Our logo is bigger now

Is the Election in the UK turning out to be a blueprint for NDP success here in Canada?

110 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2010-04-16 20:08

#1

JKR

Is the Election in the UK turning out to be a blueprint for NDP success here in Canada?

It would seem that the modern trend toward people having less loyalty toward their political parties has helped the third-place Liberal-Democrats surge in the polls. Maybe there's a lesson here for the NDP?

The third party Liberal Democrats, who have recently averaged slightly under 19% in opinion polls, seem to have the most momentum after Nick Clegg's excellent showing in the first debate. People in the UK seem to be willing to try a third party over the two parties that have monopolized power in the UK.

Clegg`s ability to harness pent up dissatisfaction against the political status quo may be something the NDP could emulate.

Nick Clegg factor wins Liberal Democrats record surge in popularity

Quote:

AN unprecedented surge in support for the Liberal Democrats has followed Nick Clegg's "victory" in the first prime ministerial debate, an astonishing reflection of the power of the inaugural TV event.

Support for the Liberals among those who watched Thursday night's programme rocketed from 21 per cent beforehand to 35 per cent immediately afterwards, according to a poll of 4,000 viewers released yesterday.

Electoral Reform is one of the major issues in the election. The Liberal Democrats are supporting having a referendum for fair voting in the election in the form of the Single Transferable Vote or STV. STV is a great choice for the UK because they have over 600 seats in their House of Commons covering a very small territory compared to Canada.The UK could have 100 six seat STV ridings covering a relatively small territory. Since Canada has far fewer MP's covering a much larger area, fair voting would require a variant of MMP. (My personal favorite is the Baden-Wurttemberg version of MMP that requires no lists.)

Labour also having suports a referendum on electoral reform. They support the Alternative Vote which is not a fair voting system. It's an improvement over FPTP but not nearly as much as should be expected.

The Conservatives want to keep FPTP.

If the Liberal-Democrats can keep their momentum they will be able to at least exert a lot of influence in a coalition government. They would be able to have a referendum on STV.

Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010

Latest poll: April 16

Conservative: 33%

Liberal-Democrat: 30%

Labour: 28%

Other: 9%

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Fri, 2010-04-16 21:18

#2

melovesproles

That's definately what I've observed, my friends in the UK are labour voters who plan to vote Lib-Dem in the hope that under a minority parliament they can push for electoral reform. It'll be interesting to see how the election pans out but the Lib-Dems certainly seem to be more savvy when it comes to courting younger informed voters than any of the mainstream parties in Canada.

Fri, 2010-04-16 21:24

#3

adma

The trouble with the NDP presently is that Jack Layton's more of a "known quantity" than Nick Clegg--to the point where I'm not sure whether he can presently summon up the same oh-wow enthusiasm. (Then again, the known-quantity factor didn't hurt Ed Broadbent in the late 80s, on similar pox-on-the-other-houses grounds.) OTOH the NDP caucus has no shortage of "Nick Clegg" potential-leadership figures: Angus, Cullen, Dewar, Donnelly, etc...

Fri, 2010-04-16 21:32

#4

melovesproles

Layton is capable of appealing to the same voters that the Lib-Dems are targetting now, he's a smart guy and he showed he 'got it' on a lot of issues during the first election but instead of sticking with that message and building credibility the NDP braintrust seemed to believe 'dumbing it down' was a better tactic and that's mostly what we've seen since. This turns off the type of voters the Lib-Dems are poised to attract now. I think it's probably too late for Layton to get that crediblity back but you never know, with some consistant messaging, he's still a big contrast to Harper and the Count. I agree that a younger leader would have an easier time.

Fri, 2010-04-16 22:55

#5

Stockholm

I don't think the LibDems are being particularly substantive - in fact most people have a hard time telling you what they stand for - some of their MPs sound like they are to the left of Labour but then they have a lot of rural MPs who are like Blue Dog Democrats etc... Quite frankly, the Lib Dem campaign in the UK is about as superficial as they get its basically "pox on both their houses"

I think that right now, Nick Clegg is having a bit of a "Gordon Wilson moment" (some of you may recall how in the 1991 BC election, the perenially third place BC Liberals soared from 15% to over 30% in the polls all because Gordon Wilson at one point pointed at Mike Harcourt and Rita Johnston bickering and said "you see this? This is why you can't get anything done around here".

The challenge for Layton is that unlike Clegg and unlike Broadbent in the 80s who got to have a couple of juice three way debates - our leaders debates are these five way circuses. I suspect that Nick Clegg would have had bastly less impact if it was a five way debate that included the leader of the UK Greens as the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party!!

