The General Election Thread

[essexbearhunter]

If Nigel wishes to continue his yellow cuff link theme, how about these?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VINTAGE-RUSSI...tem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5a8a69e3

-not quite up to Sterling standard but suitably historic.

Or - if you are feeling very flush

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FABULOUS-Vint...m&pt=Vintage_Fine_Jewelry&hash=item3cacb9e5ce

well gold is more or less yellow

 

[biffvernon]

Here's a neat graphic that illustrates the case for PR: http://electoralirony.tumblr.com/post/578596798/misrepresentation-of-the-vote

 

[Flyfisher]

What I think would be interesting is to know how many people who don't vote LibDem because they feel it is a wasted vote under the current system would actually vote for them under a PR system. Such people could be drawn away from the two main parties but also from the pool of people who don't bother to vote at all. It would be ironic if a PR system resulted in LibDems having an overall majority - unlikely as it may be.

Anyway, despite his campaign protestations that he's not the Kingmaker, Clegg does now seem to hold the balance of power and must surely be putting electoral reform at the top of his terms for a deal with Cameron. It's hard to see a coalition being possible without a commitment to electoral reform but much will depend on the honesty of Cameron in really committing to it and actively helping to make it happen. There will be a million ways to hold up progress until the next general election and an overall majority result then would kill off PR completely. We've just seen one PM renege on a promised referendum, let's hope Cameron doesn't follow suit.

But it really would be a travesty, in my view, if any parliamentary time was given to repealing the foxhunting ban ahead of sorting out the electoral system!

 

[Nigel Watts]

Here's a neat graphic that illustrates the case for PR: http://electoralirony.tumblr.com/post/578596798/misrepresentation-of-the-vote

What is very interesting is that a Lib/Lab coalition in the fully PR model would be barely sufficient to form a government whereas a Lib/Tory one would have a comfortable majority - a similar position to what we face under our current system, albeit with a very different distribution of seats for each party.

As a Tory I am not wholly opposed to electoral reform, but not fully convinced either. Fairness of itself is not a sufficient argument; any new system would also have to be demonstrably better in practice in the context of the British political culture.

The fact the the Lib Dems made little or no progress was not an overwhelming endorsement for a change to PR so the Liberals are not in the strongest position. I believe their argument for PR would best be served by working effectively with the Tories to give us a taste of the kind of politics which would result from a PR system. However some Liberals (not including Clegg) are so viscerally anti-Tory I am sceptical that they would be able to do so.

Going in with Labour would be an alternative for the Liberals, but this would provide ammunition for those who oppose PR on the grounds that it results in a kind of blind date politics where you think you are voting for one thing but get another. Before the election Clegg was clear that he would not support Gordon and that the party with the largest share of the vote and number of seats would have the mandate to form a government. To do a U-turn on this would be a very poor advertisement for the "new politics".

 

[Flyfisher]

Before the election Clegg was clear that he would not support Gordon and that the party with the largest share of the vote and number of seats would have the mandate to form a government. To do a U-turn on this would be a very poor advertisement for the "new politics".

I agree, although it's probably lucky for Clegg that he can't form a majority government with Labour so there's little temptation for him to stray from his words.

The outcome surely has to be a con/libdem coalition. I wonder how long they will string out the negotiations? Indeed, constitutionally, how long can they string it out? Is there a time limit, beyond which we have to have another election?

 

[DaveBrigg]

The fact the the Lib Dems made little or no progress was not an overwhelming endorsement for a change to PR

Unless you accept the view that many people supported the Lib Dems but did not vote for them if they had no chance of getting in. The big variation in swings would suggest that there was an element of tactical voting in places, which would not be necessary with PR. I had more than one email promoting 'Vote ABC' - Anyone But Conservative.

Before the election Clegg was clear that he would not support Gordon and that the party with the largest share of the vote and number of seats would have the mandate to form a government.

