or a Tory-Lib Dem coalition?

so what you're saying is, LD MPs should not be in power because they didn't get the required 55% of votes needed in their constituency

Maybe we could have a system where MPs are elected in a way that roughly reflects what people vote for. Sounds novel, I know.

Simple question: would you rather have a Tory majority or a Tory-Lib Dem coalition?

There was no Tory majority

well yeah the 5 years thing is bullshit, agreed.

is that really all?

Maybe we could have a system where MPs are elected in a way that roughly reflects what people vote for. Sounds novel, I know.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 3:24 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

it's pretty simple: the guy who gets the most votes wins

Tom D - you know perfectly well any other arrangement would have led to another election within the year and a probable Tory majority.

history mayne - thanks

"Probable" Tory majority vs. locked-on five years of Tory government

PR is kinda irrelevant to this discussion, I don't know why we keep going back to it.

what do you want, local PR? the MP has to be 23% liberal, 38% tory? how does this work?

xposts