Fri, 2010-04-16 23:08

#6

melovesproles

Young British voters are very aware that their electoral system left them in a situation where they were forced to choose between Tony Blair aka there isnt a US invasion he won't back and an even more reactionary classist, racist Tory alternative. The Lib-Dems recognize this, have shown they respect the intelligence of these voters and have made electoral reform a key plank of their platform instead of constantly condescendingly writing it off as "a policy wonk" issue. This has built credibility with the younger informed electorate and that is now filtering up to voters who realize that maybe with the uninspiring choices in front of them, there might be something to changing the system after all. Canada would be in a similar situation if we had a political party that had shown that kind of foresight and consistancy.

Fri, 2010-04-16 23:33

#7

Stockholm

The Lib Dems and the SDP and Liberals before them have been yammering about electoral reform for the past 50 years without it leading to any big breakthrough. Like the NDP they are the perenial party of 18% of the voters. I have been following the UK campaign quite closely and I have yet to see any data that indicates that more than about ONE PERCENT of the British consider electoral reform to be a vote determining issue. Its not as if all of a sudden people are thinking of voting Lib Dem this year because they want proportional representation. Its simply that after 13 years in power, Labour is out of gas and unpopular and many people still view the Tories as too rightwing and aristocratic and there is a desire for a "third way" - plus Brown and Cameron spent so much time attacking each other that it was easy for Clegg to get off scot-free and seem like the "mr. nice guy". Of course the Lib Dems want some form of PR because its a way for them to get more seats, just like the NDP in Canada is 100% supportive of PR - but neither party is making it a corner stone of their campaign strategy because quite frankly voters care about issues that impact them - not issues that impact parties and politicians. The federal NDP is every bit as unswervingly supportive of electoral reform as the Lib Dems are in the UK - but both parties are also smart enough to realize that in the midst of a massive economic recession, people want to hear first and foremost about what you plan to do about the economy, health care, education etc...

It remains to be seen how much scrutiny the Lib Dems can withstand once the other parties start to attack them. A lot of right of centre types who are flirting with them as an alternative to the Tories will quickly freak out when they learn that the LibDems want the UK to adopt the Euro and get rid of the Trident and loosen destrictions on asylum seekers. On the other hand, a lot of left of centre types wont be crazy about their promises to drastically cut spending and privatize and contract out as many government services as possible.

Fri, 2010-04-16 23:38

#8

Stockholm

Stockholm wrote:

The Lib Dems and the SDP and Liberals before them have been yammering about electoral reform for the past 50 years without it leading to any big breakthrough. Like the NDP they are the perenial party of 18% of the voters. I have been following the UK campaign quite closely and I have yet to see any data that indicates that more than about ONE PERCENT of the British consider electoral reform to be a vote determining issue. Its not as if all of a sudden people are thinking of voting Lib Dem this year because they want proportional representation. Its simply that after 13 years in power, Labour is out of gas and unpopular and many people still view the Tories as too rightwing and aristocratic and there is a desire for a "third way" - plus Brown and Cameron spent so much time attacking each other that it was easy for Clegg to get off scot-free and seem like the "mr. nice guy". Of course the Lib Dems want some form of PR because its a way for them to get more seats, just like the NDP in Canada is 100% supportive of PR - but neither party is making it a corner stone of their campaign strategy because quite frankly voters care about issues that impact them - not issues that impact parties and politicians. The federal NDP is every bit as unswervingly supportive of electoral reform as the Lib Dems are in the UK - but both parties are also smart enough to realize that in the midst of a massive economic recession, people want to hear first and foremost about what you plan to do about the economy, health care, education etc...

It remains to be seen how much scrutiny the Lib Dems can withstand once the other parties start to attack them. A lot of right of centre types who are flirting with them as an alternative to the Tories will quickly freak out when they learn that the LibDems want the UK to adopt the Euro and get rid of the Trident and loosen destrictions on asylum seekers. On the other hand, a lot of left of centre types wont be crazy about their promises to drastically cut spending and privatize and contract out as many government services as possible.

Right now Clegg is to British politics what Mario Dumont was to Quebec in 2007.

Sat, 2010-04-17 00:10

#9

Stockholm

Keep in mind that there are two more debates to come in the UK campaign and you can be sure that Cameron in particular will take dead aim at Nick Clegg next time. The rise of the Lib Dems is actually much more harmfull to the Conservatives than it is to Labour. There are relatively few seats in the UK that are Labour/Lib Dem battles. There are many ridings that are Tory/Lib Dem marginals. I think that what Labour is hoping for is that the Lib Dems will take enough seats from the Tories that Labour could end up with the most seats - or failing that that Labour and the Lib Dems together can form a coalition.

