Clearly, the results of the UK election are inconclusive – Labour doing much better than expected, and the Liberal Democrats worse, with the Tories falling short of a majority. Similarly, the regional pattern is quite varied – with Labour holding its own in Scotland and the north of England (though it’s hardly the first time that has happened). It’s also interesting to observe Labour being punished in seats marred by the expenses scandal, while doing surprisingly well in some constituencies it was favoured to lose to the Conservatives.
What’s clear too, though, is that the verdict of the electorate is one born of mistrust of all the alternatives on offer, and the message sent is that the electoral and political systems are deeply fractured, if not broken.
It’s also clear that distaste for a long term and largely discredited Labour government hasn’t resulted in a regular swing of the partisan pendulum.
It seems to me that, in the immediate future, two options are possible:
(a) A minority Conservative government which would find great difficulty in pushing through austerity measures, and whose legislative agenda would be captive not just to other parties, but also its own backbench, or;
(b) A Lab/Lib deal or Coalition which would promise stable government for a year or two, premised on electoral reform.
In either case, a new election is likely in fairly short order, as Labour and the Lib Dems would also not command a Commons majority.
The Lib Dems face something of an invidious choice – guaranteeing supply for a Conservative regime which would probably treat them with contempt (just as the Labour minority government treated its Liberal supporters in the 1924 and 1929 parliaments) or an alliance with a party which has certainly worn out its electoral welcome, despite showing more resilience in terms of seats than many had anticipated.
The Lib Dems’ internal processes do not allow their Leader to determine which party to support without quite a complex process of consultation, which will slow things down (probably a good thing), but conversely; the pressure from the Conservatives and the media will be intense.
My suspicion is that the Labour Party will retain Gordon Brown in the short term, in part because his incumbency as PM is key to the constitutional puzzle, and also to keep their options open for the timing of a shift to a new Leader. It’s not at all clear that David Miliband, seen as a Blairite, is the best or only candidate, and the Blair/Mandelson regime left the party with quite a complex procedure for electing a Leader.
It’s all very interesting indeed, and whatever happens, it’s certain that the fabric of British politics has been rent asunder.
Update: The BBC is reporting that Nick Clegg has announced that he still believes the party with the most votes and seats should have the first chance to form the government. He may feel boxed in both by his (probably unwise) previous pronouncements, and by the fact that his party’s status quo result gives them less legitimacy. It’s also easier to represent the result as a repudiation of Labour than as an anti-Tory progressive majority, given that Labour and the Lib Dems together don’t constitute a majority.
So my scenario (a) is looking more likely. But the caveats are that the Conservatives are likely not to make much of an offer to the Lib Dems, if they offer anything at all, and that the decision is not solely Clegg’s to take. The Lib Dems’ backbench is generally to the left of its leadership, as are their grassroots activists, and the fact that this may be the party’s best shot at electoral reform may also concentrate minds.
Clegg will face some difficulty holding his own party together, whichever option is taken.
NB: Previous LP discussion of the UK election can be found here.
Update: BBC Links post to commentary on various options for cross-party pacts or Coalitions, or a minority government.
Update: Cameron has offered Clegg a Coalition, including Cabinet seats, but with a position on electoral reform described as “measly”, and an attempt to rope the Lib Dems into the Conservatives’ economic agenda. Negotiations continue, and there will be meetings of the Lib Dem parliamentary party and federal executive. Some skepticism has been expressed over whether Clegg’s party could be brought round to supporting a Tory government. There’s just a possibility that a Lab-Lib government could scrape together a majority on votes of confidence if all small parties including the DUP could be brought into the tent.
Update: The hashtag #dontdoitnick is trending on Twitter, and the outlines of an alternative to a Tory-Lib Dem pact are becoming clearer with SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining a “progressive coalition” to introduce PR which would have a Commons majority of one seat.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has addressed a rally in support of electoral reform outside Parliament while Lib Dem MPs ponder Cameron’s offer inside.
Update: Andrew Rawnsley on the dilemma the Lib Dems face; one he characterises as a “nightmare”.
Update: New post here. Comments can be directed there.
Ah, actual analysis. We went for funny; I’m still appalled at queues of voters being shut out of polling stations and running out of ballot papers.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/05/07/general-election-2010-brought-to-you-by-blackadder/
Ah, actual analysis. We went for funny; I’m still appalled at queues of voters being shut out of polling stations and running out of ballot papers.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/05/07/general-election-2010-brought-to-you-by-blackadder/
The British live in the past. Their political system confirms it. Where else in the world do geriatric Lords and Sirs get to sleep in Parliament?
The only verdict that can be drawn from the election is that Britain is a living museum!
The British live in the past. Their political system confirms it. Where else in the world do geriatric Lords and Sirs get to sleep in Parliament?
The only verdict that can be drawn from the election is that Britain is a living museum!
Update: The BBC is reporting that Clegg has announced that he still believes the party with the most votes and seats should have the first chance to form the government. He may feel boxed in both by his (probably unwise) previous pronouncements, and by the fact that his party’s status quo result gives them less legitimacy. There’s also the fact that it’s easier to represent the result as a repudiation of Labour than as an anti-Tory progressive majority, given that Labour and the Lib Dems together don’t constitute a majority.
So my scenario (a) is looking more likely. But the caveats are that the Conservatives are likely not to make much of an offer to the Lib Dems, if they offer anything at all, and that the decision is not solely Clegg’s to take. The Lib Dems’ backbench is generally to the left of its leadership, as are their grassroots activists, and the fact that this may be the party’s best shot at electoral reform may also concentrate minds.
Clegg will face some difficulty holding his own party together, whichever option is taken.
Update: The BBC is reporting that Clegg has announced that he still believes the party with the most votes and seats should have the first chance to form the government. He may feel boxed in both by his (probably unwise) previous pronouncements, and by the fact that his party’s status quo result gives them less legitimacy. There’s also the fact that it’s easier to represent the result as a repudiation of Labour than as an anti-Tory progressive majority, given that Labour and the Lib Dems together don’t constitute a majority.
So my scenario (a) is looking more likely. But the caveats are that the Conservatives are likely not to make much of an offer to the Lib Dems, if they offer anything at all, and that the decision is not solely Clegg’s to take. The Lib Dems’ backbench is generally to the left of its leadership, as are their grassroots activists, and the fact that this may be the party’s best shot at electoral reform may also concentrate minds.
Clegg will face some difficulty holding his own party together, whichever option is taken.
This is a test comment; I don’t seem to be able to get through for some reason.
This is a test comment; I don’t seem to be able to get through for some reason.
Given this announcement, it is clear that Brown could not win a confidence motion in the house…The Clegg statement is actually pretty weak, so it appears that the Tories could probably win a confidence motion with lib-dem support…I agree that it will be interesting to see how this plays out politically….A lot of lib-dem voters and MPs won’t be happy…At the same time, what are dissenters going to do? Any attempt to bring down a minority Tory party in the short-term would probably be politically disasterous for them…Most likely is that the Clegg stands by his word, gives the Tories the opportunity to govern responsibly, and only threatens to bring the new government down if they behave in an extreme manner (and become very unpopular very quickly)…Will be interesting to see how much leeway they give the Tories over budget cuts for 2010….
Given this announcement, it is clear that Brown could not win a confidence motion in the house…The Clegg statement is actually pretty weak, so it appears that the Tories could probably win a confidence motion with lib-dem support…I agree that it will be interesting to see how this plays out politically….A lot of lib-dem voters and MPs won’t be happy…At the same time, what are dissenters going to do? Any attempt to bring down a minority Tory party in the short-term would probably be politically disasterous for them…Most likely is that the Clegg stands by his word, gives the Tories the opportunity to govern responsibly, and only threatens to bring the new government down if they behave in an extreme manner (and become very unpopular very quickly)…Will be interesting to see how much leeway they give the Tories over budget cuts for 2010….
Apparently the smaller parties and the Lib Dems failed to pick up as many votes as was predicted. The Lib Dems may end up with fewer seats than they had before this election.
A really mixed bag. I do wonder how much influence people like Peter Hitchens had with his “anyone but the Tories” writings?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
And another ray of light the BNP’s Nick griffin failed in his attempt to get a seat. Though I think they may end up with 2 of the odious BNP candidates with seats.
Hopefully Gordon will be left to attempt to fix what 13 years of mismanagement have caused while the Tories implode under their own “Blair lite” leader.
Apparently the smaller parties and the Lib Dems failed to pick up as many votes as was predicted. The Lib Dems may end up with fewer seats than they had before this election.
A really mixed bag. I do wonder how much influence people like Peter Hitchens had with his “anyone but the Tories” writings?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
And another ray of light the BNP’s Nick griffin failed in his attempt to get a seat. Though I think they may end up with 2 of the odious BNP candidates with seats.
Hopefully Gordon will be left to attempt to fix what 13 years of mismanagement have caused while the Tories implode under their own “Blair lite” leader.
