Will the Lib Dems avoid the 'nasty' tag?

[newspresenter]

The Conservatives have been given the nasty tag over the years, and the Lib Dems have some very unfair policy's
1, taxing the cleverest earners more percentedgely than the worst.
2, ignoring the law when it comes to illegal immigrants.

If the Lib dems don't get their way with the proposed AV system, which is now very unlikely, getting through a commons vote is tricky, despite most Tory MP's and Cameroon backing it, but then the House of Lords will have to approve it, very dodgy.

In the 1997 election, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Jenkins estimated that AV would have increased the Labour majority from 169 to 245, reducing the number of Conservative seats from 165 to 96.

Had AV been in place last week, it would have had a similarly damaging effect on Tory fortunes. A study by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that with AV, the Tories would have won 26 fewer seats, the Liberals 22 more and Labour 4 more. This is because few voters tend to make the Conservatives their second choice.

If the voting system fails to get through, the public, especially Lib Dem voters, will be calling for the head of Clegg.

[Major Sinic]

The Conservatives have been given the nasty tag over the years, and the Lib Dems have some very unfair policy's
1, taxing the cleverest earners more percentedgely than the worst.
2, ignoring the law when it comes to illegal immigrants.

If the Lib dems don't get their way with the proposed AV system, which is now very unlikely, getting through a commons vote is tricky, despite most Tory MP's and Cameroon backing it, but then the House of Lords will have to approve it, very dodgy.

In the 1997 election, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Jenkins estimated that AV would have increased the Labour majority from 169 to 245, reducing the number of Conservative seats from 165 to 96.

Had AV been in place last week, it would have had a similarly damaging effect on Tory fortunes. A study by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that with AV, the Tories would have won 26 fewer seats, the Liberals 22 more and Labour 4 more. This is because few voters tend to make the Conservatives their second choice.

If the voting system fails to get through, the public, especially Lib Dem voters, will be calling for the head of Clegg.

There will be a public referendum on it. You can't get more democratic than that. If the majority of the electorate vote against AV so be it.

[newspresenter]

So then the Lib dems will have failed, and will never get 70 FPTP seats ever.

[joethfc]

Can I ask whether there is an agreement on AV or AV+? they have very different connotations.

[Expounder]

Can I ask whether there is an agreement on AV or AV+? they have very different connotations.

I wouldn't bother asking, there's not a snowballs chance in hell that either will survive a Tory initiated referendum the Tory media big guns and their lordships will see to that. For it to change it would have to be passed by a commons majority and a reformed House of lords.

[Major Sinic]

I wouldn't bother asking, there's not a snowballs chance in hell that either will survive a Tory initiated referendum the Tory media big guns and their lordships will see to that. For it to change it would have to be passed by a commons majority and a reformed House of lords.

Your hypocrisy is priceless! The Conservatives are not your beloved Labour Party. You know the one which promised the nation a referendum on parliamentary reform in 1997 and then broke its promise once it got an overall majority. The very same party which promised a referendum on the European Constitution and reneged on that promise as well. There is no process more democratic than a public referendum. If a majority of the electorate want it, it will be passed. If a majority don't, it won't! Simples!

By the way, in case you missed it, crying in your beer as you probably have been, it is not a Conservative Government but a genuine Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition.

[Major Sinic]

Can I ask whether there is an agreement on AV or AV+? they have very different connotations.

The agreement is AV not AV+.

[joethfc]

The agreement is AV not AV+.

thanks for the straight answer

then it will be funny if labour oppose it/campaign against it because they are probably the biggest winner from this system

[Major Sinic]

thanks for the straight answer

then it will be funny if labour oppose it/campaign against it because they are probably the biggest winner from this system

You may be right. However I do see Labour becoming something better than the arrogant, self-serving, corrupt crowd most of us love to hate (to use Expounders analytical approach over 70% of the electorate voted against them!) Brown has gone, the expense grabbing Blair Witches either didn't stand or were defeated, a few ex-ministers will soon be in clink, and a new regime is in the wings. David Milliband seems like a pretty decent cove to me, and if successful, promises some grown up politics. Ever the optimist, wouldn't it be truly momentous if we ended up with the three main political parties all putting the UK's interests ahead of their own partisan and personal ambitions. Can fairy tales come true? Are there happy endings?