Come to think of it - if the Labour party comes in second in seats and the LDs form a coalition with them to keep the Tories out - it might set a very good example for what we want to see happen after the next Canadian election!

Sat, 2010-04-17 01:11

Centrist

Stockholm wrote:
I think that right now, Nick Clegg is having a bit of a "Gordon Wilson moment" (some of you may recall how in the 1991 BC election, the perenially third place BC Liberals soared from 15% to over 30% in the polls all because Gordon Wilson at one point pointed at Mike Harcourt and Rita Johnston bickering and said "you see this? This is why you can't get anything done around here".

Very adept analogy. Leading into the 1991 BC election, the very unpopular Socreds were led by a frumpy right-wing Zalmoid - Rita Johnston while people were still somewhat leary of the NDP led by Harcourt. The BC Liberals always garnered about 5% of the vote since the 1975 election and were basically moribund and "out in the wilderness". Wilson was initially refused a spot at the debate podium and somehow, by picketing CBC studios and drawing media attention, he was let in on the game.

During the debate, Johnston looked miserable and Harcourt pulled out an Amex Card as a prop with a goofy grin. Bad optics all around. While the two were bickering, Wilson stepped in with his famous quip "You see folks, this is a perfect example of why nothing ever gets done in Victoria". And that hit a nerve with viewers. Almost overnight Lib lawn sign were springing up like weeds everywhere. The Lib momentum thereafter was phenomenal.

BCTV (Global) also had a nightly tracking poll and several days later the Libs jumped into the lead (from a very distance 3rd place standing). Even the NDP was worried enough that Glen Clark and Moe Sihota (the pittbulls) held a press conference to convince people that the Libs "were untested". After the election, NDP strategists admitted (with their internal polling) that had the campaign lasted another week, BC would have awoke to a Lib gov't. with Premier Wilson. It was textbook political stuff in terms of the momentum akin to a speeding freight train. Issues are a secondary factor under that scenario.

Will the same thing happen to Clegg? I don't know but watch polling trends over the next week.

Mulroney's "You had a choice sir" quip to Turner during the 1984 debate also comes to mind as a game changer albeit his party was not sitting at 5% like the BC Libs in 1991. The stars must all be aligned for these rare "moments" to occur during and after a debate.

Sat, 2010-04-17 01:32

ottawaobserver

I was thinking of the comparison with Gordon Wilson as well, but having worked that campaign in BC I can also tell you that the media (which hates the NDP out there with a vengeance), was pumping Gordon Wilson really hard ... in the hopes that he would succeed at passing the NDP. In fact, he later wound up joining them when he got ousted from his own party. I don't even know what he's doing now.

Sat, 2010-04-17 07:29

adma

And don't forget that prelude to BC's Gordomania: the rise of Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba in 1988.

Stockholm wrote:

Keep in mind that there are two more debates to come in the UK campaign and you can be sure that Cameron in particular will take dead aim at Nick Clegg next time. The rise of the Lib Dems is actually much more harmfull to the Conservatives than it is to Labour. There are relatively few seats in the UK that are Labour/Lib Dem battles. There are many ridings that are Tory/Lib Dem marginals. I think that what Labour is hoping for is that the Lib Dems will take enough seats from the Tories that Labour could end up with the most seats - or failing that that Labour and the Lib Dems together can form a coalition.

Though it may be hard to tell these days; after all, over the last election or two, a lot of the more spectacular Lib Dem polling gains have been among Britain's version of the Richard Florida/Stuff White People Like crowd. Thus, the gains and strong second-place finishes in hitherto Labour/Blair-friendly places like Cambridge or inner-city Cardiff, Edinburgh, Manchester, etc--think of it as the British corollary for the demo the Green Shift "Dion Liberals" were gunning for.

And another thing to remember is that thanks to the "tactical voting" gains of the last generation, the Lib Dems are operating at much more of a position of parliamentary strength than the Manitoba Liberals in '88, or the BC Liberals in '91, or the Adequistes in '07--in fact, they're in a position not dissimilar to the federal NDP today. If they were way back in their once common 5-25-seat range, then there'd be more "flash in the pan" suspicion...

Sat, 2010-04-17 09:51

Stockholm

Yes, but unlike the federal NDP, the Labour party in Britain has the working class vote totally locked up. All those inner city clue collar seats and all those seats in Scotland etc... there are about 200 seats that will go Labour no matter what and the Lib Dems are not competitive in those places.

