Elections in the UK

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are live pictures now of 1,000 people outside Lib Dem HQ demanding to speak to Nick Clegg to tell him to stay strong and not cave in to the Tories.

Man, the Conservatives are going to be in so much shit if they don't concede to PR with some Lib Dem deal now.

[Captain Seafort]

Why exactly should the Tories concede to an electoral system that's could have been specifically designed to produce this sort of mess at every election, at the whims of one of the comedy options that happen to be on the ballot paper alongside the two major parties? The Lib Dems have less than sixty seats, and received less than a quarter of the popular vote. If the electorate was so up for PR, why exactly does the main PR party get routinely thumped?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Because, if you'd been reading the thread the last page, the people get dicked over by the system we have now, so of course it doesn't look like they're doing well. Explain why Labour has over four times the seats for barely a few percent more of the vote.

The system is a mess, and this scaremongering bullshit over PR is hilarious when the EXACT THING that the Tories were rambling on about that many would use against PR has just happened. Guess they're full of shit.

[Captain Seafort]

Because, if you'd been reading the thread the last page, the people get dicked over by the system we have now, so of course it doesn't look like they're doing well. Explain why Labour has over four times the seats for barely a few percent more of the vote.

I'm not saying the current system doesn't need changing - I'm saying that a system that will produce hung parliaments the vast majority of the time is far worse. Note also that I didn't simply rely on numbers of seats - the Lib Dems got a pasting in terms of

The system is a mess, and this scaremongering bullshit over PR is hilarious when the EXACT THING that the Tories were rambling on about that many would use against PR has just happened. Guess they're full of shit.

How exactly does the second hung parliament in over half a century disprove the argument that PR would produce hung parliaments on a regular basis?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm not saying the current system doesn't need changing - I'm saying that a system that will produce hung parliaments the vast majority of the time is far worse. Note also that I didn't simply rely on numbers of seats - the Lib Dems got a pasting in terms of

In terms of? They had a higher turn out this year.

How exactly does the second hung parliament in over half a century disprove the argument that PR would produce hung parliaments on a regular basis?

Hung Parliaments aren't the problem, it's the fear over them that is. There's some horrible propaganda being spread about coalition governments being useless, which is simply a lie. If PR means fairer voting and more coalitions, then so be it. If you accept the system needs changing, then what alternative would you propose other than PR?

[Minischoles]

Labour - 8.6million votes, 258 seats
Liberal - 6.8million votes, 57 seats

That's the difference in votes, and the difference in seats. See how fucking stupid it is, that in this current system a party can get 2 million less votes, and yet get TWO HUNDRED less seats. They actually did fairly well on votes (23% compared to Labours 29%) and yet because most of those votes happened in places where tribalism is rampant (like in my family, and in this area i'm living in) they will never win a seat against most Labour/Tory candidates, and that is utterly stupid.

[aerius]

Hung Parliaments aren't the problem, it's the fear over them that is. There's some horrible propaganda being spread about coalition governments being useless, which is simply a lie. If PR means fairer voting and more coalitions, then so be it. If you accept the system needs changing, then what alternative would you propose other than PR?

Well that's pretty easy, adopt a 2 party system like the US and that's the end of your hung parliaments. On the downside, you only get to vote for dumb and dumber and you lose all the fun whacknut parties.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Regardless of whether you think the Lib Dems could/should win and form a government or not, the system is clearly horribly inefficient in many ways, not least of which is the fucking catastrophe of people being disenfranchised because of various local government screw-ups. We need to look long and hard at what has gone wrong here, what people are obviously crying out for, and what needs to be done. A year ago this month, it was duck houses and moats as perks of being an MP. Today, it is how they can screw a country out of votes. I think people are pretty pissed over what's been going on with British politics these last few years.

Well that's pretty easy, adopt a 2 party system like the US and that's the end of your hung parliaments. On the downside, you only get to vote for dumb and dumber and you lose all the fun whacknut parties.

