The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

Murdoch once again pinned his colours to the (Tory) mast today. A piece on SKy news about PR parliaments. Where do they go for an example? Israel, fecking Israel.

Well you wouldn't want to visit one of the many countries where PR works very well, you know, closer to home, like in Ireland, or Scotland or Wales just for starters, no go to a country that shows the worst of PR in action.

Wanks.

Would you accept that it's easier for PR to work in a fledgling assembly, than it would be for the centuries-old Westminster tradition to be uprooted to make the switch?

And if this upheaval is to take place, is now the time to do it, in the middle of a time when there's a huge deficit to get rid of?

OK - so the $6m question is. If the Tory's committed to have a referendum within the term of Government - 5 years - would that be unreasonable? It would allow them to do what needed to be done, with a positive commitment to address the PR question later in their term of office.

Well, that seems reasonable (and responsible) enough, and at least it prepares the ground for a prolonged period of serious public consultation on the matter.

I think it does too - having a referendum doesn't mean to say the public would vote for it. I do doubt Cameron's ability to push it through the Party though, which I suspect is what's causing the problem. I'm no more convinced that the Labour leader would be able to swing it through the Labour party either.

[Worthy4England]

Oh, can I just add that the c*nt from the Spectator that keeps popping up in Sky News - Fraser Nelson - is possibly the most annying feck I've never met.

Just his voice makes me want to vomit.

[William the White]

I'm no more convinced that the Labour leader would be able to swing it through the Labour party either.

Yes he will, imo... They have a pretty big prize on offer. There will be dissenters, but Labour is chastened, a significant number are PR supporters long term, and there's a real chance of keeping the Tories away from power. Perhaps for a very long time. That's a prize they want hugely. There isn't enough real difference politically between Labour and the Lib Dems nationally (if one ignores their chameleon nature whereby they lean right in the south and left in the north and concentrates on their national positions) to hold away from a much more natural alliance than with the Tories.

[Worthy4England]

I'm no more convinced that the Labour leader would be able to swing it through the Labour party either.

Yes he will, imo... They have a pretty big prize on offer. There will be dissenters, but Labour is chastened, a significant number are PR supporters long term, and there's a real chance of keeping the Tories away from power. Perhaps for a very long time. That's a prize they want hugely. There isn't enough real difference politically between Labour and the Lib Dems nationally (if one ignores their chameleon nature whereby they lean right in the south and left in the north and concentrates on their national positions) to hold away from a much more natural alliance than with the Tories.

Sorry - maybe should have said Parliamentary Labour Party...

Think it would go through the grassroots.

[Worthy4England]

This is appears to be a significant day in British politics - Tory's offering a referendum on an AV based system - Labour offering to bring it in through Parliamentary legislation....Possibly one of the most significant days in years...

[William the White]

This is appears to be a significant day in British politics - Tory's offering a referendum on an AV based system - Labour offering to bring it in through Parliamentary legislation....Possibly one of the most significant days in years...

Lib Dems should say no - this is not a proportional system. And, in any case, any change of this order should go to a referendum.

Lib dems should go for the Single Transferable Vote system, endorsed by the Jenkins enquiry of 97/98, that offers serious proportionality and retains a high degree of constituency connection.

In response to an earlier post, and several reservations expressed about disproportionate power being held by very small parties I'd suggest a 5% threshold before you were represented in Parliament. This, of course, does have an anti-democratic tinge to it, and i could be persuaded out of it or into a negotiation, up or down. But the voting system needs to have democratic legitimacy once we are in a multi-party age - and we have been there for more than one generation.

Info on STV and other systems here -

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

[thebish]

Right, well I'm glad you concede the first half of that, and I agree with the second.

What kind of % should we insist on though to abandon hundreds of years of consitutional practice and completely overhaul our political culture in this, the home of the mother of parliaments? I know you are in favour of doing both things, even (perhaps especially) so emotively phrased, but even you would consider that it isn't something that should be done on a popular whim.

My own take is that our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away, but I realise I am a small 'c' conservative pissing into the wind, in this company!

what on earth does that mean? can you expand? I am genuinely puzzled!

No you're not - you know exactly what I mean but you just disagree with me.

But, to clarify, it upsets me when we sabotage some of our historic political arrangements, because it's not something future generations can ever get back.