Depends how you interpret what Clegg said, LO. It could be an invitation to treat, as it were; if Cameron refuses to negotiate with the Lib Dems, he could still turn to Labour and claim that the Tories had first dibs.
Depends how you interpret what Clegg said, LO. It could be an invitation to treat, as it were; if Cameron refuses to negotiate with the Lib Dems, he could still turn to Labour and claim that the Tories had first dibs.
@4 – SL, looks like you got caught in the Spaminator.
@4 – SL, looks like you got caught in the Spaminator.
@5 – LO, this is what Clegg said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
@5 – LO, this is what Clegg said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
Mole: I keep forgetting the BNP were trying to win seats other than Barking (a couple in the North, IIRC). An unpleasant but important reminder.
Gah.
Mole: I keep forgetting the BNP were trying to win seats other than Barking (a couple in the North, IIRC). An unpleasant but important reminder.
Gah.
David G
It may interest you that the House of Lords has been modernised.
David G
It may interest you that the House of Lords has been modernised.
I might not have up to date figures, but it doesnt look like Lab plus Lib will even total 326. So Tory minority appears to be the only show in town (barring an improbable coalition of smaller parties)
I might not have up to date figures, but it doesnt look like Lab plus Lib will even total 326. So Tory minority appears to be the only show in town (barring an improbable coalition of smaller parties)
Clegg decoded: If the Tories are willing to promise a better voting system, we will go with them. If not, Labour.
In his position, I would be saying very much the same thing. In this, at least, he is right. The voting system there sucks.
Long term, I do not think there is any real option other than to do something similar to here – preferential lower house and some form of PR upper house. An appointed upper house and a FPtP lower just does not work these days.
Clegg decoded: If the Tories are willing to promise a better voting system, we will go with them. If not, Labour.
In his position, I would be saying very much the same thing. In this, at least, he is right. The voting system there sucks.
Long term, I do not think there is any real option other than to do something similar to here – preferential lower house and some form of PR upper house. An appointed upper house and a FPtP lower just does not work these days.
@12 – Lefty E, the latest figures are Tories 291, Labour 251, LDs 52.
That gives you 343 for Tories + LDs, and 303 for Labour + LDs – so, with 326 being the figure for a majority the possible outcomes are:
(a) Tory + Lib Dem majority;
(b) Tory minority gov’t with LDs guarenteeing supply or some sort of arrangement;
(c) Lab + Lib minority government, either in coalition or with some sort of arrangement.
(C) looks pretty shaky, though I’m not sure which way the smaller parties (SNP, SLDP, Alliance, Plaid Cymru, Greens, etc) would jump, or how many undecided seats will still go to the big 3.
All we know for sure is that it’s impossible for any party to have a majority in its own right.
@12 – Lefty E, the latest figures are Tories 291, Labour 251, LDs 52.
That gives you 343 for Tories + LDs, and 303 for Labour + LDs – so, with 326 being the figure for a majority the possible outcomes are:
(a) Tory + Lib Dem majority;
(b) Tory minority gov’t with LDs guarenteeing supply or some sort of arrangement;
(c) Lab + Lib minority government, either in coalition or with some sort of arrangement.
(C) looks pretty shaky, though I’m not sure which way the smaller parties (SNP, SLDP, Alliance, Plaid Cymru, Greens, etc) would jump, or how many undecided seats will still go to the big 3.
All we know for sure is that it’s impossible for any party to have a majority in its own right.
Tories are now on 292.
That’s with 621 of the 650 constituencies declared.
Here’s the link for the BBC results page – the feed on the left is also a useful source of breaking news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
Tories are now on 292.
That’s with 621 of the 650 constituencies declared.
Here’s the link for the BBC results page – the feed on the left is also a useful source of breaking news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
Really, what Clegg could do is offer to sit on his hands while the Tories rule, effectively abstaining while putting together a voting reform bill for the next election. Then, when the next election comes, he gets something more like the influence his party deserves.
Really, what Clegg could do is offer to sit on his hands while the Tories rule, effectively abstaining while putting together a voting reform bill for the next election. Then, when the next election comes, he gets something more like the influence his party deserves.
@16 – that wouldn’t surprise me, Fran.
Propping up either party has risks:
(a) Cameron has hardly set the electorate on fire with enthusiasm and The Tory response to the fiscal situation is going to be unpopular;
(b) Labour are unpopular and their response to the fiscal situation is going to be unpopular, even if delayed.
However, the fly in the ointment is that the Tories’ position in the Commons is going to be such that no electoral reform or referendum bill is likely to pass without their support.
@16 – that wouldn’t surprise me, Fran.
Propping up either party has risks:
(a) Cameron has hardly set the electorate on fire with enthusiasm and The Tory response to the fiscal situation is going to be unpopular;
(b) Labour are unpopular and their response to the fiscal situation is going to be unpopular, even if delayed.
However, the fly in the ointment is that the Tories’ position in the Commons is going to be such that no electoral reform or referendum bill is likely to pass without their support.
How would that work Fran?
Five years go by without an electoral reform bill being passed.
Then the UK has another election under the old rules and he gets again the same unrepresentative (of his party) vote.
If he is lucky it is another hung parliament. Then, according to you, he takes his chance to introdoce a reform bill.
If either of the two other major parties won a majority in the next election they wouldn’t need him and he would then find that he had been whistling Dixie for the previous five years.
How would that work Fran?
Five years go by without an electoral reform bill being passed.
Then the UK has another election under the old rules and he gets again the same unrepresentative (of his party) vote.
If he is lucky it is another hung parliament. Then, according to you, he takes his chance to introdoce a reform bill.
If either of the two other major parties won a majority in the next election they wouldn’t need him and he would then find that he had been whistling Dixie for the previous five years.
There will be another election within 12 months GregM
Clegg can make a minority government tough to run.
There will be another election within 12 months GregM
Clegg can make a minority government tough to run.
There is no way the lib-dems will abstain if the Tories (or Labour) put together an austerity package to reduce the deficit. If they did, they would effectively own the ensuing market reaction. Given their repeated statements about the need to come clean about the UK’s fiscal problems, etc, etc, it would appear cynical in the extreme.
There is no way the lib-dems will abstain if the Tories (or Labour) put together an austerity package to reduce the deficit. If they did, they would effectively own the ensuing market reaction. Given their repeated statements about the need to come clean about the UK’s fiscal problems, etc, etc, it would appear cynical in the extreme.
Fran
And go to the next election wih the same unfair (to his party) in place?
I cannot think why.
The minimum he needs to extract from either of the other major parties before he enters into any arrrangement with them is that they will pass legislation so that they will fight the next election (in twelve months time, by your guess) on terms which are fair or favourable to his party.
Fran
And go to the next election wih the same unfair (to his party) in place?
I cannot think why.
The minimum he needs to extract from either of the other major parties before he enters into any arrrangement with them is that they will pass legislation so that they will fight the next election (in twelve months time, by your guess) on terms which are fair or favourable to his party.
“However, the fly in the ointment is that the Tories’ position in the Commons is going to be such that no electoral reform or referendum bill is likely to pass without their support.”
Maybe. I’m no Brit politics junkie and I’ve not looked at any numbers, but it seems to me the Welsh and Scottish nationals could support certain electoral reform (something federal for instance). Right now, with 31 seats still to be decided, we’ve got Labour + SDLP + SNP + PC + GRN on 321. The Commons is 650, but take out Sinn Fein’s 4 that won’t sit and you’ve got 646, so an effictive majority is 324.
Easily written, less easy to achieve, but assuming everyone gets a good night’s sleep it would not be impossible to get a reform bill through the Commons.
d
“However, the fly in the ointment is that the Tories’ position in the Commons is going to be such that no electoral reform or referendum bill is likely to pass without their support.”
Maybe. I’m no Brit politics junkie and I’ve not looked at any numbers, but it seems to me the Welsh and Scottish nationals could support certain electoral reform (something federal for instance). Right now, with 31 seats still to be decided, we’ve got Labour + SDLP + SNP + PC + GRN on 321. The Commons is 650, but take out Sinn Fein’s 4 that won’t sit and you’ve got 646, so an effictive majority is 324.
Easily written, less easy to achieve, but assuming everyone gets a good night’s sleep it would not be impossible to get a reform bill through the Commons.
d
The ‘deal or no deal’ jokes are now starting over at the Beeb. Quite right, too.
The ‘deal or no deal’ jokes are now starting over at the Beeb. Quite right, too.
Surely the Tories must be disappointed with this result. With Labour being in power for 15 years and the scandals of WMDs, the Iraq invasion, MPs rorts and on and on, I thought it would be a Tory romp home. The Thatcher shadow must still be long and dark.
Surely the Tories must be disappointed with this result. With Labour being in power for 15 years and the scandals of WMDs, the Iraq invasion, MPs rorts and on and on, I thought it would be a Tory romp home. The Thatcher shadow must still be long and dark.