I don't remember this. I remember Clegg saying that he would not support Gordon Brown if Labour came third in votes and seats. That hasn't happened. Was there another statement that I missed in all the media kurfuffle over microphones being left on? I wonder what would happen if Clegg demanded a change of Labour leader as a condition of any coalition.

If installing Vince Cable as chancellor was a demand, Brown might lose less sleep ditching Darling than Cameron would giving his old dining buddy the elbow. Whatever the outcome, any alliance would nominally represent over 50% of the electorate, and would probably tone down extremes of policy.

 

[Moo]

And, of course, there were the people who voted on the ABB* principle.




* Anyone but Brown

 

[Feltwell]

How do you interpret the election result?

For me, it says that there are a significant number of people who have had enough of Labour and want a change - but there are still many in the "middle ground" who are either happy to continue to vote Labour, or (I suspect more likely) do not want a return to a Conservative government.

How would a coalition pan out? It could be a good thing - it could temper the worst excesses of either Tory or Labour politics and stop certain legislation being forced through. Or it could result in no progress being made - which may be a good or bad thing, depending on your opinion and what the topic is!

Tactical voting, did it harm the Lib Dem vote? Yes, I think it did. In my constituency history suggests there is no hope of a Lib Dem MP, so why would you vote for them? If you are a Lib Dem supporter in a seat where they have never polled well, do you stick to your principles and vote for them or do you use your vote to try to exclude a party that you actively don't want in power?

 

[Flyfisher]

And, of course, there were the people who voted on the ABB* principle.

Well, it's looking increasingly likely that those people, at least, will be happy with the outcome, when it finally shapes up next week.

Poor old Gordon. His unelected ministerial career seems to have fallen apart at the first election. Bliar could probably find him a job though - finance manager to count all the cash he's raking in on the celebrity speaking circuit perhaps?

 

[Nigel Watts]

The argument that the Liberals got fewer votes than they would have done under PR is highly questionable. In my constituency of Islington South and Finsbury, and in the Borough of Islington, there is much latent Tory support which does not translate into Tory votes in Westminster or Borough elections because both have been Liberal/Labour marginals and Tories have voted tactically for Liberals, just as many Labour supporters must do in where Liberals come second to Tories.

In the London mayoral and European elections, which have some degree of PR, the Tory vote in Islington is always much higher and the Lib Dem vote correspondingly lower. Minor parties also pick up more votes. The encouraging thing about the recent elections is that local Tories, in my area at least, seem more willing to vote positively for their preferred party rather than negatively against Labour in spite of an onslaught of campaign literature from very well funded Liberals focused directly on persuading Tory voters that only Liberals can oust Labour. It didnt work. There was a big swing to Labour, Tories split the Lib Dem vote and Labour romped home in both elections.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Poor old Gordon

Good article today by his biographer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7693596/General-Election-2010-Gordon-Brown-Flawed-failed-finished..html

 

[Pford75]

Minor parties also pick up more votes

Absolutely. All those advocating PR are conveniently ignoring the fact that under PR, the BNP would most probably have greater representation than they do under FPTP. Furthermore, once a PR system is in place it encourages single issue politics (since it is possible to garner votes/seats on strong communication of a single issue) - Israel is an example of the downside of PR....extremists continue to wield a level of influence they would not have under FPTP

 

[Pford75]

I've just done a crude calculation from the election figures on the BBC News website. I compared % share of vote with % share of seats. The resuts below show the difference between the two (with a negative figure indicating that a party has more representation than share of vote.

Conservative -11.05
Labour -10.75
Liberal Democrat 14.22
Democratic Unionist Party -0.63
Scottish National Party 0.78
Sinn Fein -0.17
Plaid Cymru 0.14
Social Democratic & Labour Party -0.06
Green 0.85
Alliance Party -0.05
UK Independence Party 3.10
British National Party 1.90

This would seem to indicate that behind the LibDems, the next biggest beneficiaries would be UKIP and the BNP. Given the figures from Scotland/Ireland/Wales I contend that PR would probably be implemented along some kind of 'separated' lines with representation in the various parliaments/assemblies.

