News Voting in the British Election: Who and Why?

[vertices]

If you're British, who/what party will you be voting for on the 6th May and why?

 

[cristo]

Lib Dems:

* Vince Cable actually knows what he's talking about and has costed the Lib Dem manifesto, unlike those of the other parties.
* Nick Clegg is a great public speaker and is the only one who has actually answered the questions in the debates (well, to an extent; they are politicians after all!) and has done so in a personable way. I really believe he has the potential to lead this country to better things.
* The Lib Dems believe in taking a more commanding role in Europe which will certainly benefit the country more than stepping back and ignoring the issue, or joining with the crazy right wing parties in Brussels.
* Abolishing tuition fees (albeit within 6 years time) is a policy that I am in great support of: I'm lucky that I could afford to pay for university, but a lot of people are not so lucky and don't deserve to be disadvantaged.
* The Lib Dems believe in the importance of scientific research, and will provide a ring-fenced scientific budget.
* Nick Clegg believes in changing the electoral system from the current ridiculous system in which old MPs have a job for life and so nothing to work for, to a proper proportional representative system which will put an end to the tactical voting for the better of two evils.

I could go on...

 

[vertices]

Lib Dems:

* Vince Cable actually knows what he's talking about and has costed the Lib Dem manifesto, unlike those of the other parties.
* Nick Clegg is a great public speaker and is the only one who has actually answered the questions in the debates (well, to an extent; they are politicians after all!) and has done so in a personable way. I really believe he has the potential to lead this country to better things.
* The Lib Dems believe in taking a more commanding role in Europe which will certainly benefit the country more than stepping back and ignoring the issue, or joining with the crazy right wing parties in Brussels.
* Abolishing tuition fees (albeit within 6 years time) is a policy that I am in great support of: I'm lucky that I could afford to pay for university, but a lot of people are not so lucky and don't deserve to be disadvantaged.
* The Lib Dems believe in the importance of scientific research, and will provide a ring-fenced scientific budget.
* Nick Clegg believes in changing the electoral system from the current ridiculous system in which old MPs have a job for life and so nothing to work for, to a proper proportional representative system which will put an end to the tactical voting for the better of two evils.

I could go on...

Funnily enough the reasons you gave are exactly the ones I would give! I also like LD policy on Trident.

Do you think we're likely to have a hung parliament? I'm beginning to think that a real possibly, especially after yesterday's Brown "bigot" gaffe.

Today's debate should be interesting...

 

[cristo]

Do you think we're likely to have a hung parliament? I'm beginning to think that a real possibly, especially after yesterday's Brown "bigot" gaffe.

I think we are heading towards a hung parliament, but I don't think the bigot gaffe will make too much difference. I think it's fair to say that Brown will have to make up for it tonight though, and I expect a couple of snipes about it from either side of him!

 

[billiards]

Lib Dems:

* Vince Cable actually knows what he's talking about and has costed the Lib Dem manifesto, unlike those of the other parties.
* Nick Clegg is a great public speaker and is the only one who has actually answered the questions in the debates (well, to an extent; they are politicians after all!) and has done so in a personable way. I really believe he has the potential to lead this country to better things.
* The Lib Dems believe in taking a more commanding role in Europe which will certainly benefit the country more than stepping back and ignoring the issue, or joining with the crazy right wing parties in Brussels.
* Abolishing tuition fees (albeit within 6 years time) is a policy that I am in great support of: I'm lucky that I could afford to pay for university, but a lot of people are not so lucky and don't deserve to be disadvantaged.
* The Lib Dems believe in the importance of scientific research, and will provide a ring-fenced scientific budget.
* Nick Clegg believes in changing the electoral system from the current ridiculous system in which old MPs have a job for life and so nothing to work for, to a proper proportional representative system which will put an end to the tactical voting for the better of two evils.

I could go on...

They're also going to come down hard on banker's bonuses. Scrap biometric passports, and trident nuclear missile defense system. Do we need a nuclear deterant? No, I really don't think we do.