@22 – Maybe possible, but difficult, Darryl. Then there’s the Lords, and Cameron’ll be appointing peers. It’s going to be a very fluid situation, whoever ends up in Number 10.
I’m also assuming you meant to include LDs in your calculation?
@22 – Maybe possible, but difficult, Darryl. Then there’s the Lords, and Cameron’ll be appointing peers. It’s going to be a very fluid situation, whoever ends up in Number 10.
I’m also assuming you meant to include LDs in your calculation?
The BBC is reporting Gordon Brown is expected to make a statement shortly.
The BBC is reporting Gordon Brown is expected to make a statement shortly.
All the noises I’ve seen from the Tories is that they’d prefer a minority gov’t, and dare the Lib Dems to block supply or bring on another election. Tory MPs have been all over the place today, according to the BBC feed, poo-pooing electoral reform “at a time of economic crisis”. It bears all the marks of a co-ordinated line.
All the noises I’ve seen from the Tories is that they’d prefer a minority gov’t, and dare the Lib Dems to block supply or bring on another election. Tory MPs have been all over the place today, according to the BBC feed, poo-pooing electoral reform “at a time of economic crisis”. It bears all the marks of a co-ordinated line.
A lot of Tories were just as implicated in the expenses scandal as Labour, Jane. The LibDems came out marginally cleaner, but it was only a matter of degree. It really did undermine the authority of parliament.
Word from local Tories (so this may only reflect Oxford) is that the LibDem immigration policies really cost them as polling day drew closer. In terms of results, Oxford East has remained a Labour-LibDem marginal with Labour just holding on, while the LibDems lost Oxford West & Abingdon to the Conservatives.
A lot of Tories were just as implicated in the expenses scandal as Labour, Jane. The LibDems came out marginally cleaner, but it was only a matter of degree. It really did undermine the authority of parliament.
Word from local Tories (so this may only reflect Oxford) is that the LibDem immigration policies really cost them as polling day drew closer. In terms of results, Oxford East has remained a Labour-LibDem marginal with Labour just holding on, while the LibDems lost Oxford West & Abingdon to the Conservatives.
@28 – There’s an interesting question, SL, if it’s true that the focus on the Lib Dems’ policies cost them votes (and I’m not sure about that – Labour’s campaign to their base and the mixed messages about tactical voting may have also accounted for the decline in their bounce) – whether the Lib Dems’ policies, designed to appeal to a largely middle class and professional constituency, might have had a different emphasis placed on them had they expected to do as well as it appeared they were doing for a while.
@28 – There’s an interesting question, SL, if it’s true that the focus on the Lib Dems’ policies cost them votes (and I’m not sure about that – Labour’s campaign to their base and the mixed messages about tactical voting may have also accounted for the decline in their bounce) – whether the Lib Dems’ policies, designed to appeal to a largely middle class and professional constituency, might have had a different emphasis placed on them had they expected to do as well as it appeared they were doing for a while.
Update: BBC Links post to commentary on various options for cross-party pacts or Coalitions, or a minority government.
Update: BBC Links post to commentary on various options for cross-party pacts or Coalitions, or a minority government.
I don’t know, Mark. As I said, that may only reflect Oxford and not the rest of the country. I do find Evan Harris losing his seat (Oxford West and Abingdon) to be very striking. It has been acknowledged by all parties that Harris was a good and effective (and clean!) MP. Had I been at one of the colleges that fell in Oxford West, I would have voted for Harris.
Quite a bit of running was made on the immigration issue in the last days of the campaign – that seemed to be the effect of ‘bigotgate’.
I don’t know, Mark. As I said, that may only reflect Oxford and not the rest of the country. I do find Evan Harris losing his seat (Oxford West and Abingdon) to be very striking. It has been acknowledged by all parties that Harris was a good and effective (and clean!) MP. Had I been at one of the colleges that fell in Oxford West, I would have voted for Harris.
Quite a bit of running was made on the immigration issue in the last days of the campaign – that seemed to be the effect of ‘bigotgate’.
The Guardian’s live blog of Brown’s speech:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
The Guardian’s live blog of Brown’s speech:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
@31 – SL, I’m sure immigration and other issues were a factor, but I’d suggest that the soft nature of the Lib Dem bounce might have also been deflated by other factors.
@31 – SL, I’m sure immigration and other issues were a factor, but I’d suggest that the soft nature of the Lib Dem bounce might have also been deflated by other factors.
I should also note that it’s possible that Clegg could agree to support Cameron in return for a referendum on a new voting system, but that Cameron could reserve the Tories’ right to campaign against it.
I should also note that it’s possible that Clegg could agree to support Cameron in return for a referendum on a new voting system, but that Cameron could reserve the Tories’ right to campaign against it.
Mark @34: this is also a possibility. I’m not sure whether it will be enough to placate Clegg’s party, but as they haven’t polled very well, it may be that he has to accept it.
Mark @34: this is also a possibility. I’m not sure whether it will be enough to placate Clegg’s party, but as they haven’t polled very well, it may be that he has to accept it.
Well, it does not look a bit like Gordon has rung the furniture removalists. He might prove quite hard to shift.
Well, it does not look a bit like Gordon has rung the furniture removalists. He might prove quite hard to shift.
LO@20 said
I’m not so sure. It is pretty clear that the Tories were running on massive (albeit unspecified) economic shock treatment and got a swing of 5%+. The Lib Dems lost MPs to to Tories. They could argue that if the Tories did not trust them to help make the cuts “fair” by including them in cabinet the Tories were entitled to devise their own Tory cuts, and to test support for their program at a fair election later at a time of their choosing.
They could add that there was a consensus that the commons should reflect the balance of support of each party since a majority of voters supported parties explicitly endorsing that view — that this too was part of “the mood for change”. Had their electroal support been matched in the commons, they’d have had about 98 more MPs and the Tories about 70 fewer.
Were I Clegg, this is what I’d be doing.
LO@20 said
I’m not so sure. It is pretty clear that the Tories were running on massive (albeit unspecified) economic shock treatment and got a swing of 5%+. The Lib Dems lost MPs to to Tories. They could argue that if the Tories did not trust them to help make the cuts “fair” by including them in cabinet the Tories were entitled to devise their own Tory cuts, and to test support for their program at a fair election later at a time of their choosing.
They could add that there was a consensus that the commons should reflect the balance of support of each party since a majority of voters supported parties explicitly endorsing that view — that this too was part of “the mood for change”. Had their electroal support been matched in the commons, they’d have had about 98 more MPs and the Tories about 70 fewer.
Were I Clegg, this is what I’d be doing.
@25 Mark
Stacking the Peers! Old school!
There’s no coming back if the Tories start that. The British electoral system creates crises (1910, 1974) and it broke down badly yesterday. If the Tories cling to power via the Peers, the whole thing’s going to come apart.
Labour and the LD got 52% of the vote. If the system were fair, they should have the option to form a government.
There’s a window of opportunity here. Do not underestimate the power of self-preservation. If everyone agrees there’s going to be another election Real Soon, let’s press our advantage Right Now.
d
@25 Mark
Stacking the Peers! Old school!
There’s no coming back if the Tories start that. The British electoral system creates crises (1910, 1974) and it broke down badly yesterday. If the Tories cling to power via the Peers, the whole thing’s going to come apart.
Labour and the LD got 52% of the vote. If the system were fair, they should have the option to form a government.
There’s a window of opportunity here. Do not underestimate the power of self-preservation. If everyone agrees there’s going to be another election Real Soon, let’s press our advantage Right Now.
d
Gordon hits the ground running:
“1349: The prime minister says a fairer voting system is needed, offering immediate legislation to bring this about.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
Gordon hits the ground running:
“1349: The prime minister says a fairer voting system is needed, offering immediate legislation to bring this about.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
A few thoughts:
- While the Lib Dem result would be very disappointing for them given all the pre-election polls, their overall vote of 23% has gone up around 1% which is their highest ever despite them dropping about 5 seats (although their forerunner SDP/Lib Alliance polled over 25% in 1983, but got far fewer seats).
- Lib Dems + Conservatives is a clear majority. This could and should only happen if there was clear electoral reform – not just the First Past The Post voting system, but also the dreadful malapportionment, at least within England. There would also have to be some sort of understanding about economic/budget policy. I’d be surprised if the Conservatives repeated the hopeless mistake of the Tasmanian Liberals where they didn’t even try to find common ground with the Greens (and having just heard David Cameron speak, it seems that he isn’t doing so).
- If the Lib Dems & Labour combined, + the single (Lib Dem aligned) Alliance Party from Northern Ireland and you add the Scottish & Welsh Nationalists, the single Green, (and maybe the 3 SDLP from Nth Ireland) (and take out the 4 Sinn Fein & the Speaker who don’t vote) there would be enough to just scrape together a majority to push through electoral reform (more likely to be Australian style lower house preferential voting, rather than proportional representation, given some of the geographical concentration that provides some of the minor parties with their opportunity to win seats). However resistance from the House of Lords could drag that out for some time, and it is hard to know how well such a disparate collection could hold things together.
