UK Elections

LooseCannon said:
If you want a good parallel for the development of the EU, I suggest you look at the formation of the United States. The only thing the EU is missing is an event to drive coalition - like the Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...

What really drove the US to its current condition was the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. "Good, now we're independent - did anyone notice our new government sucks?" The Constitution established the strong federal government which the US has had since.

What drove the coalition (i.e. why the US needed a strong gov't) was that Britain was still out there, waiting to take the colonies back if the early US failed. We needed a military, which implies things like conscription and taxes, which necessitates a strong gov't.

I can't think of anything in the world today that could provide a similar motivation for the EU. What threat is lurking in the wings, waiting to gobble up European nations if the current EU gov't fails?
 
Here's the rub, though - the AoC wasn't as strong as was needed (much like the EU gov't and treaties weren't). Both collection of nations had a military alliance (Continental Army for the former, NATO for the latter). When you look at it, most EU members are also NATO members - their militaries already work in concert, as does their economies. You're right - there's no catalyst to push forward the unification of Europe, which is why it will be a slow process - but remember, Americans didn't start calling themselves Americans until about 125 years ago.
 
Actually, I think the Greek crisis will have a lot of impact on the identity of the European Union, no matter in what direction.
 
Yes, Wasted, the forced nationalization following the Civil War consolidated the idea of nationality into "American" followed by "Southerner" and "Northerner", instead of "Virginian, Floridian, New Yorker" etc.

And I agree, Perun. Either the EU will pull Greece out of this hole and set the precedent that the EU will protect its memberstates, or not, and then the EU will be far less trusted.
 
I thought that was what you were implying, earlier.  It was a bloody mess, but it unified the country.

And, I see what you mean, the EU just needs a 'catalyst' (such as the Greek issue) to create a precedent for what the European Union is going to become. 
 
I'm strongly considering spoiling my vote because of the serious lack of a party representing any views other than authoritarian/right wing. Only the Liberals are anything near centralist (which I guess is my view point) and I'm not entirely convinced by their policies on things like the Nuclear Deterrent. I agree with their pledge to pull out of Afghanistan and I'm on the brink of agreeing that Proportional Representation is probably better though.

I still don't particularly like any of the parties though, its not much of a choice at all with mostly right wing parties. Labour have had their time in office now and I really, really want Mandelson off my TV now! I think they have made one too many mistakes and 13 years I think is time enough for change. Conservatives however are not the right people to take power, I'm not sure they will do any better than Labour, in fact probably far worse.
I've always liked the Lib Dems, but they are still a very flawed party riding on quite a popularity contest.

I really do think that "None of the above" represent me. I quite like the idea of hung parliament though, so I may vote Lib Dem or even Labour just to push it towards that.

Thankfully, most people realise the BNP and UKIP are just racists so they won't be getting power any time ever. Though they will continue to have support as long as the major parties continue to avoid the issue of immigration - although extreme, extreme parties have clear policies and aren't skipping the question, which unfortunately means they garner support simply because they are clear. Its very frustrating to listen to policitians never directly answer anything, I think this is on people's minds now more than ever.

As for Gordon Brown - in many ways I do feel sorry for him. He's constantly attacked for his uncharasmatic speeches and it wasn't his fault that the media decided to broadcast private conversations. He is entitled to his own private opinion like anyone and I don't think he was particularly "wrong" when he was commenting about that woman in private. However, obviously it hasn't helped the image of politicians looking fake to the public eye and its naturally negatively impacted Brown's image and Labour's campagin. But really, what could have Brown done differently in that situation?
Some people are acting a bit "holier than thou" about this really, saying that "Gordon shouldn't say such things about the public" as if he's said this in a public statement!
I'm surprised people never realised politicans are two-faced (kind of obvious isn't it?).

Well..as long as we don't get Cameron as PM, I think I'll be happy as far as the popularity contest goes anyway. Its a bit silly how we focus on the personality of the leaders though, seeing as the leaders really don't represent the parties other than as effectively a spokesman.
 