It essentially was a two party system until we finally realised that both main parties normally in power are shafting us after promising the world. Even if the third party doesn't come up smelling of roses either, it will at least be an attempt to try and break a cycle of tedium many people are sick of. I hear a lot of US commentators are perplexed over how this situation came about because of their binary view of politics.

[Old Peculier]

If the electorate was so up for PR, why exactly does the main PR party get routinely thumped?

Wrong question. How does a party that has no chance of forming a Government, and often little chance of winning a particular constituency, due to the current system still manage to get a quarter (hardly a small amount) of the vote with a much smaller financial and volunteer support base and less publicity. Lib Dems want a referendum on proportional representation, probably because they think a referendum would say yes to PR.

A reformed voting system (pretty much any reform would be more likely to help LibDems than hinder them) would result in more seats per vote for the LibDems, and most likely quite a few more votes, as people worried less about a wasted vote.

Personally I fancy a multi-round vote (one ballot paper, with order of preference) for the house of commons and PR for a reformed upper-house. This is just a fancy though, if it were ever actually put to me I'd have to think some more about it.

[Captain Seafort]

In terms of? They had a higher turn out this year.

Sorry about that - I was rewording my post and pulled out too much. I intended to say "in terms of the popular vote" - they got less than a quarter of it. If the general population was so keen on them and PR, how come they didn't even come close to the "Cleggmania" figures, let alone the two main parties?

Hung Parliaments aren't the problem, it's the fear over them that is. There's some horrible propaganda being spread about coalition governments being useless, which is simply a lie. If PR means fairer voting and more coalitions, then so be it.

I agree that coalitions aren't automatically a catastrophe, but having a single-party majority definitely an improvement. For example, in the current situation it's clear that the Tories are more popular than any other single party, but any coalition will involve the Lib Dems (who got less than a quarter of the popular vote) and possibly the regional parties (who would undoubtedly demand that their bit of the country be exempt from budget cuts). Why should these comedy options, whose manifestos have been so emphatically rejected, get a role in running the country?

If you accept the system needs changing, then what alternative would you propose other than PR?

AV - it retains the fundamental principle of the current systems that each constituency returns a single individual, while minimising the number of wasted votes. For example in a Tory/Labour marginal anyone who votes for other than those two is wasting their time and their vote. In AV they can still vote for their first preference (by that Lib Dem, MRLP or whoever) while still having a say in the real contest.

My fundamental requirement would be to ensure that the maximum numbers of voters' choices are relevant to the outcome while still producing a single-party majority.

[Crazedwraith]

Note that Labour were promising electoral reform also. So more people voted for the reforming parties than they did for the Conservatives who are anti-reform. So if we assume as you do that electoral reform is the single issue everyone voted on, then the reformers have more popular support. (This is a pretty silly assumption but hey, you started it)

[Captain Seafort]

Labour were promising "electoral reform" somewhere about a million miles down their manifesto, and in as vague form as they could manage. The Lib Dems have been banging on about PR as one of their main policies for forever and a day.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sorry about that - I was rewording my post and pulled out too much. I intended to say "in terms of the popular vote" - they got less than a quarter of it. If the general population was so keen on them and PR, how come they didn't even come close to the "Cleggmania" figures, let alone the two main parties?

A lot of people I've known to vote tend to go for red or blue solely because they see yellow or anything else as a protest vote (and they're right). I almost abstained myself, for what good it would do. A lot of this tactical voting schtick has made people vote for parties they'd not otherwise want, but feel they have the best chance of denying the party they least want in from winning. A system like that is really not democratic, regardless of how many people voted for the party most keen on PR.

I agree that coalitions aren't automatically a catastrophe, but having a single-party majority definitely an improvement. For example, in the current situation it's clear that the Tories are more popular than any other single party, but any coalition will involve the Lib Dems (who got less than a quarter of the popular vote) and possibly the regional parties (who would undoubtedly demand that their bit of the country be exempt from budget cuts). Why should these comedy options, whose manifestos have been so emphatically rejected, get a role in running the country?

