There is such a thing as being careful what you wish. If we move to PR (and I think we ought to) the main beneficiary would be UKIP. Is that what the Lib Dems want?
Yes, without question.
FPTP spanks UKIP as much as anyone else and if they get the votes their voice should be heard. In fact, PR would probably damage the Lib Dems at the moment but I've not heard any party voices backing away from their support for it. From a partisan point of view if you insist, given the success rate of UKIP MEPs and councillors, I could see a parliamentary delegation running into some difficulties and plenty of their support fizzling out as a result.
Reforming the voting system is something the Liberals have been advocating for the last hundred years or so from more or less every place in British politics a party can be, from top to bottom.
Further thought: As I've been saying for a while, I think the financial markets are underestimating the political risk in the UK. It is quite possible that 2015 will bring a hung parliament with no effective combination of parties able and willing to form a stable government. Plan accordingly.
I think that's an astute comment, if relations between the parties have got that bad. It's all very well saying minority and second election, but if you get the same result the second time the dice are rolled, there will be no other option and if that really isn't possible the markets will go haywire.
Oh gawd, not the old bogeyman, the masters of the universe, "The Markets" again.
As George Osborne warned, chaos ensued when the Tories lost us our credit rating, didn't it. Didn't it?
Of course PR was instituted in Scotland without a referendum, though the priority then was to kill nationalism stone dead and to prevent any one party (i.e. the SNP) getting an overall majority rather than worrying about the settled will of the electorate. That went well.
Further thought: As I've been saying for a while, I think the financial markets are underestimating the political risk in the UK. It is quite possible that 2015 will bring a hung parliament with no effective combination of parties able and willing to form a stable government. Plan accordingly.
I think that's an astute comment, if relations between the parties have got that bad. It's all very well saying minority and second election, but if you get the same result the second time the dice are rolled, there will be no other option and if that really isn't possible the markets will go haywire.
Oh gawd, not the old bogeyman, the masters of the universe, "The Markets" again.
As George Osborne warned, chaos ensued when the Tories lost us our credit rating, didn't it. Didn't it?
Mr. kle4, the lack of a referendum is a critical point regarding the proposed alteration of the system.
On boundaries - these have always changed and the changes were being made by an external body. Furthermore, both parties had even larger reductions in MP numbers than the proposed cut to 600.
I don't recall a referendum being called concerning the great reform acts of the 19th century nor the extension of the franchise first to some women and then to every one over the age of 21 and later 18 , nor the abolition of the University vote nor the abolition of the business vote . Governments in the past just got on and governed .
Those were a long time ago, when we changed the system of the House of Lords from hereditaries to appointees we knew we had to have a referendum.
On topic, such a radical change with no referendum would have to be something the govt campaigned on surely? So would the Tories put it in their manifesto as an absolute (if we get a majority) goal or a conditional (if we coalesce with the yellows) goal? On option a they would be ridiculed, on option b they would look seriously weak.
Mr. Senior, increasing the franchise and altering the voting system are drastically different things.
In 1931 a bill including rather limited PR had passed through the Houses of Commons and Lords and only failed to come into law because the government fell . No referendum was called .
There is such a thing as being careful what you wish. If we move to PR (and I think we ought to) the main beneficiary would be UKIP. Is that what the Lib Dems want?
All the parties would split under PR. Including the LDs.
With regards back room deals, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are loads of 'secret' meetings between the LD's and Tories, LD's and Labour before the GE, with both Labour and Tory lying through their teeth about what the LD's would get for their support in a coalition.
All this would be for a gentler run in the campaign in the respective marginals.
There aren't any Labour/LD marginals. Those are all safe Labour seats.
Mr. Senior, that's an interesting historical fact. However, given the referendum included in the AV matter a couple of years ago that's a rather more recent precedent. Besides the parties we're discussing have radically differing views over PR.
Mr. Senior, increasing the franchise and altering the voting system are drastically different things.
In 1931 a bill including rather limited PR had passed through the Houses of Commons and Lords and only failed to come into law because the government fell . No referendum was called .
Wasn't the system envisaged in the 1931 legislation AV? If so, then not proportional at all.
Mr. Senior, that's an interesting historical fact. However, given the referendum included in the AV matter a couple of years ago that's a rather more recent precedent. Besides the parties we're discussing have radically differing views over PR.
Regarding the Lords then there's a recent precedent of not having one, i.e. the shift from hereditaries to appointees.
As with much of British politics the need for referendums has long been based on political expediency rather than some standard of what the issue is.
Mr. Senior, that's an interesting historical fact. However, given the referendum included in the AV matter a couple of years ago that's a rather more recent precedent. Besides the parties we're discussing have radically differing views over PR.