 

[Jack21222]

I'm not a UK citizen, but I'm something of an angophile, so I try to pay attention. Professor Brian Cox says he's voting Lib Dem, due to their stance on science funding.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7061116.ece

Investment in “knowledge” is the key to economic recovery, said Cox. “There are figures like 6.4% of GDP comes from physics, 30% comes from science.”

He added that the “science vote” could play an important part in the election. “The science minister, Lord Drayson, thinks that there’s something like 3m votes that could be swayed by the party that says, ‘We want to make Britain the best place that does science in the world’.

“Someone’s got to shake these people. Why isn’t making Britain the best place in the world to do science a good idea? We would be if we spent an extra billion on it.”

Cox said that Dr Evan Harris, the Lib Dem spokesman on science, had “made the most commitment to science” and, when asked if he would vote Lib Dem, said: “Yes I would.”

The news will be embarrassing to Labour. Keyboardist Cox and D:Ream played a series of gigs for the party during the 1997 election campaign.

So although I don't have a vote, I'm "rooting" for the Lib Dems, based in large part on Dr. Cox's endorsement, but also on the fact that here in the US, I always vote for 3rd parties, and the Lib Dems are the 3rd largest party in the UK.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm voting Lib Dem.

 

[mheslep]

Lib Dems:[...]
* Abolishing tuition fees (albeit within 6 years time) is a policy that I am in great support of: I'm lucky that I could afford to pay for university, but a lot of people are not so lucky and don't deserve to be disadvantaged.
* The Lib Dems believe in the importance of scientific research, and will provide a ring-fenced scientific budget.
...

Does Clegg favor even higher UK taxes to pay for these benefits?

 

[cristo]

Does Clegg favor even higher UK taxes to pay for these benefits?

It depends what you mean by tax (there are a lot of different taxes: income, VAT, NI, stamp duty, corporation, capital gains etc..). You can obtain a detailed breakdown here: http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx

 

[mheslep]

It depends what you mean by tax (there are a lot of different taxes: income, VAT, NI, stamp duty, corporation, capital gains etc..). You can obtain a detailed breakdown here: http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx

Any of the above would do, except cap gains which doesn't raise revenue. Clegg's link is ambiguous but says something like he will make the 'rich pay their fare share'. Really? In the UK the 'rich' don't pay enough?

 

[madness]

Any of the above would do, except cap gains which doesn't raise revenue. Clegg's link is ambiguous but says something like he will make the 'rich pay their fare share'. Really? In the UK the 'rich' don't pay enough?

Clearly Nick Clegg doesn't think so, and neither do the people who are voting Lib Dem.

 

[mheslep]

I asked about taxes because of the near default situation in Greece, and soon in Portugal in Spain. That is, when I see proposals for more government provided benefits in the EU it seems to me they should be immediately followed by a clear statement of how they will be financed via cuts elsewhere or taxes that won't do damage to the economy. Anything else would seem to be asking for similar problems.

 

[cristo]

I asked about taxes because of the near default situation in Greece, and soon in Portugal in Spain. That is, when I see proposals for more government provided benefits in the EU it seems to me they should be immediately followed by a clear statement of how they will be financed via cuts elsewhere or taxes that won't do damage to the economy. Anything else would seem to be asking for similar problems.

The proposals are followed by a detailed breakdown of how they will be financed: see the link to their manifesto I gave you before, specifically the very bottom pdf entitled "credible and responsible finances". No other party has provided any figures in their manifesto!

 

[vertices]

I really don't get why people are so obsessed with, and are so indignant about taxation. The arguments are tired.

We can't stimulate the economy by ruthlessly slashing public sector jobs. Yet we must do something to reduce our massive deficit - if we want to ensure we don't go in the direction of Greece and Portugal, the only option is to increase taxation. And this must be done in a fair way.

As an aside, why is it that in England you never get any charismatic, inspirational and truly great leaders? After the first debate, Clegg was being compared to Obama which I thought was hilarious!

 

[vertices]

I think we are heading towards a hung parliament, but I don't think the bigot gaffe will make too much difference. I think it's fair to say that Brown will have to make up for it tonight though, and I expect a couple of snipes about it from either side of him!

Do you think a hung parliament would be good for us?

