15 May 10
Clegg has done a deal to get a referendum on the AV voting system. However, if it went through it could easily mean the LibDems seat share going up to 80+ maybe even 90. Labour and the Tories would lose seats as a result. Minority parties will also creep in.
This would mean hung parliaments more often and less chance of Tory/Labour majorities. Even more than this it is seen by the liberals and the progressive left as a stepping stone to PR. One the public get a taste for voting reform then one more hung parliament and the next deal then becomes full PR (with 170+ seats for the Lib Dems).
This is obviously the Lib Dem dream , but it is also the Tory nightmare (because they will never govern on their own again). So here's my question . Clegg and Cameron have both signed up to an AV referendum but my guess is that Cameron will try and find a way out of it somehow , whilst Clegg's battle will be to hold him to it. It could be that a split followed by an election could scupper the whole thing , and if cameron gets a majority it's bye bye Cleggy.
The Tories would not have signed up to this deal if they thought that it would lead to hung parliaments and referendums on PR. They have way too much to lose The Lib Dems would not have signed up to it if they thought that the Tories could find a way to block it , they have the opportunity of a generation and do not want to blow it.
Something has to give. Either we will possibly be on our way to full electoral reform or the Tory deal will have a sting in it's tail.
So who's fooling who? Has Clegg pulled a fast one on Cameron , or has Cameron sold Clegg an old banger that he thought was a Rolls Royce?
15 May 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you think they will actually get as far as having a referendum but the results of the referendum (ie pro AV) will fall foul of a Tory backbench revolt?
My guess is Tory backbenchers will vote down any attempt to implement AV, after which the government will fall, and there will probably be a majority government of Tories or Labour afterwards.
If that happened then it would be a huge vote loser for the Tories , they would be seen as denying the wishes of the people. Then imagine a new dynamic Labour leader ripping into Cameron in a TV debate. How could he defend it?
I wonder if they will find some way of not getting as far as a referendum in the first place?
15 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt appears to many 'grass roots' Tories that Cleggeron is fooling himself.
Clegg has done a deal to get a referendum on the AV voting system. However, if it went through it could easily mean the LibDems seat share going up to 80+ maybe even 90. Labour and the Tories would lose seats as a result. Minority parties will also creep in.
This would mean hung parliaments more often and less chance of Tory/Labour majorities. Eve ...[text shortened]... one on Cameron , or has Cameron sold Clegg an old banger that he thought was a Rolls Royce?
15 May 10
Originally posted by RedmikeThe problem is that the Labour manifesto of 1997 said they were committed to a referendum based on an independent comission report (which became the Jenkins Report). They wriggled out of it as they became more confident of holding power. They got the votes they wanted out of this pledge and then cut and run. Pathetic!
The tories have promised to have a referendum on AV, not to support it in a referendum.
I think the libdims are in danger of electoral devastation in many places - there's a real sense of betrayal from many people who supported them.
If the Tories actually follow through and have a referendum on it it will be more than Labour ever conceded. This explains to me why they went with the Tories , because electoral reform is their only way forward. It was Labour who betrayed the progressive left who wanted real change and a real modern democracy with a voting system more in line with European system. Blair wouldn't even give the people a referendum!!
I have voted Labour ever since I could vote , but not again under this FPTP system.
In any case , why should the Lib Dems fear electoral devastation? The current system devastates their vote anyway. They cannot get seats because their support is more evenly spread and even.
What they are trying to do is get real change. If they can get AV it will be a start down the road to completely changing the face of british politics (PR). For all Blair's talk of consensus politics and radical change - he never delivered. If the Lib Dems have to make a deal with the devil to get real change why should you complain? Labour have shown they are only interested in their own vested agenda and aren't bothered that many people want more and fairer representation in parliament.
The tories may prove to be the same , but Labour had their chance and blew it. I'm not saying I trust Cameron and his stooges , but they deserve a chance. It might be that they betray the Lib Dems , if that happened then would Labour then offer a AV/PR referendum?
