|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 22:47 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote:
On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it. Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
Not only does the Labour plan to reform the House of Lords look big, it looked bigger in 1997 when they first suggested it. Then in 1999 when they commissioned the Wakeham report into House of Lords reform. Then in 2003 when they had a direct vote on the issue and failed to reach any conclusion (in the Commons, the Lords voted to stay appointed). In 2007 they voted again and decided to scrap hereditaries. The vast majority of hereditaries are now gone and the remaining ones had to justify their stay on the grounds of sufficient expertise to be worthy of appointing to the job if they hadn't inheritted it. And their children will not inherit it, the hereditary House of Lords is gone, there are just a few survivors from the last generation.
Elected and a council of elders are mutually exclusive. At present the House of Lords is utterly independent of politics because they cannot be removed. Once you add elections you turn these elders, many of whom are still busy within their own fields, into politicians. They need to campaign, network and finance themselves. That undermines the entire point of the House of Lords in my opinion.
At the moment if you're really good at your job and know the subject inside out you can be made a Lord. That doesn't give you the power to write legislation but gives you the option of weighing in on legislation written by someone less well informed than you. It adds a layer of expertise, scrutiny and debate that would not otherwise be there. You simply cannot politicise that and retain the benefits, the advantage is that Lords are not professional politicians and are not subject to the party whip in any real way.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Seems you like Space Marines (from your sig?), so good on you.
I am shocked. Shocked.
Starcraft Unit Quotations
I was referring to the fact that the majority of editorials I read in the Times, Independent or the Guardian and sometimes even the Mail tend to be well thought-out and interesting.
Well no offence I think we are just going to have to disagree on that.
And in terms of the shows we watch, we are hearing the opinion of the main top guys, not the lackey in the back room who's researching x topic or doing makeup. Andrew Marr, Andrew Neill, Jeremy Paxman and David Dimbleby are clever guys...with a lot of knowledge...in my opinion.
I don't doubt it. If you focus at the very top end of what might be called the agenda-setting media (the BBC's flagship news and current affairs, the major national newspapers) you'll undoubtedly find a lot of intellectually capable people. The issues I have with the media at that level are not intellectual but rather ideological, and structural rather than based on particular personalities. But anyway, this is likely to take us considerably off topic.
Incidentally, I interviewed Michael Portillo years ago, when he was a minister in the Major government, and he is quite sharp, although I found him repulsive at the time. He seems a much more agreeable chap now he is no longer an MP. Also, he is much shorter than you'd think.
|
Klive, I remember being told the exact same thing by a very well-respected and rich lawyer over dinner and it was an interesting conversation. The House of Lords should not get any more substantial power, I'll agree on that. I'm in favour of a little tweaking here and there, and I just get a bad taste in my mouth from hereditary peerages, but also I get a worse taste in my mouth from cash for peerages etc!
And the digital rights bill, god. Don't get me started. You know something like 6 Tory MPs turned up for that vote :/. Sometimes I get the feeling that Mandelson does things because he can.
|
Oh god the egg is on my face now. Mental error! I don't play toss though  never have never will but I should have known.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 22:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
Incidentally, I interviewed Michael Portillo years ago, when he was a minister in the Major government, and he is quite sharp, although I found him repulsive at the time. He seems a much more agreeable chap now he is no longer an MP. Also, he is much shorter than you'd think.
tl never ceases to amaze me. 
|
On April 20 2010 22:49 KwarK wrote:
The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections.
Beg to differ here. While the Parliament itself is a joke, the elections are more representative, modulo the low turnouts. The European Parliament (as well as the devolved celtic parliaments) use a more democratic proportional representation system, so what happens is that people vote for the parties they want to vote for (because they stand a chance of putting one of their candidates in power). With the Westminister first-past-the-post system, voting for a party that isn't one of the two front runners (or in a safe seat, any vote at all, more or less) is a wasted vote. The reason people aren't voting for UKIP in Westminister because UKIP supporters aren't all bunched up in the same constituency, and are therefore unelectable (and the voters aren't too dumb to notice this, despite what people might say about them), not because UKIP is a secondary protest party.