Iirc earlier in the 20s there was agreement to remove FPTP for either AV or STV (or a combination of both) that bounced between Lords and Commons (I think it was lost by one vote in the Lords that sent it back to the Commons) before that government fell.
Our electoral system history is a lot more checkered than people seem to realise.
@corporeal - Ours is an elvolving constitution. It was the 1975 referendum that finally established the precedent, quickly followed less than 4 years later by those in Scotland and Wales on devolution. Since then it has become a normal element in political discourse: the genie can't be put back in the bottle.
Mr. kle4, the lack of a referendum is a critical point regarding the proposed alteration of the system.
On boundaries - these have always changed and the changes were being made by an external body. Furthermore, both parties had even larger reductions in MP numbers than the proposed cut to 600.
I don't recall a referendum being called concerning the great reform acts of the 19th century nor the extension of the franchise first to some women and then to every one over the age of 21 and later 18 , nor the abolition of the University vote nor the abolition of the business vote . Governments in the past just got on and governed .
That's not entirely true (well, you not remembering it is - but the contention isn't).
The 1832 Reform Act was the direct consequence of the outcome of the 1831 general election, and had been the major issue in it. It might not be a referendum as we know it now but it's as close as you get and was undoubtedly viewed as a mandate for reform.
Similarly, the 1911 Parliament Act was only passed following a second general election to confirm the Liberals in office. Again, the issue of Lords reform was at the top of the agenda.
Sometimes there is a need to consult the public, sometimes there isn't. I'd argue that there is such a need either when the constitutional measures proposed are contentious and against which there is significant opposition, or where the measures proposed are so significant and would be likely to have such an impact of the passage of future legislation that a mandate greater than that possessed by parliament is required (this being a variant on the principle that parliament cannot abolish itself).
Does anyone have an answer to the conundrum 'why did Clegg go from the most popular leader (and probably politician) in the country in 2010 to one of the least popular today?
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
@corporeal - Ours is an elvolving constitution. It was the 1975 referendum that finally established the precedent, quickly followed less than 4 years later by those in Scotland and Wales on devolution. Since then it has become a normal element in political discourse: the genie can't be put back in the bottle.
In reference to the Lords as Mr Dancer was earlier, we didn't have one in 1999. Europe is a prime example of how the necessity of referendums aren't defined by the issues but party politics surrounding them.
"2010 was a special situation, such was the chaos the previous government had left. I think the chances of a second election will be much higher in 2015. In fact if I was in charge of campaigning for any of the major parties I would be making contingencies for it now."
Having read through this thread I am more convinced than ever that is true. Creating the circumstances for another Coalition like the present one may take another 50 years or so. I also suspect that the Lib Dems will be weighing their short money against ministerial appointments quite carefully if their finances continue on their current trend.
The LDs won't be able to force through scrapping the Trident replacement in negotiations with Con or Lab. Because Con / Lab would just get the support of the other to push it through.
Lab would support Con and Con would support Lab in Parliament on the nuclear deterrent - for certain.
@corporeal - Ours is an elvolving constitution. It was the 1975 referendum that finally established the precedent, quickly followed less than 4 years later by those in Scotland and Wales on devolution. Since then it has become a normal element in political discourse: the genie can't be put back in the bottle.
In reference to the Lords as Mr Dancer was earlier, we didn't have one in 1999. Europe is a prime example of how the necessity of referendums aren't defined by the issues but party politics surrounding them.
I wouldn't contest that at all: the 1975 referendum was the classic case in point being the only possible device to hold the Labour Party together.
Does anyone have an answer to the conundrum 'why did Clegg go from the most popular leader (and probably politician) in the country in 2010 to one of the least popular today?
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
And why is it so personal?
1. 2010 I think was inherently unsustainable generally, plus popular government harder than popular opposition.
2. He became a punching bag for both sides, Labour blamed him for aligning with the Tories. The right of the Tories blamed him for not letting them go far enough (with Cameron trying to use the Lib Dems as a scapegoat for things he didn't want either), the more central Tories blamed him for anything going wrong.
3. The press decided to do a number on him, right down to the fairly disgusting 'he's got foreign relations, is he really British, can we trust him' xenophobic angle.
4. Coalition negotiations were ugly, political reality meant that we were going to have to give things up, i.e. tuition fees. Which is harder to explain than the simple "he lied, just another lying politicians" refrain.
5. He also crossed over to an extent, by which I mean he suddenly became known enough for comedians etc to reference him and that ties back into point 4.
On boundaries - if Con were to do a deal with LDs on boundaries (as part of a wider coalition deal) then we know the mechanics from the amendment Con moved last time when the boundary review was stopped by Lab / LDs.