- The impossible thing for any party to predict is what the electoral impact would be of shifting to an Australian style preferential voting system. The tactical voting that has developed over decades in response to the perversion of a First Past The Post system with 3 (or in some case 4) different parties competing for some seats makes it very hard to know how people might vote if tactical voting was removed.
A few thoughts:
- While the Lib Dem result would be very disappointing for them given all the pre-election polls, their overall vote of 23% has gone up around 1% which is their highest ever despite them dropping about 5 seats (although their forerunner SDP/Lib Alliance polled over 25% in 1983, but got far fewer seats).
- Lib Dems + Conservatives is a clear majority. This could and should only happen if there was clear electoral reform – not just the First Past The Post voting system, but also the dreadful malapportionment, at least within England. There would also have to be some sort of understanding about economic/budget policy. I’d be surprised if the Conservatives repeated the hopeless mistake of the Tasmanian Liberals where they didn’t even try to find common ground with the Greens (and having just heard David Cameron speak, it seems that he isn’t doing so).
- If the Lib Dems & Labour combined, + the single (Lib Dem aligned) Alliance Party from Northern Ireland and you add the Scottish & Welsh Nationalists, the single Green, (and maybe the 3 SDLP from Nth Ireland) (and take out the 4 Sinn Fein & the Speaker who don’t vote) there would be enough to just scrape together a majority to push through electoral reform (more likely to be Australian style lower house preferential voting, rather than proportional representation, given some of the geographical concentration that provides some of the minor parties with their opportunity to win seats). However resistance from the House of Lords could drag that out for some time, and it is hard to know how well such a disparate collection could hold things together.
- The impossible thing for any party to predict is what the electoral impact would be of shifting to an Australian style preferential voting system. The tactical voting that has developed over decades in response to the perversion of a First Past The Post system with 3 (or in some case 4) different parties competing for some seats makes it very hard to know how people might vote if tactical voting was removed.
Cameron and Clegg have now sequestered themselves to negotiate, and have told reporters that they will be meeting tomorrow (presumably after everyone gets some sleep). Cameron made a very open-ended offer to the LibDems, and now even senior Tories are talking electoral reform.
Meanwhile, Gordon sits in No 10, a lame duck PM.
We may be here some time; roll on 1974.
Cameron and Clegg have now sequestered themselves to negotiate, and have told reporters that they will be meeting tomorrow (presumably after everyone gets some sleep). Cameron made a very open-ended offer to the LibDems, and now even senior Tories are talking electoral reform.
Meanwhile, Gordon sits in No 10, a lame duck PM.
We may be here some time; roll on 1974.
Speaking of negotiations with the Lib-Dems, this could be relevant
The meeting will effectively form the first part of an intricate three-part internal process that limits Clegg’s powers when negotiating any form of coalition or support for another party.
The rules were imposed on LibDem leaders in 1998 by members angry after the disclosure of secret negotiations held with Labour which could have seen the two parties forming a centre-left alliance against the Conservatives.
The strict “triple lock” conditions mean it is much harder for Clegg to agree a coalition than it would be for Cameron.
The conditions state that any proposal that could affect the party’s “independence of political action” must first win majority approval by LibDem legislators as well as the party’s federal executive committee.
Unless that approval is passed by a three-quarters majority by both bodies, the party will have to call a special conference of members to discuss the plans, a event that would take at least a week to convene.
And if that assembly fails to pass the proposals with a two-thirds majority, a postal ballot of party members must be held.
Speaking of negotiations with the Lib-Dems, this could be relevant
The meeting will effectively form the first part of an intricate three-part internal process that limits Clegg’s powers when negotiating any form of coalition or support for another party.
The rules were imposed on LibDem leaders in 1998 by members angry after the disclosure of secret negotiations held with Labour which could have seen the two parties forming a centre-left alliance against the Conservatives.
The strict “triple lock” conditions mean it is much harder for Clegg to agree a coalition than it would be for Cameron.
The conditions state that any proposal that could affect the party’s “independence of political action” must first win majority approval by LibDem legislators as well as the party’s federal executive committee.
Unless that approval is passed by a three-quarters majority by both bodies, the party will have to call a special conference of members to discuss the plans, a event that would take at least a week to convene.
And if that assembly fails to pass the proposals with a two-thirds majority, a postal ballot of party members must be held.
They’ll have to bring in the SAS to get him out.
They’ll have to bring in the SAS to get him out.
Who dares fight the posh boys wins. Or doesn’t lose. Or doesn’t lose as badly as everyone thought. Or … something.
Who dares fight the posh boys wins. Or doesn’t lose. Or doesn’t lose as badly as everyone thought. Or … something.
‘it’s certain that the fabric of British politics has been rent asunder.’ Really? Minority government isn’t unprecedented, though I imagine that the Tories would be bitterly disappointed that with everything on their side they couldn’t make a better fist of it than this.
Labour are probably feeling a mixture of disappointment, and relief that it wasn’t worse.
The Lib-Dems will be wondering where to from here. They won’t get the sweeping electoral reform they want, because it isn’t really a burning issue in the electorate and it does no favours to either of the major parties. They may get a compromise position through that improves things slightly. It’s clear that they haven’t become the duopoly breakers they wanted to be, and how they change that is an open question.
‘it’s certain that the fabric of British politics has been rent asunder.’ Really? Minority government isn’t unprecedented, though I imagine that the Tories would be bitterly disappointed that with everything on their side they couldn’t make a better fist of it than this.
Labour are probably feeling a mixture of disappointment, and relief that it wasn’t worse.
The Lib-Dems will be wondering where to from here. They won’t get the sweeping electoral reform they want, because it isn’t really a burning issue in the electorate and it does no favours to either of the major parties. They may get a compromise position through that improves things slightly. It’s clear that they haven’t become the duopoly breakers they wanted to be, and how they change that is an open question.
Looks like the BNP not only got no seats, (despite earlier stats claiming they had 2) but they lost all their local council seats as well.
A move to other than first past the post would see them with a few seats in a new election, but surely that wouldnt be a bad thing. The more exposure they get the worse for them.
Looks like the BNP not only got no seats, (despite earlier stats claiming they had 2) but they lost all their local council seats as well.
A move to other than first past the post would see them with a few seats in a new election, but surely that wouldnt be a bad thing. The more exposure they get the worse for them.
PR would definitely have seen the BNP and the UK Independence Party represented in the House of Commons, as they got 1.5 million votes, or 5% of the total, between them. The current system does much more to fragment that vote, as it also does for the Lib Dems.
PR would definitely have seen the BNP and the UK Independence Party represented in the House of Commons, as they got 1.5 million votes, or 5% of the total, between them. The current system does much more to fragment that vote, as it also does for the Lib Dems.
The sad thing is that the best way forward for stability is probably to hand the crown over to the Tories.
Seeing how Rudd and Obama have been savaged by our left leaning media of late for the UK having the press on side might prevent them from going the same way as Greece.
Oh and the Tories claim they’ve won more seats than Thatcher. Is that true?
The sad thing is that the best way forward for stability is probably to hand the crown over to the Tories.
Seeing how Rudd and Obama have been savaged by our left leaning media of late for the UK having the press on side might prevent them from going the same way as Greece.
Oh and the Tories claim they’ve won more seats than Thatcher. Is that true?
No risk of Britain following Greece. They have completely different monetary systems and there is no risk of Britain defaulting on pounds sterling debt. At all.
No risk of Britain following Greece. They have completely different monetary systems and there is no risk of Britain defaulting on pounds sterling debt. At all.
Sorry if I’m repeating anything, but I wanted to think this through.
At 315 votes total, a Labour + Lib Dem alliance would not have a majority. They would need another 11 seats, which means at least two more parties;
Democratic Unionist Party on 8 seats
Scottish Nationalist Party on 6 seats
Sinn Fein on 5
Or, Labour + Lib Dem would have to make a minority government. Doesn’t seem likely.
I don’t know that much about UK politics (so I might be getting this wrong), but I don’t think we would see a coalition with any two of the parties mentioned above.
Which leaves either a Conservative + Lib Dem coalition (power sharing, whatever), or a minority Conservative government.
Any bets on the date of the next UK election? This Parliament has been well and truly shattered.
Sorry if I’m repeating anything, but I wanted to think this through.
At 315 votes total, a Labour + Lib Dem alliance would not have a majority. They would need another 11 seats, which means at least two more parties;
Democratic Unionist Party on 8 seats
Scottish Nationalist Party on 6 seats
Sinn Fein on 5
Or, Labour + Lib Dem would have to make a minority government. Doesn’t seem likely.
I don’t know that much about UK politics (so I might be getting this wrong), but I don’t think we would see a coalition with any two of the parties mentioned above.
