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

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

Nick Clegg to win every election then?

What we've got is not a Tory government. We'll see what happens when Parliament actually sits, but for now we can only go on the coalition agreement and on that basis what we've got is NOT a pure Tory government.

history mayne - STV in multi-MP constituencies, obviously.

I am looking forward to Parliament, it will be a hoot

Parliament resuming, that is

Not George Clinton, then?

One Nation Tory Under a Groove

Groove

:)

btw can one of you spell out to me the layman what exactly on a point-by-point, dumbed-down level this government will do to make Britain a worse place to live in, or indeed a more malicious player on the world stage? I already have quite some idea and you'll be telling me a lot of what I already know, but I'd like to see it all in one place

1. Cutting public spending rapidly on virtually everything leading to rising unemployment and declining public services.

2. Pretending they are doing so because of the deficit when actually they are using the deficit as an excuse to cut heavily for ideological reasons.

that's ok though, my ma's got a friend on Harley Street, treat him to a round of golf and he'll do the bunions for free

xpost

3. cutting benefits to all the people out of a job because of the cuts

4. "A country where people ask not 'what am I owed?' but 'what can I give'?" which is Tory speak for "we're not going to give you any more money, get up and do it for yourself".

maybe you should have asked what they'd do that a re-elected labour wouldn't have done, and bugger 'ideological reasons' as being an important difference

that's ok though, I'll just get Pa to double my pocket-money xps