Elections in the UK

[General Mung Beans]

Well I'm hoping the Conservatives win though I can't too much as I'm American. Labour and Liberal Democrats are both too far left for my tastes while UKIP will just draw away Tory votes when every vote is necessary.

[bobalot]

Well I'm hoping the Conservatives win though I can't too much as I'm American. Labour and Liberal Democrats are both too far left for my tastes while UKIP will just draw away Tory votes when every vote is necessary.

What an insightful analysis. All that can be observed from your comment is that you support the Conservatives because ... they are Conservative. Not because of particular policy, promises, etc. I can't imagine reason more retarded for supporting a political party.

It appears the Liberal-Democrats have surged in votes. What are the chances of a coalition government with Labour (with the Lib-Dem's as the bigger partner)?

[Teleros]

It appears the Liberal-Democrats have surged in votes. What are the chances of a coalition government with Labour (with the Lib-Dem's as the bigger partner)?

About zero . Although the polls put them ahead of Labour, they need stupid levels of popularity to get anywhere near parity in terms of number of MPs, which gives Labour the big advantage if it does come down to a hung parliament and a Labour / Lib Dem alliance. Whilst I don't know how accurate it is, the BBC has a little flash program that attempts to model the popular vote & number of seats here, and it at least looks fairly similar to other sources I've read re the Lib Dems. Give each of the main 3 parties 30% of the vote each, and you get:

C: 206 seats
L: 315
LD: 100
Other 10%: 29


Anyway... personally I'm hoping for a Conservative government - although Cameron and his lot are nothing special, just about anything's better than more Gordon Brown tax'n'spend "fun". Only problem is they (the Tories) need close to 40% of the vote to get enough seats, whilst Labour need just ~34%. Lib Dems incidentally need 41-42% to form their own government.

[Thanas]

This system is seriously messed up. Are districts that unequally represented or is there a lot of gerrymandering going on?

[Teebs]

This system is seriously messed up. Are districts that unequally represented or is there a lot of gerrymandering going on?

Districts outside Wales are actually fairly evenly sized, the issue is with concentration of votes. If I remember correctly Labour currently has very efficient concentrations for turning places into seats, the Conservatives rack up huge majorities in their safe constituencies which obviously make no contribution to winning more seats and the Liberal Democrat vote is spread very evenly across the country. If you get 25% in every seat that means no seats. As far as I know there is no problem with gerrymandering - districting is done by an independent commission with open guidelines on how things should be done.

Obviously the situation is fucked up though. It's perfectly plausible to have a result like Lib Dems 32% Conservatives 30% Labour 28% and have the Labour Party come first and the Lib Dems last. Hopefully this election will finally result in reform.

[Teleros]

There isn't the gerrymandering you get in the USA (our boundary commission for sorting these things out is at least meant to be independent of the winning MP ), but Teebs is right about the differences between the 3 main parties' voter concentrations.

As for reform... I don't really want to derail this thread, but suffice to say I'd rather redraw the boundaries a little and even out the population figures between constituencies than do anything radical. Perhaps a new topic for UK electoral reform is needed?

[Teebs]

There isn't the gerrymandering you get in the USA (our boundary commission for sorting these things out is at least meant to be independent of the winning MP ), but Teebs is right about the differences between the 3 main parties' voter concentrations.

As for reform... I don't really want to derail this thread, but suffice to say I'd rather redraw the boundaries a little and even out the population figures between constituencies than do anything radical. Perhaps a new topic for UK electoral reform is needed?

Which would do sweet fuck all. The constituencies are already meant to be roughly balanced. It would do absolutely nothing to solve the disadvantage of having your vote roughly evenly spread.

Personally I'd like to go with Single Transferable Vote for an electoral system. Multi-member constituencies and voters than rank the candidates in order of preference. It's fairly proportional while still providing a small bar to very minor parties and it allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party unlike list based proportional systems. It would also be pretty easy to implement since you could just stick existing constituencies together to make the new ones.