Which leaves either a Conservative + Lib Dem coalition (power sharing, whatever), or a minority Conservative government.
Any bets on the date of the next UK election? This Parliament has been well and truly shattered.
I think not.
Cameron’s ambit bid to the LibDems about electoral reform amounted to a committee to report in the sweet bye and bye about certain issues pertaining to voting, maybe.
I doubt that will get Clegg into bed.
Meanwhile, Brown probably has a better offer than that. The lame duck may yet dance again.
I think not.
Cameron’s ambit bid to the LibDems about electoral reform amounted to a committee to report in the sweet bye and bye about certain issues pertaining to voting, maybe.
I doubt that will get Clegg into bed.
Meanwhile, Brown probably has a better offer than that. The lame duck may yet dance again.
Sinn Fein refuses to sit at Westminster.
However, now too their votes may be crucial. Like the LibDems they have a lever, just like the Irish Parliamentary Party under Parnell way back in 1885.
Perhaps its now time for Sinn Fein to pay a visit to Westminster.
Sinn Fein refuses to sit at Westminster.
However, now too their votes may be crucial. Like the LibDems they have a lever, just like the Irish Parliamentary Party under Parnell way back in 1885.
Perhaps its now time for Sinn Fein to pay a visit to Westminster.
Yeah, I didn’t know that before about Sinn Fein, but now that I do that option seems pretty much impossible. Andrew’s scenario at 40 involves 6 parties… which I think illustrates just how screwed this parliament is.
I’m going to say less than 12 months (not having any knowledge of British constitutional considerations) for this parliament.
Yeah, I didn’t know that before about Sinn Fein, but now that I do that option seems pretty much impossible. Andrew’s scenario at 40 involves 6 parties… which I think illustrates just how screwed this parliament is.
I’m going to say less than 12 months (not having any knowledge of British constitutional considerations) for this parliament.
Malcolm Tucker’s ideas for where to next for the Labour Party:
Linked text
Unfortunately for Gordon, it requires him to leave No. 10, and save the world in other ways, particularly ways that are better than those of that suntanned freeloader Tony Blair.
Malcolm Tucker’s ideas for where to next for the Labour Party:
Linked text
Unfortunately for Gordon, it requires him to leave No. 10, and save the world in other ways, particularly ways that are better than those of that suntanned freeloader Tony Blair.
“Perhaps its now time for Sinn Fein to pay a visit to Westminster.”
They won’t swear allegiance to the Queen, so they can’t take their seats.
d
“Perhaps its now time for Sinn Fein to pay a visit to Westminster.”
They won’t swear allegiance to the Queen, so they can’t take their seats.
d
The idea of a minority government in UK or say Australia, is too complex for the MSM proprietors to sell. Complex, because it requires that they inform their readers beyond the actual headlines and explain concepts, even consequences. This results in their readers asking questions and forming their own ideas. Good grief – can they do that?
A good outcome of minority negotiations can be that people realise the value of a good nights sleep and not feeding the MSM’s deadlines and the market vultures.
BTW: The Scots and Irish are quite understandably wary of the ‘born to rule’ – past sins will live in the psyches of those communities for a long, long time.
The idea of a minority government in UK or say Australia, is too complex for the MSM proprietors to sell. Complex, because it requires that they inform their readers beyond the actual headlines and explain concepts, even consequences. This results in their readers asking questions and forming their own ideas. Good grief – can they do that?
A good outcome of minority negotiations can be that people realise the value of a good nights sleep and not feeding the MSM’s deadlines and the market vultures.
BTW: The Scots and Irish are quite understandably wary of the ‘born to rule’ – past sins will live in the psyches of those communities for a long, long time.
What are mere words when concessions can be achieved?
Mind you, the Irish nationalist voters of Ulster appear to be happy enough with present arrangements without risking their ire by using a form of words that connote fealty to the House of Windsor.
So, if I were Brown or his BLP successor, I wouldn’t be pinning my political survival on the support of Sinn Fein.
What are mere words when concessions can be achieved?
Mind you, the Irish nationalist voters of Ulster appear to be happy enough with present arrangements without risking their ire by using a form of words that connote fealty to the House of Windsor.
So, if I were Brown or his BLP successor, I wouldn’t be pinning my political survival on the support of Sinn Fein.
The Guardian has a good summary of the state of play.
Two interesting points:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/uk-election-results-clegg-deal
Cameron has offered Clegg seats in Cabinet, while I don’t think Brown has.
Labour lost 6.2% of it vote, but the final swing to the Tories was only 3.8%.
The Guardian has a good summary of the state of play.
Two interesting points:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/uk-election-results-clegg-deal
Cameron has offered Clegg seats in Cabinet, while I don’t think Brown has.
Labour lost 6.2% of it vote, but the final swing to the Tories was only 3.8%.
Guardian’s election blog sums up the alternatives:
Guardian’s election blog sums up the alternatives:
ConservativeHome on where co-operation with the Lib Dems is easy, problematic or difficult:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/areas-where-cooperation-between-conservatives-and-the-liberal-democrats-is-easy-possible-improbable-.html
ConservativeHome on where co-operation with the Lib Dems is easy, problematic or difficult:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/areas-where-cooperation-between-conservatives-and-the-liberal-democrats-is-easy-possible-improbable-.html
This is interesting as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
This is interesting as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results
John Gray: Cameron has been weakened by the election – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/bad-night-cameron-good-bigoted-tendency
John Gray: Cameron has been weakened by the election – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/bad-night-cameron-good-bigoted-tendency
Mark@61: While Labour are currently the biggest beneficiaries of our borked electoral system, in the interests of fairness, I should point out that when the Tories were in power, they did the same thing. Both parties have, of course, pissed on the LibDems from a great height.
Historically, it is clear that whichever party got a majority in the House of Commons was ably assisted by a Mr G. Mander.
Mark@61: While Labour are currently the biggest beneficiaries of our borked electoral system, in the interests of fairness, I should point out that when the Tories were in power, they did the same thing. Both parties have, of course, pissed on the LibDems from a great height.
Historically, it is clear that whichever party got a majority in the House of Commons was ably assisted by a Mr G. Mander.
I have to say the most thought provoking analysis of the situation (presumably written when it still looked like Cameron would walk it in, but more relevant vis-a-vis a hung parliament than a situation with a majority) is from John Gray in the London Review of Books:
“The problem facing all three parties is that they have framed policy on the basis that the post-Thatcher settlement was permanent. (Indeed Nick Clegg committed the Liberal Democrats to the settlement after its collapse had begun.) But neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance; Thatcher held back from any frontal assault on the welfare state, while Blair and Brown made ‘modern’ public services central to New Labour’s project. The ideologues who tried to shape Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise.”
That last line is a real kicker, but it makes absolute sense to me.
It didn’t have to be this way, yet it has happened as both the TINA Tories and New Labour were unable to implement the financial regulations that Keating imposed here (and that the Canadians also apparently have). Hell, all Rudd has to do is levy a Sarah Palinesque windfall profits tax on the miners, and Bob’s your uncle, market anxiety about the local deficit is fixed.
So now all the unnecessary contradictions in the mother of all democracies are coming home to roost.
The one ‘escape clause’ that Gray identifies for Labour and the Lib Dems is the fact that they are pretty unified, well-defined entities when compared to the Conservatives. The Tories today really just don’t know whether they’re Arthur or Martha.
Absolutely goddamed right.
No disrespect to the Greeks, but their political economy is nowhere near as modern as Britain’s is.
Simply put, the Greeks run a black economy with a shadow legit economy. The Poms have the first world habit of running it t’other way round.
I have to say the most thought provoking analysis of the situation (presumably written when it still looked like Cameron would walk it in, but more relevant vis-a-vis a hung parliament than a situation with a majority) is from John Gray in the London Review of Books:
“The problem facing all three parties is that they have framed policy on the basis that the post-Thatcher settlement was permanent. (Indeed Nick Clegg committed the Liberal Democrats to the settlement after its collapse had begun.) But neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance; Thatcher held back from any frontal assault on the welfare state, while Blair and Brown made ‘modern’ public services central to New Labour’s project. The ideologues who tried to shape Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise.”
That last line is a real kicker, but it makes absolute sense to me.
It didn’t have to be this way, yet it has happened as both the TINA Tories and New Labour were unable to implement the financial regulations that Keating imposed here (and that the Canadians also apparently have). Hell, all Rudd has to do is levy a Sarah Palinesque windfall profits tax on the miners, and Bob’s your uncle, market anxiety about the local deficit is fixed.
So now all the unnecessary contradictions in the mother of all democracies are coming home to roost.
The one ‘escape clause’ that Gray identifies for Labour and the Lib Dems is the fact that they are pretty unified, well-defined entities when compared to the Conservatives. The Tories today really just don’t know whether they’re Arthur or Martha.
Absolutely goddamed right.
No disrespect to the Greeks, but their political economy is nowhere near as modern as Britain’s is.