Sat, 2010-04-17 11:56

Lily_C

Stockholm wrote:

Yes, but unlike the federal NDP, the Labour party in Britain has the working class vote totally locked up. All those inner city clue collar seats and all those seats in Scotland etc... there are about 200 seats that will go Labour no matter what and the Lib Dems are not competitive in those places.

well, they've lost a lot of ground to the BNP in some areas, and Labour does not have a good record over the last 13 years. They've lost it, but the Lib Dems could ensure a hung Parliament.

Sat, 2010-04-17 16:24

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:

I don't think the LibDems are being particularly substantive - in fact most people have a hard time telling you what they stand for - some of their MPs sound like they are to the left of Labour but then they have a lot of rural MPs who are like Blue Dog Democrats etc... Quite frankly, the Lib Dem campaign in the UK is about as superficial as they get its basically "pox on both their houses"

Sounds like what the Green Party of Canada aspires to be!

Sat, 2010-04-17 17:11

adma

In any event, I'm skeptical about these "1st place and only 100 seats" predictions for the Lib Dems; something tells me that when they're that high, there could be a whole lot of RaeNDP1990-type shock results.

But when it comes to Labour, don't read too much into their losing ground to the BNP; it's a different dynamic from the Euro elections--indeed, Cleggmania has the potential of knocking the BNP "scare factor" off radar.

Also, despite superficial appearances, how strong and uniform is the "inner city blue collar" base anymore?

The interesting (and surprisingly-not-unlike-the-NDP) thing is, the rudiments for a Lib Dem breakthrough are already there; they've their traditional base in "the extremities" like SW England and outermost Scotland, or as the nominal anti-Tory opposition in perennially Labourphobic places like rural Dorset--but there's also their antiwar "left of Blair" 2005 urban breakthroughs and near-breakthroughs, and even a touch of GTAish ethno-politics fueling promising results in places like Birmingham. And on a municipal/local-council level (and again, much like the NDP), the Lib Dems are more robust, thanks in no small part to their identification with the Jane Jacobish "Community Politics" movement; who knows how that could potentially transcribe into the Westminster sphere (and interestingly enough, by kneecapping David Cameron's own "left of Blair" pretensions, i.e. you want the real deal on that front and can't vote for Brown, vote for Clegg, not Cameron).

Now, I'm cautious, especially as there's still over half a month of campaigning (and debating) left for voters to "sober up" and potentially fall back on old habits. Right now, 200+ Lib Dem seats still feels like wet-dreaming, even if they're atop the polls. But we're definitely no longer in 1983ish territory where a quarter of the vote is good for only 23 seats--heck, the Lib Dems have almost three times as many seats, already.

And, as per the thread title: that *can* be a blueprint for NDP success, even if it means a little cat's cradle of common ideological identification. (Though again, I'm not certain if Layton's "the one"--if anything, he's more of a necessary, valuable stepping stone, like the Lib Dems' Ashdown/Kennedy interregnum which saw their seat totals triple.)

Sat, 2010-04-17 18:20

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

Yes, but unlike the federal NDP, the Labour party in Britain has the working class vote totally locked up. All those inner city clue collar seats and all those seats in Scotland etc... there are about 200 seats that will go Labour no matter what and the Lib Dems are not competitive in those places.

Labour does have a built in FPTP advantage.

Using this swing calculator

the following voter support:

Liberal Democrat: 36%
Conservatve: 29%
Labour: 24%
Other: 11%

would produce the following results:

Labour: 218 seats
Conservative: 201 seats
Liberal Democrat: 198 seats
Other: 15 seats

According to this scenerio, Labour would be behind the Liberal Democrats by 12 percentage points and still win the most seats! Labour would also be behind the Conservatives by 5 percentage points. That would be the worst case of a "wrong winner" in history. If that couldn't bring about electoral reform what could?

I wonder if the NDP has a built in disadvantage like the Liberal Democrats. Do they have to beat the Conservatives or Liberals by a dozen percentage points in order to win the most seats?

Sat, 2010-04-17 21:59

adma

Though it may also highlight the pitfalls of excessive reliance upon swing-calculator methodology, even if it's an easy tool for the armchair psephologist. My feeling is that esp. given where the Lib Dems presently stand (as opposed to where their predecessors stood in the 1980s), 36% would pull a lot more seats than one'd calculate by "dumb swing" alone.

