News Voting in the British Election: Who and Why?

[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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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

We have an official monster raving loony party instead.

My hope is that Cameron and Clegg can bring opportunity to Brits and not hand outs. Handouts aggravate a problem,

Same handouts, different names. Labour hands out money to local authorities, conservatives will hand it out to BAe. A few naval dockyards will move from marginal labour constituencies in Scotland to marginal Conservative constituencies in the south west.

It's difficult to see quite what the Tories can do to be more favourable to big business and banks than Blair/Brown - introduce slavery perhaps?

 

[shoehorn]

Not to mind: the current lot won't last long. We'll be back to the polling stations within the year, I would imagine.

 

[mgb_phys]

Not to mind: the current lot won't last long. We'll be back to the polling stations within the year, I would imagine.

When there is a choice between a centre-right labour party run by (a choice of two) oxbridge professional politicians that have spent their whole lives in party jobs, AND a centre-right tory party run by an oxbridge professional politician who has never done anything but party jobs.

 

[shoehorn]

When there is a choice between a centre-right labour party run by (a choice of two) oxbridge professional politicians that have spent their whole lives in party jobs, AND a centre-right tory party run by an oxbridge professional politician who has never done anything but party jobs.

I must admit that the fact that they're career politicians doesn't overly worry me. I'd imagine that it's far better to have that sort of experience when slithering around Westminster as a party leader than it is to have come from a life in business or the military, say.

Similarly, although I'm hardly impartial on this, I have little problem with the leaders happening to have been through Oxbridge. A more significant problem seems to be that almost the entire cabinet is stuffed with them.

 

[mgb_phys]

I must admit that the fact that they're career politicians doesn't overly worry me

It worries me that the sort of person who has planned every step since the age of 18 toward becoming a politician - becomes a politician.

I have little problem with the leaders happening to have been through Oxbridge.

Me neither - I have a PhD from one of them.

It's more the CV = PPE at Oxford, same college as previous leader, intern with Party think tank, job as junior researcher to cabinet member, rises through ranks with backing of senior figure. And it makes no difference which party they claim to believe in.

At least with monarchs you get an occasional revolution or war which switches the succession - this lot is more like joining the dark side of the force.