When would it stop? There's a genuinely powerful thrid voice in this country that mostly gets shut out of any real power at all. The Lib Dems would get 180+ seats if things worked fairly. To me Labour and the Tories just start to seem like two pathetic teenagers not letting the third boy play with their ball.
It's a truly sorry state of affairs based on an old , antiquated and unfair system that is undemocratic. You want real change in Britain? Time to wake up and smell the coffee mate!
15 May 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusIs it Cleggeron or Cameregg?
It appears to many 'grass roots' Tories that Cleggeron is fooling himself.
So you think Clegg is fooling himself? Why?
Or is he just hoping that the tories think he is fooling himself (and actually he's fooling them) ? Maybe that's part of the plan?
The man who thinks he has got the best deal is often the guy who gets shafted , but then we shall see.
15 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm no supporter of the labour party, but this time round labour was offering AV and a referendum on further PR. Which is surely better for the libdims?
The problem is that the Labour manifesto of 1997 said they were committed to a referendum based on an independent comission report (which became the Jenkins Report). They wriggled out of it as they became more confident of holding power. They got the votes they wanted out of this pledge and then cut and run. Pathetic!
If the Tories actually follow undemocratic. You want real change in Britain? Time to wake up and smell the coffee mate!
They had the option of change, but they went for less change with the tories.
I think their vote will be devastated - for many people, their libdim vote was an anti-tory vote. As the saying goes, vote LD and get 2 public school toffs running the country for the price of one.
15 May 10
Originally posted by RedmikeBut the problem was that the Labour Party was in a far far less powerful position to deliver on it's promises. What worth is a promise if you can't deliver?
I'm no supporter of the labour party, but this time round labour was offering AV and a referendum on further PR. Which is surely better for the libdims?
They had the option of change, but they went for less change with the tories.
I think their vote will be devastated - for many people, their libdim vote was an anti-tory vote. As the saying goes, vote LD and get 2 public school toffs running the country for the preice of one.
On top of this they had a recent track record of going back on committments to electoral reform. Clegg also had to weigh up how the public would view things , if he was seen to prop up a rainbow coalition that was unstable and seen as weak then it would not have been a good advert for PR. He has to show that PR can actually work and coalitions can work , otherwise a referendum could fail anyway , whatever Labour promised.
There's little point in a referendum on PR if you lose it.
Anyway , you seme to be missing the whole point of electoral reform. No longer would you or I have to feel we vote to keep the tories out (or labour). You vote FOR a party not against another one. And your vote is guaranteed to count for something. This is the way forward , and I don't care if Clegg has to do a deal with Ghengis Khan to get it. I just hope he hasn't done a deal with Arthur Daley.
15 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy point is that labour was offering legislation on AV (no need for a referendum) and a referendum on further PR.
But the problem was that the Labour Party was in a far far less powerful position to deliver on it's promises. What worth is a promise if you can't deliver?
On top of this they had a recent track record of going back on committments to electoral reform. Clegg also had to weigh up how the public would view things , if he was seen to prop up a rain ...[text shortened]... do a deal with Ghengis Khan to get it. I just hope he hasn't done a deal with Arthur Daley.
If the Libdims were serious about PR, they'd have given that serious thought.
The nationalists would have supported this legislation, as would the green. Dunno about the unionists, but the maths mean this legislation would have been carried.
I understand the arguements for PR. We already use it in my country. My point is about how people voted in a fptp election for the libdems, thinking it was an anti-tory vote (as encouraged by the Guardian and Billy Bragg, amongst others).
15 May 10
Originally posted by RedmikeWhy didn't Labour offer a full and open referendum on AV and PR and all the rest of it? Why wait?
My point is that labour was offering legislation on AV (no need for a referendum) and a referendum on further PR.
If the Libdims were serious about PR, they'd have given that serious thought.
