The UK voting system is "Hung" out to dry, Part 3

Stockholm wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Clegg is better to go down fighting rather than to not get a commitment for the first piece of legislation to be electoral reform. Ideally electoral reform gets passed immediately and then another election is called right away. Lib Dems deserve 23% of the seats.

 

...in whihc case the following would happen: We would hear a chorus from the media and the other parties about how "here we are in the midst of an economic crisis and all Nick Clegg cares about is more seats for the his party" and "Now we get stuck with a second election in a year - all because the leader of a party that got only 23% of the vote is having a tantrum over some arcane reforms to the electoral system". I predict that if Clegg actually followed though voting non-confidence in any party that didn't bring in PR immediately - here is what would happen: snap election, the Tories in the UK have a ton of money, Labour is virtually bankrupt and so are the Lib Dems. There would be a national wave wanting "stable government" and you would probably end up with the Tories gaining 50 seats and getting an absolute majority.

Its one thing to make demands and even force an election over a bread and butter issue that affects each individuals livelihood - but I think the British would take a very dim view of going back to the polls over something as arcane as electoral reform (which never seems to rise higher than 1% when people asked that issue is the most important to them). The thing is, if the Lib De,s actually seemed to stand for anything at all besides more seats for themselves - they might have done better in the election. If they had taken 28% as predicted and had 90 seats rather than 57 - they would be ain a much stronger bargaining position. But they don't.

If Brown can cobble together enough support (all it would take for a working majority with the Lib Dems would be Plaid Cymru and SNP for a working majority, but they would want concessions as well, however the Green Party member would probably prefer this grouping to the alternative) there wouldn't be a need for an election. Even if he were to lose a confidence vote he would probably recommend to the Queen that Cameron be asked to try to form a government. It's only if Cameron becomes Prime Minister and loses a confidence vote, that an election is more likely. Our opinions are irrelevant, it's what the British people would think of it.

I don't think Clegg has anything personal against Brown. In fact, I've read some reports that the personal chemistry is actually much worse between Cameron and Clegg than between Brown and Clegg.

Clegg did say before the election that the party with the most votes and the most seats should make the first "attempt" at forming a government (ergo: he gives Cameron an opportunity to make him an offer he can't refuse which Cameron probably can't do because of all the rightwingers in his party). The problem is that supporting Brown is fraught with difficulty as well. Brown is personally extremely unpopular in the UK and polls show that something like 75% of Britons want "change". Labour has been in for 13 years, Brown is seen as a weather beaten, dour old coot who has been there forever. His party just lost almost 100 seats and had its second worst showing in its history. Its very hard to make the case for keeping him there - especially when Lib/Lab is not a majority and would need support from this parade of regionalist parties.

If Clegg makes a formal alliance with either Labour or the Tories - half his party will be enraged with him. He's probably best off picking up his marbles and going home and letting Cameron form a minority government.

Stockholm wrote:

I don't think Clegg has anything personal against Brown. In fact, I've read some reports that the personal chemistry is actually much worse between Cameron and Clegg than between Brown and Clegg.

I've seen the opposite in some reports.  As they were saying on the BBC yesterday, Clegg and Cameron are of the same age/generation and have some things in common that Clegg does not have with Brown.

..the coalition for pr has a brand new web site. there is a support counter. yesterday it was 15,000, today it's double. you can scroll down for the coalition list.

http://www.takebackparliament.com/

Augustus wrote:

I've seen the opposite in some reports.  As they were saying on the BBC yesterday, Clegg and Cameron are of the same age/generation and have some things in common that Clegg does not have with Brown.

It's the narcissism of small difference. Clegg and Cameron are on paper so similar (they even look kind of alike) but they are intense rivals and loathe each other like two lions fighting to be the top cat in a pride. In Ontario in 1985 a lot of people assumed that Bob Rae and David Peterson would get  along since they were about the same age and both from elite families etc...but in reality they detested each other and could barely stand to be in the same room. When the Liberal/NDP accord was negotiated in Ontario in 1985 - it was all done by intermediaries because Rae and Peterson had such awful personal chemistry that they were barely able to exchange pleasantries.

