UK goes to the polls

[Sue U]

If you mean personally, then the Lib Dem candidate in my area is a strong Cornish Nationalist, which I disagree with.,

Why? (I'm unfamiliar with the issue.)

If you mean the UK per se, then I think there are two problems;

1) they are untried and untested in Govt, and the UK is not in a healthy enough state to bear that.

Is it healthy enough for a hung Parliament? How about a Tory government? Which is worse? (I think the latter, most likely.)

2) The seem to be attracting attention on the charisma of Clegg. The last time people voted on charisma we ended up with Bliar at the helm, he's not remembered fondly.

He started out pretty well, as I recall.

[Gob]

Oh, some also worry that a vote for the Lib Dems may result in a "hung parliament" and a state of paralysis, when that is the last thing the UK needs.

[Sue U]

Oh, some also worry that a vote for the Lib Dems may result in a "hung parliament" and a state of paralysis [...]

Is paralysis necessary? Can't you have a coalition or minority government? Other parliamentary democracies do this as a matter of course. Why would it be a problem for the UK?

[Gob]

There would be a period of negotiation over policy, and always the chance that a falling out could occur and a dissolution take place.

The UK has never had a coalition/hung parliament, so it would be entirely new ground.

[thestoat]

Sue, voters in the UK can be classed in one of two groups: those who aren't labour and wouldn't vote for them and those that are and would.

If we look at the second group, most are fed up with Labour. However, the reason they wouldn't vote Lib Dem (or Tory) is, in my view, because they don't think too much about it. They are Labour supporters, always have been and won't - can't - consider an alternative. Labour have done so many shitty things (don't forget it was Brown himself who managed to offload a huge amount of UK gold just when its value was at rock bottom - quite a feat), but most Labour supporters won't think about giving someone else a go - they'll stick with Labour using such excuses as "Can't vote Lib Dem - they won't get in" and "Can't vote Tory - I didn't like the leader previous to the one previous to the one previous to the one previous to the one previous to the one previous to Cameron".

Unfortunately, we could still see Labour come 3rd and have more seats than any other party! What a mess ...

How about a Tory government? Which is worse? (I think the latter, most likely.)

I wonder why you say that?

[Gob]

I must correct myself. The UK had a minority govt under Grocer Heath in 1974. Though it only lasted 7 months.

[Gob]

Unfortunately, we could still see Labour come 3rd and have more seats than any other party! What a mess ...

And if the Lib Dems get a sniff of power it will be under the understanding that proportional representation is introduced, leading to all sorts of fun and games!

[Sue U]

Unfortunately, we could still see Labour come 3rd and have more seats than any other party!

How does that happen?

And if the Lib Dems get a sniff of power it will be under the understanding that proportional representation is introduced, leading to all sorts of fun and games!

What is wrong with proportional representation?

[thestoat]

thestoat wrote:
Unfortunately, we could still see Labour come 3rd and have more seats than any other party!

How does that happen?

Because it isn't the party with the most votes that wins - it is the party with the most number of MPs. Each area in the UK sends an MP to parliament - voted for by the public.

Let's take an extreme example. Suppose there are 2 parties, purple and brown, and 3 areas. Suppose area A has 10 people, area B has 10 people and area C has 100 people. Suppose purple wins in A and B and brown wins in C. Brown has polled 100 votes while purple has polled 20 votes (assuming 100% swing in each area). Yet purple would form the government since they have 2 seats.

The boundaries for each area are changed by the incoming government to help them stay elected.

[Sue U]

The boundaries for each area are changed by the incoming government to help them stay elected.

We call that "gerrymandering." But here in the US and A there are limits over how redistricting can be accomplished (and it's only done every 10 years). Also, we are supposed to keep our congressional districts to roughly equal populations within the same state, and state congressional delegations are supposed to reflect their perrcentage of the nation's population as a whole. Are UK parliamentary districts allowed to be so disproportionate in population that a third-place finish in the popular vote can be the governing party? If so, you need some serious election reform, and proportional representation.

[Big RR]

and state congressional delegations are supposed to reflect their perrcentage of the nation's population as a whole.

Not entirely, even the smallest state gets one seat in the House of Repesentatives, whether thir proportion of the US population is 1/470th of the US population or not (and larger number of seats are not doled out entirely proportionally either, as there are no fractional legislators) . The populations of the least populated states are often overrepresented, much as they are in the electoral college to elect the president.

[Gob]

Sue, in the UK boundaries for constituencies are set by the Boundary Commission, which is independent of Government.

