UK Elections

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
What was his reason for ruling it out?

He is hoping to attract swing voters who might be afraid of a Labour/SNP coalition.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
He is hoping to attract swing voters who might be afraid of a Labour/SNP coalition.

Ah. Duh. I need a UK politics for dummies primer.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Ah. Duh. I need a UK politics for dummies primer.

Yeh, and that system is so much better than our electoral college.

Originally posted by normbenign
Yeh, and that system is so much better than our electoral college.

Giddyup

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Ah. Duh. I need a UK politics for dummies primer.

Or maybe Milliband does. In systems where coalitions are common politicians generally don't rule out coalition partners because it results in a very awkward situation if you do happen to need that coalition partner. Suppose Labour does need the SNP for a majority, then what is he going to do? Form a grand coalition with the Tories?

Originally posted by normbenign
Yeh, and that system is so much better than our electoral college.

The election we are discussing here is one for Parliament, i.e. the equivalent of the US Congress. As you may know, the head of state of the UK is not elected.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
What was his reason for ruling it out?

Politics.. Before the 7th of May ... Politics after change like the wind

I voted Labour last week, and I'd actually be happier with an SNP-Labour alliance than anything involving the Liberal Democrats and their tedious centre-right politics of beigeness. I'm not a psephologist, but all the indications on http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ over the last few months indicate that however much the Tories outspend Labour and the other parties combined, they remain a toxic party, and even with the declining support of their corrupt friends on Fleet Street they're unlikely to get a majority. I'd be entirely happy with Ed Miliband - he's no saviour, but he's taken the Labour Party back to a classic Wilsonian position on the centre-left for the first time in years, he isn't afraid to take Rooseveltian positions against powerful interests, and even with purely administrative powers I'd feel more confident in a minority Labour government that sees investment as an opportunity rather than an elementary error. I'd also be happier with SNP support than Liberal support because you can considerable commonality between Miliband and Sturgeon on issues like rent controls, whereas the Liberals would inevitably retreat to opposition and the formal freedom of landlords against the real, felt freedoms and hardships of renters. I'm not worried about Scottish independence since it can only come about through the settled will of the Scottish electorate, and if that is their settled will, good luck to them.

The issue that has focused my mind in choosing has been the attitudes of the parties towards trade unions and workers' rights - the Conservatives have an anti-democratic manifesto commitment to effectively banning public sector strikes, since they require not merely an increased turn-out without installing a corresponding responsibility of employers to help identify union members' addresses, but actually "a majority of the workforce", which presumably can be interpreted in a future Parliament as a mandate to include non-union members, effectively giving non-members the right to annul the democratic decision of union members, which seems extraordinary to me. The Liberals meanwhile are committed to giving union members the right to send their political levy to whichever political party they want, which conveniently destroys the solidarity and influence of trade unions - a classic piece of Liberal milquetoast treachery which has gone unnoticed by the electorate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Or maybe Milliband does. In systems where coalitions are common politicians generally don't rule out coalition partners because it results in a very awkward situation if you do happen to need that coalition partner. Suppose Labour does need the SNP for a majority, then what is he going to do? Form a grand coalition with the Tories?

It was a foolish decision; he should simply have said that he ruled out no coalition partners, but would not do anything in office to jeopardise the future of the union.

But I wonder if his categorical rejection of the SNP was aimed primarily at Scottish voters. Scottish voters lean left, and Labour has been strong in Scotland since the 1960s; 41 of the 59 Scottish seats were held by Labour at the 2010 election. This time it looks like the Nationalists could win almost all the seats in Scotland, and this could deal a fatal blow to any hope of a stable majority Labour government nationally.

So by ruling out a coalition with the SNP, Milliband could implicitly be saying to Scottish voters: "Watch out - if you vote for the SNP, you'll get another Tory government."

Originally posted by Teinosuke
It was a foolish decision; he should simply have said that he ruled out no coalition partners, but would not do anything in office to jeopardise the future of the union.

But I wonder if his categorical rejection of the SNP was aimed primarily at Scottish voters. Scottish voters lean left, and Labour has been strong in Scotland since the 1960s; 41 of the ...[text shortened]... g to Scottish voters: "Watch out - if you vote for the SNP, you'll get another Tory government."

Labour are the rivals to the SNP in Scotland. The SNP say vote for us and we will support a Labour Government. Milliband would prefer that the Scots who want a Labour Government vote for Labour thank you very much. Why would he encourage Labour voters to vote SNP by sounding positive about a coalition with the SNP??