The nationalists would have supported this legislation, as would the green. Dunno about the unionists, but the maths mean this legislation would have been carrie ...[text shortened]... nking it was an anti-tory vote (as encouraged by the Guardian and Billy Bragg, amongst others).
The only reason could be that they were still trying to cut a deal to suit their own interests. The lib Dems must have realised that a Lib-Lab coalition was likely to be unstable and possibly not last long enough to deliver. The Labour party would be in re-building mode and electing a new leader etc
I think if the Lib-Lab combination had had enough seats to make for a majority without anyone else they might have gone for it. But the deal on offer looked very wobbly.
In any case , labour were in a very weak position and were not in a position to cut a deal - they should have offfered the Lib dems everything they wanted on ER. Beggars cannot be choosers , as they say. I also think the Lib Dems didn't trust Labour after the broken committments of 1997.
As I said before , it doesn't matter what you offer , it's delivery that counts. I could sign you a cheque right now for 100,000 quid but it would bounce.
16 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterLabour were offering more than a referendum on AV. They were offering to agree to AV without a referendum, and also to have a referendum on wider PR. Much more than the tories were offering.
Why didn't Labour offer a full and open referendum on AV and PR and all the rest of it? Why wait?
The only reason could be that they were still trying to cut a deal to suit their own interests. The lib Dems must have realised that a Lib-Lab coalition was likely to be unstable and possibly not last long enough to deliver. The Labour party would be i ...[text shortened]... ivery that counts. I could sign you a cheque right now for 100,000 quid but it would bounce.
Labour were offering what the libdims wanted, in terms of PR. Certainly more than they've got from the tories.
They could have put together a coalition which, numerically, could have held together. Would have needed other parties, but the nationalists and green would support PR.
And given that a major portion of the current liberal democrats came from the sdp, which split from labour in the 1980s, I think the trust issue works both ways.
16 May 10
4 edits
I don't like the tories but it seems as though there could have been three scenarios:
1) Lib dems stay neutral and the tories try to go it alone contrary to the wishes of roughly 64% of the UK electorate (who didn't want Conservatives)
2) Lib Dems side with Labour (and the SNP), the government falls apart shortly afterwards and the election which follows knock both Labour and Lib Dems into oblivion. this being contrary to the wishes of roughly 71% of the UK electorate (who didn't want Labour)
3) Lib Dems side with the tories and take the edge off the most insipid of their policies such as tax breaks for the rich in a crappy economic state of affairs, ultimately at the detriment of the poor or middle class. This being contrary to the wishes of 64% of the UK electorate. (who didn't want Conservatives)
Given that it was a hung parliament one can assume that more peoples noses will be put out of joint than those who are pleased. I think choice number 3 is the lesser of all evils however despite my strong dislike for tories (in particular Cameron).
16 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeOn the phone last night, my QC sister and her QC husband told me that they are done with the Lib-Dems having voted for them since 1992 and actually being members since 1997.
I think the libdims are in danger of electoral devastation in many places - there's a real sense of betrayal from many people who supported them.
Also, in an e-mail the other day, an old friend who voted Lib-Dem tactically (normally a Green or Labour) to keep the Tories out, said he'll never vote Lib-Dem again.
Is this happening quite a bit in the U.K. at the moment?
16 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterUnder either appellation this Janus-like creature is fooling himself if he thinks he can effectively legislate,and not merely look and babble, in opposite directions.
Is it Cleggeron or Cameregg?
So you think Clegg is fooling himself? Why?
Or is he just hoping that the tories think he is fooling himself (and actually he's fooling them) ? Maybe that's part of the plan?
The man who thinks he has got the best deal is often the guy who gets shafted , but then we shall see.
On the one hand the sandal-wearing fruit juice drinking section of the LibDems will rebel against any attempt to put some backbone into society, and on the other hand ,the traditional Tories will not support any more wishy-washy pandering to the 'human rights' of lawbreakers and other undesirable elements in our society.