politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PR without a ratifying referendum – the price for a second
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PR without a ratifying referendum – the price for a second LD-CON coalition?
With the Tories making progress in the polls and the expectation of a UKIP bonus once support for the purples has eased off is leading all the parties to consider what would happen in the event of another hung parliament.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Not sure the country would stomach such a stitch up for the benefit of a party polling 8%.
Would this little change to the voting system need to go through parliment or could the Deputy Prime minister sign it off himself ?
The answer was NO.
almostimpossible to sell to his party. There is also the consideration that if there are 40 Lib Dems in the next Parliament they will not be particularly under represented, particularly in relation to, say, UKIP who are likely to have none.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.
Edit No doubt that was what Ed had in mind when he imperilled Union funding. Oh, wait a minute...
Of course in Miliband and Clegg both had PR in their manifestos they might be tempted to try it without a popular vote.....very brave.....
Such limited thinking won't get you a fat EU pension...
Another Euroholic..
It's that sort of insight which keeps me coming here.
What does the shadow foreign secretary think about Gib??
Going back in time to 9th February 1997:
"The cabinet of tomorrow":
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-cabinet-of-tomorrow-1277684.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gibraltar-row-peter-hain-calls-for-joint-sovereignty-as-ukips-nigel-farage-demands-uk-stands-firm-8747917.html
"However, Mr Hain, who led negotiations over the situation whilst a minister in Tony Blair's cabinet, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that he believed the Spanish got “cold feet” and backed off.
“There was a historic opportunity to have joint sovereignty which would have protected Gibraltarians' way of life - they could remain British citizens, but it also recognised Spain's historic claim at the root of this,” he said.
The UK should attempt to reopen negotiations with Spain aimed at sharing Gibraltar's sovereignty, he added. “I think we need to revisit those whole negotiations.”
Mr Hain, who led negotiations over the situation whilst a minister in Tony Blair's cabinet, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that he believed the Spanish got “cold feet” and backed off.
“There was a historic opportunity to have joint sovereignty which would have protected Gibraltarians' way of life - they could remain British citizens, but it also recognised Spain's historic claim at the root of this,” he said.
The UK should attempt to reopen negotiations with Spain aimed at sharing Gibraltar's sovereignty, he added. “I think we need to revisit those whole negotiations.”
The former minister added that a deal would have “transformed life for Gibraltarians” as “there would have been an open border, they would have had aeroplane access, telephone access, all the things which are bedeviling them at the moment”.
Wake up GeoffM, your soul is about to be sold to the Devil.
With Gibraltar, and Spain's Moroccan outposts, domestic politics is everything
Peter Hain's suggestion that Britain concede some 'joint sovereignty' to Spain is wildly optimistic
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/06/gibraltar-spain-britain-peter-hain
A historic opportunity? To sell out the Gibraltans, perhaps. They're British, and will remain so as long as they wish to be so. Doesn't the orange fool recognise that free people have a right to self-determination?
Still, open goal for Miliband (assuming he wakes up from hibernation) to reject this nonsense outright.
It's special EU logic at work in Lib Dem Land if this is a genuine strand of 'thinking'. There's nothing democratic about refusing to agree to a referendum on the EU (which was in the Lib Dem 2010 manifesto, so they should be delighted they've converted the Conservatives to a Lib Dem view) unless they can bugger up the electoral system to their own advantage without asking the voters, who rejected their last attempt to change the system.
You think that change equivalent with how we elect the HoC which has only recently been put to a referendum?
Do the LDs never listen to the electorate or do they think, in a condescending manner, that the electorate should just do as they are told.
Where does Electoral Reform and HoL Reform rank is the electorate's list of topics that affect the UK or them and their families - Nowhere.
2015-2020 will still be difficult years and will demand all focus on the economy, employment, energy, health and education. In fact as the LDs have made such a mess of Energy and are ineffectual on Business - are they worth having back?
I'm sure the likely internal ructions in the Coalition that'd be caused by the reforms failing didn't play any part in those considerations.
But I'm not sure I can see it in the next term; the AV referendum is just too recent. I think the Lib Dem totems would be:
1) mansion tax - sure that will be a red line
2) full Lords reform - possible but won't be any easier next time
3) scrap Trident - unfortunately the alternatives review didn't come up with any great alternatives, so this may be looking at total disarmament, I imagine that would be a deal-breaker for the Tories.
4) PR for councils - highly likely as it's a much bigger step towards the goal of Westminster PR than AV would have been.
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.
Lib Dem policy doc (to be voted on at party conference) calls for EU Treaty change to protect rights of non-euro states H/T @pswidlicki
How about something on the economy or education ?
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.
1. Hain "we offered to share sovereignty over Gibraltar."
2. Bryant " lets just have a chat, that would suffice".
3. Douglas Alexander (actual Shadow Foreign Secy) = zzzzzzzzz
Can anyone smell surrender monkeys in the breeze?
I don't normally have a go a Clegg but on this one he played his cards wrong.
Lib Dem proposal also says that any referendum on transfer of powers to Brussels (under EU Act) should be turned into In/Out vote
Whereas I expect the Libs would enter Coalition with Labour, though very wary of it, and would try to extract a high price (like PR without referendum).
I personally expect a narrow Lab Maj, though.
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.
Whilst I would, in a perfect world, like to see a return to hereditaries and few party political appointees I think this is sadly unlike to be practical given party politics. The present system is entirely unsustainable, but still enormously better than Clegg's deranged one-off 15 year terms.
