The British Politics Thread

[cover drive man]

Depending on their reasons I wouldn't say it was particularly unfair, since the Lib Dems basically sold a load of their voters down the river.

True (and yeah, that's why they don't like them), but I have a fair bit of sympathy for them really, AFAIK they could do 3 things.

Side/form a coalition, With the Conservatives
This naturally goes against the liberal ethos, obviously. But, imagine if they didn't go with them, consider the tories were the party with the most votes. And that's pretty much the core of democracy. Imagine how much the media would slaughter the "rainbow coalition"

Side/form a "rainbow" coalition, with Labour
See above.

Claim no allegiance
This leaves the country in a sort of no man's land until another election (Or whatever other bureaucratic stuff)

[cover drive man]

AFAIK they could do 3 things.

5 Technically.

[sledger]

True (and yeah, that's why they don't like them), but I have a fair bit of sympathy for them really, AFAIK they could do 3 things.

Side/form a coalition, With the Conservatives
This naturally goes against the liberal ethos, obviously. But, imagine if they didn't go with them, consider the tories were the party with the most votes.m And that's pretty much the core of democracy. Imagine how much the media would slaughter the "rainbow coalition"

Side/form a "rainbow" coalition, with Labour
See above.

Claim no allegiance
This leaves the country in a sort of no mans land until another election (Or whatever other bureaucratic stuff)

Well yeah, to be fair to the Lib Dems they were put in a pretty impossible situation. But in any case, opposing Tory cuts vehemently before the election and gathering a lot of votes on this basis, only then to go back on their word is just total hipocrisy however you dress it up. I can't stand Nick Clegg either, never could, but he strikes me as being a massively arrogant **** who by some fluke has ended up in the big leagues and is determined to make his mark. My word I would like to stamp on his head.

[cover drive man]

Well yeah, to be fair to the Lib Dems they were put in a pretty impossible situation. But in any case, opposing Tory cuts vehemently before the election and gathering a lot of votes on this basis, only then to go back on their word is just total hipocrisy however you dress it up. I can't stand Nick Clegg either, never could, but he strikes me as being a massively arrogant **** who by some fluke has ended up in the big leagues and is determined to make his mark. My word I would like to stamp on his head.

Haha, slightly extreme but I wouldn't say I completely disagree. Politically though the party couldn't do anything, rather tragic for them really. Interestingly though, if we look at it from pure democratic lines shouldn't the coalition have formed between labour and the Tories? As they were the two parties who the largest majority of seats.

[GIMH]

Ramsay Macdonald (I think) says no

[cover drive man]

James Ramsey Macdonald said yes, and was kicked out the party.

[cover drive man]

According to wikipedia.

Also Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as schlegel

[Uppercut]

Because if he believes in A more than B he should vote A. If C wins, then alas for the poor bugger they are the choice of the electorate. Its upto him what he does next. If he feels he can still live in a UK society that democratically elects the BNP, he can stay and defend his rights, fight for what he believes is right etc. However if he feels the country has gone too extreme for him to live there, then he can have the seat next to me on the plane, as i'll be leaving such a puking cesspit of a country to rot away too.

It's a stupid and an honorable position you hold but it's far from the optimum way to use your vote and since humans tend to behave quite rationally it's nothing like what will actually happen.

The fact is, thats a nice extreme example to back up your argument, a good theoretical 'Well it could happen'.... In such extremes people do not act the normal way: Firstly the politicians themselves would probably work together so that A and B wern't equally strong candidates, probably encourage a straight A v C race. Secondly a coalition might prevent C winning, thirdly if all else failed the public would rise.... Unless of course C won 50%+ of the popular vote, then anyone with half a clue would leave the country.

I don't think it's that extreme though. For me personally there was very little to choose between Labour and Lib Dems at the last election but both were preferable to the Tories by a huge margin. That's an almost identical situation.

And the BNP would only need about a third of the popular vote for an overall majority provided that hardcore racism was spread appropriately throughout the country.

FPTP may not be the best, but if people play fair, it is fair. I refuse to endorse any system that is designed to limit people's prime choice.