[joethfc]

You may be right. However I do see Labour becoming something better than the arrogant, self-serving, corrupt crowd most of us love to hate (to use Expounders analytical approach over 70% of the electorate voted against them!) Brown has gone, the expense grabbing Blair Witches either didn't stand or were defeated, a few ex-ministers will soon be in clink, and a new regime is in the wings. David Milliband seems like a pretty decent cove to me, and if successful, promises some grown up politics. Ever the optimist, wouldn't it be truly momentous if we ended up with the three main political parties all putting the UK's interests ahead of their own partisan and personal ambitions. Can fairy tales come true? Are there happy endings?

I hope so but I am no great fan of David Milliband, I'd like to have seen Alan Johnson take over but that's off the cards - I suppose I will have give Milliband the benefit of the doubt and hope that the fact that he is more central will mean he can work with the tories in a constructive manner

[uncon]

You may be right. However I do see Labour becoming something better than the arrogant, self-serving, corrupt crowd most of us love to hate (to use Expounders analytical approach over 70% of the electorate voted against them!) Brown has gone, the expense grabbing Blair Witches either didn't stand or were defeated, a few ex-ministers will soon be in clink, and a new regime is in the wings. David Milliband seems like a pretty decent cove to me, and if successful, promises some grown up politics. Ever the optimist, wouldn't it be truly momentous if we ended up with the three main political parties all putting the UK's interests ahead of their own partisan and personal ambitions. Can fairy tales come true? Are there happy endings?

I think it is a fairytale, but what a lovely idea...all of them mediating each other and absolutely nothing getting passed, but a wonderful tea party every Wednesday lunchtime

[Midas]

Ever the optimist, wouldn't it be truly momentous if we ended up with the three main political parties all putting the UK's interests ahead of their own partisan and personal ambitions. Can fairy tales come true? Are there happy endings?

This is an ideal time for Labour to start moving toward cooperative rather than confrontational policies. Should AV be introduced and the Tory / Lib Dem coalition prove not only workable but popular, it's feasible that a future government could include elements from all three parties working together. But I still think

[joethfc]

This is an ideal time for Labour to start moving toward cooperative rather than confrontational policies. Should AV be introduced and the Tory / Lib Dem coalition prove not only workable but popular, it's feasible that a future government could include elements from all three parties working together. But I still think

We might get there eventually

[Major Sinic]

I think it is a fairytale, but what a lovely idea...all of them mediating each other and absolutely nothing getting passed, but a wonderful tea party every Wednesday lunchtime

OK so my nom de guerre slipped for a moment. Yep, it is a fairytale.

[newspresenter]

According to the Liberal Democratic 2010 election manifesto, that party promised to “Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties.”
However, in terms of the deal Mr Clegg struck with the Tories, the Lib Dems have now agreed to hold a referendum on the introduction of an AV system rather than their promised STV system.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, (which officially backs the STV system and thus was inclined to support the Lib Dems), STV is a preferential voting system in which votes are initially allocated to an elector's most preferred candidate.
After candidates have been either elected or eliminated, STV then transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences. According to the ERS, this minimises "wasted" votes, provides proportional representation, and ensures that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.
It achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring votes that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or winners to other eligible candidates.
According to the ERS, STV ensures that each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so on.
“STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially the First-Past-the-Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result,” the ERS says.

The AV system, now endorsed by the Lib Dems, is “very much like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP),”.
“Like FPTP, it is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer.
“The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names,”
If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then they are elected.
“If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 percent.
“AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP,” said the ERS, adding that the AV system does “not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in Parliament.
“Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under first-past-the-post,”

Bascily, Nick Clegg has sold his party's hopes of more seats in Parliament for Cabinet position with his closest friends in Government. He probably used the word 'fair' more times than anyone in the last month. Pull the ladder up and sod the rest, should be his new slogan.