Except, these comedy options had more people vote for them than the party with the supposed majority when looking at the issue of reforming our electoral system. And I don't see why power sharing is somehow bad when many EU and non-EU countries have achieved far more than the UK has set out to do with such an apparent penalty.

AV - it retains the fundamental principle of the current systems that each constituency returns a single individual, while minimising the number of wasted votes. For example in a Tory/Labour marginal anyone who votes for other than those two is wasting their time and their vote. In AV they can still vote for their first preference (by that Lib Dem, MRLP or whoever) while still having a say in the real contest.

My fundamental requirement would be to ensure that the maximum numbers of voters' choices are relevant to the outcome while still producing a single-party majority.

I'd have to look into how other options weigh against one another, but I like the idea of voting in order of preference.

[Keevan_Colton]

What would be wrong with adopting the partial PR system used in scotland? First past the post, but with regional seats too that balance the popular vote out.
Combine it with a solution to the West Lothian question and you'd have a pretty decent update to things, that would even benefit the Tories in relation to English only representation.

[Teebs]

My current favourite example of the screwed up nature of our electoral system is the two Oxford seats where I campaigned this election.

Votes (from memory):
Lib Dem: 40,000
Conservative: 34,000
Labour: 28,000

Seats won:
Lib Dem: 0
Conservative: 1
Labour:1

The Lib Dems won more votes than either of the other parties by a clear margin but won no seats because they came a close second in both while Labour and Conservatives came a poor third in the constituency they didn't win.

[Jalinth]

Note that Labour were promising electoral reform also. So more people voted for the reforming parties than they did for the Conservatives who are anti-reform. So if we assume as you do that electoral reform is the single issue everyone voted on, then the reformers have more popular support. (This is a pretty silly assumption but hey, you started it)

I'll echo Seafort here. Labour's electoral reform talk is pure talk. If the UK wants to try reform, then use the House of Lords as either a test bed or a balancing mechanism. Also, given the economic situation, electoral reform being the one and only issue is unlikely.

I think the UK also needs to figure out whether they want to be a federal system or not. Right now, they have aspects of a federal system (the regional parliaments) but one that excludes the piece with the biggest population. Then transfer power and funding ability and responsibility to them.

[Thanas]

Why exactly should the Tories concede to an electoral system that's could have been specifically designed to produce this sort of mess at every election

The "mess" you are calling is standard procedure for Germany over the past 70 years and looking at our country now, I dare say it has served us quite well.

[Bluewolf]

BREAKING NEWS I can reveal that the Liberal Democrat negotiating team met over the weekend not just with the Tories but, in secret, with a team from Labour consisting of Peter Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andrew Adonis, says the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson. So far, I can get no official comment from either party about what was discussed.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

[Plekhanov]

In terms of? They had a higher turn out this year.

Sorry about that - I was rewording my post and pulled out too much. I intended to say "in terms of the popular vote" - they got less than a quarter of it. If the general population was so keen on them and PR, how come they didn't even come close to the "Cleggmania" figures, let alone the two main parties?

Because of course all those who favour PR are single issue voters who always vote Lib Dem, they never overall favour other parties, vote tactically to keep Labour/the Tories out, don't bother to vote at all as they're in utterly safe seats...

I agree that coalitions aren't automatically a catastrophe, but having a single-party majority definitely an improvement.

They are? Evidence please. Countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Holland, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland.... all use variants of PR which often throw up coalition governments. Would you say that on the whole those countries have done better or worse than the UK since the war?

For example, in the current situation it's clear that the Tories are more popular than any other single party, but any coalition will involve the Lib Dems (who got less than a quarter of the popular vote) and possibly the regional parties (who would undoubtedly demand that their bit of the country be exempt from budget cuts). Why should these comedy options, whose manifestos have been so emphatically rejected, get a role in running the country?

Why should the two largest parties get turns at exchanging absolute power whilst permanently excluding all the other from a share of it?

