Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform – Coming sooner than you think?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform – Coming sooner than you think?
“If the time did come for more coalition negotiations, the experience of coalition the first time will be clearly taken on board when we think through what we would do a second time.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I don't think it's legitimate to have a referendum on the EU as the price for certain 'reform' (if it's single 15 year terms then it'd be moronic) without consenting the British people. It's this sort of political horse-trading, where politicians rather than voters determine the government, which makes me loathe coalitions and PR style systems.
Hopefully the experience of coalition will encourage voters to split into red and blue camps and one party will have an outright majority.
If it keeps them on board for 5 years and Labour safely in oppo - why not.
A divisive politician becomes great when their dividend is the vast majority.
tim needs our help, Sean, not our pity.
AV. Resilient, highly contagious. Once AV has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An electoral system that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere.
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/bahrain-early-discussion.html
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/17/when-grown-men-cry/
First, I doubt many people will think too much about this either way. Next, to the extent that they do, "harsh uncaring Chancellor crying for former stateswoman with a harsh uncaring image" is not likely to improve the Chancellor's standing. Third, the Chancellor is oddly little-known as a public figure, considering that he has held a very senior rank for many years now, and I'm not sure the public will engage with this much - except perhaps to think that there are things more worthy of tears in 2013 than the death in old age of Margaret Thatcher.
AV managed to muster 33% in the referendum. I think you could certainly add at least 10 percentage points to that for an STV referendum.
1) Con would work with UKIP
2) Con + UKIP could win a majority between them
?
The House of Lords does need reform, because Labour, as ever, tinkered and meddled and buggered it up. Sadly, it does need to change.
One off 15 year terms are completely ridiculous.
Not to mention the other pressing concern, barely asked let alone answered, about what this would do to the primacy of the Commons and what the role of the Lords should actually be.
Indeed, the leaders of Europe have concluded that the answer to a frankly cretinous monetary union of wildly varying and numerous nations is to have deeper integration. This is similar to a man with a papercut reasoning that the best tool to ease the pain is a chainsaw.
Part 84: Cyprus will cause run on banks all over Europe.
etc etc etc.
But the fundamental position remains untenable. The patient isn't recovering, he simply has yet to expire.
No, in all seriousness, the proposals were a dog's breakfast. What was most striking about the whole affair was that Clegg didn't even begin to try to argue for them on their merits.
As others have pointed out, the approach was backwards anyway. You need to start by agreeing what you want the Lords to do and not to do.
That's a fair point.
I fear Labour will use that image a LOT between now and the election. You can see the poster now:
OSBORNE CRIES AT THATCHERS FUNERAL BUT SHED'S NO TEARS FOR YOUR JOB/HOUSING ALLOWANCE/SCHOOL/HOSPITAL etc...
You know its gonna happen.
On the substantive point, unless sensible proposals are put forward, they'll be voted down - either in parliament or a referendum. I believe the Lib Dems made two massive mistakes in their handling of this issue.
Firstly, they pushed for AV rather than Lords reform as their primary constitutional goal. HoL reform could be done without a referendum and would probably have been delivered by now. There's no need for a referendum if you're making the system more democratic (and the precedent is there with the 1999 reforms). Going for AV, by contrast, has left them with nothing.
Secondly, they threw their toys out of the pram when the going got a little sticky on the HoL proposals. Lords reform is never easy - see Asquith, Attlee, Wilson, Blair etc - but is deliverable with enough will. What they needed if they were really serious was the tenacity of Major over Maastricht, or Lansley over the NHS bill. it wouldn't have been pretty but if the results justified it, that wouldn't matter. At the end of the day, something would have come through; probably something substantial. It might not have been the original proposals (but then given their nature, it shouldn't have been), but it would have been reform. At worst, it would have been someone else who ultimately blocked it. As it was, they have no-one to blame but themselves for crumbling in the face of a bit of opposition.
Tables here
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ThatcherPoll_April2013_Tables.pdf
Otherwise they'll just change for the sake of change and we'll end up with a set of unforeseen consequences.
Commenting on the crowds remembering her today, Mr Johnson says she stirred people's imagination in a way that other prime ministers had not.
"It is no disrespect to other prime ministers that died recently," he says, adding: "I do think that people in 20, 50 years time will see that she really was hewn of a different timber. She was presented with some very, very serious problems and she overcame all of them."
"News this morning that new car registrations in Europe fell by another 10.2pc in March from the same month a year earlier.....marked the 18th consecutive month of declines. Nonetheless, Britain remained resilient, posting a 5.9pc growth in sales compared with the same month last year."
I blame Osborne...
Macmillan changed the Labour Party
Wilson changed the Tory Party.
Thatcher changed the Labour Party.
Blair changed the Tory Party.
It's what happens.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/000/681/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg
"This morning, on the Today programme, Cameron said we are all Thatcherites now.