The post of Lord Chancellor, for example - we had no practical problem at all there, with a post that can be traced back to 1066 and beyond, but it had to go, sacrificed on the altar of progress like so much else.

yes - actually I was genuinely puzzled - because on the face of it it seems indistinguishable from this:

"people living today never have the right to change something that has been around for a long time because they will then deny the long-standing thing to future generations."

is that what you are really saying?

if not - what is the difference between what you are saying and that?

I'm not saying that people never have the right... I'm just saying that we should think of it a bit like planning law and have a presumption against demolishing old things, because there's no chance of getting them back when they're gone. But if the argument for demolition is truly compelling, then fair enough....

mummy - what you actually said was..

our traditions are not the property of this generation to give away

which seems pretty conclusively to suggest we do not have the right to change them....

and why do you keep suggesting we could not go back to FPTP in the future if we wanted to... why not?

[Worthy4England]

This is appears to be a significant day in British politics - Tory's offering a referendum on an AV based system - Labour offering to bring it in through Parliamentary legislation....Possibly one of the most significant days in years...

Lib Dems should say no - this is not a proportional system. And, in any case, any change of this order should go to a referendum.

Lib dems should go for the Single Transferable Vote system, endorsed by the Jenkins enquiry of 97/98, that offers serious proportionality and retains a high degree of constituency connection.

In response to an earlier post, and several reservations expressed about disproportionate power being held by very small parties I'd suggest a 5% threshold before you were represented in Parliament. This, of course, does have an anti-democratic tinge to it, and i could be persuaded out of it or into a negotiation, up or down. But the voting system needs to have democratic legitimacy once we are in a multi-party age - and we have been there for more than one generation.

Info on STV and other systems here -

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

The Jenkins Commission did not endorse the STV system - it endorsed AV+ - which was a compromise between FPTP and STV...

It's an interesting dilemma for the Lib Dems - I'm not sure either the Tories or Labour will endorse STV, to the extent that we could end up exactly where we started with a minority Government and a fairly quick re-election.

Guess it will come down to "who blinks first".

[CAPSLOCK]

Brown fcuking off has pleased me

May allow the Tories to dodge the bullet

[Prufrock]

This is appears to be a significant day in British politics - Tory's offering a referendum on an AV based system - Labour offering to bring it in through Parliamentary legislation....Possibly one of the most significant days in years...

Lib Dems should say no - this is not a proportional system. And, in any case, any change of this order should go to a referendum.

Lib dems should go for the Single Transferable Vote system, endorsed by the Jenkins enquiry of 97/98, that offers serious proportionality and retains a high degree of constituency connection.

In response to an earlier post, and several reservations expressed about disproportionate power being held by very small parties I'd suggest a 5% threshold before you were represented in Parliament. This, of course, does have an anti-democratic tinge to it, and i could be persuaded out of it or into a negotiation, up or down. But the voting system needs to have democratic legitimacy once we are in a multi-party age - and we have been there for more than one generation.

Info on STV and other systems here -

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

The Jenkins Commission did not endorse the STV system - it endorsed AV+ - which was a compromise between FPTP and STV...

It's an interesting dilemma for the Lib Dems - I'm not sure either the Tories or Labour will endorse STV, to the extent that we could end up exactly where we started with a minority Government and a fairly quick re-election.

Guess it will come down to "who blinks first".

AV+ is AV for the constituencies and then some extra seats not linked to a constituency filled up by a PR list system right?

I seem to remember London Mayoral elections being AV

[Worthy4England]

Brown fcuking off has pleased me too....

I would note though, that he hasn't actually gone anywhere yet.

I'm not particularly criticising him for staying put for a day or two - Constitutionally, he can do no different - but I'll be glad to see the day when he does.

[Hoboh]

Exactly. You vote for the guy you want (with PR), rather than often having to vote for someone you don't, becasue there's an even worse option more likely to win the seat in the FPTP system. And in other cases, you may be in a massively safe seat, but that candidate is not the one you would choose, under FPTP, there is basically noi point in voting, but under PR, no vote is wasted.

PR gets rid of all that, and lets everyone's vote count whoever they want to vote for. Seems if you actually understood PR, it is what you are in favour of, you just don't understand how or why.

i'm not bothered if i lose. i know why i've lost. what i dont like is when i have lost some rule says my losing vote might be worth more "proportantally?!?" than someones vote for the winners.

its the tactical voting types that'll cause the trouble.

but whatever, browns going.

