The UK is hung - Part 4

i will believe it when i see it..

Gordon Brown resigns as UK prime minister

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675913.stm

Democracy Now interview with Tariq Ali

TARIQ ALI: Well, Amy, what is essentially going on here is that you have three mainstream parties: Labor, which has been defeated; the Conservatives, who have the largest popular vote and more seats in Parliament than anyone else; and the Lib Dems, the Liberal Democrats, who hold the balance. And they’re all maneuvering—the Lib Dems, in particular—to see who is going to offer them more cabinet positions, who and, more importantly, which of the other two parties are in favor of changing the electoral system to proportional representation, so that in the next election, the members of Parliament are elected on a proportional basis, which is what happens in most of Europe and which is certainly more democratic. Both the Conservatives and Labor are offering changes to the electoral system, provided the Lib Dems decide to back them.

And these sort of games are going on, are very entertaining to the television journalists and people who report them, but a more fundamental point is this: all these three parties agree with each other on the economic measures that have to be taken, i.e., massive cuts in social welfare public spending, which will hurt the poor, and to support the banking system and the financial system in this country. All three are agreed on that. All three political parties are agreed that the war in Afghanistan has to continue as long as the United States says it has to continue, backing the United States in Afghanistan. On smaller issues, there are odd differences in nuance, but there are no differences in substance. So I’m just bemused when I hear talks of a progressive coalition. What is going to be progressive of about it? All three parties are going to do more or less the same thing, which is attack the poor.....

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/11/tariq_ali_on_britains_political_de...

There isn't really a comparison. For the LDP it was just opportunity, not saavy. When you have 3 parties, and the big two don't have a majority- bingo.

Because of the Bloc the NDP is never even potentially in that situation, let alone has it after an election.

Been reading comments from Billy Bragg and some of his supporters.  Doesn't sound like the group supporting electoral reform is all that happy with the Lib/Dems and their cozing up to to the Tories.  This may turn out to be a big mistake by Clegg if nothing is achieved on the PR front.

Leading article: An unlikely partnership that could mark the start of a treacherous era

We should not imagine that this will be an easy arrangement. The social democratic wing of the Lib Dems and the Tories' unreconstructed Thatcherites will make for awkward benchfellows

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-an...

There isn't really a comparison. For the LDP it was just opportunity, not saavy. When you have 3 parties, and the big two don't have a majority- bingo.

Electoral reform has been the wedge issue of the LDP for far longer than this last post-election week. They identified that the British parliamentary system was broken, they stuck with the issue and they`ve grown the issue and their party to the point that we`ve witnessed this week where they are setting the terms of debate.I lived in Europe three of the last ten years and I saw those disenchanted with Labour little by little gravitate towards the LDP based purely on their reformist stance. This didn`t happen overnight.The NDP has been in a position where it has bargained with Martin and Harper for conditions to their support and they`ve avoided making democratic reform key to their demands, they had the same opportunity, I fail to see how the Bloc changes that.

Its a wedge issue for the range of people that might like Babble. We are manifestly not ideologically diverse.

Among the ideologically diverse electorate electoral reform manifestly is anything but a wedge issue, and is the antithesis of 'refreshing'. It isn't even that among the spectrum of people who either do or consider voting for the NDP, Greens, or smaller parties.

This also is a prevalent assumption by some on babble-that only those of us here are tuned in to the need for democratic reform and that outside of this clique the `masses`are unaware that Canadian democracy is in need of repair. I strongly disagree, I think it`s become increasingly obvious to a growing number of Canadians and will only continue to do so. It`s not going to fix itself and the LDP has correctly anticipated this and got ahead of the issue.

Nor did it have any general traction in the UK. It remains to be seen even whether it can maintain the profile that the present outcome has suddenly brought it. The LDP was no more effective in building the issue than has been the NDP.

I`m sorry but I don`t see how you can say that the LDP has not been effective in building this issue. It`s being discussed constantly now throughout the media where only a short time ago it was completely off the radar. I agree with Bookish Agrarian that if the Lib-Dems do not gain serious concessions on this issue than they are done and will return to obscurity. Their future success depends on this and they will sink and swim with it.

I agree with your last comment.

melovesproles wrote:

This also is a prevalent assumption by some on babble-that only those of us here are tuned in to the need for democratic reform and that outside of this clique the 'masses'are unaware that Canadian democracy is in need of repair.  I strongly disagree,  I think it's become increasingly obvious to a growing number of Canadians and will only continue to do so.  It's not going to fix itself and the LDP has correctly anticipated this and got ahead of the issue.

Thats nothing more than a presumption that PR-as-panacea skeptics here dont think there is a general sense that democracy is 'broken' or empty. We dispute that there is any more than a potential for a link between that, appetite and some actual traction out there for PR focused electoral reform.