On the other hand if they want to show their support of democracy then they should publish any potential coalition agreement with their individual manifestos at the start of the campaign in order that voters are not duped as they were in 2010. Furthermore the Libdems should come clean about their terms for getting into bed with both major parties and stop with the pretense that their manifesto has any real meaning. Its time these duplicitous politicians actually stop talking about transparency and actually were transparent.
PS I'm not sure any of the establishment parties would particulary be favourable towards PR these days at any level because wouldn't there be a risk that UKIP could become the biggest beneficiaries of PR being implemented? One only has to look at the impact for good or bad the Libdems (being a small party with no real likelihood of holding power individually) have had by being the third party in this country for the last three years to see PR has its practical complications. For the Libdems in particular having a fourth party muscling in on the real power in politics would be a detrimental step. Libdems needs to think long and hard whether zealotry should outweigh pragmatism.
It's certainly been a bit of a culture shock for politics in this country, and people on all sides have taken time to adjust.
All great ideas which the LDs should bang on about rather than political process nonsense.
If Clegg was to go in to the GE promising a £20k personal allowance by the end of the parly as the price of LD votes then even I'd consider voting for the chap.
I'm with those who think, if there is a hung parliament, there may not be a coalition of any kind this time. The Con right won't stomach it after Cameron failed once more to get them a majority by being too wet (as they see it) and lefty, Labour if the largest party would probably fancy their chances if a new election were called, and the LDs would need time to recover after what would probably be mid to large losses, and also a need to restablish identity of their own after coalition, rather than appearing to jump into bed with whoever asks (and saying that they did so before in the national interest, and things are on the right track now)
Surprised it took Labour so long to put together this living cost attack approach though - they could have been making hay with that one for years I'd say.
At least, as far as Hol reform is concerned, Labour and LD would not have huge differences. The few Labour dinosaurs who are against will be in a minority. Can't see them voting with the Tories.
All this would be for a gentler run in the campaign in the respective marginals.
They should offer to remove income tax entirely.
The Government of Gibraltar called a referendum on 7 November 2002 to establish the popular support for a proposal to share sovereignty of the territory between Spain and the United Kingdom. The result was a massive rejection of the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002
Even so, If labour think there should be joint sovereignty they should put in their manifesto -if it hasn't been cancelled due to lack of interest.
http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.html
Commitment to a primarily elected Lords was in both parties' manifestos.
It's unlikely to be practical because having the second chamber membership done by bloodlines is so outrageously outdated and undemocratic that as soon as it was removed it became obvious to everyone you couldn't make an argument to go back for it. The only reason for supporting it being rose-tinted romanticised mythologising.
As with AV, we couldn't get the proposals we thought ideal so we compromised a long way on what was at least better than the current system.
Labour'd decided they preferred seeing coalition splits, and the Tory rebels killed it.
PR for the Lords, on the other hand, ought to be very much on the table. Both parties agreed in the coalition document to have a Lords broadly representative of the vote shares at the last election for the time being, and to introduce an elected Lords. The step from there to introducing an elected upper chamber, with PR as the electoral system is a small one.
If the Lib Dems do demand it however, they'll need a great deal more backbone than they showed the last time the issue came up. Whatever the party leaderships agree, there'll be opposition on the Tory backbenchers and in the Lords itself. It may ultimately need to be forced through with the Parliament Act and on a confidence vote. It may require weeks of debate, late-night sittings and legislation by attrition. That has always been the case with Lords reform, from 1910 onwards, and there's no reason to assume it will be different next time.
The Lib Dems could also reasonably demand an increase in power for the upper house, once it has a democratic mandate, say to the pre-1948 provisions.
Why should the Tories go along with it? Because if there are to be two Houses, they need to have different roles and a different basis for composition (otherwise you get pointless duplication). Introducing PR for the Lords is the best way to ensure that the constituency link - and hence FPTP - is retained for the Commons.
I think it has to be more than that. I don't a change to electoral system should happen without asking the people, but isn't it possible to change the system to benefit the ones to propose that change, and still be fair. In theory. I mean, the Tories wanted to change boundaries in a way which benefited them, prompting cries of gerrymandering, but on the face of it, to me at least, it still seemed reasonable and making things fairer despite meeting your definition of gerrymandering.
If the primary chamber is entirely democratic then a lack of democracy in the secondary chamber is not a problem. Indeed, having people not beholden to a fickle electorate or a party machine is actively a good thing. More hereditaries and cross-benchers (scientists, military sorts and so on) would be far better than a feeble shadow of the party political Commons.
Compromise? One shudders to think what the starting point was if one-off 15 year terms without a referendum was an improvement.
Others seem to realise this though:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-next-coalition-why-ed-miliband-needs-to-get-nick-cleggs-number-8621776.html
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.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/119853.html
Never mind the house of filppin' 'ouse of lords, sort out my gas bill, road pot holes, anti-social idiots round the corner, people who shouldnt be here, brussels directives, No GP appointments etc etc etc...
Under PR, UKIP might easily have 50-100 MPs.
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.
The starting point? Iirc on the Lib Dem side it was a Lords elected by STV, on the Tory rebels side it was 'we don't want to risk parliament being too beholden to the electorate, so lets have as little of this democracy business as we can' possibly with a side order of "what if we picked people from good established soundly aristrocratic families to run it" although that varied among the rebels.
Spot on
Governments in the past just got on and governed .