[General Mung Beans]

Well I'm hoping the Conservatives win though I can't too much as I'm American. Labour and Liberal Democrats are both too far left for my tastes while UKIP will just draw away Tory votes when every vote is necessary.

What an insightful analysis. All that can be observed from your comment is that you support the Conservatives because ... they are Conservative. Not because of particular policy, promises, etc. I can't imagine reason more retarded for supporting a political party.

I also agree with most of their policies such as cutting spending and less EU centralization.

[Phantasee]

There isn't the gerrymandering you get in the USA (our boundary commission for sorting these things out is at least meant to be independent of the winning MP ), but Teebs is right about the differences between the 3 main parties' voter concentrations.

As for reform... I don't really want to derail this thread, but suffice to say I'd rather redraw the boundaries a little and even out the population figures between constituencies than do anything radical. Perhaps a new topic for UK electoral reform is needed?

Which would do sweet fuck all. The constituencies are already meant to be roughly balanced. It would do absolutely nothing to solve the disadvantage of having your vote roughly evenly spread.

Personally I'd like to go with Single Transferable Vote for an electoral system. Multi-member constituencies and voters than rank the candidates in order of preference. It's fairly proportional while still providing a small bar to very minor parties and it allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party unlike list based proportional systems. It would also be pretty easy to implement since you could just stick existing constituencies together to make the new ones.

This would be terrible. Multi-member constituencies would mean I would have to bribe more than one man to get things done in my riding!

[Vendetta]

Well I'm hoping the Conservatives win though I can't too much as I'm American. Labour and Liberal Democrats are both too far left for my tastes while UKIP will just draw away Tory votes when every vote is necessary.

The tories would be unelectably communist in America.

[Thanas]

Well I'm hoping the Conservatives win though I can't too much as I'm American. Labour and Liberal Democrats are both too far left for my tastes while UKIP will just draw away Tory votes when every vote is necessary.

What an insightful analysis. All that can be observed from your comment is that you support the Conservatives because ... they are Conservative. Not because of particular policy, promises, etc. I can't imagine reason more retarded for supporting a political party.

I also agree with most of their policies such as cutting spending and less EU centralization.

Why?

[Big Orange]

The Conservative Party is starting to buckle from infighting and the senior veterans are putting the squeeze on Commander Data and his so-called "Big Society":

There's no such thing as 'big society', senior Tories tell Cameron

A series of anxious shadow ministers have warned the Tory leadership in private that David Cameron's central general election message – devolving power to create a "big society" – is crashing on the doorstep as candidates struggle to explain the idea to voters.

As Cameron's circle intensify their preparations for Thursday's television debate, by issuing pleas at Tory HQ for fresh ideas, shadow ministers have told the leadership that their "big idea" is too vague and needs to be scrapped in favour of practical policies.

The nervous discussions come as party officials experience a rollercoaster ride in the face of conflicting opinion polls. A ComRes poll for ITV/the Independent gave the Tories, on 35%, a nine-point lead over Labour and the Liberal Democrats on 26%. Other polls indicated that Nick Clegg was still on a roll after his success in last week's television debate.

The ComRes poll went some way to soothing frayed nerves among Tories who believe that the apparent Lib Dem surge has highlighted deep flaws in the Conservative campaign. Criticism is focusing on Steve Hilton, the director of strategy, and Oliver Letwin, the shadow cabinet policy co-ordinator, who were the main brains behind last week's Tory manifesto. This was entitled Invitation to Join the Government of Britain and was designed to illustrate the "big society" idea of handing power to people to set up schools and sack police chiefs.

But shadow ministers say the Letwin and Hilton approach is difficult to sell on the doorstep. "Oliver Letwin had this great 'big society' idea, though it might have been an idea to share it with the rest of us," one normally loyal shadow minister said. "People don't really follow Oliver's philosophical discourse."

Another shadow minister echoed this criticism. "The 'big society' needs to be turned into more practical, voter-friendly language. We need to turn Oliver Letwin's Hegelian dialectic into voter friendly stuff."

A third Tory source was even blunter. "The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?"

