More politics, domestic this time. [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

I've read the extensive discussion on the previous post, even if I've not commented on much of it. My LJ readers seem not-bad at predicting the future, so it's time for you to have another go. The next election must be called by 03/06/2010, but will it be called earlier than that, and who will be PM at the time?

I appreciate "substantially earlier" is a bit woolly, but I think it'll be clear when the election is called if Labour have essentially had all of their 5 year term or been forced / decided to call an early election

[Poll #1411398]

←

→

There are 17 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

My opinions:

No one wants to be Brown's replacement and he's no where near being vilified enough to be the kind of liability to warrant overthrowing him so I think it's pretty unlikely that he'll go, although I suspect a few rebels won't take a hint and shut the hell up.

I think Brown's still waiting for a economic upswing in time for next May, I can see circumstances in which he'd call for an October election but I suspect such circumstances are unlikely.

I think that's pretty close to the mark.

What baffles me is what the few rebels think a leadership election, secret ballot, or what-have-you will actually achieve to benefit Labour; all it seems to be doing is making their situation worse. I've said before People are Stupid.

As far as I can tell, Labours only hope is to sit tight and do the best they can in the circumstances and hope that the global economic situation improves.

For the record, I'm not a Labour supporter, nor a Conservative one, and I'm not even sure that I support the Lib Dems at the moment. But I can see the benefit for the country in not having the upheaval that would come from either a Labour leadership challenge (etc.) or a General Election at the moment. So Cameron and Clegg clammering for an Election is just rather pointless. While Labour isn't doing particularly well at the moment, I don't think the Conservatives would manage any better, and I doubt that the Lib Dems could actually get a majority to even try to form a government, and I suspect they would have much the same difficulties.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The Lib Dems might conceivably prove part of a coalition government, although I have no idea who they'd do a deal with in the event of a hung parliament.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes, indeed they might. And I too can't think of a potential partner, hence my previous thoughts.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hmmm... I'm not quite clear on what you're saying. To be clear, I believe the Lib Dems, in the event of a hung parliament would probably form a coalition government with one of the other major parties, I suspect they would require a few key concessions and guarantees but I think they'd do it. I have no idea which of the two parties they'd pick though, a few years ago I'd have said definitely Lib-Lab but now I'm not so sure.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm not so sure; given their ultimately unhappy experience of the two-term Lib-Lab coalition in the Scottish parliament, I suspect they'd shy away from full coalition.

But they might be persuaded to be loose allies of a minority government - much as they, and the Greens, are in the current SNP minority-administration in the Scottish parliament. Which is working surprisingly well. Of course, it's bulwarked by a fixed-term that is sadly lacking in Westminster.

[link] [parent] [reply]

What I was trying to say was that Lib Dems could form part of a coalition, but I don't want to guess who the other parties might be. The problem really is that Labour and Conservative are now more like each other than either of them was like the Lib Dems a decade or two ago. So I feel a Lib-Lab or a Lib-Con pact is now rather unlikely. However, which of the other parties would have sufficient in common with the Lib Dems and have enough MPs for an alliance to gain a working majority is rather unclear.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I have no idea who they'd do a deal with in the event of a hung parliament.

AFAIK the official answer is "nobody".

[link] [parent] [reply]

They already did in Scotland. Then they decided not to share their toys with the SNP. :P

[link] [parent] [reply]

although I have no idea who they'd do a deal with in the event of a hung parliament

Whoever would give them a voice in government.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think a leadership election would be a marvellous thing for Labour. They could get weeks of coverage on their agenda, have a new leader capable of credibly separating themselves from the cock-ups and baggage of the last dozen years, and call an election before anyone realises their lack of capability. That way Labour might merely lose the next election instead of being destroyed; another twelve months of Brown will condemn them to utter annihilation. I would not be surprised if the LibDems return more MPs than Labour should Brown soldier on for another year.

However, I expect Brown to ride this one out. The Labour party system makes it difficult to displace him, whilst any replacement must understand all they will do is lead Labour out of office so the people who really aspire to leadership will doubtless wait until they've lost the next election and they have a chance of leading for some time. Brown cares far more about clinging on to power than he does about either the country or the Labour party and will do so to the cost of both.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Indeed. I think there's something around a 1 in 3 chance that Nick Clegg will be Leader of the Opposition pretty soon. That's something I'm very much looking forward to: I don't think they're ready for government yet, but it would give their credibility a massive boost and focus their minds on making their policies genuinely achievable.

I think it's automatic that Labour has lost the next general election; their task is to avoid coming third.