Sounds like you should vote strategically, then, for the non-Tory candidate most likely to win in your riding!
 
Indeed, problem is, its hard to figure if it will be Labour or Lib Dem, my constituency has always been a strong Tory seat. In the past, the Liberals were fairly strong here so that combined with their recent popularity may be the ticket.
 
Well, pull up the previous record for your constituency, and then go ahead and see the history. There may also be a poll in your riding suggesting the numbers.

In the end, it just supports what the LDs say about moving to a different voting system.
 
The UK uses a bicameral parliament with two houses - the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The former consists of appointees and the latter is the primary house of government. Members of Parliament serve in the House of Commons and are elected from regions within the United Kingdom (known as ridings or constituencies). Whichever party has a majority of votes in the House of Commons receives the right to form a government, and the head of that party becomes the Prime Minister, the head of government and de facto head of state. Because the elections of MPs uses a first past the post system, it is conceivable for a party to win an overwhelming majority of seats without winning a majority of the popular vote, especially whereas the UK has three primary parties in the House of Commons (the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Labour).

In the situation which appears most likely on Thursday, a hung parliament may occur. According to precedent, the party that recently formed a government (Labour) will be given the first chance to form a government. If Labour can survive confidence motions over the first few months, their government may survive for a longer period of time. They may form an informal or formal coalition with one or more parties to maintain governance. In an informal coalition, Labour will agree to give another party's platforms standing in return for that party's support on some issues. In a formal coalition, Labour will invite members of another party(s) to become Cabinet Ministers and have a closer-to-equal say in government.

If a confidence motion quickly defeats the Labour government, then the Conservatives may be given a chance to form government at the discretion of the Cabinet Secretary and Her Majesty the Queen. David Cameron, head of the Conservatives, has suggested he may also ask HRH Elizabeth II for permission to form her government if he wins a plurality of seats, but not a majority, and violate the convention I previously mentioned. Labour may forstall this by entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but noone really knows what Clegg will do (I think it's Nick Clegg who leads the LDP).

In other words, it's one of the more interesting UK elections since a fellow named Churchill ran.
 
Ardius said:
Thankfully, most people realise the BNP and UKIP are just racists so they won't be getting power any time ever.
Click to expand...
BNP racists - beyond doubt. UKIP - not so sure, right wing - yes, so bloody anti-EEC it gets a bit tedious - yes, but I don't think they are racists.

A point about the way the voting system should change: in a lot of constituencies where Labour cannot win and the Tories have a stronghold (where I live is one), tactical voting comes into play. In this instance, the Labour voters will quite possibly vote Lib Dem and as such their total votes will go up. Change the voting system to a system where tactical voting is not going to help (i.e proportional representation), will the Lib Dems actually benefit if a percentage of their votes are cast tactically? I know the polls suggest that around 28% will vote Labour and 28% the Lib Dems with the Tories on 35%, but we have experienced in the past where people are not always going to admit to voting Tory - they may something to the opinion polls, but when they get into the booth it's an X against the Tory candidate. In the '92 Election, for example, Neil Kinnock was buoyed by an opinion poll - just before the election - that made it look a Labour win. As we know, he never became the PM.
 
LooseCannon said:
The UK uses a bicameral parliament with two houses - the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The former consists of appointees and the latter is the primary house of government. Members of Parliament serve in the House of Commons and are elected from regions within the United Kingdom (known as ridings or constituencies). Whichever party has a majority of votes in the House of Commons receives the right to form a government, and the head of that party becomes the Prime Minister, the head of government and de facto head of state. Because the elections of MPs uses a first past the post system, it is conceivable for a party to win an overwhelming majority of seats without winning a majority of the popular vote, especially whereas the UK has three primary parties in the House of Commons (the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Labour).