I kind of like the idea of politicians working together and reaching a common consensus on matters of policy. I think it would bring more accountability...

 

[DrGreg]

If a hung parliament leads to a change in the electoral system from the current "first past the post" system, that can only be a good thing, in my view.

As I write this, the BBC's electoral seat calculator is showing the Conservatives ahead with 35% of the opinion-poll support, with Labour & Lib-Dems pretty much equal on 28% each. And yet if this is converted into seats, Con & Lab are more-or-less equal on 40% of the seats each, with the Lib-Dems getting a miserable 12% of the seats. Where is the sense in that?

Earlier in the week it was even worse, when Labour were in 3rd place in terms of vote share, but first in terms of seats!

 

[mgb_phys]

If a hung parliament leads to a change in the electoral system from the current "first past the post" system, that can only be a good thing, in my view.

But then the politicians will have to campaign everywhere instead of just in half a dozen marginal seats - imagine a plague of them across the land!

The nice thing about living in a town that has been labour since the ice age is that you never see a politician!

 

[DrGreg]

If a hung parliament leads to a change in the electoral system from the current "first past the post" system, that can only be a good thing, in my view.

But then the politicians will have to campaign everywhere instead of just in half a dozen marginal seats - imagine a plague of them across the land!

The nice thing about living in a town that has been labour since the ice age is that you never see a politician!

Curses! You are right. That's the flaw in my argument!

Seriously though, it's wrong that that a handful of constituencies decide the election, and all the parties compete for the floating voters in those constituencies and couldn't care less about the rest of us.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

UK Election

The results are coming in.

Reporting from London
In the trendy neighborhood where it all began, the centrist revolution led by Tony Blair — the swaggering days of "Cool Britannia," the unprecedented 13 years of Labor Party rule — could be sputtering to an exhausted, inglorious end...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/europe/la-fg-britain-voters-20100507,0,493291.story

Exit polls are suggesting that the conservatives may emerge as the leaders.

 

[cristo]

The results are coming in.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/europe/la-fg-britain-voters-20100507,0,493291.story

Exit polls are suggesting that the conservatives may emerge as the leaders.

Well, I wouldn't believe the exit poll too much, since small errors can make a huge difference with our stupid electoral system.

Oh, and when you say the conservatives may emerge as leaders, it doesn't mean they will rule. Unless the conservatives come out with more than half the seats, the incumbent prime minister has a chance to form a coalition government.

 

[mheslep]

A bit late, but columnist/author Peter Hitchens in the paper pleads for conservatives not to vote for Cameron on different twist: because he's merely a path for smart list leftists to get into power:

If he wins, he will – [...]

He will claim (falsely) that ‘Right-wing’ policies lost the last three Elections.

Those Tory MPs who agree with you and me will be cowed and silenced for good. The power will lie with the A-list smart set, modish, rich metropolitan liberals hungry for office at all costs who would have been (and who in the case of one of the older ones actually was) in New Labour 13 years ago.

And then where will you have to turn for help as the PC, pro-EU bulldozer trundles across our landscape destroying what is good and familiar and replacing it with a country whose inhabi*tants increasingly cannot recognise it as their own?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/e...onservative-voters-hate-it.html#ixzz0msXOKrcC

 

[mgb_phys]

He will claim (falsely) that ‘Right-wing’ policies lost the last three Elections.

Meanwhile labour supporters are complaining that their right wing policies won them the last 3.

I think this is going to be one of those 1945 elections where the smart tactic was to lose.

 

[mheslep]

I think this is going to be one of those 1945 elections where the smart tactic was to lose.

Because of the unavoidable execution of austerity measures which will make the party in power unpopular for a generation?

 

[arildno]

It seems that the exit poll first published at the closure of the polling stations was extremely accurate:

Tories: 307, Labour: 255, LibDem: 59.

Now, as only one Tory bastion is left (Thirsk&Malton, due for re-election 27th of May), the confirmed results for the 3 greatest parties:

Tories: 306, Labour: 258, LibDem: 57

 

[CRGreathouse]

Tories: 306, Labour: 258, LibDem: 57

Amusingly, if the parties vote en bloc, they all have equal power (in the Shapley-Shubik sense).

