Clegg U turns on coalition commitment

[CB Fry]

To put it another way the current choice is between centre right and centre left, but under PR the choice will be between hardline right and hardline left. So you Liberals had better not start moaning WHEN a hardline right coalition is in power because you'll have made the bed so you'll have to lie in it.

 

 

Why would it be a choice between hardline left and hardline right?

 

The British population haven't elected a hardline left or hardline right party at any point in the last century, so why on earth would they start once PR was brought in?

 

As others have said - it doesn't happen on the continent (where all major states have elected extreme parties in the last century) so it's even less likely to happen in Britain with tribal cynicism hardwired into our culture.

 

And with PR meaning every vote counting, why on earth would the major parties retreat to the fringes?

 

British politics has been a land grab for the centre ground for the last thirty years and PR would only exacerbate that.

[dune]

The British population haven't elected a hardline left or hardline right party at any point in the last century, so why on earth would they start once PR was brought in?

 

Because of the fact that coalitions would need to exist, and for coalitions to work there needs to be concessions to the minority elements of the coalition. I've already outlined that natural left/right split i.e Lab-Lib-Green versus Con-UKIP-Unionist, so it's obvious that under these scenarios the Liberals and Greens would use their minority influence (although I accept that Labour could soon be the minority here) to push their more radical leftwing ideologies and win concessions, equally UKIP and the Unionists would demand a more hardline stance to the right. This is why centre ground politics would be a thing of the past.

[CB Fry]

Because of the fact that coalitions would need to exist, and for coalitions to work there needs to be concessions to the minority elements of the coalition. I've already outlined that natural left/right split i.e Lab-Lib-Green versus Con-UKIP-Unionist, so it's obvious that under these scenarios the Liberals and Greens would use their minority influence (although I accept that Labour could soon be the minority here) to push their more radical leftwing ideologies and win concessions, equally UKIP and the Unionists would demand a more hardline stance to the right. This is why centre ground politics would be a thing of the past.

 

 

5 UKIP MPs alongside 300 Tory MPs is not going to create an extreme government.

 

Likewise, 5 Greens alongside 300 Labour MPs is not going to create an extreme government either.

 

You're using the words "minority" and "concession" but don't seem to understand what they mean.

 

You don't turn a centre left or centre right majority party into some rabid left- or right- wing extreme government through "concessions" to a "minority".

 

A Labour Prime Minister with 300 MPs behind him is not going to "concede" to 5 frigging Greens and say "okay, you win, we'll scrap Trident and renationalise all the energy companies. And shut down Eton."

 

The concession will be - yes, Caroline Lucas, you can be junior minister of state for higher education and yes, you can write a green paper on wind turbines which we might read.

[dune]

5 UKIP MPs alongside 300 Tory MPs is not going to create an extreme government.

 

Likewise, 5 Greens alongside 300 Labour MPs is not going to create an extreme government either.

 

You're using the words "minority" and "concession" but don't seem to understand what they mean.

 

You don't turn a centre left or centre right majority party into some rabid left- or right- wing extreme government through "concessions" to a "minority".

 

A Labour Prime Minister with 300 MPs behind him is not going to "concede" to 5 frigging Greens and say "okay, you win, we'll scrap Trident and renationalise all the energy companies. And shut down Eton."

 

The concession will be - yes, Caroline Lucas, you can be junior minister of state for higher education and yes, you can write a green paper on wind turbines which we might read.

 

Your numbers are way of the mark of what would happen in reality. Under PR the house would be reduced to about 500 mps. You've given the Tories about 50% and Labour 50% under the cuurent numbers which is clearly nonsense. The actual figure would be more like 30% each which in a 500 seat house would equate to roughly 150 MPs each with 251 MP's needed for a slim majority in a coalition.

 

The Liberals based on past precedents may get 20% (a bit more for them maybe and a bit less for Labour) and the Greens would grow and possibly get 5%+. This would mean that the Left coalition would hardly be made up of just Labour MP's, in fact i'd say the Liberals would be the largest party closely followed by Labour with about 25 Green MPs. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 130 Liberals, 120 Labour and 25 Greens.