They'll move an amendment that the PM can lay the Boundary Commission report before the Queen without another vote in Parliament. I imagine they would also do an amendment to put number of MPs back up to 650 (to keep all Con and LD backbenchers happy).
If they pass the above in 2015 then they have certainty - ie PM knows that when Boundary Commission reports in 2018 he can take report straight to the Queen for 100% certain and Parliament can't stop it.
Mr. Senior, that's an interesting historical fact. However, given the referendum included in the AV matter a couple of years ago that's a rather more recent precedent. Besides the parties we're discussing have radically differing views over PR.
They did have differing views in 1931 also . Labour and Liberals were in favour of change , the Conservatives against , plus ca change .
Mr. Senior, that's an interesting historical fact. However, given the referendum included in the AV matter a couple of years ago that's a rather more recent precedent. Besides the parties we're discussing have radically differing views over PR.
Iirc earlier in the 20s there was agreement to remove FPTP for either AV or STV (or a combination of both) that bounced between Lords and Commons (I think it was lost by one vote in the Lords that sent it back to the Commons) before that government fell.
Our electoral system history is a lot more checkered than people seem to realise.
It was in 1917/1918 , the Commons wanted AV , the Lords STV and the Bill went back and forth between the 2 .
On a matter of principle, I think it's important that PR is introduced. But you could argue what's the point? If the LDs are in coalition under FPTP, they'd be in a coalition under PR as well. And if they're doing well in coalition, FPTP will keep them in one.
Clegg's problem was that he suddenly became the focus of irrationally vicious hatred from hurt LDs (those who were either Labour in disguise or just disliked the Tories enough that even from the off they opposed any idea of compromise), which them grew with LD missteps and reasonable or unreasonable u-turns on LD proposals in government which he is the face of due to being leader, which then became him being the butt of jokes rather than hatred.
That he is now a joke to many is worse than that many hate him, as it means even his successes will be ignored because his name itself is a cheap punchline to too many.
I think Clegg has plenty if admirable qualities and made a reasonable decision in 2010 which his party backed, but he will have to wait for history to vindicate his choices if it is possible.
"Economic recovery at what cost? thousands of people on the verge of malnutrition reliant upon charity food parcels, millions of people cruelly having their Benefits 'sanctioned', people forced to do unpaid slave labour in exchange for their State Benefits, over 4000 suicides due to Welfare Reforms....the Tory scum have a lot to answer for in their relentless war against the poor."
Mr. kle4, the lack of a referendum is a critical point regarding the proposed alteration of the system.
On boundaries - these have always changed and the changes were being made by an external body. Furthermore, both parties had even larger reductions in MP numbers than the proposed cut to 600.
I don't recall a referendum being called concerning the great reform acts of the 19th century nor the extension of the franchise first to some women and then to every one over the age of 21 and later 18 , nor the abolition of the University vote nor the abolition of the business vote . Governments in the past just got on and governed .
That's not entirely true (well, you not remembering it is - but the contention isn't).
The 1832 Reform Act was the direct consequence of the outcome of the 1831 general election, and had been the major issue in it. It might not be a referendum as we know it now but it's as close as you get and was undoubtedly viewed as a mandate for reform.
Similarly, the 1911 Parliament Act was only passed following a second general election to confirm the Liberals in office. Again, the issue of Lords reform was at the top of the agenda.
Sometimes there is a need to consult the public, sometimes there isn't. I'd argue that there is such a need either when the constitutional measures proposed are contentious and against which there is significant opposition, or where the measures proposed are so significant and would be likely to have such an impact of the passage of future legislation that a mandate greater than that possessed by parliament is required (this being a variant on the principle that parliament cannot abolish itself).
What if two political parties go into the election with their manifestos clearly stating that they will implement HoL reform by bringing in elections of a more proportional basis. If there is then a coalition between those two parties, there should not be any need for a referendum.
"Economic recovery at what cost? thousands of people on the verge of malnutrition reliant upon charity food parcels, millions of people cruelly having their Benefits 'sanctioned', people forced to do unpaid slave labour in exchange for their State Benefits, over 4000 suicides due to Welfare Reforms....the Tory scum have a lot to answer for in their relentless war against the poor."
Previous thread - While the Tories need to cut Labour down to about 36% they can win narrowly even if Labour stays at that level by winning back votes lost to UKIP and winning over a few centrist LDs from 2010
Does anyone have an answer to the conundrum 'why did Clegg go from the most popular leader (and probably politician) in the country in 2010 to one of the least popular today?
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
And why is it so personal?
4. Coalition negotiations were ugly, political reality meant that we were going to have to give things up, i.e. tuition fees.