I think in a way we’re all Thatcherites now because, I mean, I think one of the things about her legacy is some of those big arguments that she had had, you know, everyone now accepts. No one wants to go back to trade unions that are undemocratic or one-sided nuclear disarmament or having great private sector businesses in the public sector.
Mellor told Sky just now he disagreed.
I thought you were going to put to me what Dave also said, that we are all Thatcherites now. To which my answer would be "Fat chance" as long as he's still got people like Andrew Cooper, who basically told him that in order for the Tories to be electable he had to rid the Conservative party of any taint of Thatcherism. He tried to do that, and he became prime minister despite not winning an election. If he has realised that, difficult though it is after a career in public relations, he should try to discover some depth of conviction, this might be a timely moment for him. But I'm not holding my breath."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/17/lady-thatcher-funeral-live-blog#block-516e94ede4b0b434f8243cfc
There's no point having two Houses that essentially duplicate each other; to provide more comprehensive representation, they need to be formed on a different basis. As such, i wouldn't have any objection to the Lords being elected under STV, providing that the Commons remains single-member constituency.
- we'll see how it all pans out) a 4th emerging presently.
This leads to the nonsense of TB being elected on only 36% of the vote in 2005 (and only 3% ahead) with a big majority of 65, and the distinct possibility of Ed M being elected with a working majority with even less of the vote in 2015. It also led to the insanity of the Tories winning (just) more votes than Labour in 2005 in England (not the UK) and getting nearly 100 less seats (again in England). Now whether the maths of the system works heavily for Labour (as it does now), or the positions were reversed matters not, what does matter if this continues is that the long term will of the people is not being reflected, a point the LD's to be fair have made for years, as they really do get hammered by the system (25% of the vote in 1983 and a tiny fraction of Labour's seats despite being about 1% behind only). Their mistake this time round in my view was to try to get something as odd as AV ("vote for the headbangers and you get to vote lots of times"), and then throwing the toys out because their particular version of Lord's reform wasn't agreeable to the Tories. They are therefore (in my view) left trying to explain why an attempt to make the system somewhat more even for the powerful lower house was scuppered because of Byzantine nonsense surrounding the system for the Lords. I of Wight 105000 electors (or whatever) Western Isles 23000. Go figure.
Now that said elections also have to reflect the will of the people but also have to form workable governments otherwise you end up like Israel or Belgium or Italy in days of yore, so the system has still to have some deliberately (slight) disproportionality to get over this hurdle. Some kind of German constituency and list mix?
- Atlee has the welfare state (although all the parties would have set up may of the reforms). But those changes were in line with what many of his party wanted.
- Macmillan has nothing (Macmillanism?)
- Wilson has nothing
- Thatcher has Thatcherism
- Blair has Blairite
Only Thatcher and Blair indelibly changed their parties. Thatcher gave power to 'ordinary' Tories; Blair (and to be fair his fellow travellers) scrapped a great deal of the baggage that made Labour unelectable.Nearly a good point...
But her policies live on. Blair took the mantle of Thatcherism and used many of her policies without using her name. The Tories should continue that legacy: continue the best aspects of her politics, but not her name.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9999803/European-car-sales-fall-for-18th-month.html
"In March, the UK remained a resilient market, posting a 5.9% growth, while Italy (-4.9%), Spain (-13.9%), France (-16.2%) and Germany (-17.1%) saw their demand decrease. Overall, the EU* recorded a total of 1,307,107 new cars, or 10.2% less than in March 2012.
From January to March, except for the UK (+7.4%), all major markets faced a double-digit downturn ranging from -11.5% in Spain to -12.9% in Germany, -13.0% in Italy and -14.6% in France. Overall new car registrations decreased by 9.8% in the first quarter, compared to the same period a year earlier."
http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/passenger_car_registrations_-9.8_in_first_quarter_-10.2_in_march
The ECB needs to print, print and print some more.
Many commentators have been comparing Lady Thatcher's funeral with Clement Attlee's. Well, my colleagues at the Guardian's archive have dug out the coverage of Attlee's funeral in 1967 and so you can read about it for yourself. Fewer than 150 people attended, and it lasted less than 20 minutes. It epitomised his "love of simplicity", the Guardian report says.
But the Guardian's obituary of Attlee makes for less happy reading.
Lord Attlee was not in the line of the great prime ministers any more than was Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain or Eden ...
Oops. Probably not one of our better judgments. AS
The role of the HoL or whatever it may be called, has not been decided. Is it to be a revising house with recommendations, or a revising house with real power?