People want results, not PR. They could see PR as the path to results, but we are not there. 

melovesproles wrote:

Electoral reform has been the wedge issue of the LDP for far longer than this last post-election week. They identified that the British parliamentary system was broken, they stuck with the issue and they`ve grown the issue and their party to the point that we`ve witnessed this week where they are setting the terms of debate.I lived in Europe three of the last ten years and I saw those disenchanted with Labour little by little gravitate towards the LDP based purely on their reformist stance. This didn`t happen overnight.The NDP has been in a position where it has bargained with Martin and Harper for conditions to their support and they`ve avoided making democratic reform key to their demands, they had the same opportunity, I fail to see how the Bloc changes that.

Thats the unspoken self-referential loop. The LDP talking about PR and that appealing to its supporter base does not make it a wedge issue.

I think you overstate the LDP's growth in the first place. But to the degree it did grow, there is compelling evidence that has more to do with the sad alternatives than with any issue... and zero evidence the LDPs stand on PR did anything other than please its base.

And again, when you bring in the NDP you are not comparing apples to apples. The NDP has never [since the 1970s] been in a 'kingmaker' position. Bargaining over a short term time frame for specific legislation is nothing like the position the LDP is in now. Not to mention that there is tremendously more resistance in the Liberal Party of Canada to PR than there is in the Labour Party. Many Labourites can and do make arguments that PR would deliver pragmatic benefits for the party's [selfish] interests as well as being the right thing to do. Not only is there no such voice in the LPC, its all too obvious that PR is very much not in their interest. Another couple election cycles of degeneration for the LPC may change that, but we're not there now. And until they get there, a demand from the NDP on the LPC of PR moves or else would be a deal breaker for any potential governing agreement.

AV actually IS a form of FPTP. I agree that I like it better than pure FPTP, but it is no more proportional than the status quo - it just makes it easier for left of centre voters to gang up on the most rightwing party.

Having anything different in the UK would still open possibilities here. Turning the questions into something not alien would be a substantial step.

..3rd day in and 52,001 have signed on to pr.

http://www.takebackparliament.com/

Stockholm wrote:

AV actually IS a form of FPTP. I agree that I like it better than pure FPTP, but it is no more proportional than the status quo - it just makes it easier for left of centre voters to gang up on the most rightwing party.

If you beleive any of this I've got a bridge to sell you. AV is by definition not a form of FPTP. AV is a majoritartian system, FPTP is a single member plurality system. AV can also enable right of centre voters to gang up on the left of centre party. It was used to keep the CCF out of power in BC, and in an example of unintended consequences, allowed Wacky Bennett to get elected the first time.

AV is actually a single member case of STV.

KenS wrote:

Another couple election cycles of degeneration for the LPC may change that, but we're not there now. And until they get there, a demand from the NDP on the LPC of PR moves or else would be a deal breaker for any potential governing agreement.

If the NDP, BQ and Greens maintain their current levels of support, the Liberals will eventually support electoral reform.

It's a good thing that the NDP support PR in its platform like the Liberal Democrats did in theirs. If the next election in Canada produces a minority situation where the Liberals and NDP have more seats then the Conservatives, electoral reform will suddenly become a bargaining chip like it did in the UK. Going by their self-interest, the Liberals will support AV while the NDP will support MMP. Layton and Ignatieff will then bargain away and some kind of compromise on electoral reform will ensue.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Liberals put AV in their platform.

Stockholm wrote:

AV actually IS a form of FPTP. I agree that I like it better than pure FPTP, but it is no more proportional than the status quo - it just makes it easier for left of centre voters to gang up on the most rightwing party.

It is much easier to sell AV to the public then it is to sell PR systems.  All you have to do to sell AV is tell people that it requires that each person elected receive 50% of the vote. Selling PR systems like MMP and STV are much more difficult. And a lot of people just prefer majority governments.

takeitslowly wrote:

Alternative Vote, in my opinon, is really suitable when there is only one contested position , like the presidency, but it is not a democratic way to elect members of the legislature, as it does not resolve the issue of proportional representation any better than FPTP.

AV does not resolve the issue of proportional representation any better then FPTP but it does resolve many other important issues such as vote splitting and strategic voting. These are also very important issues. During elections they are what causes a lot of grief as people fight about issues such as strategic voting.

AV is infinitely better then FPTP. It stops all this "Vote Layton, get Harper" nonsense.

If the next election in the UK is fought using FPTP Labour is going to get a lot more seats by shouting "Vote Clegg, Get Cameron". On the other hand, if the UK ends up using AV, Labour will politely ask Liberal Democratic supporters to choose Labour as their first or second choice and choose Cameron last.