As for the NDP, give them this much: seatwise, they were much, much better off relative to the "disastrous" Dion Liberals in 2008 than the SDP/Liberal Alliance was relative to the "disastrous" Michael Foot Labour Party in 1983. However, said "built in disadvantage" does presently pertain to Quebec, i.e. at 17% apiece, the NPD would have fewer prospective seats than the Liberals or Tories. (And also maybe to Nova Scotia in '08, where apparent cross-province NDP strength was wasted on Peter Stoffer's obese advantage and an overall picture skewed by the Bill Casey and Elizabeth May situations.)

Sun, 2010-04-18 06:21

KenS

The NDP federally in Nova Scotia is not just "apparent" cross province strength. With possibly one exception it doesn't get lower than 20 something %. It isn't just the effect of the Stoofer super majority. Its just that outside of the one close second in South Shore, the vote is spread pretty even, and beyond likely striking distance of winning.

Sun, 2010-04-18 11:07

Stockholm

there is also Dartmoiuth

Sun, 2010-04-18 11:10

NorthReport

Cleggmania spreads across Britain

One sure-footed TV performance, and the Lib Dem leader has transformed the election campaign. Jane Merrick and Brian Brady tell the inside story of how he did it, and ask the key question: could it actually last?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cleggmania-spreads-across-...

Sun, 2010-04-18 12:43

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Cleggmania spreads across Britain

One sure-footed TV performance, and the Lib Dem leader has transformed the election campaign. Jane Merrick and Brian Brady tell the inside story of how he did it, and ask the key question: could it actually last?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cleggmania-spreads-across-...

Quote:

But the secret to his success, his team believes, was more fundamental: the simple argument he has used, and will continue to use, throughout the election campaign, of upsetting two-party rule in British politics with the offer of a third alternative.

"Ending two-party rule" may be a powerful message the NDP could emulate in Canada.

Sun, 2010-04-18 16:47

West Coast Greeny

JKR wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Yes, but unlike the federal NDP, the Labour party in Britain has the working class vote totally locked up. All those inner city clue collar seats and all those seats in Scotland etc... there are about 200 seats that will go Labour no matter what and the Lib Dems are not competitive in those places.

Labour does have a built in FPTP advantage.

Using this swing calculator

the following voter support:

Liberal Democrat: 36%
Conservatve: 29%
Labour: 24%
Other: 11%

would produce the following results:

Labour: 218 seats
Conservative: 201 seats
Liberal Democrat: 198 seats
Other: 15 seats

According to this scenerio, Labour would be behind the Liberal Democrats by 12 percentage points and still win the most seats! Labour would also be behind the Conservatives by 5 percentage points. That would be the worst case of a "wrong winner" in history. If that couldn't bring about electoral reform what could?

I wonder if the NDP has a built in disadvantage like the Liberal Democrats. Do they have to beat the Conservatives or Liberals by a dozen percentage points in order to win the most seats?

I think if this ungodly scenario were to pass, a little more than one percent of UK voters will start caring about electoral reform. Not sure it will happen though.

Your calculator assumes an even swing across the country, so there would be a huge number of seats where the LibDems have 25% of the vote or so. The Liberal Democrats would probably manage to receive a plurality of seats if the popular vote looks like that, they will definately be on the wrong end of incumbant's advantage though. Seeing LibDem, Cons, Lab finish 1,2,3 in the popular vote and 3,2,1 in seats is a definate possibility.

Sun, 2010-04-18 23:40

Stockholm

In 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance took 24% of the vote and got 24 seats out of 635. The Labour Party took 27% and got 208 seats - no one cared!

Sun, 2010-04-18 23:43

Cueball

Cueball's picture

Why would they care about something as obviously rigged as that? After a few rounds of that kind of crapola, its easy not to care. Just like its easy not to care about the NDP. Elect them and what do you get? Crapola. Why care?

Mon, 2010-04-19 02:16

Fidel

We care because the top-down neoliberal crapola imported from the US isn't working werth a dern in the Puerto Rico du nord.

Mon, 2010-04-19 02:16

Cueball

Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

We care because the top-down neoliberal crapola imported from the US isn't working werth a dern in bananada.

Very hard to care about that post.

Mon, 2010-04-19 02:17

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

In 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance took 24% of the vote and got 24 seats out of 635. The Labour Party took 27% and got 208 seats - no one cared!

Regarding elections, people mostly care about which party will form the government. In 1983, Thatcher's Conservatives won well over 40% of the vote and won a majority government. Most people saw that as a fair outcome. They weren't concerned about the parties way back in the field who came in a poor second and third place. The Conservatives received the most votes and came in 1st. Labour received the second most votes and came in 2nd. And the SDP/Liberal Alliance received the 3rd most votes and came in 3rd place. The 1983 election results fairly mirrored the parties ordinal positions so people weren't up in arms.

