General Election 2010!

quinch on 9/5/2010 at 01:48

Quote Posted by Brian The Dog

I've just noticed in (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/) the results that UKIP got nearly 1m votes, roughly twice what the SNP got - presumably they'd get a few seats in a PR system!

And it's quite right that they should. Only a tyrant would deny them representation with those numbers.

If the LibDems form a coalition with the Tories without PR they are back in the wilderness for a lifetime. If the Tories agree to PR they are neutered. I can't see them giving up the power that FPTP offers. They don't debate, they act. See Thatcherism.
A coalition with Labour and associated minorities is about as tenuous as it gets but worth trying I think. It's a tiny chink of light and we should rejoice!

Brian The Dog on 9/5/2010 at 02:00

[\QUOTE]If the Tories agree to PR they are neutered. I can't see them giving up the power that FPTP offers. They don't debate, they act.[\QUOTE]

Yep, a quick check on Excel says that the Conservatives would be down 72 seats in a fully-PR system, Labour down 70, and the Lib Dems up 92. The two other big gainers would be BNP (12 seats) and UKIP (20), although the SNP would also double its MPs. Hence why the Tories are completely against it, but I'm surprised Labour are for it. This is a fully PR system, which is extremely unlikely to happen, as Stronts says.

I'm just a bit worried that the Lib Dem + Labour would have such a small majority they wouldn't be able to do anything about the economy. The pound would then slide, and since our debt is to foreigners, the interest rate at which we pay the debt (which would then set our national interest rate) would rise. I guess people could cope with paying 7-8% on their mortgages, but the last time there was a major run on the pound interest rates went to 15% - this nation is so up-to-the-eyeballs in debt this would cripple the economy :(

Namdrol on 9/5/2010 at 09:23

Talking about the various coalition combinations, the SNP have stated that they will refuse to work with a Tory government as the Scottish people have outright rejected them at the polls. (one Tory returned out of 59 seats)

This connects to another point, the people who organised the impressive demo in Westminster, Power 2010, have a 5 point pledge that they want people to sign, point 4 of which is that only English MPs are to vote on English laws.
This would permanently change the political landscape with 38 seats gone from the Labour parliamentary party at a stroke.

ffox on 9/5/2010 at 10:16

Coalition governments work elsewhere but our adversarial system with pig-headed leadership and Whips enforcing the party line make it very difficult here.

If the opposition have an idea which would be the best thing for the country, the governing party oppose it on principal. (I can remember when the Lib-Dem suggestion to replace the Poll Tax with local income tax was vilified by the two main parties because they didn't think of it first!)

We managed to make a coalition government work during the war. I suggest that in the present state of lnternational distress we ought to try it again. Perhaps a cabinet comprising the best people from each party and free voting in the commons would give a chance of some sensible conclusions being reached with the majority view prevailing in more controversial matters?

At the very least it would stop the yah-sucks-boo name-calling that made Prime Minister's Question Time look like a playground squabble.

SubJeff on 9/5/2010 at 11:18

I don't really care what happens tbh, as long as Labour have nothing to do with the new government.

Lib-Dems are being pigheaded about PR imho. The Tories have agreed to an review of the system so they should get on board. Labour, as we all know, will do anything to keep a hand in. Bunch of power hungry messers.

So, PR. Pros and cons.

From my pov:

Pros -

* it's more democratic, it's more representative.

Cons -
* fringe idiots, like the BNP, will benefit from it. I see the lack of PR as a positive thing because of this but the lack of true democracy grates at me.
* with PR we'll almost always have to have coalition governments and this in itself has pros and cons. My feeling is it's mostly a bad thing though.

Brian The Dog on 9/5/2010 at 12:06

Interesting discussion on the news this morning with a Politics lecturer at my uni (so he's bound to be wrong!). He said it would take at least 5 years for any PR to be implemented, as the following needs to happen:

- Debated in Commons as to which PR system to choose
- Debated in Lords as to whether to approve this system
- When referendum is announced, need at least a year (probably 18 months) of public education so they really know what they're getting and what the Pros and Cons are, both nationally and in their area.
- If referendum is passed successfully (not a given, he said two states in Canada recently voted against it), then you need to hold a General Election under the new system.

He said the quickest any government has done their version of the above was about 4-5 years.

thefonz on 9/5/2010 at 12:44

Woohoo! Finally the heat is off us Finance Bods.
:cool:

Namdrol on 9/5/2010 at 13:10

Na, wait till tomorrow when the money markets dump the pound and all the commentators start talking about the evil irresponsible speculators taking advantage of the situation.

SubJeff on 9/5/2010 at 13:34

Don't say you didn't think of taking advantage of it! As the results were rolling in you can bet there were moneymen with their fingers hovering over the "buy" button just to milk the situation. You may not agree with that kind of opportunism but that's Capitalism for you. There have been a few things I sadly missed out on over the years (like KC in Hull, the railways).

Ulukai on 9/5/2010 at 13:43

The problem with proportional representation is that although it's 'fairer', the way things are with the three main parties in the UK we'd pretty much have a permanent hung parliament, neh? That's not good for the country however you spin it. But anyway, this coalition talk is all much of a muchness until they come to a decision.

So, any bets on how long it takes until unelected simpleton Gordon gets the message and fucks right off as Labour party leader? He's lost his party 91 seats, already faced a (failed, and if somewhat ill-advised) coup and now his own MPs are (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/first-call-for-brown-to-go-$21376920.htm) calling for him to go. And another one since that article was written, I think.

You want to GTFO someone, point the finger at Gordon.

Even more interesting to my mind, is who's going to replace him. Ed Balls might as well have FAIL stamped on his forehead due to the way the man is incapable of pulling any face other than 'extremely smug'. David Miliband would seem to be the lesser evil except for the fact that Mandleson is rumoured to support him as a potential candidate which somewhat detracts from the idea.