UK General Election 2010

[athanasios]

As I already stated: "Flash Gordon"; sorry "flush Gordon".

;D

[Dante]

Ok, political satire is all very well but that just wasn't funny. That you seem to think it is does not speak highly of you.

[That Guy]

As I already stated: "Flash Gordon"; sorry "flush Gordon".

You failed your humor check.

[Edric O]

It's over. Gordon resigned as PM and Labour leader. Dave the Eton wonder boy is set to be PM in coalition with the Lib Dems.

In other news, the Lib Dems are getting ready to kiss their electorate goodbye.

[Kiyouta]

Charles Kennedy is drinking again.

[Dante]

Poor man. I can just see him hearing the news and feel his eyes slide inexorably towards the drinks cabinet...

I can't say I'm pleased with the result, but I suppose it was the most likely outcome. Bright side: watching the tories and lib dems try to work together could be entertaining.

Though David Cameron just looks so... slimy. A puckered little rubber man. Not enthused about him representing the country at all.

Ah well.

[Edric O]

Actually, I'm rather satisfied with this result. Let me explain.

All three main parties are firmly committed to a neoliberal economic agenda. So it is very clear that no matter which party formed the government, they would enact deep cuts in public services. Labour and Lib Dem promises to the contrary were worthless from the beginning. Neither Brown nor Clegg would have resisted the urge to obey the City's every whim. When The Markets tell them to cut, they cut.

But the thing is, whichever party enacts that common agenda is likely to be hated by voters for a generation. So I am pleased that it will be the Tories who will soon see their popularity plummet. As a bonus, the Lib Dems will have the power to kick the Tories out of government at any time. And if they win that promised referendum on electoral reform, kicking the Tories out is precisely what they should do the very next day.

[athanasios]

Ok, political satire is all very well but that just wasn't funny. That you seem to think it is does not speak highly of you.

If you sided with the looser, yes it wasn't funny. And if the image doesn't appeal to your taste you can fill a complain form and upload it to Wikipedia. :P :D

Where is your humor dude?

[Wolf]

It seemed to be the most likely outcome: Labour and LibDem commanded about the same number of seats as the Conservatives and UDP, and scraping the bottom of the barrel (SNP, SDLP) to make it over the top by 2 or 3 seats just wasn't ever going to be a good recipe for a good government. Honestly, Clegg's in a pretty powerful position, since he essentially holds a veto over Conservative legislation, and I don't think Clegg is the kind of person to act capriciously or irrationally, honestly, it seems like a sensible check on the Tory agenda.

Though, a quick word of caution to people who think that electoral reform is necessarily a good thing: the Nazis (BNP) were able to amass something like 600,000 votes. That'd be at least a seat in a reformed Parliament.

[Edric O]

Though, a quick word of caution to people who think that electoral reform is necessarily a good thing: the Nazis (BNP) were able to amass something like 600,000 votes. That'd be at least a seat in a reformed Parliament.

Under strict proportional representation (which is still a far-off dream at this point), the seat distribution after this election would have been as follows:

Tories - 236

Labour - 190

Lib Dems - 151

UKIP - 21

BNP - 13

SNP - 11

Greens - 6

Sinn Fein - 4

DUP - 4

Plaid Cymru - 4

SDLP - 3

UUP - 2

English Democrats - 2

Alliance (NI) - 1

Respect - 1

Traditional Unionist Voice - 1

TOTAL: 650 seats

So yes, the BNP would get 13 seats - but that's still only about 2% of the seats, because they only got about 2% of the vote. I wouldn't be too worried.

Also, ironically, proportional representation would make this Parliament more stable, not less. Any combination of two of the three main parties would have a very comfortable majority.

[Dante]

Athanasios, I didn't side with Labour and I didn't vote for Gordon. That doesn't change the fact that toilet humour, even in the most literal sense of the phrase, just isn't funny in a political contest. Hell, even Toothpick, formerly Kirby, thought it wasn't funny. That's about as low as you can get.

If it works out the way that Edric and others have theorised, this coming term in power will leave the Tories the most unloved party in the country, with the Lib Dems complicit. It would be reasonable to expect Labour's popularity to surge after that, especially with a new leader. I can't say that's entirely pleasing, but it would be an improvement if they got back in.

Having said that, there's a good chance that Labour supporters may see that their party deliberately sabotaged talks with the Lib Dems in order to a) make the tories offer better compromises and b) saddle the country with a tory government to take the blame for the coming cuts in services. If that becomes popular opinion, especially up here in Scotland, Labour's popularity will drop like a stone, and the SNP will move in to fill the gap. With all three of the main parties rubbished, Scotland may start to see independence in a new light, and if it becomes a real concern, a tory government could easily go "ok, bye then" and thus secure for itself an unassailable majority south of the border for the next thousand years. "Chinless wonders uber alles" as someone I know put it.

He also went on to say "The best chance to change the voting system in decades has been lost and the two-party system cemented for a long, long time to come. Nice one, Clegg, you blew it. Mandleson must be pissing himself."

I'm inclined to agree.

Edit: A thought on PR...

That's basically criminal.

And a thought on choices...

[Dunenewt]

First of all, Ming the Merciless has my vote Dante, and no, I don't mean the Scottish Lib Dem one!