 

[Flyfisher]

Looking at the overall results (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/) I was quite surprised to see that Sinn Fein got 5 seats from only 172k votes but the BNP didn't get any seats from well over half a million. Also, the SNP received little more support than the BNP but have 6 seats to show for it while UKIP gained nearly one million votes and have no representation at all.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Sinn Fein were only contesting 18 seats though, while the BNP vote was shared between 338 constituencies. I would also imagine that the Sinn Fein vote was concentrated in particular areas, rather than being spread more evenly but thinly. The BNP vote increased, but only because they fielded more candidates. The average vote for each went up by just 33, on a night when voter turnout was up anyway.

There are different forms of PR of course. A single transferable vote is the choice of the elctoral reform society, and would be fairly straightforward to implement if votes could be securely computerised. It would also help to prevent extreme parties having undue influence. In this election I suspect that many Labour supporters would put LIbDem second. Anyone with greater knowledge care to suggest the second choice for Conservative voters?

At least he looks pleased with the result.

 

[Pford75]

It would also help to prevent extreme parties having undue influence

Isn't that rather contrary to the whole argument for PR?? Those pushing for PR cite the fact that the Lib Dems got far fewer seats than the total %age of the votes they got. My argument against PR is that the BNP could say exactly the same thing as the Lib Dems. To my mind, trying to implement a 'version' of PR which maximises Lib Dem vote, but attempts to block other parties is rather contrary to the 'fairness' which Clegg keeps bleating about.

As for the Sinn Fein vote...you are right that it is concentrated (same goes for SNP & Plaid Cymru)...but why should that make a difference?? Just because the supporters of a party live close to each other (in a post electoral reform world) shouldn't this sort of thing be eliminated? Why should such a small proportion of the vote wield so much power??

 

[biffvernon]

Stephen Fry has written a particularly good piece:
http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/05/09/stalemate-pr-and-pr-ice-cream-bananas-and-fudge/

 

[DaveBrigg]

Just because the supporters of a party live close to each other (in a post electoral reform world) shouldn't this sort of thing be eliminated? Why should such a small proportion of the vote wield so much power??

Presumably the only way to avoid this would be to stop having a single MP to represent a constituency. A bit like the European elections, with party lists drawn up for whole regions. The problem for this I think is that it makes the MP more distant. At least with the current system you know who to speak to if necessary, and have a reasonable chance of meeting them if so desired. Maybe the different roles of an MP should be separated, so we can choose a party to run the country, and then an individual who worked in parliament to act on local issues?

The advantage of a single transferable vote as I can see is that it gives more people the chance of an MP that they don't disagree with. It doesn't have to always work in favour of the LIb Dems. I imagine that quite a few UKIP supporters would put Conservative second.

Funny how no-one has suggested a Labour / Conservative alliance. A quick mental calculation suggests that they have more in common that the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Defence, immigration, neither suggesting tax cuts for the worse off, support for the war in Iraq, expenses scandals, opposition to PR, leaders who are likely to lose their jobs if they fail. The only issue I can think of where Lib Dems and Tories are closer is giving extra funding to school pupils from poor families.

 

[Nigel Watts]

All I can say is thank God the country is not run by Labour Luvvies like the nice Mr Fry. He should stick to playing Jeeves and running his smug I'm-too-clever-by-half game show on TV. If you have to write Stephen, a little less prolixity please. You're a bright chap and should be capable of doing so.

What matters most, especially now, is that we have good government. It is by no means clear that PR will deliver this. Electoral reform should not be ruled out but it should be done cautiously. The cause of PR will best be served if the Liberals can demonstrate that coaluition government can work. Now is not the only opportunity for electoral reform. If electoral reform is placed by the Liberals above all other priorities it will show that they are not putting the immediate best interest of the country first. I think Mr Clegg understands this.

 

[Moo]

The cause of PR will best be served if the Liberals can demonstrate that coalition government can work.

I reckon that's one of the most profound remarks of the week. It should be a banner headline in at least one national newspaper.