 

However when the country wanted change in what would effectively be a two party system (Right V Left) You'd have the Conservatives polling say 35%, UKIP (which will grow rapidly to fill a void especially given the fact that a vote for them at national level will no longer be a wasted vote) polling 15% and the Unionists acting like the Greens do in the Left wing coalition adding another 5%. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 175 Tories, 75 UKIP, 25 Unionists (Actually probably less unionists but you get the drift).

 

So of these coalitions the Left will have about over 50% that is hardline Left (and i put the liberals in this bracket although that can be debated) and the right will have about 35% that is hardline Right. To suggest that such circumstances wouldn't herald the end of centre ground governments is flying in the face of common sense.

Edited 28 April, 2010 by dune

[dune]

The irony of all this is that those on the Left that are fighting for PR are opening the door to the hardline right.:smt045

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

So you could say that a Vote for the Liberals is not only a vote for Gordon Brown but looking ahead it's a vote for the BNP.:smt073

[TopGun]

I'm afraid Dune is talking nonsense again. STV or other PR systems such as AMD can give political representation to more extreme parties as a by-product but actually give more influence to the centre ground overall as most people will vote for their preference followed by a second choice that gravitates towards the centre. The few that choose a more extreme second choice (BNP, Socialist Worker etc) ensure that those parties gain a smattering of representation.

 

The make up of the European Parliament demonstrates the effects of PR well. Of the 736 MEPs, the centre right has 265 MEPs, the centre left 185 MEPs and the centre parties about 140 - a total of about 590. That leaves the more extreme right with about 85 and more extreme left with about 35 MEPs.

 

My university dissertation was on different PR systems and their potential effects if introduced in the UK. Although that was 20 years ago the theories have not altered.

[TUS]

The irony of all this is that those on the Left that are fighting for PR are opening the door to the hardline right.:smt045

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

So you could say that a Vote for the Liberals is not only a vote for Gordon Brown but looking ahead it's a vote for the BNP.:smt073

 

Or you could just say it's a vote for democracy.

[dune]

I'm afraid Dune is talking nonsense again. STV or other PR systems such as AMD can give political representation to more extreme parties as a by-product but actually give more influence to the centre ground overall as most people will vote for their preference followed by a second choice that gravitates towards the centre. The few that choose a more extreme second choice (BNP, Socialist Worker etc) ensure that those parties gain a smattering of representation.

 

The make up of the European Parliament demonstrates the effects of PR well. Of the 736 MEPs, the centre right has 265 MEPs, the centre left 185 MEPs and the centre parties about 140 - a total of about 590. That leaves the more extreme right with about 85 and more extreme left with about 35 MEPs.

 

My university dissertation was on different PR systems and their potential effects if introduced in the UK. Although that was 20 years ago the theories have not altered.

 

You're talking about European parties, i'm talking about Britain. Under the assumption of a 500 seat house tell me how you think the seats would be distributed between the parties under PR?

[dune]

Or you could just say it's a vote for democracy.

 

Yeah it's a vote to allow hardline leftwing and hardline rightwing politics into Westminster. It's democratic, but those on the left will have a hissy fit when they've reaped what they've sown.

[Joensuu]

Your numbers are way of the mark of what would happen in reality. Under PR the house would be reduced to about 500 mps. You've given the Tories about 50% and Labour 50% under the cuurent numbers which is clearly nonsense. The actual figure would be more like 30% each which in a 500 seat house would equate to roughly 150 MPs each with 251 MP's needed for a slim majority in a coalition.

 

The Liberals based on past precedents may get 20% (a bit more for them maybe and a bit less for Labour) and the Greens would grow and possibly get 5%+. This would mean that the Left coalition would hardly be made up of just Labour MP's, in fact i'd say the Liberals would be the largest party closely followed by Labour with about 25 Green MPs. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 130 Liberals, 120 Labour and 25 Greens.

 

However when the country wanted change in what would effectively be a two party system (Right V Left) You'd have the Conservatives polling say 35%, UKIP (which will grow rapidly to fill a void especially given the fact that a vote for them at national level will no longer be a wasted vote) polling 15% and the Unionists acting like the Greens do in the Left wing coalition adding another 5%. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 175 Tories, 75 UKIP, 25 Unionists (Actually probably less unionists but you get the drift).