For this reason I wouldn't be at all surprised if we had a referendum on proportional representation alongside the next general election. I don't think PR would actually be a good thing, but a referendum on PR would be an easy way for Labour to dissipate one plank of the LibDems' constituency in an emergency.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think there's something around a 1 in 3 chance that Nick Clegg will be Leader of the Opposition pretty soon.

I think you're probably right there. And I think I'm looking forward to that, though I'm not looking forward to a Conservative government, I can't see how it could be any better than the Labour one we had recently.

I believe that had the situation been reversed and the Conservatives in power over the last few years and there would have been much the same disorganisation and chaos that we've seen over recent weeks and months. Indeed it might have been worse as Cameron seems to be full of words and no ideas or firm policies. Though I hope that changes by the time of the next General Election as we're almost certain to see him as PM.

I think it's automatic that Labour has lost the next general election; their task is to avoid coming third.

Yes, very much so, on both points.

I don't think PR would actually be a good thing

I'm torn on this one. I spent much of my early life thinking that PR was the only right, proper and fair way to run a democracy; however in more recent years I've become increasingly disilussioned by democracy. This is partly because it gets dominated by the types of people that we've got now (across all parties) and because it seems to depend on increasing bureaucracy to function. One of the problems with PR is that it encourages the type of situation that can be seen in the European parliament where there are too many small groupings for Government to actually get things done in a timely fashion. It also helps to promote the situation where one doesn't have an MP, or at least not one that you actually voted for (or could have voted for). Also, it encourages the party system, which I'm increasingly feeling is one of the problems with our current democratic system. (Bring back William Pit the younger!)

There are other PR systems that might work, not that I actually know much about them. Something that does appeal, at least at first sight, is a multi-vote per person system, not unlike that described by Nevil Shute in In the Wet, where different people had different numbers of votes (up to seven, in Shute's world) depending on what they had done, or not done, with their life.

[link] [parent] [reply]

One of the problems with PR is that it encourages the type of situation that can be seen in the European parliament where there are too many small groupings for Government to actually get things done in a timely fashion

"Strong government" can, conversely, often do things too quickly. Besides, minority administrations work in many European countries. And also in Scotland. The current UK parliamentary system leads easily to this view, as the conflation of "governing" with "legislating" is just so easy.

Also, it encourages the party system

That very much depends on the style of PR used (and there are endless variations); the list system (as used in the Euro & Scottish elections) certainly does entrench the party system, but alternative/multiple vote systems, like STV, don't. Indeed, in some ways they can weaken the party system.

where different people had different numbers of votes

We used to have that, when the universities returned MPs, elected by by their graduates.

[link] [parent] [reply]

different people had different numbers of votes

And, weirdly, the University Constituencies were multi-member, and used STV to elect their members!

[link] [parent] [reply]

One of the problems with PR is that it encourages the type of situation that can be seen in the European parliament where there are too many small groupings for Government to actually get things done in a timely fashion.

I think that's a good thing - overall, I'd rather it be hard to pass new laws, than easy to pass new laws. If a new law doesn't have the support of MPs elected by 50% of the population, I'm not convinced it's a law that should be rushed through quickly.

I don't really mind too much if the voting system is non-linear, with the biggest party getting a disproportionately bigger share. The problem with the current system is that the number of MPs doesn't have to relate to the number of votes at all - a party could get more seats even with fewer votes than another party, and it depends a lot on how votes are distributed between constituencies.

Something that does appeal, at least at first sight, is a multi-vote per person system, not unlike that described by Nevil Shute in In the Wet, where different people had different numbers of votes (up to seven, in Shute's world) depending on what they had done, or not done, with their life.

Yes, even if we stick with the current non-PR system, I do wish we would ditch the FPTP voting system that has many flaws when trying to pick a winner out of more than two options. The most well known example being Instant Runoff Voting, but there are many other better methods (e.g., Approval Voting, or the Condorcet Method).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Single transferable Vote is a system which deals with a lot of the problems you describe. With the current FPTP system, most people are represented by MPs who they didn't vote for at all. In STV, you have several MPs for your constituency so there's more likely to be one who might be responsive to your views. In addition, if there are multi-MP constituencies almost every constituency will contain at least one MP seat, which will make MPs more responsive to their electorate. It also weakens the party system because you don't have just one option per party per constituency. If you're a Tory but you really dislike one of the candidates, you can give first and second preference to the other Tory candidates and decide where to place the one you dislike below the others. It passes a certain amount of control of which individuals get elected to the general electorate.

[link] [parent] [reply]

July