But if a party were to win the most seats while coming in a poor second or third, that would be a different matter. In that case, a lot of people would care. In the UK some people are talking about the possibility of a "constitutional crisis" if a party comes a poor second or third in votes cast and gets the most seats. In that case the identity of who should legitimately govern would become inconclusive.

Because the Liberal Democrats vote is so inefficient, the door has been left wide open for a party to win the most seats while not winning the most votes. Such a "wrong winner" would not have much legitimacy to govern. "Wrong winners" have created the strongest case for electoral reform.

Mon, 2010-04-19 02:22

Fidel

JKR wrote:
Because the Liberal Democrats vote is so inefficient, the door has been left wide open for a party to win the most seats while not winning the most votes. Such a "wrong winner" would not have much legitimacy to govern. "Wrong winners" have created the strongest case for electoral reform.

But our stooges in power in Ottawa and Toronto won 22% of the registered vote last federal and provincial elections. And they consider themselves to be legit.

Mon, 2010-04-19 03:59

West Coast Greeny

Arguably, consecutive elections in BC where the the NDP "lost" in 1997, and then was nearly wiped off the map in 2001, provided the impetus for a push for electoral reform in BC - or at least the impetus to allow 57% of the province to support it.

Mon, 2010-04-19 04:36

Fidel

And there was record low voter turnout in Beautiful British Columbia ~ 52%. Provincial Liberal governments tend to have that effect on voter turnouts for some reason. Support for Campbell's government actually dropped by almost 100K votes from '05 to '09.

Mon, 2010-04-19 23:55

JKR

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Arguably, consecutive elections in BC where the the NDP "lost" in 1997, and then was nearly wiped off the map in 2001, provided the impetus for a push for electoral reform in BC - or at least the impetus to allow 57% of the province to support it.

Impetus for electoral reform in the UK is growing just with the prospect of an unfair result.

Labour could come third by popular vote yet have the most seats - such a result would plunge British democracy into crisis - The Guardian - Editorial - Tues April 20

Quote:

These figures, or something like them, would mean serious electoral reform can no longer be postponed. Extrapolating from today's ICM poll, Labour could have 275 seats in the House of Commons on the basis of only 28% of the votes. The Conservatives, meanwhile, would have 245 seats from their own 33%. The Liberal Democrats would have a mere 99 seats on the basis of 30%. Such a result would plunge British democracy into crisis. It would be a morally indefensible basis for forming any government other than a coalition whose programme included high priority for an electoral reform to prevent such an unjust result in future. This is now such a serious possibility that Gordon Brown and David Cameron must now make clear where they stand. Each must pledge that, if their party finishes third in the popular vote but with more seats than any other party, they will not attempt to govern alone. Each must also promise that, if governing in a coalition, they will not call a new general election before radical electoral reform – more radical than the alternative vote – has been put in place.

Get used to it. In itself, this election will not cleanse Britain's broken politics as some have hoped. Its lesson is that the system of MPs' pay and expenses is not the only thing that cannot continue. The way parliament does its business, and the control of the Commons by the government, will have to change too. So, manifestly and urgently, must the unfair electoral system. The dominance of politics by two industrial-era parties is ending as well. As events continue to unfold, the great lesson of the 2010 election may be that, if you want new politics, nothing in the existing system is now sacrosanct.

Clegg surge could kill first past the post - Mon April 19 - The Guardian

Quote:

But what matters is this: such a stupidly skewed result (or indeed any reasonably even three-way split in the popular vote) would surely fatally undermine the credibility of first past the post – and with the Lib Dems suddenly elevated to being power-brokers, hugely increase the chances of a breakthrough. Outside parliament, the time would finally arrive for a historic push on our broken voting system – a coming-together of all the elements of so-called civil society who understand that politics cannot go on like this. In other words, some of us desperately want the political and constitutional crisis Martin Kettle wrote about on Cif the other day.

To reprise something I write at least five times a year: whether it comes up on the fabled doorstep or not, electoral reform is British politics' most fundamental issue. The politics to which millions of Britons take exception is directly traceable to FPTP, a system that inflates the importance of mere thousands of voters who happen to be resident in a relative handful of (mostly) English constituencies, and tend to hold contradictory opinions that the main parties contortedly try to accommodate.

A Labour friend of mine just called me and said we seemed to have reached a Ceausescu moment: representatives of both main parties trying to sustain all the contortions of traditional politics, trying desperately to seize power on the support of around a quarter of the electorate, and triangulating their way around the meaningless middle – while their assumptions are shredded, and Britain moves somewhere else entirely. Let's hope so.