Hold on. Tuition fees were hardly front and centre of the Conservative election campaign. We may have to wait for a few more memoirs to be written but is it not more likely either that Clegg sold his soul for the referendum, or that Osborne stitched Clegg up for 2015 by ensuring no voter would believe the 2015 LibDem manifesto after he'd reneged on the 2010 one?
Plato - True, but wages lower than in 2010 after inflation and continued austerity hardly constitutes a boom. In any case, industrial production is 13% below its pre-crisis level and manufacturing output is nearly 9% lower.
You should get yourself a job then Plato. Save you sitting around on here and twitter all day.
You really are a rather unpleasant individual aren't you. Deputising for tim like last night. I think "MODERATED" best describes you but no doubt it will be moderated.
I am reading "Seasons in the Sun" at present, Sandbrooks history of late seventies Britain.
In 1975 some were saying that only Labour could win under FPTP. Then as now in so many ways complacency was fatal to the Labour cause.
I may join the LibDems soon, I would like a vote on the next coalition agreement, and perhaps it is time for me to join the party that I have voted for more than any other. The party rolls are so small that it is at risk of entryism.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
The last thing this country needs is a boom. It is inevitably followed by a bust. "Gordonomics " tried to change the rules but his bust was the worst in living memory.
Well if things are booming I'm sure Plato can get herself back into work. Save taking money out the state. Start paying taxes and contribute to the system again.
After all no one likes people idling away not contributing.
The country was living beyond its means, so sustainable endogenous growth requires belt tightening to continue. The worst of the Hangover is behind us, but we still have a large bar-bill to settle before we can get a round in.
The return of growth always starts in the south east before spreading.
Plato - True, but wages lower than in 2010 after inflation and continued austerity hardly constitutes a boom. In any case, industrial production is 13% below its pre-crisis level and manufacturing output is nearly 9% lower.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
"The LDs on the other hand have very much got their hands tied by the need for any new coalition deal to be approved by both the parliamentary party and a special conference agreeing by a two thirds majority. This would be a lot harder than in 2010."
In the run up to the 2010 GE, the LDs went strong on being able to work with either party. OGH is suggesting that this won't be the case in 2015.
In that's the case, the sub-text of their message to the electorate next time will be: if you don't give the Conservatives a majority, the price of another Con-LD coalition will be very much higher. That price to include a change to the voting system with no further referendum (even though you rejected it out of hand a few years back, but ho-hum). Otherwise, our members will say No Deal. Oh and by the way, we'll scratch the referendum on Europe too.
Would they really try so hard to put people off voting for them?
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
Is that after Sean Connery commandeers a nuclear sub and defects to England?
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
What do you envisage the new Navy comprising of? Will it to all extents be like the Irish Navy?
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
Is that after Sean Connery commandeers a nuclear sub and defects to England?
Sean is happy in New York though teh pull of an independent Scotland will be too much for him.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
What do you envisage the new Navy comprising of? Will it to all extents be like the Irish Navy?
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
Why would you put your Naval headquarters on the opposite side of the country to your main field of naval operations - the North Sea?
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
Is that after Sean Connery commandeers a nuclear sub and defects to England?
Sean is happy in New York though teh pull of an independent Scotland will be too much for him.
Does anyone have an answer to the conundrum 'why did Clegg go from the most popular leader (and probably politician) in the country in 2010 to one of the least popular today?
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
And why is it so personal?
It's the corollary of the Tories not coming to terms with not having won outright victory.
There was a huge anyone-but-Cons vote for the LDs. So much is well known. But what those voters where choosing was a left wing option as they were disillusioned with Lab.
And there has been a consistent denial not only of the power that a junior coalition partner has, but also that although they are in coalition, a plurality of the nation voted Cons therefore of course Cons policies should have a greater weight.
I think NC has done brilliantly; he has moderated some Cons policies and introduced some LD ones. But he is up against left wing 2010 LD voters who are genuinely scratching their heads as to why he hasn't managed to nationalise the internet yet.
That is why there is so much vitriol. He was supposed to be the left wing saviour and ended up being the junior partner in a right of centre dominated coalition.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
What do you envisage the new Navy comprising of? Will it to all extents be like the Irish Navy?
I'm genuinely interested to know what SNP supporters see as being the future shape of their armed forces.
Josias , I would imagine it would be similar to Irish/Nordic navies.
The Nordic and Irish navies are quite different in size and intended roles - the Finnish navy has over 4 times the number of personnel of the an tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh, and more if mobilized. The Royal Norwegian Navy is much larger, as is the Royal Swedish Navy.
It really depends on the roles envisaged: you decide on the roles, and create a force to fulfil those roles. I assume the Scottish Navy will be more like the Irish in terms of roles: i.e. fisheries protection, maritime surveillance and rescue?
Although it will be up to the Scottish people to decide, some thought needs to be given. It would be interesting to see what SNPers think atm.