On a similar note, when Thatcher was elected PM in 1979 a lot of people speculated that she and the Queen would get along well since they were two women or almost the exact same age. Apparently they actyally had very frosty relations and the Queen thought Maggie was a snide parvenu who was trying to upstage her and didn't care for her politics either - its rumoured that the PM who the Queen had the best personal relationship with was harold Wilson!

I find that hard to believe, Liberals and Conservatives propping up one another in coalition as proposed. Like where else in the world does it ever happen that those two parties are mirror images of the other? Inconceivable.

good question...

This wasn't included in the quotes from that excellent Guardian article above.

Quote:

.Mr Clegg is right to insist on a substantial commitment to reform as a condition of participation in government with either of the two bigger parties. Mr Brown has shrewdly acknowledged that imperative and offered a referendum on proportional representation – a system that would fairly allocate seats in Parliament according to votes cast.

That's huge, if not historic news. While it may prove difficult to win a referendum (i.e. it may be 'easier' to let the coalition gov't implement PR), it's very difficult to argue against the notion of letting the voters decide through a referendum. Should this process begin, can we expect Labour to do it properly? Or might they turn to Campbell and McGuinty on how to undermine a reform process? 

Given that a Labour led government would not only need the support of the Lib Dems but also of various smaller parties such as teh SDLP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance Party and the Greens in order to be stable the possibilities for such a government are much slimmer than a Con-Lib Dem pact. The only way a Labour led coalition is possible is if the Tories refuse to relent on having a referendum on PR and Labour gives an iron-clad commitment.

The SDLP already caucuses with Labour so they aren't a problem and the Alliance MP would probably gravitate towards Labour (or at least the Lib Dems) as well. The real problem would be Plaid and SNP. While both parties are social democratic in orientation, and Plaid is already in a coalition with Labour in the Welsh Assembly, both parties are nationalists and could insist on either an acceleration to devolution or even referenda on Scottish and Welsh sovereignty which Labour may not be able to agree to. (No indication that these demands are being made but I'd be surprised if they weren't advanced by the SNP at least).

Sinn Fein has five MPs but they do not take their seats because MPs must take an oath to the Queen. I wonder if Brown would be willing to rewrite the oath in order to give a possible Labour led coalition more support?

BTW, it's interesting that while the notion of the BQ supporting a Liberal-NDP coalition was the kiss of death the possibility of relying on support from Scottish and Welsh separatist MPs hasn't (yet) raised any eyebrows in the UK.

In practice, I think a Lab-Lib Dem minority government coalition is unlikely to be defeated since the Tories would have to muster the support of alll the smaller parties to defeat it but would the Lib Dems enter into a minority coalition?

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, i think it is only a matter of time, just as i think the Conservative is likely to gain a majority in the next Canadian federal election because the voters become more comfortable with the idea of the conservative in  charge.

takeitslowly wrote:

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, 

If you think that ultimate outcome is so likely, then it is also one widely expected. And if its so widely expected, why would the LDP step in front of the oncoming train?

The other parties do not have to be in a coalition with Labour, they just have to not vote against it. That is even technically true of the LDP, though not in practice. But the smaller parties are not needed in the coalition.

I don't think there is any serious chance of Labour doing a McGuinty/Campbell betrayal. This is the UK. And Labour is at worst ambivalent about PR... they don't have the deeply entrenched material interests against of Canadian Liberals.

I think the real sticking point of a Labour/LDP coalition is the need both parties have to not be going into an election very soon- especially the LDP. So they need more stability than is available to them. But as far as that goes, a Conservative minority government does not promise any more to keep them out of elections. So even looked at generally, I think there is a definite possibility.