 

So of these coalitions the Left will have about over 50% that is hardline Left (and i put the liberals in this bracket although that can be debated) and the right will have about 35% that is hardline Right. To suggest that such circumstances wouldn't herald the end of centre ground governments is flying in the face of common sense.

 

Spot the mistake!

 

The Lib Dems are no further to the left than Labour is. They are right of centre and actually not far from being a right wing as the Tories.

 

Also, I think you are looking rather short term, if PR is introduced, many new parties both left, right, centre, liberal and authoritarian will start to appear. The old parties will likewise begin to split. The voter will have more options on who they prefer to elect, and not have to accept 'the best of a bad bunch'. Yes there will be a small increase of the number of extreme MPs in the commons, but only in line with the number of extreme voters.

 

You argue as if PR is a left wing thing, it's not, it's just a fairer system for all, irrespective of your political outlook.

[dune]

Spot the mistake!

 

The Lib Dems are no further to the left than Labour is. They are right of centre and actually not far from being a right wing as the Tories.

 

Also, I think you are looking rather short term, if PR is introduced, many new parties both left, right, centre, liberal and authoritarian will start to appear. The old parties will likewise begin to split. The voter will have more options on who they prefer to elect, and not have to accept 'the best of a bad bunch'. Yes there will be a small increase of the number of extreme MPs in the commons, but only in line with the number of extreme voters.

 

You argue as if PR is a left wing thing, it's not, it's just a fairer system for all, irrespective of your political outlook.

 

I said it could be debated because the Liberals at present are wishy washy. The Liberals are one thing to voters in Winchester (i.e an alternative to the Tories) and another thing in places like Sheffield (i.e an alternative to Labour). Eventually if they are put in a position of influence they'll have to choose what they really are and it's my belief they'll have no choice but to be the party that the rank and file demand and that is a left wing party. If and when this happens and the Liberals are natural allies to the Socialists they are going to be screwed in seats like Winchester and many other traditionally right wing seats in the south. This could well herald the break up of the party.

 

PR is not a left wing thing, but it is a system that the left wing potentially have the power to bring about. If UKIP were currently in the same position as the Liberals they'd bring it about for example.

 

I agree with you about the old parties demising, but I disagree that we'll see more centre ground parties gaining influence over and above the rise of more extreme parties. UKIP are going to be a major player in a few years time on the right.

[TopGun]

You're talking about European parties, i'm talking about Britain. Under the assumption of a 500 seat house tell me how you think the seats would be distributed between the parties under PR?

 

Too much of an assumption.

 

However, after the Labour landslide of 1997 a commission was set up headed by Roy Jenkins to analyse how the election would have been won under various different systems of PR. It is the last definitive study.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/proportional_representation/default.stm

 

It highlights the differing forms of PR and subsequent outcomes, something Dune has not even thought about.

[View From The Top]

Too much of an assumption.

 

However, after the Labour landslide of 1997 a commission was set up headed by Roy Jenkins to analyse how the election would have been won under various different systems of PR. It is the last definitive study.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/proportional_representation/default.stm

 

It highlights the differing forms of PR and subsequent outcomes, something Dune has not even thought about.

 

Now that is very interesting reading.

 

Thanks for that.

[dune]

Too much of an assumption.

 

However, after the Labour landslide of 1997 a commission was set up headed by Roy Jenkins to analyse how the election would have been won under various different systems of PR. It is the last definitive study.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/proportional_representation/default.stm

 

It highlights the differing forms of PR and subsequent outcomes, something Dune has not even thought about.

 

Those scenarios are based on the 1997 votes for the general election where voters ignore parties such as UKIP, the greens, the bnp etc because under the FPTP system any vote other a vote for Tory or Labour is pointless in most places. Under PR you wouldn't get results like that.

 

You are using chalk to extrapolate the popularity of cheese.