I don't get it- why do you expect people to "play fair" when the system makes it entirely rational to vote tactically? That's surely unrealistic.

Also, in a AV system, say if its applied to a constituency, and no party gets 50% first time round, but Labour did after the Lib Dems were kicked out... Why should that Labour candidate be then allowed to sit as a fully labour representative? He's a coalition MP, as he's in based on the Lib Dem vote going to him over his rival. He should have to share the seat with a Lib Dem MP on a proportional basis... Otherwise the system is returning a candidate that doesnt reflect what people voted, and doing exactly what FPTP is criticised for.

But he has been elected though.

Think of it as two co-currently running elections. The first determines the two candidates between whom the second election will be. The second gives everyone a say in which of the two candidates they want.

It must be uniquely British to consider it somehow fairer to elect a candidate who twice as many people voted against as voted for- if you argued that anywhere in Europe they'd look at you funny- I thought FPTP merely traded off fairness in favour of strong government. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing)

[shivfan]

'Mr Miliband has only been an MP since 2005 and was not part of the government during the invasion of Iraq - a controversial decision which proved divisive for the Labour Party. He told the conference that, while he supported the mission in Afghanistan, in Iraq the war had not been a "last resort" and Britain had failed to build sufficient alliances and had undermined the UN. "I do believe we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain into war and we need to be honest about that," he said. He added that while the alliance with the US was important, "we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take".'

BBC News - Ed Miliband tells Labour: We're the optimists now

Finally, a Labour leader who's speaking language I find acceptable....

I was never comfortable with the route Tony Blair had taken 'New' Labour on. That's why I voted for the Lib Dems when they were led by Charles Kennedy.

[cpr]

But he has been elected though.

Think of it as two co-currently running elections. The first determines the two candidates between whom the second election will be. The second gives everyone a say in which of the two candidates they want.

Oh dear God, if this country decided to do that then i'd leave straight away.

Looking at an alternative vote system between 3 candidates, imagine the split in 1st/2nd choice was this.

A/C 30%
B/C 30%
A/B 10%
B/A 10%
C/A 9%
C/B 11%

A and B get 40% each, C 20%, C knocked out. B ends up winning after 2nd vote 51/49.... But those who went A or B first only count once, those who went C count twice.. If you count everyones second vote, C would've polled 80%. Some people get 2 voices, some get 1. Its not a 1 man 1 vote system, and thats why I can't agree to it at all.

[sledger]

This is basically why I find it stupid how people claim FPTP is undemocratic, and then advocate as AV as it's replacement on the basis that it is more democratic. Which as CPR has just shown is utter tosh, fail to see how it is any way in keeping with the ideals of democracy for some people to effectively receive two votes, whereas some will inevitably only get one.

[Uppercut]

Oh dear God, if this country decided to do that then i'd leave straight away.

Looking at an alternative vote system between 3 candidates, imagine the split in 1st/2nd choice was this.

A/C 30%
B/C 30%
A/B 10%
B/A 10%
C/A 9%
C/B 11%

A and B get 40% each, C 20%, C knocked out. B ends up winning after 2nd vote 51/49.... But those who went A or B first only count once, those who went C count twice.. If you count everyones second vote, C would've polled 80%. Some people get 2 voices, some get 1. Its not a 1 man 1 vote system, and thats why I can't agree to it at all.

Whaaat, that makes no sense. Their vote only counts once! Under FPTP voting C would just be disenfranchising yourself.

But the theoretical merits of each system don't really matter, the question is what's best for the country. And on a personal level I want AV because, you know, I'd quite like a vote.

[cpr]

Their vote counts once, however two of their votes count once (their first choice and second choice, only the first choice is counted for those who voted A or B)


And you do get a vote, its just not really a popular one compared to everyone elses

What you want is 2 votes!!!!!!

[Uppercut]

That would be AWSUUUMMM.

Maybe by the next election I'll be in the country's most marginal seat with a much better vote than all you ****s.

[Goughy]

Under FPTP voting C would just be disenfranchising yourself.

No. Boring, recycled, incorrect rhetoric