Pass the crisps: UK Election watch
497 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
thinking that Clegg would never keep his word and negotiate in good faith with the Tories in the first instanc
Any links about latest? Haven't been following closely but I though he was negotiating with them first - or does good faith mean not putting electoral refom on the table or something?
-
Any links about latest? Haven't been following closely but I though he was negotiating with them first - or does good faith mean not putting electoral refom on the table or something?
I meant not using a negotiating strategy I'm not entirely unfamiliar with. Come to the table with a shopping list of writ in stone demands you know the other party isn't going to go for. Then walk away saying "I did try" when you did no such thing.
And when it comes to Cameron's own party being their own worse enemies, what would be so fucking terrible about this:
"I've offered the Liberal-Democrats the promise of a free vote on whether to hold a referendum on some form of PR.
"But, in accordance with our own party's policy, we have reserved the right to campaign for a 'no' vote if such a referendum is to be held."
Listening to the way some people are carrying on, you'd think Cameron's pretty weak tea on the subject of PR was tantamount to offering to behead the Queen personally.
-
And if anyone is interested in the sight of homo anglo tbagus in his natural habitat: Enjoy! Just make no sudden movements and please don't put your fingers or any foreign objects near his mouth.
Finally, who wants to go tell the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg that MMP's virtues do not include "discouraging irresponsibility, special interest influence, and scorched-earth negative campaigning" and "fostering civility". :)
-
there's no such thing as an unloseable election especially if you're too thick to realise just how dangerous complacency is. Second, anyone who seriously believed that the polls six months back were going to translate into a uniform 15-20% swing to the Tories needs to spend some time getting their meds sorted.
Not arguing with you there: simply stating that there's a fair chunk of Conservatives who feel that way and that diminishes Cameron's ability to get 'em to gulp down the odd dead rat or two.
-
Oh, "basically" that's crap -- Labour has (and does) benefit enormously from FPP. Or have I missed that Labour's share of the popular vote was only six points more than the Libs, but Labour won almost five times as many seats?
I should be clearer. Labour benefits more than anyone else, bar the Tories. But they might very well benefit from PR more, by virtue of their closer position to the other major voting bloc. They might end up in power more often that way, or the Tories could move towards the center, which would be a win for Labour too.
That is the kind of reasoning I'd use to sell it over there anyway. If Labour figure it's better to be the second place than the first place in a coalition, then it wouldn't work, but I think there's at least a chance they could see the point. The Tories, OTOH stand to gain nothing at all from PR and to lose a lot. No point appealing to them at all, except perhaps with general moral arguments.
-
Won't be buying a lotto ticket for a while...
Ha! You should try sitting on pounds sterling. One could pull their hair out. :)
-
O I hear the pain Sofie - I used to metaphorically sit on sterling royalty cheques...now, the feeble few are direct-credited to my account which means I win a bit, lose a bit, and the bank still makes heaps...
-
Not arguing with you there: simply stating that there's a fair chunk of Conservatives who feel that way and that diminishes Cameron's ability to get 'em to gulp down the odd dead rat or two.
To be crude, that "fair chunk" could have yesterday been handed Gordon Brown's head on a salver garnished with an annihilating hundred seat majority and they wouldn't be happy. They'd rather see the Conservative Party buried in an ideologically-pristine shroud than stain themselves with the vulgar business of practical government. Thank God there are still Tories who know the difference between politics and the more tiresome evangelical cults.
-
It's from the Torygraph, so I feel dirty, but this cartoon made me chuckle.
-
Is that the UK equivalent of our lib nutters/kiwibog trolls who call Nact "socialists" then?
As an antidote, who was that classic conservative writer that you and Mr Hosking were recommending a couple of years ago?
-
Charming and haunting at the same time, this piece from the BBC.
-
Is that the UK equivalent of our lib nutters/kiwibog trolls who call Nact "socialists" then?
Indeed -- though to be perfectly fair, they're nowhere near as poisonously insane as the kind of Original Recipe Tea-Baggers who are trying to oust one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate because he (reluctantly) went off the reservation and voted for TARP. And God help you if you're a legislator more interested in doing what you were elected to do (which involves treating people you disagree with like human beings) than posturing.
As an antidote, who was that classic conservative writer that you and Mr Hosking were recommending a couple of years ago?
Think you mean Michael Oakeshott -- and I find his essay On Being Conservative a damn sight more nourishing than anything out of Teabagistan in recent years.
-
Has anyone done the maths on what this election would have looked like under mmp, assuming voting patterns were unchanged and no one split their vote? How low would the threshold need to be to avoid overhang from all of those minor parties?
-
By Oakshott's standards I would be an arch-conservative. But I hardly ever feel compelled to vote for the right wing parties, because think they're only conservative in a limited way - usually in the social dimension. In terms of the way they manage money, they are quite radical, seeking to make huge sweeping changes based on ideology, and if they claim conservatism there, it's in an appeal to some time well before even my parents were born.
A conservative approach these days in countries like NZ is to follow the social-democracy line we've taken for more than 60 years, and to tinker with this institution and that, here and there, slowly building a better society. It is, in fact, the path we have followed.
So I'm often a little bemused by the claims of National and Tory supporters to being "conservative", whilst at the same time proposing huge changes to the tax regimes, gutting of public services etc. That just seems radical to me, more akin to the smash-the-state mentality of so many communists of yesteryear.