 

[mgb_phys]

Because of the unavoidable execution of austerity measures which will make the party in power unpopular for a generation?

Yep - and there is obviously going to be a labour leadership battle, so a few quiet years of scheming for a young back bencher as all the old guard get blamed for the last screwup.
All the while being able to blame the tories when your local school/hospital/etc gets closed.

 

[mgb_phys]

From the results on the BBC site, I worked how many seats each would win if you had proportional representaion

[pre]
Party Seats % votes % seats

Conservative 306 36.1 10706647 234
Labour 258 29 8604358 188
Liberal Dem 57 23 6827938 149
UKIP 0 3.1 917832 20
SNP 6 1.7 491386 11
Green 1 1 285616 6
Dem Unionist 8 0.6 168216 4
BNP 0 1.9 563743 12
Plaid Cymru 3 0.6 165394 4
Sinn Féin 5 0.6 171942 4
Cons Unionists 0 0.3 102361 2
SDLP 3 0.4 110970 3
[/pre]

 

[arildno]

From the results on the BBC site, I worked how many seats each would win if you had proportional representaion

[pre]
Party Seats % votes % seats

Conservative 306 36.1 10706647 234
Labour 258 29 8604358 188
Liberal Dem 57 23 6827938 149
UKIP 0 3.1 917832 20
SNP 6 1.7 491386 11
Green 1 1 285616 6
Dem Unionist 8 0.6 168216 4
BNP 0 1.9 563743 12
Plaid Cymru 3 0.6 165394 4
Sinn Féin 5 0.6 171942 4
Cons Unionists 0 0.3 102361 2
SDLP 3 0.4 110970 3
[/pre]

What this shows is that parties with strong local support and localist ideology is pretty fairly represented in the UK parliament already as it is.

The big losers are the minor parties with national aspirations, like LibDem, UKIP, Greens and BNP.

Such parties generally lose out in proportionally based systems as well, for example in Norway, since you need a total exceeding 4% in order for your national votes to be pooled together in order to gain "adjustment mandates" for proportionality concerns lost in the initial county-based mandate distribution.

 

[cristo]

Such parties generally lose out in proportionally based systems as well, for example in Norway, since you need a total exceeding 4% in order for your national votes to be pooled together in order to gain "adjustment mandates" for proportionality concerns lost in the initial county-based mandate distribution.

I think if a version of PR was introduced into the UK, there would have to be some minimum percentage of the vote required to allow the votes for that candidate to be applied nationally.

I don't think there is much hope of changing from our current system to a simple PR system like that one outlined by mgb; there would have to be something built in there to account for local representation (I think most people in the UK still would like to have a local candidate).

 

[xxChrisxx]

We need PR, desperately.

In 2005 around 70% of all votes were wasted. I've not seen a figure for this year.

My local constituency is in Manchester, which is a labour safe seat. Anyone who votes anything else is wasting it,

 

[arildno]

As of Norway, we had general elections last year, and our mandate distribution was as follows, with mandates given by strict proportionality in parentheses:

Labour: 64 (59.8)
Conservatives: 30 (29.1)
Party of Progress: 41 (38.7)
Socialist Left: 11 (10.5)
Agrarian Centre: 11 (10.5)
Christian people's P: 10 (9.3)
Liberal Left: 2 (6.6)


The Liberal Left went below the magic number, 4%, and is thereby severely under-represented in the Storting.



All these parties largely have national ideologies, rather than localist.

It is extremely rare that localist movements gain a seat in Norway, we've had a period when "The Coastal Party" had a representative, and another where the "Northern Norway-list" got one.

On a single occasion, the communist party Red Electoral Alliance gained a seat.


Party-types like Plaid Cymru, SNP and the various Irish Nationalists do not exist in Norway, and parties like UKIP and BNP have no chance on the national level.

 

[arildno]

I'm not willing to condemn the UK system through and through, because it DOES have one feature I think is much better than the Norwegian system:

Colourful, independent charactesr CAN, and DO, become elected to Parliament, and that is a strength of the tiny electorate system you've got in UK. This strengthens local attachment, even though it has little effect on national policy.