More on them here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_C ... Kingdom%29

Although the legislation gives the Secretary of State power to modify a Commission’s recommendations, by convention this power is not used. One of the strengths of the UK system is that boundary making is separated by a combination of structure and convention from those elected from the resulting electoral areas. This significantly reduces any scope for gerrymandering.

[Gob]

Bliar is looking more psycho by the day...

[BoSoxGal]

So if we are representative, more Gordon Brown to come.

[Sue U]

From the polling I saw today, in the popular vote Conservatives are at 33% and Labour and LibDem are both at 28%. Yet the projected House of Commons seats go to Conservatives and Labour each by more than 3 times the number to LibDem (283 Conservatve, 250 Labour, 86 LibDem). UK Polling Report In any event, none get a majority. Can the parties trade (for example)ministries for votes to create a coalition? Or is one-party government required? If the latter, do the plurality parties offer policy sops to the smaller partes in return for support on the PM vote? Can the government be brought down on a no-confidence vote?

[Scooter]

All of those are possible. While multiparty representation in Cabinet has happened, it is rare in Westminster-based parliaments. More typically, the party with the largest number of seats is given the opportunity to form a government and will create a Cabinet from among its own members, and will seek support from a smaller party in order to command a majority in Parliament. There will be some quid pro quo for this support, usually in the form of particular policy initiatives or budget proposals. The only votes required to be matters of confidence (which bring down the government if defeated) are the Speech from the Throne and the budget. The parties may reach agreement on what other measures will be considered matters of confidence, or the governing party may of its own accord declare something to be a matter of confidence (i.e. that it will resign if defeated), or one of the opposition parties may move a motion of no confidence when it has an opportunity to do so. Since the resignation of the government usually means new elections, the outcome of a confidence vote depends as much (if not more) on the parties' beliefs in their prospects for success as it does on their actual position on the issue at hand. In a minority parliament, another party can be given the chance to govern without new elections if it can demonstrate that it can command a majority.

So if the current projections hold until election day (Conservative plurality), and unless Labour is able to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems to continue governing, the probable scenario is this:

The current Prime Minister will go to the Queen and inform her that he must resign as he no longer commands a majority in Parliament. He will recommend that she extend an offer to David Cameron, the Conservative leader, to form a government. The Queen will invite Cameron to form a government, and he will accept the invitation if he believes that he will be able to command a majority (i.e. if he has or believes he will be able to come to an understanding with the Lib Dems).

A government can also continue to function without any explicit support from other parties if it believes it will not be defeated on confidence motions. This is currently the situation in Canada, which has a Conservative minority government which has been able to survive for four years because it would take the combined vote of all three opposition parties to bring it down, and each of them have had their reasons at one time or another over that period to be fearful of an election.

[Gob]

Yep, Scooter nailed it, a very succinct summary.

[Scooter]

Proportional representation is sure to come up as a condition of Lib Dem support. While I am in favour of it, I don't believe that it would benefit either Labour or the Tories in the long term. Both parties will be able to command majorities in future parliaments under the current system (Labour when people get over being pissed off, the Tories when they can be seen as a credible alternative), but neither will ever get a majority under prop rep. Rather than concede this to the Lib Dems over what is very likely a transient three way split in public opinion, the two parties should give serious consideration to forming a grand coalition. They could call it a government of national unity, claiming it to be a response to the current economic crisis (not unlike the national unity governments that operated in wartime). They can both thumb their noses at the Lib Dems with the likelihood that one of them will form a majority in the next parliament. Even the loser can be consoled with the prospect that its turn will eventually come again, rather than being saddled with a perpetual coalition partner pulling the strings if prop rep were to be enacted.

[Gob]

Again, that is a totally balanced account.

PR will come, it's needed if the disaffection with the current system is to end. Neither of the "Big 2" want it, for the reasons Scooter highlights.

I would like to see a "none of the above" option on the ballot as not voting does not indicate anything. Voting "none of the above" is making a statement.

[Scooter]

Would people who don't like the idea of their vote being "wasted" or acting as a spoiler under the current system, and who don't like the instability of prop rep, be inclined to support something similar to the Australian system (a form of instant runoff)? More likely to form stable majorties, and yet the ranking allows your vote to count towards the candidates you are most inclined to support, rather than splitting the votes in a constituency in such a way as to allow your least favoured candidate to sneak up the middle.

ETA - in previous Spanish elections there was a party called something like the "Blank Vote Party" - their platform was that the number of seats allocated to them based on the votes they received under prop rep would remain empty, as a sign of disaffection with the political process.