AV - it retains the fundamental principle of the current systems that each constituency returns a single individual, while minimising the number of wasted votes. For example in a Tory/Labour marginal anyone who votes for other than those two is wasting their time and their vote. In AV they can still vote for their first preference (by that Lib Dem, MRLP or whoever) while still having a say in the real contest.

My fundamental requirement would be to ensure that the maximum numbers of voters' choices are relevant to the outcome while still producing a single-party majority.

Please do explain why single party majorities are so essential.

You might also like to ponder the fact that the big parties themselves are in fact coalitions sometimes fractious ones. On the news just today there were reports that right wingers within the Tories were warning Cameron off making too many concessions to the Lib Dems and demanding that that fundie fuck Duncan gets a place in the cabinet. This same wing of the party gave Major no end of trouble the last time the Tories were in power. Why is a secret backroom coalition between such groups OK but an open coalition so terrible?

Why do you prefer that a few nutters on the fringe of a big party (be they far left Labour or far right Tories) sometimes effectively get to wield huge influence over their parties agenda than a moderate party which is habitually supported by atleast 1 in 5 of the population ever get any direct power?

[Dartzap]

Aaaaaaannd the Lib Dems have entered into talks with Labour now - and Brown has said he's going to be resigning as leader of the Labour Party as soon as possible.

[FSTargetDrone]

Aaaaaaannd the Lib Dems have entered into talks with Labour now - and Brown has said he's going to be resigning as leader of the Labour Party as soon as possible.

Possibly by this September:

Page last updated at 16:51 GMT, Monday, 10 May 2010 17:51 UK

Brown to quit as Labour leader

Gordon Brown has said he is stepping down as Labour Party leader.

Mr Brown, prime minister since 2007, said he wanted a successor to be in place by the time of the party's conference in September.

Mr Brown announced his intention to quit in a statement in Downing St in which he also said his party was to start formal talks with the Lib Dems.

The Conservatives won the most seats and most votes in the election and have been in talks with the Lib Dems.

But Mr Brown's statement will be seen as a move to smooth the way to a deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a government.

Voters' judgement

Mr Brown said Britain had a "parliamentary and not presidential system" and said there was a "progressive majority" of voters.

He said if the national interest could be best served by a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour - he said he would "discharge that duty to form that government".

“ I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate ”
Gordon Brown

But he added that no party had won an overall majority in the UK general election and, as Labour leader, he had to accept that as a judgement on him.

"I therefore intend to ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election.

"I would hope that it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labour Party conference.

Formal process

Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg had requested formal negotiations with Labour and it was "sensible and in the national interest" to respond positively to the request, Mr Brown said.

He said the Cabinet would meet soon and a "formal policy negotiation process" would be established.

It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said one of the stumbling blocks to any Lib Dem-Labour deal had been Mr Brown himself.

John Mann, the first Labour MP to call for him to go after the election result, said Mr Brown had made a "wise and brave" decision.

The Tories secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May. It leaves the party short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority, with the Thirsk and Malton seat - where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate - still to vote.

Labour finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down five, and other parties 28.

If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.

With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.

[Vendetta]

Given the reaction of Sky News' political editor in this interview, the Murdoch organs would not be happy about a Lib/Lab coalition.

[TC27]

Looks like a nice poker bluff by the Lib Dems - I imagine they must now a lib-lab-nat party coalition would not last the year.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd like to see that coalition just for the headlines in the conservative rags and the look on Cameron's face. Whether it works or not is another matter, and I hold no love in my heart for New Labour.

[DaveJB]

One of my former classmates currently works at the offices of The Sun, and according to her, most of the higher-ups have been pretty much storming around in a frenzy, screaming "RAAARGH!! Everyone knows we choose who gets to be PM, so why the fuck isn't Cameron in No.10 right now?!?" since Friday morning. The thought of Milliband, Balls or even Clegg as PM would probably result in them suffering a collective nervous breakdown.

Funnily enough, the only Sun writer that seems to have realised that Cameron isn't all he's been hyped up to be is Kelvin Mackenzie, presumably because he's old enough to remember when the Tories actually had good leaders.