Simply put, the Greeks run a black economy with a shadow legit economy. The Poms have the first world habit of running it t’other way round.
“No disrespect to the Greeks, but their political economy is nowhere near as modern as Britain’s is.”
And they don’t have a happy, more-or-less homogeneous domestic political environment either!
No offense to any individual on this thread, but I get exceedingly frustrated by the line of argument that assumes the political division in any western European country are simple variations on the Australian, British, Canadian or American divisions. They aren’t and there are piles of dead bodies in the living memory of Greeks (and others) that will for a long time prevent any political consensus from emerging.
Greece was politically radicalized in the lead up to WW1, with the King fighting the Parliament, it almost collapsed following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, then they suffered through Nazi occupation, a Civil War and a military coup that only resigned in 1974.
Greeks were killed by the State because of their political beliefs less than 40 years ago and the ‘political economy’ of the Hellenic Republic is the result of concessions to all sides to try and bring all the factions together into a liberal parliamentary democracy. And it worked, but at a cost, and the GFC and the Euro have almost overnight made the cost unbearable.
The problems in Greece at the moment are not because their political economy is primitive compared to the UK, but because the politics the Greek State is absorbing are so radical that they are off the British scale entirely.
d
“No disrespect to the Greeks, but their political economy is nowhere near as modern as Britain’s is.”
And they don’t have a happy, more-or-less homogeneous domestic political environment either!
No offense to any individual on this thread, but I get exceedingly frustrated by the line of argument that assumes the political division in any western European country are simple variations on the Australian, British, Canadian or American divisions. They aren’t and there are piles of dead bodies in the living memory of Greeks (and others) that will for a long time prevent any political consensus from emerging.
Greece was politically radicalized in the lead up to WW1, with the King fighting the Parliament, it almost collapsed following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, then they suffered through Nazi occupation, a Civil War and a military coup that only resigned in 1974.
Greeks were killed by the State because of their political beliefs less than 40 years ago and the ‘political economy’ of the Hellenic Republic is the result of concessions to all sides to try and bring all the factions together into a liberal parliamentary democracy. And it worked, but at a cost, and the GFC and the Euro have almost overnight made the cost unbearable.
The problems in Greece at the moment are not because their political economy is primitive compared to the UK, but because the politics the Greek State is absorbing are so radical that they are off the British scale entirely.
d
Following on from Mark’s post (and that of SL) …
It seems clear that b
a) the LDP wants a system that better matches national vote tallies with seats allocated
b) Many who oppose PR fear that PR will lead to instability and/or require multi-member electorates AND cut out non-party-affiliated candidates …
I can see a way of reconciling PR with single member electorates and independents securing seats
Here’s how it might run.
1. Every seat won by an independent on FPtP is allocated and withdrawn from the allocation pool
2.You determine seat allocation quotas by deriving them from the proportion each party achieving at least 5% of the national vote gets and rounding down.
3. You allocate each party’s quota by allocating each party the seats where its candidate performed numerically best until each party has its quota
4. You divide up any remaining unallocated seats the same way this time rounding up and starting first with the party that topper the polls
5. If you arrive at a point where there are still unallocated seats you award these to the best performed candidate in each seat
Under this system you retain a link between seat and local member and between seats and support nationally. The winning party gets a slight advantage above PR. Independents can remain. Fringe parties under 5% don’t get the balance of power. Local non-affiliateds can still win individual seats without achieving 5% nationally — so an independent “Green” could still win a single seat without running a national organisation capable of securing 5%.
I’ve written to Clegg suggesting this if there is a cross-party committee on the matter.
Following on from Mark’s post (and that of SL) …
It seems clear that b
a) the LDP wants a system that better matches national vote tallies with seats allocated
b) Many who oppose PR fear that PR will lead to instability and/or require multi-member electorates AND cut out non-party-affiliated candidates …
I can see a way of reconciling PR with single member electorates and independents securing seats
Here’s how it might run.
1. Every seat won by an independent on FPtP is allocated and withdrawn from the allocation pool
2.You determine seat allocation quotas by deriving them from the proportion each party achieving at least 5% of the national vote gets and rounding down.
3. You allocate each party’s quota by allocating each party the seats where its candidate performed numerically best until each party has its quota
4. You divide up any remaining unallocated seats the same way this time rounding up and starting first with the party that topper the polls
5. If you arrive at a point where there are still unallocated seats you award these to the best performed candidate in each seat
Under this system you retain a link between seat and local member and between seats and support nationally. The winning party gets a slight advantage above PR. Independents can remain. Fringe parties under 5% don’t get the balance of power. Local non-affiliateds can still win individual seats without achieving 5% nationally — so an independent “Green” could still win a single seat without running a national organisation capable of securing 5%.
I’ve written to Clegg suggesting this if there is a cross-party committee on the matter.
Fran, the traditional solution to that is MMP – you have a collection of electorate seats plus a pool of “list seats” that are used to restore proportionality. Germany and NZ make that pool half the MPs (roughly). It means you double the size of an electorate. In the UK this would also be a great opportunity to remove the gerrymandering by imposing a requirement on the electorial coundary setters that electorates have to be within 1% or 2% of the quota.
Fran, the traditional solution to that is MMP – you have a collection of electorate seats plus a pool of “list seats” that are used to restore proportionality. Germany and NZ make that pool half the MPs (roughly). It means you double the size of an electorate. In the UK this would also be a great opportunity to remove the gerrymandering by imposing a requirement on the electorial coundary setters that electorates have to be within 1% or 2% of the quota.
Strictly speaking Moz, that’s malapportionmenty rather than gerrymandering. One can gerrymander without malapportioning just by making the boundaries enclose just enough of your supporters to get across the line.
Malapportioning is far more effective as a rort because gerrymandering can backfire too easily if a small number of supporters jump ship. The structure of PR gets rid of malapportionment and makes gerrymandering moot.
The problem with multi-members is the indivisibility of humans. If you have five people in an electorate and one party gets 46% they still only get two members unless you run preferences. That makes the voting system more complex because it depends on everyone filling out ballots with preferences.
You also don’t want too many politicians per capita and PR has that problem.
Strictly speaking Moz, that’s malapportionmenty rather than gerrymandering. One can gerrymander without malapportioning just by making the boundaries enclose just enough of your supporters to get across the line.
Malapportioning is far more effective as a rort because gerrymandering can backfire too easily if a small number of supporters jump ship. The structure of PR gets rid of malapportionment and makes gerrymandering moot.
The problem with multi-members is the indivisibility of humans. If you have five people in an electorate and one party gets 46% they still only get two members unless you run preferences. That makes the voting system more complex because it depends on everyone filling out ballots with preferences.
You also don’t want too many politicians per capita and PR has that problem.
From what I understand, the LibDems have been working on this problem for ages and have detailed proposals. I also can vouch the fact that David Cameron was taught by Vernon Bogdanor (at Brasenose), who is one of Britain’s leading scholars on electoral systems. While he won’t have a mass of detailed proposals to hand, Cameron will know exactly what the LibDems are proposing and how to pick between them.
That aside, when the LibDems have entered into coalitions with the Tories at the local council level, they have become known for an extraordinary grasp of policy detail. Being out of office for a long time does that to you; it gives you time to brood and plan.
From what I understand, the LibDems have been working on this problem for ages and have detailed proposals. I also can vouch the fact that David Cameron was taught by Vernon Bogdanor (at Brasenose), who is one of Britain’s leading scholars on electoral systems. While he won’t have a mass of detailed proposals to hand, Cameron will know exactly what the LibDems are proposing and how to pick between them.
That aside, when the LibDems have entered into coalitions with the Tories at the local council level, they have become known for an extraordinary grasp of policy detail. Being out of office for a long time does that to you; it gives you time to brood and plan.
I just did some rough and ready modeeling on my schema above (ignoring Thirsk and Malton in Yorkshire, where UKIP candidate died and the poll was not taken and assuming it would have followed the national trend where the Conservative candidate, sitting on 51% in 2005, would have been returned — gosh didn’t the UKIP run into some headwinds?)
Assuming all the parties that failed the 5% test I proposed ran instead as independents, the Tories would have finished with about 39% of the seats and non-Tories 61% … Those “independents” would have been linked to SNP, Sinn Fein, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, DU, Alliance and Green.
I just did some rough and ready modeeling on my schema above (ignoring Thirsk and Malton in Yorkshire, where UKIP candidate died and the poll was not taken and assuming it would have followed the national trend where the Conservative candidate, sitting on 51% in 2005, would have been returned — gosh didn’t the UKIP run into some headwinds?)
Assuming all the parties that failed the 5% test I proposed ran instead as independents, the Tories would have finished with about 39% of the seats and non-Tories 61% … Those “independents” would have been linked to SNP, Sinn Fein, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, DU, Alliance and Green.