[joethfc]

AV in the last election would have given the Liberal Democrats 79 seats; it is a comprimise between FPTP and AV+/STV - it would still be a step in the right direction

The Election that might have been | Electoral Reform Society

[Expounder]

According to the Liberal Democratic 2010 election manifesto, that party promised to “Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties.”
However, in terms of the deal Mr Clegg struck with the Tories, the Lib Dems have now agreed to hold a referendum on the introduction of an AV system rather than their promised STV system.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, (which officially backs the STV system and thus was inclined to support the Lib Dems), STV is a preferential voting system in which votes are initially allocated to an elector's most preferred candidate.
After candidates have been either elected or eliminated, STV then transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences. According to the ERS, this minimises "wasted" votes, provides proportional representation, and ensures that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.
It achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring votes that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or winners to other eligible candidates.
According to the ERS, STV ensures that each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so on.
“STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially the First-Past-the-Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result,” the ERS says.

The AV system, now endorsed by the Lib Dems, is “very much like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP),”.
“Like FPTP, it is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer.
“The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names,”
If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then they are elected.
“If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 percent.
“AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP,” said the ERS, adding that the AV system does “not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in Parliament.
“Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under first-past-the-post,”

Bascily, Nick Clegg has sold his party's hopes of more seats in Parliament for Cabinet position with his closest friends in Government. He probably used the word 'fair' more times than anyone in the last month. Pull the ladder up and sod the rest, should be his new slogan.

The problem is N.P. by the time the average voter got halfway through even your abridged version of STV they would throw in the towel. It's hard enough for Mr average to understand fptp and a make the effort once in four or five years to drag himself off the sofa to go out to vote without also trying to work out the results of an STV result. Most people like things simple to understand. From my experience of talking to people about P.R. I think they would just about get their heads around AV and have moan about the mental effort of picking more than one candidate.

This is not a criticism of what you say, more of a reality check on the electorates willingness to become involved in system which is far more involved than fptp or AV the results of which are easy to understand.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Im for STV, It will be more work than FPTP because people will have to find out all parties policies not just their favorate; and then rank them in order of acceptibility.
For me it seems the most democratic form of election, so it should be used.

As this election has shown we apperently liked a hung parliment and power sharing. There is more discussion at this election amongst my friend and people I met than I have ever known. This may be just the TV debates but I prefer to think its the chance of the electorate to make a difference. Im oppertmistic that it will continue because a power sharing parliment will have the best chance of getting election reform that works for the advantage of the country through.

The Lib Dems to me have to vote on their prinicples and brake the coalition or convince the general public that coalition is a good step to better politics, if they vote with the Tories they'll loose all their new found credibility and respect.

[Major Sinic]

As this election has shown we apperently liked a hung parliment and power sharing. There is more discussion at this election amongst my friend and people I met than I have ever known. This may be just the TV debates but I prefer to think its the chance of the electorate to make a difference. Im oppertmistic that it will continue because a power sharing parliment will have the best chance of getting election reform that works for the advantage of the country through.

The Lib Dems to me have to vote on their prinicples and brake the coalition or convince the general public that coalition is a good step to better politics, if they vote with the Tories they'll loose all their new found credibility and respect.

I agree with your first paragraph Robin, but I think you are missing the basic point in your second paragraph. We have a coalition government not a minority government supported by another minority. This means we have one single government, which has already broadly reached an agreement or consensus on their (joint) policies. Inevitably there are considerable compromises but that is the nature of coalition government. In general the Conservatives have compromised on some of their more right wing policies and the Liberal Democrats on some of their more left wing policies. Adversaries have become colleagues. If and when proportional representation is implemented (AV is but the first short step) this is a process that will follow every election.

The economic situation facing the UK is so grave, that anyone who seriously wants to see any financial and social recovery, will fervently hope that this coalition will succeed and put aside petty party political differences, Labour particularly included. There will inevitably be those small in mind and mean of spirit who will want to see it fail, and will relish in its failure.They will be found on the very right of the Conservative Party, in the Labour Party, on the left of the Liberal Democrats, and in every minor party in our country. I hope and believe that their numbers are small, and that the vast majority recognise that we now have a principled government committed to serving the interests of the country as a whole, rich and poor alike.