I saw it happen with the Scottish Parliament elections. For the first elections in 1999, the vast bulk of the population voted for the same parties as in Westminister, but the system caught those few who did something different and one Green, one Socialist and an independent were elected. Four years later, the electorate cottoned on that those guys were electable, a whopping fifteen candidates from outwith the big four Scottish parties were elected.
If the liberal vote hits 30% in this election, we're going to see this phenomenon bigstyle, where a party without a solid geographic base (outwith a few strange places like Cornwall and some Scottish Islands) is vastly underrepresented iin Parliament, and could easily end up with far less seats than a party with fewer votes.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 23:09 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:49 KwarK wrote:
The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections. Beg to differ here. While the Parliament itself is a joke, the elections are more representative, modulo the low turnouts. The European Parliament (as well as the devolved celtic parliaments) use a more democratic proportional representation system, so what happens is that people vote for the parties they want to vote for (because they stand a chance of putting one of their candidates in power). With the Westminister first-past-the-post system, voting for a party that isn't one of the two front runners (or in a safe seat, any vote at all, more or less) is a wasted vote. The reason people aren't voting for UKIP in Westminister because UKIP supporters aren't all bunched up in the same constituency, and are therefore unelectable (and the voters aren't too dumb to notice this, despite what people might say about them), not because UKIP is a secondary protest party. I saw it happen with the Scottish Parliament elections. For the first elections in 1999, the vast bulk of the population voted for the same parties as in Westminister, but the system caught those few who did something different and one Green, one Socialist and an independent were elected. Four years later, the electorate cottoned on that those guys were electable, a whopping fifteen candidates from outwith the big four Scottish parties were elected. If the liberal vote hits 30% in this election, we're going to see this phenomenon bigstyle, where a party without a solid geographic base (outwith a few strange places like Cornwall and some Scottish Islands) is vastly underrepresented iin Parliament, and could easily end up with far less seats than a party with fewer votes.
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote.
As for the Lib Dems getting fucked over by FPTP, check out 1983.
![[image loading]](http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/9827/1983.jpg)
"go back to your constituencies and prepare for government." David Steel, leader of the Liberal SDP alliance. 1983
|
On April 20 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote.
Then explain how Scottish people vote more for strange wee parties when they have a proportional representation system? Why do British people vote more for those itty bitty weird parties in the Euro elections? The Scottish elections matter more than Westminister up here, while the European elections matter less. The one commonality is that they use proportional systems and Westminister doesn't.
Perhaps the random voter in the street doesn't know or care about the precise technicalities of the single transferable dual-alternative regional runoff system or whatever (I know I don't), but they know roughly the difference between 'first past the post' and 'proportional representation'.
As for the Lib Dems getting fucked over by FPTP, check out 1983.
Heh, 1983 was in my mind when I was writing my post, and I'd have brought it up if you'd made an issue of it.
Come to think of it, if you were around and paying attention in 1983 (not your fault I know - I blame your parents), you'd know that there was a huge deal made over a tactical voting campaign in the Bermondsey by-election that year (one of the candidates was Peter Tatchell, who was Loony Left Tabloid BogeyMan #4 at the time, after Benn, Scargill and Livingstone), and tactical voting happens precisely because voters know all about the ramifications of the FPTP system, contrary to what you said above. Voters aren't usually as stupid as the people who talk about them like to pretend...
|
If you watched the Lib Dem press conference the day before their manifesto release and also the day they released it, you will realise that they got killed on the questions. At the same time, I must say that the reporters seem to be a lot smarter (or they simply want to kill the Lib Dem) compare to those who sit at Labour/Conservatives.
edit: btw, I didn't read like all 4 page, I just decide to throw in a random comment
|
I think the biggest pro of the FPTP system is that each minister MUST get individually re-elected each time. It has made anyone who fiddled their expenses un-electable, whilst under the STV-Droop Quota the Liberals propose or any other PR system you don't get direct control over who is in parliament.