The next election might also be the first one to see an elected House of Lords. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have supported an elected House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have supported using STV to elect members to the H of L and they have a real good shot at convincing the Tories to agree. Here in Canada Harper proposed using STV to elect Senators.  So maybe Cameron is another Conservative who would support using STV to elect members of the upper house?

Triphop wrote:

• Referendum to bring in an alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force legislation for referendum through, but will be free to campaign against reforms before referendum.

• New five-year fixed term parliaments, an entirely or mainly elected second chamber and a commission to review party funding. According to this plan, the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015.

Going to five-year term seems undemocratic. Fixed terms are usually for 4 years or 3 years as in Australia. The UK usually has elections every four years, so going to 5-year fixed terms will mean fewer elections. Not very democratic.

Cameron and Clegg must think that there's a good chance that they're going to be unpopular during the first few years of their term as they cut spending drastically.So they're they're putting off an election for as long as possible hoping they can regain their popularity toward the end of their term.

I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP and the BNP get more popular during the next few years as dissapointment with the Conservatives increases because of their huge spending cuts. If that happens a lot of Conservatives will prefer AV as a way to keep out parties like UKIP and the BNP.

Britain's Hung Politics: The Death Throes of Parliamentary Democracy

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19101

"Despite the seeming ongoing ambiguity in the wake of the British national election, one thing is clear. The spectrum of British polity has now officially shrunk to a meaningless, narrow band of monochrome politics, where the majority of citizens have no choice or influence on any important areas of policy. Democracy is being expropriated from the electorate. The choice people make on their ballot sheets now pointedly has no bearing whatsoever on how they are to be governed.."

different no difference parties..

Sage advice for right-wingers, Stockholm. As usual.

... rather obvious. lol.

Stockholm has it right here-- the issue is one of balance of power not the ability to crown only one option.

The NDP has to have enough seats to decide what the next government will look like. Put simply the goal would be: whatever the BQ has plus the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives plus one. That would be the number needed to have a real balance of power. As you can see it is a tall order. If the difference between the Liberals and the Cons is say fifteen seats and the BQ has 40 seats then the NDP would need 56 to have the balance of power where they could bring either side to govenment as a majority.

Less than this might still allow a functional minority but only if the BQ agrees not to oppose it which means an arrangement that invovles them.

Kepe in mind that it was a major stretch for the LibDems to form a coalition with the Tories - and they are the MIDDLE party in the UK. For the NDP which is the LEFT party in canada - to reach across and form a similar coalition with the Tories putting the Liberals in opposition would be out of the question.

Of course, Canada's Liberals could always form a coalition with the Tories - the ideological distance between the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada is if anything quoite a bit narrower than the distance between the Lib Dems and Tories in the UK!.

"They said that Parliament was hung!"

"And they was right!"

/oblig

//Mel Brooks FTW

It will be very interesting to see how this coalition works out in the coming months. As I've said before, I think there is a silver lining here for Labour in that all parties lose power eventually - better to lose with a good chunk of your support intact rather than getting wiped out a la the BC NDP in 2001 or the UK Tories in 1997, and then having to spend the next 2-3 election cycles just getting to the point where you are actually in a position to challenge for government. Labour now has the chance to replace an unpopular leader with a fresh face and revitalize itself. If this coalition falls flat on its face, Labour will be there to pick up the pieces (so to speak). Not to mention that Labour can now paint itself as the sole 'progressive' party given the apparent eagerness of the Lib Dems to jump into bed with the Tories.

On our side of the pond, I think the UK experience could (assuming, again, that the coalition doesn't fall flat on its face) be positive for smaller parties like the NDP in that it might underline for Canadians that coalition governments in a Westminster-style Parliament are workable and should be seen as a legitimate alternative in minority government situations. I think that (somewhat ironically) the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK could pave the way for a potential future Liberal-NDP coalition in Canada, without all the squawking about 'undemocratic, unelected' coalitions of 'losers, liars and separatists'.

A coalition with the Tories may deeply hurt the Lib Dems. Coming from The Guardian, it's a Labour-friendly analysis, but interesting nonetheless. The planned redistribution of seats in Scotland could see some truly vast and odd constituencies drawn up (Orkney and Shetland, for example, would be roped together with most of Sutherland), where people at one end of the constituency would have lives and concerns substantially different from those at the other end. Apart from conducting the last rites for any sort of Tory caucus from Scotland, and spelling deep trouble for the Lib Dems, this is a heaven-sent opportunity for the SNP to break out of their strongholds in north-east Scotland, and speak for the Highlands and Islands.

Lewis Baston is right when he says Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey could be vulnerable to a 'Portillo moment' (where a senior/notorious Tory MP was defeated in the rout of 1997), but brushes over the fact that the SNP could be the benefactors, not Labour. They were only 1600 votes behind Labour this time around.