[Joensuu]

I said it could be debated because the Liberals at present are wishy washy. The Liberals are one thing to voters in Winchester (i.e an alternative to the Tories) and another thing in places like Sheffield (i.e an alternative to Labour). Eventually if they are put in a position of influence they'll have to choose what they really are and it's my belief they'll have no choice but to be the party that the rank and file demand and that is a left wing party. If and when this happens and the Liberals are natural allies to the Socialists they are going to be screwed in seats like Winchester and many other traditionally right wing seats in the south. This could well herald the break up of the party.

 

PR is not a left wing thing, but it is a system that the left wing potentially have the power to bring about. If UKIP were currently in the same position as the Liberals they'd bring it about for example.

 

I agree with you about the old parties demising, but I disagree that we'll see more centre ground parties gaining influence over and above the rise of more extreme parties. UKIP are going to be a major player in a few years time on the right.

 

Liberals are about as far from Socialists as Tories are. Not sure why you assume the Liberals would throw away what they stand for (i.e. being liberal), and suddenly become both more left wing and a heck of a lot more authoritarian (the very thing they oppose most).

 

Of course we will see extreme parties win seats, but thats not the end of the world scenario you seem to be predicting. That will force the BNP to debate the issues rather than punch straw men, and will give the Greens access to a much wider audience for their critical policies.

[dune]

Liberals are about as far from Socialists as Tories are. Not sure why you assume the Liberals would throw away what they stand for (i.e. being liberal), and suddenly become both more left wing and a heck of a lot more authoritarian (the very thing they oppose most).

 

Of course we will see extreme parties win seats, but thats not the end of the world scenario you seem to be predicting. That will force the BNP to debate the issues rather than punch straw men, and will give the Greens access to a much wider audience for their critical policies.

 

Give me an honest answer - are Liberals right wing or left wing?

[Joensuu]

Those scenarios are based on the 1997 votes for the general election where voters ignore parties such as UKIP, the greens, the bnp etc because under the FPTP system any vote other a vote for Tory or Labour is pointless in most places. Under PR you wouldn't get results like that.

 

 

Are you saying that in the vast majority of seats the FPTP system means that there is currently no point in voting?

[dune]

Are you saying that in the vast majority of seats the FPTP system means that there is currently no point in voting?

 

Yeah of course I am, and i agree that PR is the fairest system, but that's not point i'm making. The point i'm making is that the left/right coalitions would be comprised of powerful minorities that would push the the coalitions away from the centre ground.

 

Top Gun used the results from the 1997 general election to extraoplate how parliament would look under PR which as i explained is fundamentally flawed.

 

I'm now going to give a flawed example using the 2009 European election results. it's flawed because people vote diffrently in european elections to general elections, but never the less it illustrates how PR allows the smaller parties to gain influence.

 

Conservative 28%

 

UK Independence Party 17%

 

Labour 16%

 

Liberal Democrats 14%

 

Green Party 9%

 

British National Party 6%

 

Others the remaining votes.

 

The South East results show an even more right wing vote!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_35.stm

Edited 28 April, 2010 by dune

[dune]

And look how SWF voters think politically without a FPTP system....

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13364&highlight=european+election

[TopGun]

Those scenarios are based on the 1997 votes for the general election where voters ignore parties such as UKIP, the greens, the bnp etc because under the FPTP system any vote other a vote for Tory or Labour is pointless in most places. Under PR you wouldn't get results like that.

 

You are using chalk to extrapolate the popularity of cheese.

 

You really don't understand this at all. That study demonstrates exactly what would have happened under various PR forms in 1997.

[badgerx16]

i agree that PR is the fairest system,

You wishy-washy liberal

[Lord Duckhunter]

If the Lib/Dems are so keen on every vote counting. If they are so keen on giving everyone the chance to shape the Govt, why are they not putting up a candidate in the Speakers seat?

 

Don't people in that seat deserve a choice, shouldn't their vote count?

[View From The Top]

If the Lib/Dems are so keen on every vote counting. If they are so keen on giving everyone the chance to shape the Govt, why are they not putting up a candidate in the Speakers seat?

 

Don't people in that seat deserve a choice, shouldn't their vote count?

 

Please tell me your joking and you really do know why?

[dune]

You really don't understand this at all. That study demonstrates exactly what would have happened under various PR forms in 1997.