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
What do you envisage the new Navy comprising of? Will it to all extents be like the Irish Navy?
I'm not sure whether I'm glad the Lib Dems have been in Government to tame the crazed excesses of a staggeringly nasty and right-wing Tory Party.
Or whether the Lib Dem presence has actually made things even worse, as it's enabled the Tories to say "look - the Lib Dems agree, it can't be that barking mad"
MG ..But you keep telling us that you live in Paradise and if only the dreadful English would take off your shackles it will get better .. Go for that independence vote boy.. How are things in soon to be a Ghost Town Helensburgh
Richard, does not need to be booming to be paradise. Helensburgh will definitely boom when Faslane is Scottish headquarters of the new navy after Yes vote.
What do you envisage the new Navy comprising of? Will it to all extents be like the Irish Navy?
The fact that PBTories think Clegg has done a good job probably explains why he's so unpopular in the real world.
Did I use too many words?
Apologies.
He has done a good job in LibDem terms. Expectations of him were wholly unrealistic.
Chuckle. It wasn't necessarily aimed at you personally... But the point remains, Tories quite like Clegg. Which is exactly why the rest of the electorate does not.
I'd argue that he's done a wretched job in terms of the Lib Dems too. If you go into Coalition with Tories, you do so with extreme caution, bear in mind that they are mendacious and ruthless and will stitch you up at each and every opportunity.
Clegg didn't do this, and lo and behold, the Tories have time and again stitched him up. Not least over AV and Lords reform.
The LibDems would be mad if they again agreed to sign off Tory economic and welfare policy in return for something abstruse like Lords reform. A new deal with either party would surely require some compromise on stuff that actually affects voters - as taffys observes more memorably upthread.
If we're going to reopen the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, then why would the Spanish stop at getting Gibraltar back? Why not Belgium and Luxembourg as well? And of course the Italians have a much more recent claim to Nice and Savoie (1860), the Austrians might want to have go at the Alto Adige (1919), the Germans at Alsace (1919) . And so it goes on.
Wasn't there a referendum over Nice and Savoie? (Albeit, heavily fixed, in proper European style)
If we're going to reopen the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, then why would the Spanish stop at getting Gibraltar back? Why not Belgium and Luxembourg as well? And of course the Italians have a much more recent claim to Nice and Savoie (1860), the Austrians might want to have go at the Alto Adige (1919), the Germans at Alsace (1919) . And so it goes on.
Wasn't there a referendum over Nice and Savoie? (Albeit, heavily fixed, in proper European style)
Mr. Tpfkar, worth considering that if we have numbers, for argument's sake, identical to the current composition of the Commons then Cameron could (and should, in my view) refuse to form a government and force another election, if the Lib Dems play silly buggers.
Demanding disarmament, refusing a referendum on the EU, trying to gerrymander the electoral system for their own ends, all those are entirely unacceptable.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst the Lib Dems may be less easygoing regarding negotiations this time Cameron's backbenchers will also be very willing to make plain what they will and will not stand.
If the numbers are identical, then it'll come down to whether Cameron and Clegg can cut a deal on a personal level, and whether they can carry their parties. Everything else will be secondary. It's all very well saying that totem items are "unacceptable" but you only get to make those kind of decisions when you have a majority. For what it's worth, I can't see the Tories compromising on Trident / EU referendum, so I'd expect all of mansion tax, local PR and Lords reform without referendum to be accepted.
The problem with a threshold for mansion tax is that it will lead to all sort silliness around the cut off (is a flat worth £1.95m or £2.05m)?
Far better to have a simple, low rate, (say 0.5% or 0.75%) on all residential properties, whether rental or owner-occupied and use the money raised to reduce other more damaging taxes - such as employer NICs - and lift the personal allowance
Mr. Tpfkar, worth considering that if we have numbers, for argument's sake, identical to the current composition of the Commons then Cameron could (and should, in my view) refuse to form a government and force another election, if the Lib Dems play silly buggers.
Demanding disarmament, refusing a referendum on the EU, trying to gerrymander the electoral system for their own ends, all those are entirely unacceptable.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst the Lib Dems may be less easygoing regarding negotiations this time Cameron's backbenchers will also be very willing to make plain what they will and will not stand.
If the numbers are identical, then it'll come down to whether Cameron and Clegg can cut a deal on a personal level, and whether they can carry their parties. Everything else will be secondary. It's all very well saying that totem items are "unacceptable" but you only get to make those kind of decisions when you have a majority. For what it's worth, I can't see the Tories compromising on Trident / EU referendum, so I'd expect all of mansion tax, local PR and Lords reform without referendum to be accepted.