Under Oakshott's view, a great deal of which I agree with, I don't see that "conservatism" means "wants to go backwards". It just means "doesn't want to go forwards too fast". So I see total opposition to all social change, indeed a wish to return to former stupidity, to be not conservative, but reactionary and quite radical.
-
hinged on Labour gently dog-whistling in tune with the BNP's anti-foreign messages. A bit icky to say the least.
Hang on, isn't inclusive democracy all about listening to aggrieved minorities?
Any attempt to talk sensibly about immigration in the UK is more or less doomed to fail before it even gets to the starting gate.
It's a complex issue with no easy solution, and so needs an intelligent and detailed debate. But because of it's hyper-emotive nature, simplistic screaming loonies at both ends of the specturm will make sure any nuanced discussion is drowned (out) at birth.
There was an enormous kerfuffle when the leaders of 'Operation Trident' pointed out what was an obvious elephant in the room at the time - that a lot of violent crime in London was black-on-black.
Operation Trident would be a minor zephyr compared to the shitstorm that would result in an attempt to a free and frank discusion of immigration in the UK.
-
Has anyone done the maths on what this election would have looked like under mmp, assuming voting patterns were unchanged and no one split their vote? How low would the threshold need to be to avoid overhang from all of those minor parties?
I think it would be a very misleading exercise. We just don't know how many people would have voted for whom if the election had been held under MMP - you can't just translate the votes that the affiliated candidates received into party votes.
-
i think i read in the guardian that the Green Party only had about 300 candidates, so if it had been MMP, their list votes would be from the entire electorate, not less than half. and under FPP a lot of people are not willing to "waste" their vote on minor parties whereas under MMP the only wasted votes are those for parties under any threshold.
also, with so many rejecting the two major parties, MMP would have a good chance of boosting voter turnout.
-
And from the Depressing But Not At All Surprising File: The Sunday Star-Times total coverage of arguably the most significant British general election since 1945 was... a typically cranky and lightweight Polly Toynbee column. Really, it was impossible to pull some substantive reportage and analysis off the wires?
-
Really, it was impossible to pull some substantive reportage and analysis off the wires?
It's the weekend, and we won the cricket by one run. Have you no sense of perspective? <sarc>
-
And from the Depressing But Not At All Surprising File: The Sunday Star-Times total coverage of arguably the most significant British general election since 1945 was... a typically cranky and lightweight Polly Toynbee column.
That really is extremely poor.
-
It's the weekend, and we won the cricket by one run. Have you no sense of perspective? <sarc>
None whatsoever, where boys with balls outside their scrota are concerned. :) But, seriously, I thought a large part of the point of a weekly Sunday newspaper is that you have room and time to cover the big picture in more depth. The SST may have appointed a new editor, but he's got some radical ground to make up with a paper that's a tabloid in all but format. (And to make it worse, has some genuine -- and mostly wasted -- talent on the payroll.)
also, with so many rejecting the two major parties, MMP would have a good chance of boosting voter turnout.
I know you've got to be extremely careful about extrapolating from one country (and its specific political culture and geography) to another, but if you want to look at the New Zealand example the first MMP election only saw a 3.1% hike -- then fell 4.1%. I honestly don't know if it was a novelty bump or there were other factors in play.
And according to this table (with all due caveats noted), the highest turnouts at a New Zealand general election were in 1984, 1981 & 1954.
I think you can also overstate the idea of the UK election being a 'rejection of the two main parties'. Simple matter of fact that the Tories and Labour between them won 65.1% of the popular vote.
-
'Eccentric' tories could hold Cameron to ransom (Independent via NZ Herald).
Mr Cameron may yet confound his detractors and become prime minister, by persuading other parties to help install him in Downing Street - but still he will not escape criticism from within. In a climate where every parliamentary vote, even the future of his Government, could depend on keeping his MPs happy - or at least quiet - the Conservative leader and his whips will have to work hard to keep a lid on discontent.
He might find himself making unpalatable accommodations with some of the least attractive elements of his own party - and other parties in his coalition - to keep his government alive.
I think they may be talking about some of Craig's "Earl Grey Teabaggers".
-
I think they may be talking about some of Craig's "Earl Grey Teabaggers".
Up to a point -- but there's also a heaping pile of stating the fucking obvious (Blair and Brown weren't exactly short of critics within over the last thirteen years) and spinning it like a turbo-charged top.
And am I the only person who would like The Herald to stop running op-eds lifted off the wires as news?
-
And local factfail: Why did the outgoing British High Commissioner have to go on Q&A this morning and run a basic fact-check on the story that "200,000 British ex-pats were denied the right to vote"? (Also, what a wonderful Paul Holmes brainfaill in wasting so much time on questions no diplomat would answer.)
-
With the 5 Shinners abstaining, that's 323 seats needed for a majority.
Lab+Lib+SDLP = 318. So the Scot Nats would get them over. Since the SNP (& Plaid) lose out as a result of FPP, they might be keen.
I still pick the Tories to try and brazen it out in the hope that Labour or Liberals won't vote them down in a confidence motion and force a fresh election.
Also, as a UK expat, we have the *right* to vote but in practice it gets made really hard. You either have to gamble on the postal system getting the ballot papers here and back in less than three weeks, or find a proxy to vote for you. Plus you have to remember to mail registration papers in every year. I'm not sure why we can't vote at the embassy/consulate like Americans can? (I wouldn't be that pissed off if they removed the right to vote from non-residents, but since they allow it, they should organise it properly).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.