 

No it doesn't, it extrapolates the 1997 FPTP results into PR form. The voting pattern would be different under PR with people voting for smaller parties knowing it wouldn't be a wasted vote. That study is fundamentally flawed.

[View From The Top]

No it doesn't, it extrapolates the 1997 FPTP results into PR form. The voting pattern would be different under PR with people voting for smaller parties knowing it wouldn't be a wasted vote. That study is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

:smt043

[Lord Duckhunter]

Please tell me your joking and you really do know why?

 

I thought Clegg was doing away with the "old Politics". Surely letting the speaker stand unopposed is old fashioned and "old Politics"?

 

Is the Lib/Dems policy that every vote counts, but not in Buckingham?

[View From The Top]

I thought Clegg was doing away with the "old Politics". Surely letting the speaker stand unopposed is old fashioned and "old Politics"?

 

Is the Lib/Dems policy that every vote counts, but not in Buckingham?

 

I can see how the country and HM press are going to be up in arms over this one! How dare they not break centuries of perfectly acceptable to all sides tradition.

 

I feel a letter to the Telegraph coming on. People need to be told!

[CB Fry]

Your numbers are way of the mark of what would happen in reality. Under PR the house would be reduced to about 500 mps. You've given the Tories about 50% and Labour 50% under the cuurent numbers which is clearly nonsense. The actual figure would be more like 30% each which in a 500 seat house would equate to roughly 150 MPs each with 251 MP's needed for a slim majority in a coalition.

 

The Liberals based on past precedents may get 20% (a bit more for them maybe and a bit less for Labour) and the Greens would grow and possibly get 5%+. This would mean that the Left coalition would hardly be made up of just Labour MP's, in fact i'd say the Liberals would be the largest party closely followed by Labour with about 25 Green MPs. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 130 Liberals, 120 Labour and 25 Greens.

 

However when the country wanted change in what would effectively be a two party system (Right V Left) You'd have the Conservatives polling say 35%, UKIP (which will grow rapidly to fill a void especially given the fact that a vote for them at national level will no longer be a wasted vote) polling 15% and the Unionists acting like the Greens do in the Left wing coalition adding another 5%. So to sum up you'd have a coalition that could be 175 Tories, 75 UKIP, 25 Unionists (Actually probably less unionists but you get the drift).

 

So of these coalitions the Left will have about over 50% that is hardline Left (and i put the liberals in this bracket although that can be debated) and the right will have about 35% that is hardline Right. To suggest that such circumstances wouldn't herald the end of centre ground governments is flying in the face of common sense.

 

 

Sorry - just far, far too many assumptions and you're missing the wood for the trees.

 

Britain doesn't vote extreme, the Parties won't be any more extreme, and the extreme minority parties will get piddly numbers of seats.

 

And in all your assumptions you seem to be forgetting the general process of parliment - ie votes on each and every bill.

 

Your assumption that some ultra-hardline right- or left- wing government will take power and steam roll through legislation is just pie in the sky. The rest of parliment, and the members of the ruling parties will have a say in it all.

 

In recent years, Cameron has whipped the Tories through to support a Labour education bill and Blair and Brown have narrowly fought off massive rebellions against their plans on schools, hospitals and tax.

 

So your idea that a Tory government will just dance to the tune of the BNP or UKIP because they have 15 seats between them is just lunacy. Ken Clarke, David Willetts and Michael Gove are not going to sit back while the loons run the show. And neither will the opposition of course.

 

And there is no electoral system on earth that is ever, ever, going to return 75 UKIP seats to the UK parliment. 75 seats for a one-note single issue dog whistle party. I think that's just your wet dream.

 

Hague banged on about Europe in a UKIP style in 2001 and got bloody nowhere. It's not a big enough issue in the General Election.

 

That's where your claims of "common sense" go down the toilet.

 

And we may see whether a Lib/Lab or Con/Lab coalition creates this super efficient governing machine you seem so afraid of next week.

Edited 28 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[TopGun]

Good post by CB Fry. It is interesting to read the verbiage posted by candidates for the likes of UKIP on their own sites. Most are far too blinkered to do a proper job.