Mon, 2010-04-19 23:56

JKR

One lesson to be learned from the UK election is that televised debates can drastically change an election.

Maybe the NDP should attempt to have three bilingual debates in the next election.

Bilingual debates would favour the NDP as Layton is more fluent in French than Harper.

Tue, 2010-04-20 00:25

takeitslowly

and being superhandsome doesn't hurt either.

Tue, 2010-04-20 00:27

Stockholm

The thing is that its hard to make that kind of an impact when we have 5-way as opposed to three way debates. Its also hard to have that kind of impact when in the next election it will be the fourth election where Layton and Harper will have locked horns and it will be the SIXTH election for Duceppe. Iggy will be a novelty, be the odds of him sweeping Canadians off their feet are NIL. Add to that the fact that in the UK this was the first leaders debate ever so the whole exercise was a novelty...

I do like how they dealt with getting rid of the clutter of the SNP and Plaid Cymru etc...First of all there are three Brown/Cameron/Clegg debates. In addition there is a debate between the Chancellor of the Excheaquer and the shadow chancellors. Plus there is a Scottish debate where the leader of the SNP debates against the Scottish spokespersons for the Tories, Labour and LDs. That might be a good thing to do in Canada. Let's face it, having Duceppe in the debate is a total waste of oxygen since 80% of us cannot vote for him even if we wanted to. So why not have a Quebec debate like the British have a Scottish debate and Duceppe can face off against the Quebec leaders of the other parties (ie: Tom Mulcair, Marc Garneau (who is now the Quebec Liberal chieftain) and I guess Paradis from the Tories. The Green party has no business being in the debate at all - but why not have a little late, late, late show at midnight where EMay gets to debate the Communist leader and the leader of the Christian Heritage Party.

Tue, 2010-04-20 01:28

ottawaobserver

Well, and while we're at it, some other regional debates wouldn't hurt either. BC for one would be quite the showdown.

Tue, 2010-04-20 11:26

Sean in Ottawa

I don't see the point of the distraction to another chance to go after the Greens -- and the logic of comparing them to the communists and CHP does not serve your purpose. Other than having won an eleciton the Greens are more like the big parties than those fringes you mentionned-- that is in perceptions as well as votes recieved.

I think debates are useful and a series of debates would be better and not everyone has to attend them all.

For example a debate for Quebec with the BQ would be a good idea. I'd also like to see a debate on women's issues given what has happened this last while.The idea of not havingthe BQ in all debates may be too late. To backtrack now would create a political opportunity for the BQ to say they are being unfairly treated.

I longer series including some one on ones would be more useful to the public than endless scripted campaign events. This would change how our elections are done-- but I'd love to see debates through the campaign and this could mean equal matchups individually but not many all in at once deals. The debates should also be shorter.

Tue, 2010-04-20 16:02

Stockholm

"To backtrack now would create a political opportunity for the BQ to say they are being unfairly treated."

The retort would be that the BQ is treating most Canadians unfairly by refsuing to run candidates in 75% of the ridings. Seriously, if i live outside of Quebec - then every time Duceppe opens his mouth in a leaders debate, i may as well turn off the TV because its of no relevance - I can't vote for him no matter what. On top of that, the English debate is largely a waste of time for Duceppe as well - there are no votes for him to win and he makes no pretense to wanting to be Prime Minister of Canada. Shouldn't the debate be between people who are (at least theoretically) vying to be PM?

Tue, 2010-04-20 17:39

Sean in Ottawa

I was not debating if this would be fair. I was pointing out how the BQ would use it and how that would play in Quebec.

Tue, 2010-04-20 18:55

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

One lesson to be learned from the UK election is that televised debates can drastically change an election.

Maybe the NDP should attempt to have three bilingual debates in the next election.

Bilingual debates would favour the NDP as Layton is more fluent in French than Harper.

Only if one of the "bilingual" debates is in Cantonese or Mandarin. Most people in Canada don't speak French or hadn't you noticed. His ability to speak french is unlikely to win him any new voters who don't speak the language because they can't tell whether he is better than Harper or not only french speakers could determine that.

But continue on, ignore the largest non-English language group in BC and other places and focus on winning two more seats in Quebec.

Tue, 2010-04-20 19:53

Stockholm

Layton actually speaks some Cantonese and none of the other leaders know a word of it.

Tue, 2010-04-20 21:53

Krago

Trivia question: Which U.S. President spoke fluent Mandarin?

Tue, 2010-04-20 22:02

KenS

One who came from a missionary family?