The problem with a threshold for mansion tax is that it will lead to all sort silliness around the cut off (is a flat worth £1.95m or £2.05m)?
Far better to have a simple, low rate, (say 0.5% or 0.75%) on all residential properties, whether rental or owner-occupied and use the money raised to reduce other more damaging taxes - such as employer NICs - and lift the personal allowance
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
The fact that the Lib Dems know that if they don't offer an EU referendum Cameron will be toast gives them great ability to get items on their shopping list that the Tories would never usually agree to, and the simple deal is that if the Tories vote any down, there goes their referendum. Bet the Tory backbenchers would love that.
That sums it up brilliantly tpfkar. Dave's negotiating position has been very much weakened by the EU referendum issue.
One thing from talking to people in the 3 main parties is that everybody's learned a lot from the 2010 coalition talks.
Clegg's hands are very tied by his party's requirements the approval a of coalition agreements. He doesn't have that much room negotiation.
Arguably it means Cameron's hand has been strengthened...
If he thinks something (let's say a mansion tax) is a worthwhile trade off he can force it through his backbenchers.
Quite right, one of the reasons I voted against it was discussions on here about how it can be even less proportional than FPTP. I would have certainly considered voting for STV.
If the next election delivers a hung parliament, the argument that FPTP always delivers a strong single-party government is going to start to look a little thin.
@PBModerator Okidoki = Avery did it the other day and it wasn't a problem.
Threads are enriched by having occasional and relevant inline graphics. For example, your post of the Evening Standard splash headline was one of the most poltically relevant of the day. It showed the MSM finally accepting the economy had turned and was symbolic of a turning point in the political development of this parliament.
The original request to link rather than display bitmap photos on thread was justified as being necessary to avoid PB infringing copyright, yet pictures with open licenses which permit reuse without express consent are still being moderated from 'inline' to 'linked'.
I suspect the problem to OGH/PB is much more bandwidth related. The Vanilla system ties PB into a server contract which has monthly costs tiered to download volume. Threads with bitmap inline graphic content will greatly inflate bandwidth usage and may push the monthly costs up a tier.
I suspect also that the editing restrctions (1 hour down to 6 minutes) and comment length restrictions (new character count limits) were also introduced to lower bandwith usage.
I hope this post will be allowed to stand rather than immediately deleted by the moderator as sensible discussion on comments policy and cost/service quality tradeoffs is beneficial to the site.
Most PB users have immense respect for the site and work done by Mike Smithson and it would only enhance goodwill if operational constraints, cost options and moderation policy issues were discussed transparently and constructively within the 'PB community'.
The LDs aren't so daft as to try to change the electoral system unless they have demonstrably made the case.
A second term in coalition with the Tories would be absolutely fine for them. No big concessions needed, although I imagine that they'd try to fix their reputation on (for example) education.
By staying in office and not bankrupting the nation they are showing that more left wing views don't need to go hand-in-hand with financial incompetence. They can just sit back and watch Labour thrash around trying to re-invent themselves. At some point they may, just may, get the chance to move a little to the left, leave the coalition, and position themselves to have a real run at a good number of MPs.
After all the LDs don't dream of coalition forever - they want to be the government.
In the medium term this would of course suit the Tories completely. An agreeable coalition partner doing damage to Labour, but in the long term creating a party at least somewhat of the left without the damaging union baggage, or the history of poor stewardship of the economy might prove to be a bad idea after all.
If I didn't have to actually deposit funds I think I might like to bet on a 'last leader to leave' market. I think I might just about have Clegg as the fav. There's a much broader spectrum of results that can have him surviving than the other two.
Comments
As George Osborne warned, chaos ensued when the Tories lost us our credit rating, didn't it. Didn't it?
Perhaps the Lib Dems could campaign on "no more top-down reorganisation of the constitution".
As with much of British politics the need for referendums has long been based on political expediency rather than some standard of what the issue is.
Our electoral system history is a lot more checkered than people seem to realise.
The 1832 Reform Act was the direct consequence of the outcome of the 1831 general election, and had been the major issue in it. It might not be a referendum as we know it now but it's as close as you get and was undoubtedly viewed as a mandate for reform.
Similarly, the 1911 Parliament Act was only passed following a second general election to confirm the Liberals in office. Again, the issue of Lords reform was at the top of the agenda.
Sometimes there is a need to consult the public, sometimes there isn't. I'd argue that there is such a need either when the constitutional measures proposed are contentious and against which there is significant opposition, or where the measures proposed are so significant and would be likely to have such an impact of the passage of future legislation that a mandate greater than that possessed by parliament is required (this being a variant on the principle that parliament cannot abolish itself).
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
And why is it so personal?
