More politics, domestic this time.
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]
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]
no subject
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.
no subject
What baffles me is what the 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 .
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
AFAIK the official answer is "nobody".
no subject
no subject
Whoever would give them a voice in government.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
Yes, very much so, on both points.
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.
no subject
"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.
no subject
And, weirdly, the University Constituencies were multi-member, and used STV to elect their members!
no subject
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).
no subject