UK Election May 6th 96 replies

Please wait...

masked_marsoe Advanced Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#91 9 years ago

Yeah. In terms of electoral reform, I don't know why they aren't pushing MMP - it's already used in Germany(large-scale, long-term use), NZ (transition with Westminster background), as well as (most importantly for the UK) Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.

Hopefully they'll do the referendum in the same way we did it: stage one: keep or change?, stage two: which change?

If it's just FPTP vs AV, then its not even worth the change. No point in swapping one bad system for another.




Nemmerle Forum Moderator

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,938 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,188 Posts

6 Threads

#92 9 years ago

I'd imagine that's the point; sell people something under a different name, pat yourself on the back for reform, get the rest of your party's politics in and hope people don't notice you stabbing them in the back too much.




masked_marsoe Advanced Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#93 9 years ago

It just seems bizarre - the first real shot at power the Liberals have had in 90 years, and they're prepared to blow it.

Electoral reform is the key platform of their party, get it right, and they can overtake Labour for the first time since 1918. Get it wrong, and the party is massively damaged, perhaps even wiped out. Why would someone gamble everything on a reward that's worth far less?




Nemmerle Forum Moderator

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,938 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,188 Posts

6 Threads

#94 9 years ago

There's been a lot of pressure for them to accept, and it's not just the voting system they're reforming in terms of politics.

  • Fixed-term Parliaments - next election in May 2015
  • 55% of MPs required to bring government down in confidence vote
  • Committee to look at fully PR-elected House of Lords
  • Cut in number of MPs and equal size constituencies
  • Right of the public to "recall" corrupt MPs
  • Statutory register for lobbyists
  • Scottish Parliament to get more powers under Calman proposals
  • Referendum of devolution of further powers to Welsh assembly
  • Review of Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation
  • Ban on "non-doms" sitting in Parliament
  • Reform of political donations and party funding

BBC News - At-a-glance: Cameron coalition's policy plans

The Conservatives did have other options than to form a coalition, though they would have taken longer and been less cohesive. Bit of a mixed bag but I'd imagine they thought this was the best they were going to have. There's a lot of stuff aside from political reform too.




Freyr Advanced Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#95 9 years ago
masked_marsoe;5317415Electoral reform is the key platform of their party, get it right, and they can overtake Labour for the first time since 1918. Get it wrong, and the party is massively damaged, perhaps even wiped out. Why would someone gamble everything on a reward that's worth far less?

They wouldn't, which is why they went with the Tories.

Labour wanted to ignore the populaces wishes and just implement PR into law directly with no Referendum. Many of their MP's were deeply unhappy with this idea, especially the new ones who have only come into politics and haven't had time to be bribed or blackmailed yet. They were saying on national TV that they didn't have a mandate from the people to make such a massive change to our voting system and they didn't feel that in good conscience they could force such a change on the electorate.

Labour would have such a razor thin majority that just a couple of MP's not voting with their party would have defeated the PR attempt and there were definitely that many.

The Lib Dems were likely concerned that they wouldn't get PR and would end up stuck supporting the most unpopular government in Britain since the glorious revolution, which they might possibly have thought could be damaging to their future electoral prospects, especially in conjunction for making an attempt to undemocratically force changes upon the populace that the majority of people don't want.

The Lib Dems have actually done more to make sure that PR will never happen than any other party. The populace has just been given a demonstration of how PR would play out after every election, and people from all parties didn't take very kindly to manifesto promises being thrown out and effectively a new manifesto being written after we'd voted. In my opinion PR is dead for at least a generation.




masked_marsoe Advanced Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#96 9 years ago
The populace has just been given a demonstration of how PR would play out after every election, and people from all parties didn't take very kindly to manifesto promises being thrown out and effectively a new manifesto being written after we'd voted. In my opinion PR is dead for at least a generation.

They'll get used to it. Forming a government with at least a majority of popular support is a factor of modern democracies.

Post-election negotiations are a major moderating element, coalitions prevent radical changes occurring, or at least without major public scrutiny. No party supporter is completely happy, but more are kinda happy.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#97 9 years ago

masked_marsoe;5317516They'll get used to it. Forming a government with at least a majority of popular support is a factor of modern democracies.

Post-election negotiations are a major moderating element, coalitions prevent radical changes occurring, or at least without major public scrutiny. No party supporter is completely happy, but more are kinda happy.

That's indeed the case and it's hat democracy is about. It isn't perfect, as it will often try to please everybody a little bit rather then making one dominant group a lot happy while upsetting the "minority" (which in actual numbers may not be a minority at all).

On the downside though, to a degree this limits ambition. Some grand, unorthodox ideas, might be hard to pull of the ground or may be killed off after 4 years or so. Though this applies to any form of democracy, but with popular vote politicians may have to be a bit more careful and compromising then in systems such as FPT.

SO I guess it comes down to what you think of compromising (moderating) your views and views you oppose of. If you rather not water down the wine at all and don't mind being what's being served when someone else is in charge... then you may not need or like coalition goverments. If you rather be somewhat satisfied (part of your ideas will be executed, part of the ideas you oppose will be stopped/limited) then a coalition goverment ain't that bad. Though this mostly concerns sensitive/controversial subjects which strongly divide the public. Plenty of times you'd expect the public to be less divided on various subjects.