Tories are agreed that it would be wrong for Cameron to embark on the sort of lurch to the right that destroyed William Hague's leadership. They say that the 'big society' strategy is right but needs to be illustrated with specific policy proposals.

The leadership appeared to respond to these criticisms today by unveiling a hardline poster featuring the party's policies to crack down on benefit cheats.

"Let's cut benefits for those who refuse to work," the poster says next to a picture of Cameron. Tim Montgomerie, the founder of the ConservativeHome wesbite, wrote tonight: "It's good to see the party getting specific about what 'change' means."

Cameron himself embarked on a slight change of tactics todaywhen he began a walkabout in the marginal seat of Tamworth, where he said he wanted to answer "the questions real people want to ask".

He took questions about free care for the elderly, immigration, the impact of fuel prices on hauliers and the future of the NHS.

The Tory leader, who will tomorrow visit the Lib Dem stronghold of the south west, gave his strongest warning of the danger of voting for Clegg. A hung parliament would "lead to a sort of stagnation to a sort of haggling and a bickering among politicians and we won't get done what so badly needs to be done in our country".

His tough language will please internal critics who are annoyed that the leadership is not selling flagship policies.

"We have some great policies but we're not talking about them," said one Tory. "I had no idea that we have a great idea to give 1 million more people access to an NHS dentist. What a great idea. Why aren't we shouting about that? … It is a great policy and nobody knows about it."

The criticism of the election campaign came amid the first signs of whisperings about Cameron's leadership. There was disbelief among some Tories when the leader responded to Clegg's strong performance by decreeing last Friday that nothing needed to change.

The leadership embarked on a rethink at the weekend, resulting in a hastily filmed personal statement by Cameron for an election broadcast on Monday night, when the Lib Dems surged in the polls.

One senior figure said: "The project is all about Dave. So if he succeeds it is about him. But if he fails it is about him."

The source was clear about what would happen if Labour and the Lib Dems formed a coalition in a hung parliament to push through electoral reform. "By then we would have murdered our leader and his head would be on a stake. The last week shows how thin our support was. There is no great enthusiasm for Cameron."

The Guardian (video included in link)

[Bluewolf]

[/quote]

I also agree with most of their policies such as cutting spending and less EU centralization.[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

I cannot speak for him but there is probably a belief that that the EU is some sort of vine sprawling man eating plant that devours countries independent ability to to make laws and that it absorbs countries into the the EU machine. In the UK (I also think there is a lot of opposition in Norway) there is the belief that we are not part of Europe in the some way as others are and we should not cave too much into the EU. Some people think we should pull out of the EU to "take our politics back from Brussels". This is also why many think UKIP would be a good party. Plus as I mentioned with the plant metaphor, some fear the EU deeply. No idea why an American would be like this though.

[Teleros]

The Guardian (video included in link)

Because the Grauniad is the bastion of apolitical reporting, especially in a close election .

I cannot speak for him but there is probably a belief that that the EU is some sort of vine sprawling man eating plant that devours countries independent ability to to make laws and that it absorbs countries into the the EU machine.

You can cut out the "probably" in that sentence . A substantial proportion of people here in the UK do not like the EU much, at least as far as its effects on national policy and sovereignty are concerned.

[Thanas]

The Guardian (video included in link)

Because the Grauniad is the bastion of apolitical reporting, especially in a close election .

From what I read, it is far better than The Times or the Sunday Times, the latter especially seems to be a good little conservative propaganda piece.