Roughly, I think about 20.000 votes is enough for somebody to get elected?

Translated into Norwegian terms, with 4.9 millions versus 62 millions, this would be...1600 votes required.

In Norway, I think you generally need 10.000-20.000 votes or so behind each MP.



Thus, I think that the best, and most realistic way for the UK to reform is to increase the number of MP's, say, from 650 to 800 (or some other number).

The 150 new mandates will be "adjustment mandates" to adjust for proportionality loss.

In Norway, IF you get just over 4%, you will get the lion's share of our adjustment mandates.

In the election of 2005, for example, when the Liberal Left scraped in over the 4% mark, they got 8 of 10 national adjustment mandates, I think.

In UK, the LibDem's would be the deservedly biggest benificiaries of such a system.

 

[cristo]

Thus, I think that the best, and most realistic way for the UK to reform is to increase the number of MP's, say, from 650 to 800 (or some other number).

No way; we have too many members in the commons as it is.

I think the best switch would be to a German-type system of "mixed-member proportional representation", which is essentially a hybrid between PR and FPTP.

 

[arildno]

No way; we have too many members in the commons as it is.

I think the best switch would be to a German-type system of "mixed-member proportional representation", which is essentially a hybrid between PR and FPTP.

Populationwise, with 62 million inhabitants you have 1 MP pr. 95.000

In Norway, with 4.9 millions, we have 1MP pr 29.000.

So I do not think the MP-density of the UK is too great as it is.

 

[mgb_phys]

I always assumed that the first past the post generated seats for regional minor parties, but looking at the numbers the votes/seat for welsh nationalists and the various N Ireland parties come out about the same as they would in PR.

You would get lots more seats for national minor parties, both BNP (far right) and Green.

The main drawback is that you wouldn't get real independants like Martin Bell and you would destroy the link between local people and their local MP - although with more profesional candidates and enforced party shortlists this is pretty much gone in most areas.

 

[arildno]

I always assumed that the first past the post generated seats for regional minor parties, but looking at the numbers the votes/seat for welsh nationalists and the various N Ireland parties come out about the same as they would in PR.

You would get lots more seats for national minor parties, both BNP (far right) and Green.

The main drawback is that you wouldn't get real independants like Martin Bell and you would destroy the link between local people and their local MP - although with more profesional candidates and enforced party shortlists this is pretty much gone in most areas.

Yes, I think you are right.

The tiny advantage with the UK system is that, in contrast to Norway, eccentrics and real independents DO have a chance of getting elected.

But then again:
MUST such people have the Parliament as their arena?
Probably not.

But, perhaps the Parliament gains from getting such people elected, rather than the other way around..


On another note:
Perhaps Brits should consider re-establishing Old Sarum and other boroughs like that to ensure local flavour?

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . David Cameron is now prime minister and Nick Clegg is deputy prime minister.

Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne is expected to be the incoming head of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Huhne has made many statements against nuclear energy in the past, calling it "a tried, tested and failed technology" that he would reject. The Lib Dems call for the pouring of public money into renewables and their supply chain in "a commitment to 100 per cent carbon free, non-nuclear electricity by 2050." Working underneath Huhne will likely be a Conservative minister specifically for energy.

from World Nuclear News, which is based in the UK, btw.

 

[mheslep]

from World Nuclear News, which is based in the UK, btw.

"a commitment to 100 per cent carbon free, non-nuclear electricity by 2050."

From the new energy chief? Really? Sounds like tabloid nonsense, which is not affordable from the guy in charge.

 

[DrGreg]

What LibDem politicians said before the election needn't correspond to the compromise policy of the Conservative-LibDem coalition government. LibDems have long opposed nuclear energy, Conservatives have not. The BBC website is reporting announced policies:

* New nuclear power plants (Lib Dems able to abstain on issue)
* No new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage
* Increased target for share of energy from renewable sources

and comments

Lib Dem activists will not be happy with commitment to nuclear power. Lib Dem MPs can abstain in any Commons votes but under their agreement they will not be able to bring down the government over it in a confidence vote.