Although I am a fan of PR, I think we need to keep some kind of link to the constituencies, so what I propose, is that counties are turned into one big constituency, (so Devon, Cornwall, etc), which retain the same amount of MPs (or perhaps less, I do think they should be trimmed down a bit - if we have an elected House of Lords), and the d'Hondt method is used.  So for example, under this method (I've worked this out myself, so excuse any inaccuracies)

Cornwall would go from having 3 Lib and 3 Con, to having 3 Lib, 2 Con, 1 Lab.

Devon would go from having 8 Con, 2 Lib, 2 Lab, to having 4 Con, 3 Lib, 3 Lab, and 1 UKIP.

And so on.  The Tories look like the big losers so far, but they'd make up for it in other areas.

[Edric O]

Personally, I don't understand the need to have representatives with a personal link to constituencies in a body that votes only on national issues and whose decisions apply everywhere equally.

If Parliament was actually in the business of passing regional laws, then I would see the need for regional representation. But as it stands, I don't see the logic behind separate geographical constituencies at all. How often does your MP get to vote on a local issue? And in any case, MPs always vote on party lines - not on regional lines.

[nemafakei]

"Personally, I don't understand the need to have representatives with a personal link to constituencies in a body that votes only on national issues and whose decisions apply everywhere equally."

Arguably, in that you can have a constituency party meeting where you tell your MP how to vote.

"what I propose, is that counties are turned into one big constituency"

You might want to expand it a bit. Rutland presently has only half a Tory. And his moat. And he is quite a small Tory to begin with.

"Although I am a fan of PR, I think we need to keep some kind of link to the constituencies"

Why not actually use the second chamber - IRV in the Commons, full PR in the Lords.

With regards to extrapolating the results into a PR table bear in mind there are other factors:

1) There is a lot of tactical voting, mostly of the whoever-isn't-the-Tories kind, so the Labour (possibly) and the Lib Dem (certainly) vote is inflated. This might also happen with the Tories and UKIP.

2) Conversely, in safe seats, there's some amount of protest voting, especially for the BNP. Many people who vote for the BNP may not want them in power, they just want to annoy the party hacks in their locality.

3) Some 'safe seats' may just be seats seen as 'lost causes', whereas actually there's a huge number of people who don't vote in them because the same party always gets in - but it would be worth voting in PR. This is more likely the case in rurals where it may be harder to vote, whereas urban voters generally don't have too go far to vote. So there's a lot of 'unknowns' who likely won't be distributed in the same way as the voters.

4) Under PR, parties wouldn't just campaign in marginals and in 'easier' targets, every vote would count. So over time, you'd see some change as people in safer seats may change their mind.

[athanasios]

Flush these too! Well not my own idea, but according to the following:

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3514%3Aa-shabby-stitch-up-that-must-be-stopped-cameron-and-cleggs-plans-for-5-year-dictatorship-meet-resistance&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64〈=en

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3512%3Anew-british-prime-minister-a-member-of-uk-equivalent-of-skull-a-bones-society-&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64〈=en

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3511%3Anew-uk-government-to-be-infested-with-bankers-&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64〈=en

[SandChigger]

Personally, I don't understand the need to have representatives with a personal link to constituencies in a body that votes only on national issues and whose decisions apply everywhere equally.

So much for your "democratic" republic. (snort)

[Sneakgab]

The aim is to have local voting on local issues, not on national ones.

Even if Marxists simply just wanted more local power, it doesn't mean they'll be happy about it regardless of the form it comes in and the scenario it is placed in.

You might like meat, but that doesn't mean you'll want to eat it in puree form, or right after you just filled yourself to the brim with dinner.

[athanasios]

Announcement:

Mr Cameron spoke derogatorily about our country. Subsequently he is an unwanted persona in our country. In any case his safety cannot be guaranteed and legal action may be taken against him.

[SandChigger]

Meh. It's not like he can't get all the feta or gyros or ouzo he wants right there in London. And for old rocks erected by primitives, Stonehenge isn't far, what? ::)

[Wolf]

Mr Cameron spoke derogatorily about our country. Subsequently he is an unwanted persona in our country. In any case his safety cannot be guaranteed and legal action may be taken against him.

Isn't this exactly what those Islamic fanatics said about Matt Stone and Trey Parker after the last Mohammed episode? Wow, Athanasios, you really are the best advocate for your side.

[athanasios]

The announcement was sharp and clear. No further comments.

[Wolf]

Right, "no further" because if you went any further it'd be an actionable offense. Against a world leader, no less. I think you ought to refrain from allowing your nationalistic urges to drive you to threats and innuendo in a public forum.

[Edric O]

So much for your "democratic" republic. (snort)

Wait, what? I was just advocating proportional representation. You know, like they have in the Netherlands. Or Sweden. Or Israel for that matter. Pretty much everyone agrees that proportional representation is the most democratic way to elect representatives - in the sense that the composition of the elected body will most accurately reflect the way people voted across the country.

Were you paying any attention at all to the discussion?

[SandChigger]

As little as possible. :)

[Anathema]

Wait, what? I was just advocating proportional representation. You know, like they have in the Netherlands. Or Sweden. Or Israel for that matter. Pretty much everyone agrees that proportional representation is the most democratic way to elect representatives - in the sense that the composition of the elected body will most accurately reflect the way people voted across the country.

Were you paying any attention at all to the discussion?

Ironically, the party wich is closest to the British Lib-Dems in the Netherlands is D66 wich has, in the past at least, argued in favour of district representation of some sort.

The Dutch elections are to take place on the 9th of june, btw. We've always had coalition governments and this time won't be an exception, but what it will be is extremely uncertain right now.