On minority governments and stability – it’s not necessarily true that a thumping great majority is best for effective government. For example, it was during minority govt in NSW that the Wood Royal Commission into the NSW police was established. The govt of the day voted against it but was defeated by one vote. After arguing that it was completely unnecessary and those who promoted it were suffering from paranoia (sound familiar, Victorians?), the commission found entrenched corruption to the very highest levels.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the Howard government’s majority in the Senate led to its eventual demise through over-reaching policies such as work choices.
Sorry for digressing but food for thought….
On minority governments and stability – it’s not necessarily true that a thumping great majority is best for effective government. For example, it was during minority govt in NSW that the Wood Royal Commission into the NSW police was established. The govt of the day voted against it but was defeated by one vote. After arguing that it was completely unnecessary and those who promoted it were suffering from paranoia (sound familiar, Victorians?), the commission found entrenched corruption to the very highest levels.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the Howard government’s majority in the Senate led to its eventual demise through over-reaching policies such as work choices.
Sorry for digressing but food for thought….
Quite right Ronnie …
The best result all round is where the most important parts of policy can be passed and the others modified in ways that preseve the integrity of the proposals while knocking off portions that are unworkable or antithetic or mere pork-barrelling.
Having untrammelled control can be like drowning in honey.
Of course, getting the balance right can be easier said than done.
Quite right Ronnie …
The best result all round is where the most important parts of policy can be passed and the others modified in ways that preseve the integrity of the proposals while knocking off portions that are unworkable or antithetic or mere pork-barrelling.
Having untrammelled control can be like drowning in honey.
Of course, getting the balance right can be easier said than done.
Cameron and the Tories have made proposals that are utterly unacceptable to Clegg and especially to the LibDem rank and file.
Cameron has to do much better. Otherwise he’ll never tuck himself under the Number 10 doona.
Cameron and the Tories have made proposals that are utterly unacceptable to Clegg and especially to the LibDem rank and file.
Cameron has to do much better. Otherwise he’ll never tuck himself under the Number 10 doona.
On this lovely day in bright SA
The birds are chirping,
and cars, now parking.
The traffic’s quiet.
After tea, burnt toast
and far away skype,
the chryssies white,
and faces bright
eye the roast,
and the trifle lite.
Though ‘haps in other places wide
are Mums not so happily plide.
Spare some thought,
maybe donate today,
the work of dear Mums never goes away.
Happy nurturing all.
On this lovely day in bright SA
The birds are chirping,
and cars, now parking.
The traffic’s quiet.
After tea, burnt toast
and far away skype,
the chryssies white,
and faces bright
eye the roast,
and the trifle lite.
Though ‘haps in other places wide
are Mums not so happily plide.
Spare some thought,
maybe donate today,
the work of dear Mums never goes away.
Happy nurturing all.
An unanswered question in all of this is what sort of electoral reform, if any, does the Labour Party support. A referendum on electoral reform won’t get up if they oppose it, and they do remarkably well out of the status quo, as the current results attest to.
An unanswered question in all of this is what sort of electoral reform, if any, does the Labour Party support. A referendum on electoral reform won’t get up if they oppose it, and they do remarkably well out of the status quo, as the current results attest to.
Oh dear wrong thread. Never mind. Happy day.
Oh dear wrong thread. Never mind. Happy day.
“Having untrammeled control can be like drowning in honey,” says Fran.
Drowning in honey is no fun by yourself, Fran. Three or four people makes it sublime!
“Having untrammeled control can be like drowning in honey,” says Fran.
Drowning in honey is no fun by yourself, Fran. Three or four people makes it sublime!
Not if there’s bull-ants around. {runs away.]
Not if there’s bull-ants around. {runs away.]
Update: The hashtag #dontdoitnick is trending on Twitter, and the outlines of an alternative to a Tory-Lib Dem pact are becoming clearer with SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining a “progressive coalition” to introduce PR which would have a Commons majority of one seat.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has addressed a rally in support of electoral reform outside Parliament while Lib Dem MPs ponder Cameron’s offer inside.
Update: The hashtag #dontdoitnick is trending on Twitter, and the outlines of an alternative to a Tory-Lib Dem pact are becoming clearer with SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining a “progressive coalition” to introduce PR which would have a Commons majority of one seat.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has addressed a rally in support of electoral reform outside Parliament while Lib Dem MPs ponder Cameron’s offer inside.
I would love to be in a room where Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond were trying to negotiate an agreement. Scotland’s two biggest blowhards, face to face.
I would love to be in a room where Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond were trying to negotiate an agreement. Scotland’s two biggest blowhards, face to face.
Update: Andrew Rawnsley on the dilemma the Lib Dems face; one he characterises as a “nightmare”.
Update: Andrew Rawnsley on the dilemma the Lib Dems face; one he characterises as a “nightmare”.
There are a couple of good examples of nation states that were recently every bit as dysfunctional as Greece was in its recent history whose administrations have not collapsed in a heap. South Korea would have the be the best one.
Darryl Rosin, you’re aware of the Greek government’s inability to collect anything like a standard OECD income tax on its citizenry, or the complete failure of public & private sector accounting, right?
Sadly their political economy is primitive compared to GB’s. Hence the meltdown.
There are a couple of good examples of nation states that were recently every bit as dysfunctional as Greece was in its recent history whose administrations have not collapsed in a heap. South Korea would have the be the best one.
Darryl Rosin, you’re aware of the Greek government’s inability to collect anything like a standard OECD income tax on its citizenry, or the complete failure of public & private sector accounting, right?
Sadly their political economy is primitive compared to GB’s. Hence the meltdown.
That Rawnsley piece is very good and very fair. What a shitty situation!
That Rawnsley piece is very good and very fair. What a shitty situation!
SL#83 – Yes a very good piece.
Will it be makings of the stuff of fantasy, a bestseller, a thriller – Brown steps aside, Cable as Chancellor, the Euro defies all and becomes stronger, the rotten borough disappears, Sinn Fien appears under the shadow of Big Ben.
No wonder the City and its blue blood friends are twitchy – could this happen – quick, to the yacht’s thick carpet barricades.
A real story for the Murdoch press but qho will have the publishing rights?
SL#83 – Yes a very good piece.
Will it be makings of the stuff of fantasy, a bestseller, a thriller – Brown steps aside, Cable as Chancellor, the Euro defies all and becomes stronger, the rotten borough disappears, Sinn Fien appears under the shadow of Big Ben.
No wonder the City and its blue blood friends are twitchy – could this happen – quick, to the yacht’s thick carpet barricades.
A real story for the Murdoch press but qho will have the publishing rights?
Mark, I disagree with Rawnsley’s assertion that “[both the Lib Dems and Tories] have overlapping policies on education, the environment, ID cards and tax. They can probably paper over their disagreements over Trident, immigration and even Europe. They could split the difference on the timing of spending cuts.”
I think the relatively unimportant issue of ID cards is the one & and only thing they would agree on, every major issue is bound to see things unravel (a) because of those two parties’ existing, intractable points of difference, or (b) because Cameron will be under enormous pressure to implement savage cuts by his party’s unreconstructed Thatcherite razor gang tendency (`we can’t afford this crap in the evironmental portfolio if we are to balance the budget, dear Leader.’)
For instance, the Lib Dems proposal on taxes is weighted heavily to the lowest earners, yet some commentators believe that a Conservative budget that is forced to cut back on the Tory manifesto’s own proposal for a family tax credit just will not go out of its way to help people on the lower brackets. Unless `splitting the difference’ in that area means the Lib Dems not getting what they want in this parliament (because the supply-side Tories can’t have their pie, yet) then I can see a real breakdown in comity RE fiscal policy. And agreeing-to-disagree on Trident is just plain bizarre. I don’t know what Rawnsley is smoking there. And hasn’t he heard that the wogs begin at Calais in Toryworld?
Sure, you can argue there are some genuinely centrist politicians in the Lib Dem caucus, but they’re there for the same reason Andrew Murray was an Australian Democrat—they believe in creating a coherent third force in politics, not in advancing the centre-Right’s agenda for the sake of advancing a centre-Right agenda. Splitting from the rest of the Lib Dems on more than (maybe) one issue isn’t something any of them would contemplate doing, otherwise they would be Tories in the first place. I’d even go as far as to say that Clegg’s party are really no different than Labour when it comes to most policy areas. (I wonder if Cameron has thought about trying to get any Lib Dems to defect? That’s another issue, of course.)
Otherwise Rawnsley is right about the two leaders getting along better than either do with Brown. He’s also right about electoral reform being the obsession of the party and its supporters. Billy Bragg is a Lib Dem voter now because of that issue—and he is willing to contemplate Clegg supporting a Cameron government if PR gets implemented!
Yet Labour is the party that would be most pliable on that issue, at least from the third party’s perspective.