In the situation which appears most likely on Thursday, a hung parliament may occur. According to precedent, the party that recently formed a government (Labour) will be given the first chance to form a government. If Labour can survive confidence motions over the first few months, their government may survive for a longer period of time. They may form an informal or formal coalition with one or more parties to maintain governance. In an informal coalition, Labour will agree to give another party's platforms standing in return for that party's support on some issues. In a formal coalition, Labour will invite members of another party(s) to become Cabinet Ministers and have a closer-to-equal say in government.

If a confidence motion quickly defeats the Labour government, then the Conservatives may be given a chance to form government at the discretion of the Cabinet Secretary and Her Majesty the Queen. David Cameron, head of the Conservatives, has suggested he may also ask HRH Elizabeth II for permission to form her government if he wins a plurality of seats, but not a majority, and violate the convention I previously mentioned. Labour may forstall this by entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but noone really knows what Clegg will do (I think it's Nick Clegg who leads the LDP).

In other words, it's one of the more interesting UK elections since a fellow named Churchill ran.
Click to expand...

Cool post LC  :)
 
Albie said:
BNP racists - beyond doubt. UKIP - not so sure, right wing - yes, so bloody anti-EEC it gets a bit tedious - yes, but I don't think they are racists.

A point about the way the voting system should change: in a lot of constituencies where Labour cannot win and the Tories have a stronghold (where I live is one), tactical voting comes into play. In this instance, the Labour voters will quite possibly vote Lib Dem and as such their total votes will go up. Change the voting system to a system where tactical voting is not going to help (i.e proportional representation), will the Lib Dems actually benefit if a percentage of their votes are cast tactically? I know the polls suggest that around 28% will vote Labour and 28% the Lib Dems with the Tories on 35%, but we have experienced in the past where people are not always going to admit to voting Tory - they may something to the opinion polls, but when they get into the booth it's an X against the Tory candidate. In the '92 Election, for example, Neil Kinnock was buoyed by an opinion poll - just before the election - that made it look a Labour win. As we know, he never became the PM.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, nobody's really sure what'll happen if the LDP suggested change to the voting system goes through and you get a single vote runoff, or whatever it's called. In that case, if you vote for a dude and your dude doesn't get the most votes, your second preference kicks in. I'm not exactly sure how it works - I, personally, prefer a full instant runoff voting system - but it would allow Labour supporters to vote Labour and pick LDP as their second, and vice-versa, so people wouldn't feel the need to strategically vote as much.
 
I read a discussion the other day about electoral reform and how Labour's plan to utilise the Alternate Vote whereby each candidate in each constituency can only get the seat if they win over 50% of the votes. Voters will be asked to vote for an alternative and that could mean that a candidate with 20% of the first choice votes, could win the seat.

What the discussion stated is that if this was put in place, it could seriously damage the Conservatives in such a way that they may never get a serious shot at power again. The reason for it, and it made some sense, was that in only 60 or 70 seats do the Conservatives have a candidate with a 50% majority. Labour has 160 odd. Most people in this country are generally centre and centre left and so the most likely situation could be more Lib Dems getting the alternative vote than anyone else. The Torys could then be pushed in to third place and, in time, could find funding start to dry up. As these parties do rely heavily on fundings and donations, it will hurt them bad.

However, the flip side to this method of voting is that we could see a rise in the extremist parties as some left-wing or right-wing voters are more likely to choose their respective hard left/right party.

I too prefer the one-off vote to pick just the one candidate and let the candidate with the most votes get the seat.
 
That's why I like a full instant runoff ballot. After the votes are counted, if nobody has 50%+1, the candidate with the least votes is removed and those votes move to the 2nd choice. If there's still not, the current least is tossed out and you move to the next ballot, etc. That way it's not just "second choices".
 
Just saw an interview with Nick Clegg. In Dutch! Pretty cool if you ask me, the idea of an English Prime Minister who can speak Dutch fluently. His mother is Dutch, so that's why.;)

Check this older one, funny how those Brits are looking, not understanding one iota of it.

His father is half-Russian, his wife is Spanish, and besides that language he also speaks fluently French and German. Quite a European fellow!
 
Polling day today and I am off within the next few minutes to cast my vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top