If Brown and Clegg think they can craft at least minimal stability, then that will also serve to set aside the issue of Clegg changing his mind around who gets LDP support. It would be long a non-issue by the time of an election.

Without thinking much about the specific pieces, or knowing much about what is at hand, it would seem that a coalition ought to be able to craft enough of an agenda to justify a 2 year mandate- with 18 months being a worst case scenario for what they can expect to get.

Thats enough time for a referendum and for Labour to choose a new Leader, and her to get established. And enough time for the LDP to recharge and rethink.

oops double post!

KenS wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, 

If you think that ultimate outcome is so likely, then it is also one widely expected. And if its so widely expected, why would the LDP step in front of the oncoming train?

I think it is because Nick Clegg insisted on running a morally pure campaign in which he said the party with the most votes get the chance to form a government first, and he is being consistent, moral purity and a sense of justice , I think, is what Nick Clegg wants to define himself with, kind of like Jack Layton. Moral victories don’t translate to electoral victories, of course. LibDem didn`t win enough seats to be have a  strong bargaining power, he can win a small chance of electoral reform, or behave like a typical traditional party (and lose the young idealistic voters base) , go back on their words and suffer even worse defeats by joinning the Labour.

There is more political sophistication and commitment in the UK for the parties to tap into. And it is a general demand on them.

I can see that working. The easy way for Clegg.

Going back on his statement to support the party with the most seats is easily doable. But everything else about the Coalition is risky for them. So when you're shell shocked- take the easy way.

I hope that Brown does the right thing. Resigns as labour leader. Then I hope that Clegg and labour make a deal for a referendum on some sort of pro rep in about 2 years time.  Labour more by long tradition and the lib dems by what they believe are British partys.  The Tories is an ENGLISH reactionary  party. They recoil at the idea of a united europe, they recoil at the idea of scotland and wales having any kind of local government and they wish for the old glory days when England lorded it over the world and kicked the buts of the irish, scottish and welch at will.

If english people want Brittain to survive as a unit, why are the voting for the Tories at all?  I look at British politics and see english nationalists (tories) scottish nationalists, welch nationalists,  Irish nationalists  and a kind of  reactionary northern protestant nationalist group.

Very few real  brits among those partys!

It is a dead end for clegg to join with the tories.  They should go for pro rep as non negotiable. (The liberal dems cannot survive under  fptp) .

Fptp means death to the 3rd party in england. Labour after brown will return to being second pary because of tradition.

The liberal dems only hope of survival  (and a lot more seats reflecting the number of votes they get) is pro rep.

So it is a labour lib dem coalition and referendum deal or death for the lib dems.

Labour might not like it but I am sure there are a few of them who do not want to be out of power for a generation.  Cons at 38% would mean they have a full majority and they balkanize Britain. An upswing of terrorism in northern ireland, Welch burning of english second homes in wales would increase (it happens all the time on a low level)  (Churchill sent the troops in to break up strikes in the coalmines in ww1  and lots of people remember) and the scots would go completely nationalist.  Leaders tend to go on ego trips (nobody speaks truth to authority) but if clegg can get over his ego, the others wait a little for their country to get independence  and brown is forced out, then Britain can get a decent government and last a few years longer.

I think it will eventually break up anyway but much nicer to go gently  like the Cheks and Slovaks than in mayhem like the southern slavs.

I read that it was David Cameron that decided to give Nick Clegg an equal amount of air time for TV debates, he didn’t want a tv debate to begin with, so Nick might feel like he has to return the favour to the Tory. He already paid like two visits to Cameron’s house, I think there’s a deal coming soon. My guess is that Clegg and Brown dont get along , and Clegg might respect Cameron even though he sincerely has idealogical differences with him.

During the election campaign, some of the labour party mps actually told labour voters to support libdem in tight tory libdem races, its hard to imagine the Liberal party of Canada would do that kind of thing for the NDP.