"2010 was a special situation, such was the chaos the previous government had left. I think the chances of a second election will be much higher in 2015. In fact if I was in charge of campaigning for any of the major parties I would be making contingencies for it now."
Having read through this thread I am more convinced than ever that is true. Creating the circumstances for another Coalition like the present one may take another 50 years or so. I also suspect that the Lib Dems will be weighing their short money against ministerial appointments quite carefully if their finances continue on their current trend.
Lab would support Con and Con would support Lab in Parliament on the nuclear deterrent - for certain.
2. He became a punching bag for both sides, Labour blamed him for aligning with the Tories. The right of the Tories blamed him for not letting them go far enough (with Cameron trying to use the Lib Dems as a scapegoat for things he didn't want either), the more central Tories blamed him for anything going wrong.
3. The press decided to do a number on him, right down to the fairly disgusting 'he's got foreign relations, is he really British, can we trust him' xenophobic angle.
4. Coalition negotiations were ugly, political reality meant that we were going to have to give things up, i.e. tuition fees. Which is harder to explain than the simple "he lied, just another lying politicians" refrain.
5. He also crossed over to an extent, by which I mean he suddenly became known enough for comedians etc to reference him and that ties back into point 4.
They'll move an amendment that the PM can lay the Boundary Commission report before the Queen without another vote in Parliament. I imagine they would also do an amendment to put number of MPs back up to 650 (to keep all Con and LD backbenchers happy).
If they pass the above in 2015 then they have certainty - ie PM knows that when Boundary Commission reports in 2018 he can take report straight to the Queen for 100% certain and Parliament can't stop it.
That he is now a joke to many is worse than that many hate him, as it means even his successes will be ignored because his name itself is a cheap punchline to too many.
I think Clegg has plenty if admirable qualities and made a reasonable decision in 2010 which his party backed, but he will have to wait for history to vindicate his choices if it is possible.
Anywho, must be off. Night all.
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/25777918
"Economic recovery at what cost? thousands of people on the verge of malnutrition reliant upon charity food parcels, millions of people cruelly having their Benefits 'sanctioned', people forced to do unpaid slave labour in exchange for their State Benefits, over 4000 suicides due to Welfare Reforms....the Tory scum have a lot to answer for in their relentless war against the poor."
Hillary Clinton (D) 43%
Chris Christie (R) 39%
Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
Jeb Bush (R) 37%
Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
Marco Rubio (R) 36%
Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
Ted Cruz (R) 32%
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10593795.Brighton_and_Hove_s_controversial_20mph_scheme_set_to_be_expanded/
In 1975 some were saying that only Labour could win under FPTP. Then as now in so many ways complacency was fatal to the Labour cause.
I may join the LibDems soon, I would like a vote on the next coalition agreement, and perhaps it is time for me to join the party that I have voted for more than any other. The party rolls are so small that it is at risk of entryism.
Time to say goodbye to the algorithms.
It was good whilst it lasted. You could even have been a contender.
But there is no going back now.
Take it like a man.
Retire to Cornwall and vote Tory.
The last thing this country needs is a boom. It is inevitably followed by a bust.
"Gordonomics " tried to change the rules but his bust was the worst in living memory.
But I have no idea what work is being done.
If it was the month of the Edinburgh Fringe, my guess would be that it was SNP activists paid to campaign as SLAB separatists.
Well if things are booming I'm sure Plato can get herself back into work. Save taking money out the state. Start paying taxes and contribute to the system again.
After all no one likes people idling away not contributing.
Enjoy talking amongst yourself PB Tories.
The return of growth always starts in the south east before spreading.
8,606,516 to go.
In the run up to the 2010 GE, the LDs went strong on being able to work with either party. OGH is suggesting that this won't be the case in 2015.
In that's the case, the sub-text of their message to the electorate next time will be: if you don't give the Conservatives a majority, the price of another Con-LD coalition will be very much higher. That price to include a change to the voting system with no further referendum (even though you rejected it out of hand a few years back, but ho-hum). Otherwise, our members will say No Deal. Oh and by the way, we'll scratch the referendum on Europe too.
Would they really try so hard to put people off voting for them?
Indeed they may be able to combine the two!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Service_(Ireland)
I'm genuinely interested to know what SNP supporters see as being the future shape of their armed forces.
There was a huge anyone-but-Cons vote for the LDs. So much is well known. But what those voters where choosing was a left wing option as they were disillusioned with Lab.
And there has been a consistent denial not only of the power that a junior coalition partner has, but also that although they are in coalition, a plurality of the nation voted Cons therefore of course Cons policies should have a greater weight.
I think NC has done brilliantly; he has moderated some Cons policies and introduced some LD ones. But he is up against left wing 2010 LD voters who are genuinely scratching their heads as to why he hasn't managed to nationalise the internet yet.