[Expounder]

I agree with your first paragraph Robin, but I think you are missing the basic point in your second paragraph. We have a coalition government not a minority government supported by another minority. This means we have one single government, which has already broadly reached an agreement or consensus on their (joint) policies. Inevitably there are considerable compromises but that is the nature of coalition government. In general the Conservatives have compromised on some of their more right wing policies and the Liberal Democrats on some of their more left wing policies. Adversaries have become colleagues. If and when proportional representation is implemented (AV is but the first short step) this is a process that will follow every election.

The economic situation facing the UK is so grave, that anyone who seriously wants to see any financial and social recovery, will fervently hope that this coalition will succeed and put aside petty party political differences, Labour particularly included. There will inevitably be those small in mind and mean of spirit who will want to see it fail, and will relish in its failure.They will be found on the very right of the Conservative Party, in the Labour Party, on the left of the Liberal Democrats, and in every minor party in our country. I hope and believe that their numbers are small, and that the vast majority recognise that we now have a principled government committed to serving the interests of the country as a whole, rich and poor alike.

The party which did more to talk the country down in the election debate was the conservative party in order to panic the electortate into voting Tory. They were prepared undermine Britain's position internationally in their desperate quest to gain office.

"Broken Britain" was the slogan, a country with a triple "A" rating and over fourteen years in which to tackle the deficit in a way which would guarantee the necessary cuts would be made when recovery was certain. The last time Britain was really broken was under a Tory administration.

The Tories scraped into office with no clear mandate for their brutish policies of immediate savage cuts with the help of the Lib Dems who caved in to their demands. Some of the edges of the minor parts of the manifesto have been trimmed to accommdate the Lib Dems and have upset some of the Tory grassroots because they are out of pocket, but the main points of their potentially damaging policies are still in place so don't lets kid ourselves they haven't given much away.

They've also ring fenced their governing tenure for five years without a parliamentary bye your leave, by increasing the percentage vote needed to 55% needed to remove them. As the combined opposition vote including the Lib Dems amount to 53% it means that we are in for a five year Tory dictatorship. Surely this move can be challenged legally as undemocratic.

[Major Sinic]

The party which did more to talk the country down in the election debate was the conservative party in order to panic the electortate into voting Tory. They were prepared undermine Britain's position internationally even futher in their desperate quest to gain office.

"Broken Britain" was the slogan, a country with a triple "A" rating and over fourteen years in which to tackle the deficit in a way which would guarantee the necessary cuts would be made when recovery was certain. The last time Britain was really broken was under a Tory administration.

The Tories scraped into office with no clear mandate for their brutish policies with the help of the Lib Dems. Some of the nasty edges of these policies have been trimmed as a concession to the other party but the main points of their potentially damaging policies are still in place so don't lets kid ourselves they haven't given much away. They've also ring fenced their tenure for five years without a commons bye your leave by increasing the percentage vote needed to remove them.

As I said there will be those small in mind and mean of spirit who will want this coalition to fail, and would relish its failure.

[Expounder]

As I said there will be those small in mind and mean of spirit who will want this coalition to fail, and would relish its failure.

We are in for a five year Tory dictatorship if the Tories end up with a minority government and the Lib Dems pull out this farce of a coalition. You're so full of pontificating about the democtatic process don't you think this is the sort of stroke that any cheap political spiv would pull

The Tories have cynically overturned over two hundred years of parliamentary history practice to hold on to office if defeated by a simple majority vote. We know now, and so do the gullible Lib Dems,[who are really no longer needed except for window dressing] why they were so readily accepted into the Tory lair. It was to enable Cameron to cobble his ad hoc cabinet together to give this outrageous decision a veneer of legitimacy. He doesn't need the Lib Dems any more, job done and dusted.

I hope there are legal channels that can be used to challenge and overturn this move to subvert true democracy. Everyone can see now that Cameron could have made a living playing the three card trick on a street corner.


The Tories are revolting: Coalition government faces first rebellion - mirror.co.uk

Paul Routledge - News Columnists - Mirror.co.uk