However I do not see the HoC giving up their primacy without a near revolution.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/12/1365777984207/Attlee-obit-001.jpg
There's an interesting point in the Guardian blog
Parts of the crowd look like Conservative party conference - the blazers, the weird-looking policy wonks - but this gathering is broader than that. There are plenty of C2s here, so beloved of Tory party strategists: working-class people who bought their council homes and British Telecom shares and fought in the Falklands and feel grateful for the opportunities they believe Thatcher gave them.
Generally, if these people, keep quiet, get on with their work etc., then they're not heard, and there's no divsion. Why shouldn't they have a voice, and why shouldn't that voice be different to the one that the Guardianistas say it should be?
I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to wake up tomorrow and feel rather queasy. I don't say this as a political opponent quite the reverse. Had it been done for Tony Blair I might have been physically sick.
These occasions are for Royalty and the tourist industry. Thatcher is not Royalty and this was just insane.
Should Orkney/Shetland be independent countries, separate from Scotland?
Men -
No 70.6%
Yes 11.8%
Women -
No 87.8%
Yes 6.1%
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-new-flag-for-scotland/
Allensbach:
CDU/CSU: 38.5%
SPD: 28.0%
Green: 15.0%
Linke: 7.0%
FDP: 5.0%
Pirates: 3.0%
Others: 3.5%
Forsa:
CDU/CSU: 42%
SPD: 22%
Green: 15%
Linke: 8%
FDP: 5%
Pirates: 3%
Others: 5%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
Well yes it's done and I don't think it'll have any party political ramifications. But I do think the country-particularly outside London-will find this in the midst of our well trailed austerity program inexplicable.
This wasn't us all being in this together. This was Marie Antoinette. it was grotesque and it was vulgar and there will be some very bemused and angry people out there
The ECB needs to print, print and print some more. </blockquote>
They are (indirectly) killing their own market but it's deep in the German psyche not to print money. To many Brits a bit of inflation means a house at an effective knock down price much sooner than paying off a 25yr mortgage at the "proper rate". To Germans it can equal chaos - Weimar- Hitler-war- 6 million dead -Russian occupation of 30% of the country for half a century.
The whole thing (as I have said before) should never have been introduced without a Euroland wide referendum and a deep debate on what it could mean in terms of transfers of money within the currency union. The German press is now running stories in Daily Mailesque fashion about the horrors of a "transfer union" and how "Mummy Merkel" musn't do it. All 20 years too late.
I suspect something may loosen Merkel's grip on the stop button on the printing press after September (though it will called something different so as not to give the Germans a fit of the vapours). Before then? Fat chance methinks, barring Italy or Spain going to the wall, and maybe not then even.
Other countries include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay.
French and British lawmakers have also voted in favour of legislation allowing gay marriage, although the bills have not yet been passed into law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22184232
Within the next two or three years same-sex marriage will no longer be controversial.
And rightly so. If two people like each other and there's no harm to anyone else what's the problem?
Sorry, tried to quote you in post just below and the quoting thing didn't work as expected!
I hope that means repeal only after the upper house is 100% elected.
One problem is that if same sex couples can marry, why can't siblings. If old siblings live together and one dies, do they have to sell the house (to pay an IHT bill), or can they get married and avoid the bill?
Now, this may be OK for same sex couples (they can't produce children), but do we extend it to brother and sister, and if so, do we only do this if they're obviously not going to produce children.
If my wife dies before me, can I marry one of the children in order to avoid IHT?
It exists to make YOU poorer.
http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/cd7e33a9-1df6-4d6a-b565-8995d7b6e20e/14uk-unemployment-dec2010_20110310100039.gif
I just can't see why she had to have a big funeral paid for by the public. the only reason Blair agreed to it would have been because it almost guarantees the same honour for him, as no one could deny a Thrice election winning Leader that privilege now. (I take it that is the qualification)
I don't have any major axe to grind with Margaret Thatcher, but almost half the country do, and as you say she wasnt Royalty. I'm sure a funeral with all the people that wanted to pay their respects in attendance was within the budget of her family.
But for all that, I have to say if you didnt agree with it, you didnt have to watch it. I didnt, and the mickey taking of people showing their grief is out of order, even if they are your political enemies they are still people with feelings.
Growth isn't at ideal levels but then we must note that the UK is the only major country in the EU whose economy is not currently and rapidly contracting,
A booming Eurozone would undoubtedly have accelerated rather than retarded Osborne's progress but that is why it is a main priority of the government to increase the UK's share of trade outside the EU.
A typical example of the success of such reorientation is staring us in the face today with the publication of statistics on car registrations in the EU. Massive retrenchment on the continent and strong growth (6%) in the UK. The UK's car manufacturing figures are even stronger due to many firms exporting outside the EU. The Jaguar Land Rover Group, for example, exports around 85% of its output, with the largest shares going outside the EU.
More clearly needs to be done and will be done as government finances improve. In the meantime, the recent budget increases in R&D investment in science, technology and innovation further position the economy to take advantage of global export opportunities.