Conservatives have no prospects whatever in Scotland (maybe one seat?) and they know it. The reality is they run the country to favour the City of London / finance sector and the wealthy commuter belt around London. Because they offer Scotland nothing, the Scots reject them. But with England having 83% of the UK population, there is nothing much the Scots can do about it. Only Labour can provide an alternative government, because of course the SNP do not stand for English seats. As for any suggestion of the SNP having too much weight when diluted in the overwhelmingly English parliament, that is just Tory nonsense to play against Little England nationalists who are drifting over to UKIP. They will have a bit of influence, maybe more than their fair share by a marginal quantity, but so will any other geographical cluster of MPs - from Yorkshire say. The real constitutional puzzle would be if they had none.

The nationalists generally are getting too much support IMHO.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The election we are discussing here is one for Parliament, i.e. the equivalent of the US Congress. As you may know, the head of state of the UK is not elected.

As I understand it, the controlling coalition, or party names a Prime Minister, who has both administrative and legislative duties. Nominally, isn't the monarch still the 'head of state'?

This seems like guaranteeing a US President a majority in Congress, thus eliminating some of the friction in passing legislation, and protection against government running rough shod.

UK elections?
Do they like, elect a new king or something?

Originally posted by normbenign
As I understand it, the controlling coalition, or party names a Prime Minister, who has both administrative and legislative duties. Nominally, isn't the monarch still the 'head of state'?

This seems like guaranteeing a US President a majority in Congress, thus eliminating some of the friction in passing legislation, and protection against government running rough shod.

The advantage of having majority rule in parliament is that you know who to blame [or to give credit]
for the outcome of a term in power.

If a government is in power, and has the ability to make changes, and screws things up. Either by
acting, or failing to act, then it's really hard to blame anyone else, because they had control.

The stop on their power is the next election.

The problem with divided government, such as that frequently observed in the USA, is that both sides
blame the other for anything that goes wrong, or they fail to achieve.
This may or may not be true, and it may or may not be possible to tell for sure.
But most voters can't check out for themselves. So you frequently don't know which party [either, both]
was responsible. Which means that you don't know who to vote for to fix things.

I will take our way over yours every time.


As for a coalition between Labour and the SNP... There are some policy sticking points that look to make
forming a coalition really tough. [ignoring the fact that the two parties are rivals and hate each other]

One of which is Trident.

Our Nuclear deterrent is due for renewal, and that MUST be decided in the next term, the decision can't be
punted again. Labour [and the Conservatives] are firmly pro-renewal. [which accounts for 2/3rds of the voting
population according to the polls]
SNP is absolutely against renewal, and campaigned on removing trident from Scotland for the referendum on
independence. And they would have a major loss of face if they backed down on that.
So they would almost certainly make it a requirement of any coalition deal, that Trident isn't renewed.

Which would entail about 2% of the population dictating a major strategic decision against the votes of
2/3rds of the population. [which is why I don't like the way coalitions form in this system]

I don't see anyone making a viable coalition, and thus foresee a near immediate re-election...

This could take a while.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The advantage of having majority rule in parliament is that you know who to blame [or to give credit]
for the outcome of a term in power.

If a government is in power, and has the ability to make changes, and screws things up. Either by
acting, or failing to act, then it's really hard to blame anyone else, because they had control.

The stop on t ...[text shortened]... a viable coalition, and thus foresee a near immediate re-election...

This could take a while.

I understand the alleged benefits of a unified government, but in my experience, here in the US, the worst sort of legislation is passed bipartisanly, and often not strictly on party line votes.

Here, generally the President gets most of the credit or blame, despite of his lack of legislative power.

Originally posted by normbenign
I understand the alleged benefits of a unified government, but in my experience, here in the US, the worst sort of legislation is passed bipartisanly, and often not strictly on party line votes.

Here, generally the President gets most of the credit or blame, despite of his lack of legislative power.

I understand the alleged benefits of a unified government, but in my experience, here in the US, the
worst sort of legislation is passed bipartisanly, and often not strictly on party line votes.

In which case having a no one party able to act on it's own acted as no break on passing this 'worst sort of
legislation' and you don't clearly have any one party to blame/credit.

Here, generally the President gets most of the credit or blame, despite of his lack of legislative power.

Yes, that is clear from the news coverage. I don't see how you can possibly spin that as an upside.

"Hey we have a system where one figurehead who has limited powers gets all the blame for everything
and can do little to achieve anything!!! isn't that awesome." ....