Which is a cause for celebration. He should have gone about three years ago.

On the down side, I've just seen Harriet Harman head into number 10 - that's a distinct worry.

Worry, WORRY??? Talk about feckin understatement!!! That is Armageddon!!

[Prufrock]

Brown fcuking off has pleased me too....

I would note though, that he hasn't actually gone anywhere yet.

I'm not particularly criticising him for staying put for a day or two - Constitutionally, he can do no different - but I'll be glad to see the day when he does.

I'm glad he's gone, he had to, but I do worry this could be the day we see the last substance over style PM, even if his substance was oft a bit shit. Yay for vacuous PR men.....

[Bruce Rioja]

Brown fcuking off has pleased me too....

Interesting, Worthy. So, I'm guessing, ideally for you he'd have fecked off before the election. Who would you have had up there?

[Lord Kangana]

Internet fiver says Libdems told Labour that if Brown fecked off, and they gave them PR, they would have discussions about coalition. Thye further this goes on, the less likely I feel a Tory/Lib pact is gonna come off.

[Bruce Rioja]

Internet fiver says Libdems told Labour that if Brown fecked off, and they gave them PR, they would have discussions about coalition.

Internet fiver - for the fecking obvious?

[Lord Kangana]

You drive a hard bargain Bruce, tenner to you then.

[William the White]

[quote="Worthy4England

The Jenkins Commission did not endorse the STV system - it endorsed AV+ - which was a compromise between FPTP and STV...

It's an interesting dilemma for the Lib Dems - I'm not sure either the Tories or Labour will endorse STV, to the extent that we could end up exactly where we started with a minority Government and a fairly quick re-election.

Guess it will come down to "who blinks first".[/quote]

You are right.

I could live with that, though I'd certainly prefer STV.

check out the options...

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

[a1]

Internet fiver says Libdems told Labour that if Brown fecked off, and they gave them PR, they would have discussions about coalition. Thye further this goes on, the less likely I feel a Tory/Lib pact is gonna come off.

the libdems are using an alternate vote issue (which possibly could be why they [the libdems] got less votes/seats than last time- pushing for PR put folk off 'em) as a bargaining chip.

and the tories and labour may see this as "being played for chumps" while the libdems whore themselves about using a vote loser.

the libs are going all in with ace high. and are gonna be only a bit better off when the other two start messing with AV+ .

[Worthy4England]

Brown fcuking off has pleased me too....

Interesting, Worthy. So, I'm guessing, ideally for you he'd have fecked off before the election. Who would you have had up there?

That's a fair question Brucie. One which I will get to eventually.

I'm not sure it would have made much difference to the outcome of the election whoever was leader. I don't subscribe to the notion that the global economic problems, were the entire fault of the Government. I'm also not convinced that any other colour of Government would have handled it much differently - in terms of needing to bail the banks out. Although I'm left of centre on many things, I didn't feel inclined to vote for a Government led by Brown.

That said, it'd have to get a whole lot worse before I'd vote Tory. I don't find Cameron or Osborne particularly inspiring either.

It only really left Lib Dems (and I didn't vote for them either), who I thought had the better leader (purely from a charismatic point of view) and probably the best candidate for Chancellor, but some really bizarre policies.

In the circumstances, I'd probably prefer a more proportional voting system (rather then listen to career politicians from the Labour Party and Tory Party telling us how bad it would be for us - who the fcuk do they think they are to tell us what's right and what's wrong?). I think we do need to move away from the us and them politics that we've followed for most of my lifetime.

I don't believe the Lib/Lab pact would be a shrewd move, unless it's for the one purpose of putting a referendum in place (and I mean quickly - not in 3 months) regarding the voting system. Not that I find it "morally wrong" to form a Lib/Lab pact - they represent 15m voters between them. My sense of fair play says that it should be a Con/Lib pact - but unless the Libs have moved a fair way conceptually, then I don't see it being anything other than the same sort of "convenience".

Back to leader for the Labour Party - It'll probably be David Milliband or some Balls or other. Which is probably a better long term bet than Alan Johnson (who'd probably get my vote)