[Teebs]

Well the right-wing press seems to have decided to go all out for Nick Clegg. Apparently the Express' front page is about how the Lib Dems want Britain to be swamped by immigrants, the Telegraph's front page is reporting that Nick Clegg received donations from private business men (which he apparently properly declared and used to fund a researcher) and the Daily Mail is reporting that he's made Nazi slurs about Britain. Wahey

[General Mung Beans]

I also agree with most of their policies such as cutting spending and less EU centralization.[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

I cannot speak for him but there is probably a belief that that the EU is some sort of vine sprawling man eating plant that devours countries independent ability to to make laws and that it absorbs countries into the the EU machine. In the UK (I also think there is a lot of opposition in Norway) there is the belief that we are not part of Europe in the some way as others are and we should not cave too much into the EU. Some people think we should pull out of the EU to "take our politics back from Brussels". This is also why many think UKIP would be a good party. Plus as I mentioned with the plant metaphor, some fear the EU deeply. No idea why an American would be like this though.[/quote]

Well I'm bit of an Anglophile and I feel some sentiment for our cultural motherland plus EU centralization means Britain will be less closer to the US. Plus I'm trying to assume where I'd be if I were British.

[General Mung Beans]

Why?

As to spending considering Britain is in massive debt certainly some cuts are necessary.

[Minischoles]

The Guardian (video included in link)

Because the Grauniad is the bastion of apolitical reporting, especially in a close election .

From what I read, it is far better than The Times or the Sunday Times, the latter especially seems to be a good little conservative propaganda piece.

It is far better than the Times, at least currently anyway. It's quite clear what side Murdoch (who owns the Times) has thrown his hat in on this time around, it's perhaps not quite as blatent in the Times, but you only have to read that rag The Sun to see how aggressively they're pushing the conservative cause.

I'm currently leaning towards voting for the Lib Dems, especially since in the area I live in, they actually stand quite a chance of scoring a win, since the conservative vote here is split between the Tories and UKIP, while Labour has never been popular.

[Teleros]

From what I read, it is far better than The Times or the Sunday Times, the latter especially seems to be a good little conservative propaganda piece.

Most of the papers here are pick sides though - the traditional Tory mouthpiece has always been the Telegraph for example. The Times & the Sun support whoever Murdoch tells them to support this time round. Yes, Prime Minister is still pretty accurate in these things .

[Shaun]

Well I'm bit of an Anglophile and I feel some sentiment for our cultural motherland plus EU centralization means Britain will be less closer to the US. Plus I'm trying to assume where I'd be if I were British.

I can assure you as a Brit we don't need people who are not British and don't live in Britain trying to stick up for our culture.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Celebrating nationalities is celebrating the division of the human race.

Trufact.

[Simon_Jester]

I also agree with most of their policies such as cutting spending and less EU centralization.

Why?

I cannot speak for him but there is probably a belief that that the EU is some sort of vine sprawling man eating plant that devours countries independent ability to to make laws and that it absorbs countries into the the EU machine. In the UK (I also think there is a lot of opposition in Norway) there is the belief that we are not part of Europe in the some way as others are and we should not cave too much into the EU. Some people think we should pull out of the EU to "take our politics back from Brussels". This is also why many think UKIP would be a good party. Plus as I mentioned with the plant metaphor, some fear the EU deeply. No idea why an American would be like this though.

Well I'm bit of an Anglophile and I feel some sentiment for our cultural motherland plus EU centralization means Britain will be less closer to the US. Plus I'm trying to assume where I'd be if I were British.

Quote tags are your friend, Mung: learn to master them.

Seriously, though. Why would you favor the Conservative Party? Why would the Conservative Party favor the US? What British interests are upheld by a close relationship with the US, which tends to treat Britain like its tagalong little brother and drags it into fights that accomplish nothing Britain can use?

[Thanas]

Well I'm bit of an Anglophile and I feel some sentiment for our cultural motherland

Eh....since when is Britain a cultural motherland? The US has influences of it, but to call it the cultural motherland is a bit of an exaggeration. I mean, it would be like calling Germany the cultural motherland of Switzerland.

plus EU centralization means Britain will be less closer to the US.

Valid reason for an American. Why for the British?

Plus I'm trying to assume where I'd be if I were British.

And you base this on what?

As to spending considering Britain is in massive debt certainly some cuts are necessary.

Okay, so what would you cut? You must have some idea about the feasibility of such an idea.

[Bluewolf]

Well that was an interesting debate. I cannot say much as I am still processing but I think that Cameron did a lot better than Clegg due to preparation +a issue which the Conservatives tend to be quite strong at.