Full text at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

 

[mheslep]

What LibDem politicians said before the election needn't correspond to the compromise policy of the Conservative-LibDem coalition government. LibDems have long opposed nuclear energy, Conservatives have not. The BBC website is reporting announced policies:

* New nuclear power plants (Lib Dems able to abstain on issue)
* No new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage
* Increased target for share of energy from renewable sources

and commentsFull text at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

That sounds right for any actions of Parliament, but I can't see any actual progress on nuclear plants with Lib Dem Huhne actually at the helm of the Dept. of Energy. That is, Parliament can appropriate funds. It can't practically pick a site, review plans, etc.

 

[mgb_phys]

a commitment to 100 per cent carbon free, non-nuclear electricity by 2050

So promising stuff in the certain knowledge that you won't be in power comes back to bite you

 

[CRGreathouse]

The main drawback is that you wouldn't get real independants like Martin Bell and you would destroy the link between local people and their local MP - although with more profesional candidates and enforced party shortlists this is pretty much gone in most areas.

You needn't -- with MMP you need only a small number (say, 20%) of at-large members to get a proportional result. Of course this comes at the cost of giving the parties more power...

 

[stevmg]

Labour is out for the duration (a generation or so.) Same as in USA. The default party in the US is the GOP. The Democrats win only on flukes. In the UK the default party is the Conservatives while Labour or the Liberals win only on flukes. That is the way of the world.

The Libs were smart to coalesce with the Conservatives as with that they will have some say in what happens. Labour has NO SAY any more and will not for a very long time, maybe forever. Notice that as badly knocked out as the Conservatives were for the last 13 years, they're back. Same as the USA. The GOP was out and smashed yet even with that they will retake our Congress and Presidency within the next two years.

People are naturally conservative (small "c") and that's why this is so.

I don't like it but that's the way it is.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Labour is out for the duration (a generation or so.) Same as in USA. The default party in the US is the GOP. The Democrats win only on flukes. In the UK the default party is the Conservatives while Labour or the Liberals win only on flukes. That is the way of the world.

The Libs were smart to coalesce with the Conservatives as with that they will have some say in what happens. Labour has NO SAY any more and will not for a very long time, maybe forever. Notice that as badly knocked out as the Conservatives were for the last 13 years, they're back. Same as the USA. The GOP was out and smashed yet even with that they will retake our Congress and Presidency within the next two years.

People are naturally conservative (small "c") and that's why this is so.

What rubbish. People are out for whatever they can get. Also it's not a case of labour 'fluke' it in. This happenes every time, one lot get in for a few terms, everyone gets sick of them and then the other lot get in for three terms. It's been that way since the war.

This is the reason why labour have loads of seats in large city centres and conservaties get in in rural areas. Labour also won the 1997 and 2001 with enormous landslides. Hardly a fluke, and hardly goes to show that the conservatives are the default party. The conservatives have not won an outright government since 1992.

 

[mgb_phys]

This happenes every time, one lot get in for a few terms, everyone gets sick of them and then the other lot get in for three terms. It's been that way since the war.

Often wondered if it wouldn't be simply more efficient to let one lot have the even decades and the other lot have the odd ones. Save a lot of marketing costs and help to keep the whole lot of them off the TV.

 

[D H]

Lib Dem activists will not be happy with commitment to nuclear power. Lib Dem MPs can abstain in any Commons votes but under their agreement they will not be able to bring down the government over it in a confidence vote.

I wonder how long that will last? After seeing those election results, I had a suspicion that whoever got in bed with the LibDems would ultimately lose the next election as soon as someone lost confidence in this arrangement. I didn't voice those suspicions as I an outsider admittedly ignorant of the subleties of your politics. So how long do people expect this partnership to last, and who will come out ahead when the divorce occurs?

 

[stevmg]

What rubbish. People are out for whatever they can get. Also it's not a case of labour 'fluke' it in. This happenes every time, one lot get in for a few terms, everyone gets sick of them and then the other lot get in for three terms. It's been that way since the war.