That is why there is so much vitriol. He was supposed to be the left wing saviour and ended up being the junior partner in a right of centre dominated coalition.
It really depends on the roles envisaged: you decide on the roles, and create a force to fulfil those roles. I assume the Scottish Navy will be more like the Irish in terms of roles: i.e. fisheries protection, maritime surveillance and rescue?
Although it will be up to the Scottish people to decide, some thought needs to be given. It would be interesting to see what SNPers think atm.
8 offshore patrol vessels
Norwegian Navy:
5 Frigates
1 Royal Yacht
8 mine clearance ships
6 submarines
6 missile patrol boats
20 special warfare boats
1 support vessel
14 Coast Guard vessels
Which will Scotland's resemble?
Apologies.
He has done a good job in LibDem terms. Expectations of him were wholly unrealistic.
Or whether the Lib Dem presence has actually made things even worse, as it's enabled the Tories to say "look - the Lib Dems agree, it can't be that barking mad"
How else will Salmond get around his fiefdom?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100229870/the-brothers-grimm-werent-just-about-fairy-tales-they-also-transformed-how-we-think-about-language/
I'd argue that he's done a wretched job in terms of the Lib Dems too. If you go into Coalition with Tories, you do so with extreme caution, bear in mind that they are mendacious and ruthless and will stitch you up at each and every opportunity.
Clegg didn't do this, and lo and behold, the Tories have time and again stitched him up. Not least over AV and Lords reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turin
It is one of the many common faults I make when speaking or writing. It's why I'm not an author ...
PLEASE STOP EMBEDDING PICTURES INTO YOUR COMMENTS> ANY FUTURE SUCH PICTURES WILL RISK YOUR ENTIRE COMMENT BEING DELETED
PLEASE CONFIRM YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS.
THANK YOU
Far better to have a simple, low rate, (say 0.5% or 0.75%) on all residential properties, whether rental or owner-occupied and use the money raised to reduce other more damaging taxes - such as employer NICs - and lift the personal allowance
Avery, If you do it please cease too.
Thank you
Well, a second LD-CON coalition is currently 7/1 at Paddy Power, which is probably too short. The FAV is Lab Maj (8/5 at Betfair).
So, PR foes can rest easy.
If he thinks something (let's say a mansion tax) is a worthwhile trade off he can force it through his backbenchers.
OF COURSE the Spanish minister arguing for the return of Gibraltar represents a Spanish enclave in Morocco... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100229898/spain-should-want-a-prosperous-gibraltar/
Quite right, one of the reasons I voted against it was discussions on here about how it can be even less proportional than FPTP. I would have certainly considered voting for STV.
If the next election delivers a hung parliament, the argument that FPTP always delivers a strong single-party government is going to start to look a little thin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10225693/Gibraltar-Spanish-government-hypocrites-for-complaining-about-reef.html
The original request to link rather than display bitmap photos on thread was justified as being necessary to avoid PB infringing copyright, yet pictures with open licenses which permit reuse without express consent are still being moderated from 'inline' to 'linked'.
I suspect the problem to OGH/PB is much more bandwidth related. The Vanilla system ties PB into a server contract which has monthly costs tiered to download volume. Threads with bitmap inline graphic content will greatly inflate bandwidth usage and may push the monthly costs up a tier.
I suspect also that the editing restrctions (1 hour down to 6 minutes) and comment length restrictions (new character count limits) were also introduced to lower bandwith usage.
I hope this post will be allowed to stand rather than immediately deleted by the moderator as sensible discussion on comments policy and cost/service quality tradeoffs is beneficial to the site.
Most PB users have immense respect for the site and work done by Mike Smithson and it would only enhance goodwill if operational constraints, cost options and moderation policy issues were discussed transparently and constructively within the 'PB community'.
A second term in coalition with the Tories would be absolutely fine for them. No big concessions needed, although I imagine that they'd try to fix their reputation on (for example) education.
By staying in office and not bankrupting the nation they are showing that more left wing views don't need to go hand-in-hand with financial incompetence. They can just sit back and watch Labour thrash around trying to re-invent themselves. At some point they may, just may, get the chance to move a little to the left, leave the coalition, and position themselves to have a real run at a good number of MPs.
After all the LDs don't dream of coalition forever - they want to be the government.
In the medium term this would of course suit the Tories completely. An agreeable coalition partner doing damage to Labour, but in the long term creating a party at least somewhat of the left without the damaging union baggage, or the history of poor stewardship of the economy might prove to be a bad idea after all.
If I didn't have to actually deposit funds I think I might like to bet on a 'last leader to leave' market. I think I might just about have Clegg as the fav. There's a much broader spectrum of results that can have him surviving than the other two.