This is why I just can’t predict what will happen, though I maintain that it’s the Conservatives who are the major player in the old 2-party-democracy with the most to be worried about. Getting to a second election where they can win a majority has to be their one priority if they wish for UK politics to continue in its traditions, traditions they need in order to merely exist. They will have to at least swallow something like preferential voting (1,2,3) in the existing system in return for a guarantee of supply from Clegg, I think, and pray that it isn’t a slippery slop to Lord Jenkin’s AV plus scheme. The alternate is risk putting AV plus to a referendum where the Lib Dems are joined by Labour and every minor party in campaigning for a complete overall of the election system.
If they don’t come forward with an offer of serious reform that the corner party accepts and trusts then we’re looking at a Lab-Lib coalition supported by all the minor MPs who aren’t Ulster unionists.
Mark, I disagree with Rawnsley’s assertion that “[both the Lib Dems and Tories] have overlapping policies on education, the environment, ID cards and tax. They can probably paper over their disagreements over Trident, immigration and even Europe. They could split the difference on the timing of spending cuts.”
I think the relatively unimportant issue of ID cards is the one & and only thing they would agree on, every major issue is bound to see things unravel (a) because of those two parties’ existing, intractable points of difference, or (b) because Cameron will be under enormous pressure to implement savage cuts by his party’s unreconstructed Thatcherite razor gang tendency (`we can’t afford this crap in the evironmental portfolio if we are to balance the budget, dear Leader.’)
For instance, the Lib Dems proposal on taxes is weighted heavily to the lowest earners, yet some commentators believe that a Conservative budget that is forced to cut back on the Tory manifesto’s own proposal for a family tax credit just will not go out of its way to help people on the lower brackets. Unless `splitting the difference’ in that area means the Lib Dems not getting what they want in this parliament (because the supply-side Tories can’t have their pie, yet) then I can see a real breakdown in comity RE fiscal policy. And agreeing-to-disagree on Trident is just plain bizarre. I don’t know what Rawnsley is smoking there. And hasn’t he heard that the wogs begin at Calais in Toryworld?
Sure, you can argue there are some genuinely centrist politicians in the Lib Dem caucus, but they’re there for the same reason Andrew Murray was an Australian Democrat—they believe in creating a coherent third force in politics, not in advancing the centre-Right’s agenda for the sake of advancing a centre-Right agenda. Splitting from the rest of the Lib Dems on more than (maybe) one issue isn’t something any of them would contemplate doing, otherwise they would be Tories in the first place. I’d even go as far as to say that Clegg’s party are really no different than Labour when it comes to most policy areas. (I wonder if Cameron has thought about trying to get any Lib Dems to defect? That’s another issue, of course.)
Otherwise Rawnsley is right about the two leaders getting along better than either do with Brown. He’s also right about electoral reform being the obsession of the party and its supporters. Billy Bragg is a Lib Dem voter now because of that issue—and he is willing to contemplate Clegg supporting a Cameron government if PR gets implemented!
Yet Labour is the party that would be most pliable on that issue, at least from the third party’s perspective.
This is why I just can’t predict what will happen, though I maintain that it’s the Conservatives who are the major player in the old 2-party-democracy with the most to be worried about. Getting to a second election where they can win a majority has to be their one priority if they wish for UK politics to continue in its traditions, traditions they need in order to merely exist. They will have to at least swallow something like preferential voting (1,2,3) in the existing system in return for a guarantee of supply from Clegg, I think, and pray that it isn’t a slippery slop to Lord Jenkin’s AV plus scheme. The alternate is risk putting AV plus to a referendum where the Lib Dems are joined by Labour and every minor party in campaigning for a complete overall of the election system.
If they don’t come forward with an offer of serious reform that the corner party accepts and trusts then we’re looking at a Lab-Lib coalition supported by all the minor MPs who aren’t Ulster unionists.
I hadn’t thought of that! Can’t imagine them swearing the Oath of Allegiance, but stranger things have happened…
I hadn’t thought of that! Can’t imagine them swearing the Oath of Allegiance, but stranger things have happened…
From the Lib Dem point of view the big attraction of doing a deal with the conservatives is that Cameron has the numbers to deliver on any deal made. By contrast, Brown could only deliver with the full agreement of the other members of the “progressive alliance”. Not sure where the alliance members would stand in terms of electoral reform.
The big attraction of doing a deal with Labour is that it is less likely to piss off the Lib- Dem core supporters.
From the Lib Dem point of view the big attraction of doing a deal with the conservatives is that Cameron has the numbers to deliver on any deal made. By contrast, Brown could only deliver with the full agreement of the other members of the “progressive alliance”. Not sure where the alliance members would stand in terms of electoral reform.
The big attraction of doing a deal with Labour is that it is less likely to piss off the Lib- Dem core supporters.
Time for another Glorious Revolution. With Vince of Orange. And a chain of gas-fired barbies signaling from Devon to Westminster.
It’s about time the UK rejigged its electoral/political system for the 21st century and this could be the catalyst. If I was the Beeb’s DG, I’d suggest that right now, Brown, Cameron and Clegg meet without advisors or flappers somewhere by the Thames to just thrash it all out up with only a fly on the wall camera in attendance. Just make damn sure the Lord President of The Privy Council will be shot on sight if he tries to go anywhere near the debate.
But even as we speak they’re activating the Queen – testing connections, power supplies and blood sugar levels, upgrading her CPU, downloading Constitutional Monarch Version 10.5.2 and a quick dab of paint here and there.
“And what are your views, Mr Cameron?”
“Pardon me, Ma’am. Mr Cameron is over there. You’re talking to one of your corgis.”
I look forward to a boldly irresolute solution in the fullness of time.
Time for another Glorious Revolution. With Vince of Orange. And a chain of gas-fired barbies signaling from Devon to Westminster.
It’s about time the UK rejigged its electoral/political system for the 21st century and this could be the catalyst. If I was the Beeb’s DG, I’d suggest that right now, Brown, Cameron and Clegg meet without advisors or flappers somewhere by the Thames to just thrash it all out up with only a fly on the wall camera in attendance. Just make damn sure the Lord President of The Privy Council will be shot on sight if he tries to go anywhere near the debate.
But even as we speak they’re activating the Queen – testing connections, power supplies and blood sugar levels, upgrading her CPU, downloading Constitutional Monarch Version 10.5.2 and a quick dab of paint here and there.
“And what are your views, Mr Cameron?”
“Pardon me, Ma’am. Mr Cameron is over there. You’re talking to one of your corgis.”
I look forward to a boldly irresolute solution in the fullness of time.
You know what would make this even more of a right royal clusterfuck?
If QE2* died right now (“Reports are coming in of a freak gardening accident at Sandringham. Details are still unclear but the nation fears the worst.”) and Charlie 3 decides to roll up his organic sleeves and step into the mess.
*Not that I want her to die right now. While I am constitutionally opposed to constitutional monarchies, ole Lilibet has generally done a very decent and graceful job of work. And also, Charlie 3? A frustrated 62 year old new age aristo with the brains of a starling.
You know what would make this even more of a right royal clusterfuck?
If QE2* died right now (“Reports are coming in of a freak gardening accident at Sandringham. Details are still unclear but the nation fears the worst.”) and Charlie 3 decides to roll up his organic sleeves and step into the mess.
*Not that I want her to die right now. While I am constitutionally opposed to constitutional monarchies, ole Lilibet has generally done a very decent and graceful job of work. And also, Charlie 3? A frustrated 62 year old new age aristo with the brains of a starling.
@85 – Good analysis, Nickws. As I think I commented earlier, Clegg is going to have real problems holding his party together over time if he goes with the Tories. In some ways, the “progressive coalition” option, limiting the term of government to the time it would take to prepare for electoral reform (given that both the Lib Dems and Labour say they don’t want to do the spending cuts now because of the real risk of a double dip recession), makes more sense – but the numbers are very fragile, and it’s hard to see the LDs withstanding the media/Tory backlash.
It’s instructive to go back and look at the way Liberal votes fractured all over the place in the 20s when they were caught between Labour and Conservatives.
@87 – John D, all the small parties would do better under PR than under FPP (or probably AV), with the possible exception of the DUP. Note also that the proposal came from the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
@85 – Good analysis, Nickws. As I think I commented earlier, Clegg is going to have real problems holding his party together over time if he goes with the Tories. In some ways, the “progressive coalition” option, limiting the term of government to the time it would take to prepare for electoral reform (given that both the Lib Dems and Labour say they don’t want to do the spending cuts now because of the real risk of a double dip recession), makes more sense – but the numbers are very fragile, and it’s hard to see the LDs withstanding the media/Tory backlash.
It’s instructive to go back and look at the way Liberal votes fractured all over the place in the 20s when they were caught between Labour and Conservatives.
@87 – John D, all the small parties would do better under PR than under FPP (or probably AV), with the possible exception of the DUP. Note also that the proposal came from the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
This from Tom Clark on Clegg is also interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats
This from Tom Clark on Clegg is also interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats
Update: New post here. Comments can be directed there.
Update: New post here. Comments can be directed there.