It's good that you mention Portillo because if it hadn't been for FPTP he would have undoubtably retained a parliament seat back in 97.
Then you have Ed Balls this time around; struggling for his seat. It makes each politician individually acountable.
|
Europe must be a mystical place how do you call obama center right lol.
|
lib dems hwaiting! Nick came off the best for me in this.
|
I went from not caring too much about politics, being mainly of the opinion that elections are designed to create the illusion of change whilst things carry on almost as normal just with another party in power.
I still think that but going to vote for Nicky Clegg as he performed well in the debate and from the policies I have sinced looked at the Lib Dem party are looking pretty good.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 23:33 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote. Then explain how Scottish people vote more for strange wee parties when they have a proportional representation system? Why do British people vote more for those itty bitty weird parties in the Euro elections? The Scottish elections matter more than Westminister up here, while the European elections matter less. The one commonality is that they use proportional systems and Westminister doesn't. Perhaps the random voter in the street doesn't know or care about the precise technicalities of the single transferable dual-alternative regional runoff system or whatever (I know I don't), but they know roughly the difference between 'first past the post' and 'proportional representation'. Heh, 1983 was in my mind when I was writing my post, and I'd have brought it up if you'd made an issue of it. Come to think of it, if you were around and paying attention in 1983 (not your fault I know - I blame your parents), you'd know that there was a huge deal made over a tactical voting campaign in the Bermondsey by-election that year (one of the candidates was Peter Tatchell, who was Loony Left Tabloid BogeyMan #4 at the time, after Benn, Scargill and Livingstone), and tactical voting happens precisely because voters know all about the ramifications of the FPTP system, contrary to what you said above. Voters aren't usually as stupid as the people who talk about them like to pretend...
You make a good point but Scotland never had the dual party dominance England did. Third parties have been more viable historically in Scotland because of the SNP. Plus with just 2,000,000 active voters it isn't really a fair comparison with England. I don't believe your argument is wrong, it could well be right, but there are problems with it.
The knowledge of the man on the street is something I have very little faith in when the Mail is the most popular broadsheet and the Sun is bigger than all the non mail broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT) combined. People don't know and they don't care. Half of them don't even vote.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 23:54 XeliN wrote:
I went from not caring too much about politics, being mainly of the opinion that elections are designed to create the illusion of change whilst things carry on almost as normal just with another party in power.
I still think that but going to vote for Nicky Clegg as he performed well in the debate and from the policies I have sinced looked at the Lib Dem party are looking pretty good.
You kids don't remember 97 do you. 
No wonder you don't believe in elections when you've grown up under Labour.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 20 2010 23:47 Klive5ive wrote:
I think the biggest pro of the FPTP system is that each minister MUST get individually re-elected each time. It has made anyone who fiddled their expenses un-electable, whilst under the STV-Droop Quota the Liberals propose or any other PR system you don't get direct control over who is in parliament.
It's good that you mention Portillo because if it hadn't been for FPTP he would have undoubtably retained a parliament seat back in 97.
Then you have Ed Balls this time around; struggling for his seat. It makes each politician individually acountable.
Lose seat -> get made Lord -> get made minister -> continue as before, only less accountable
Look at Mandy.
|
I skimmed past the first four pages looking to see if anyone else brought this up, and I did not see anything. So I have to ask this. How the hell nearly 60 years after the invention of TV. Has the UK never had a live TV debate? I would think at some point over the years people would have bitched enough to force the politicians to host a live TV debate every year.
|
United States43187 Posts
On April 21 2010 00:10 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I skimmed past the first four pages looking to see if anyone else brought this up, and I did not see anything. So I have to ask this. How the hell nearly 60 years after the invention of TV. Has the UK never had a live TV debate? I would think at some point over the years people would have bitched enough to force the politicians to host a live TV debate every year.
We've had live debates before. Just nothing official before an election organised in this fashion.
|
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
|
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img686.imageshack.us/i/1983.jpg/)