This is the reason why labour have loads of seats in large city centres and conservaties get in in rural areas. Labour also won the 1997 and 2001 with enormous landslides. Hardly a fluke, and hardly goes to show that the conservatives are the default party. The conservatives have not won an outright government since 1992.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

I am sick and tired of seeing the Tories in the UK and the GOP here win elections and send us back into the f----n' stone age which takes us years to recover from.

 

[cristo]

I wonder how long that will last? After seeing those election results, I had a suspicion that whoever got in bed with the LibDems would ultimately lose the next election as soon as someone lost confidence in this arrangement. I didn't voice those suspicions as I an outsider admittedly ignorant of the subleties of your politics. So how long do people expect this partnership to last, and who will come out ahead when the divorce occurs?

I really hope this does last a full term (which is now fixed at 5 years). I really want us to move away from this (effectively) two party system, and towards a fair, proportional relationship between the electorate's votes and seats in the commons. This will, inevitably, result in far more hung/balanced parliaments so I hope the Lib/Con coalition can show that politicians can work together.

As for who will be ahead when the divorce happens, well, the obvious answer is the Labour party! I imagine the Labour party will regroup and move towards the left, and some MPs will defect from the Lib Dems to Labour in search of a real left wing party. I think who comes out of the coalition on top depends on what happens in the next 5 years. Though, with the budget cuts that are coming, and the higher taxation which is inevitable, I can't see it being the Lib Dems!

 

[xxChrisxx]

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

I am sick and tired of seeing the Tories in the UK and the GOP here win elections and send us back into the f----n' stone age which takes us years to recover from.

It's always (read: mostly) the other way round. Labour get in, nearly bankrupt the country then the Conservatives get in and have to try and sort the mess out. Happened in the 70's and it's happened now. In the 70's it was slighty easier, the country has nationalised assets there were stripped and sold off, now we have nothing.

The problem is the blurring of the lines, no political party can be deemed to be left or right it's all incredibly fluid. New Labour under Blair and Brown cartainly weren't left of centre and certainly weren't for the common man.

I have no in depth knowledge of politics in the US, but your two parties seem fairly firmly set in their views. I would also argue that America by it's nature is a more conservative country, both parties (dem and rep) probably sit further right on the political spectrum than any mainstream party in the UK.

 

[stevmg]

It's always (read: mostly) the other way round. Labour get in, nearly bankrupt the country then the Conservatives get in and have to try and sort the mess out. Happened in the 70's and it's happened now. In the 70's it was slighty easier, the country has nationalised assets there were stripped and sold off, now we have nothing.

The problem is the blurring of the lines, no political party can be deemed to be left or right it's all incredibly fluid. New Labour under Blair and Brown cartainly weren't left of centre and certainly weren't for the common man.

I have no in depth knowledge of politics in the US, but your two parties seem fairly firmly set in their views. I would also argue that America by it's nature is a more conservative country, both parties (dem and rep) probably sit further right on the political spectrum than any mainstream party in the UK.

You don't know the US. We have a GOP in the nuthouse in which they believe:

1) Obama is the anti-Christ
2) The world was created in 168 hours (144 if you don't count the seventh day) and is 6000 years old
3) Health care is not a right and the new healthcare bill is to be repealled
4) The sale of guns is for everyone including terrorists (2nd Amendment)

They are actually in the stone age. People are beginning to believe this and that is nearing the verge of neo-fascism.

You are right about Labour in the UK and Australia - where the Labour government "gave away" money with getting nothing in return. Whatever happened to the "third way" that Blair spoke about - the mixture of support and individual responsibility?

Clegg, since getting the national spotlight sounds like a Tory-light. With the alternative voting scheme proposed, there will be a permanent LD-CON majority forever, so don't worry about Labour getting back in power. Even a proportional representation scheme would still result in a permanent LD-Cons majority.

My hope is that Cameron and Clegg can bring opportunity to Brits and not hand outs. Handouts aggravate a problem, opportunity helps solve it. But opportunity means realistic opportunity, not the chance that there will be only one job for twenty people.

Do not give up your NHS. It has its problems but we have 47000000 uncovered and that is just not fair.