Tue, 2010-04-20 22:27

KenS

Herbert Hoover.

I knew that he had grown up a Quaker. But that doesnt seem to have anything to do with it.

He was in China as a mining engineer. He and his wife would speak Mandaring in the White House when they didn't want to be overheard.

Wed, 2010-04-21 01:38

outwest

The last two paragraphs of this article are particularly instructive:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/20/labour-lib-dem-dilemma-rage

Wed, 2010-04-21 01:45

Augustus

JKR wrote:

One lesson to be learned from the UK election is that televised debates can drastically change an election.

Maybe the NDP should attempt to have three bilingual debates in the next election.

Bilingual debates would favour the NDP as Layton is more fluent in French than Harper.

I'm not sure about that.

Wed, 2010-04-21 03:26

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

RevolutionPlease's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

One lesson to be learned from the UK election is that televised debates can drastically change an election.

Maybe the NDP should attempt to have three bilingual debates in the next election.

Bilingual debates would favour the NDP as Layton is more fluent in French than Harper.

Only if one of the "bilingual" debates is in Cantonese or Mandarin. Most people in Canada don't speak French or hadn't you noticed. His ability to speak french is unlikely to win him any new voters who don't speak the language because they can't tell whether he is better than Harper or not only french speakers could determine that.

But continue on, ignore the largest non-English language group in BC and other places and focus on winning two more seats in Quebec.

I'd venture at least 25% of people in Canada speak French.

Wed, 2010-04-21 07:46

Augustus

RevolutionPlease wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

One lesson to be learned from the UK election is that televised debates can drastically change an election.

Maybe the NDP should attempt to have three bilingual debates in the next election.

Bilingual debates would favour the NDP as Layton is more fluent in French than Harper.

Only if one of the "bilingual" debates is in Cantonese or Mandarin. Most people in Canada don't speak French or hadn't you noticed. His ability to speak french is unlikely to win him any new voters who don't speak the language because they can't tell whether he is better than Harper or not only french speakers could determine that.

But continue on, ignore the largest non-English language group in BC and other places and focus on winning two more seats in Quebec.

I'd venture at least 25% of people in Canada speak French.

I don't think it's that high.

I think it is also important to break down that number. Obviously the large majority of Quebecers speak French, but once you get outside Quebec the number drops significantly. I think only about 18% of Canadians can speak both English and French last time I checked.

Therefore, while there are a lot of French speakers in Quebec, I think what was being pointed out above is that the large majority of Canadians do not speak French.

Wed, 2010-04-21 11:01

Stockholm

Another lesson for the NDP is not to expect any big surge in polling numbers in a non-writ period and concentrate on priming the pump for when the writ is dropped. If you look at polling numbers in the UK for the last number of years, thre LibDems have been remarkably like the NDP 17%, 18%, 19%, 18% etc.... despite having a popular leader etc...then when the election was called a couple of weeks ago they started ramping up to 21%, 22% etc... and then came a bit of a breakthrough after the debate etc... But as recently as three weeks ago, the endless refrain about the LibDems in the UK was that they were "going no where" and could not win" and were just a spoiler between the two parties with divine right to govern - Labour and the Tories (sound familiar?)

Wed, 2010-04-21 13:09

ottawaobserver

I think that's probably the most interesting parallel to be drawn, too, Stockholm. But do you foresee the possibility for some kind of pull-back in Lib-Dem support by E-day, whether by virtue of subsequent debates, pushback by the other parties, or increased scrutiny in the media?

Wed, 2010-04-21 13:22

Sean in Ottawa

I think the big difference that nobody has brought up is that the NDP is a party of the edge of the spectrum (in so far as elected members) just as is the Conservatives. The Liberal Dems are the middle party in England as the Liberals are here.

Even out of power there is not an assumption or fear that they would be on the edges of political/ideological thought. The process for a centre party to come back from the dead in a system that has polarized is different than trying to get definition through polarization in the first place. The Liberal Dems platform was never feared or rejected although they had questions of whether they were fit to govern for competence reasons. With the NDP both questions persist even though they may be unfair.

I suggest it is harder for the NDP to come up and win from historic third place showings than the Lib Dems in England. Also they have challenged before about 25 years ago people thought they might come back when Thatcher was in power and the Labour in disarray.

Still, even considering that-- Stockholm's point emphasizes that political change rarely occurs slowly. We think it is slow because it is rare but in reality it usually happens quite quickly. So while the challenge for the NDP may be a little steeper than the Lib Dems for reasons I mentioned when it happens it will likely happen just as quickly.

Pages

Topic locked