The end of the coalition?

[rs1952]

fbrs said:

is this really in dispute?
2005 general election results for england;
Labour 286 seats 8,043,461 votes
Con 194 seats 8,116,005 votes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...

That is the best bit of selective quoting I've seen for ages. How come you missed out the next line?

Lib Dem 47 seats 5,201,286 votes

If you argue (as I presume you do) that the electoral system is skewed against the tories, the surely you must agree that it is even more skewed against the lib dems?

This sort of thing is exactly what you get with a first past the post system. We all agreed in a recent referendum not to ditch it.

[otolith]

You can't compare within elections in a first past the post system. You need to compare between them - for instance, in 2005, 35.2% of the votes was enough for 355 seats and a clear Labour majority, yet in 2010 36.1% was only good enough for 306 seats and insufficient for a Tory majority.

[rs1952]

otolith said:

You can't compare within elections in a first past the post system. You need to compare between them - for instance, in 2005, 35.2% of the votes was enough for 355 seats and a clear Labour majority, yet in 2010 36.1% was only good enough for 306 seats and insufficient for a Tory majority.

Which of course also emphasises the point that calculations such as this are meaningless with a first past the post system. The election result will depend, not on the national percentage of votes cast for each party, but how they were cast within each constituency.

You could theoretically have a situation where turnout in one constituency was 1000, with 600 people voting labour and 400 for all the rest. Labour win. Then you could have a constituency with a turnout of 50,000, where 25,000 vote tory and 25,000 for all the rest. Tory win.

Would this mean, nationally, that "it takes 25,000 votes to elect a tory but only 600 to elect labour"? Of course it doesn't, and the only people who would make play of such results would be those with their own poltical axe to grind.

[andymadmak]

rs1952 said:

otolith said:

You can't compare within elections in a first past the post system. You need to compare between them - for instance, in 2005, 35.2% of the votes was enough for 355 seats and a clear Labour majority, yet in 2010 36.1% was only good enough for 306 seats and insufficient for a Tory majority.

Which of course also emphasises the point that calculations such as this are meaningless with a first past the post system. The election result will depend, not on the national percentage of votes cast for each party, but how they were cast within each constituency.

You could theoretically have a situation where turnout in one constituency was 1000, with 600 people voting labour and 400 for all the rest. Labour win. Then you could have a constituency with a turnout of 50,000, where 25,000 vote tory and 25,000 for all the rest. Tory win.

Would this mean, nationally, that "it takes 25,000 votes to elect a tory but only 600 to elect labour"? Of course it doesn't, and the only people who would make play of such results would be those with their own poltical axe to grind.

Total nonsense, but I suspect you know that already. Even some Labour supporters admit that the way the current boundaries are drawn leaves a built in advantage to Labour, given the preponderance of smaller inner city constituencies. I've heard Dennis Skinner (hardly the Tories friend!) say this myself.

[rs1952]

andymadmak said:

rs1952 said:

otolith said:

You can't compare within elections in a first past the post system. You need to compare between them - for instance, in 2005, 35.2% of the votes was enough for 355 seats and a clear Labour majority, yet in 2010 36.1% was only good enough for 306 seats and insufficient for a Tory majority.

Which of course also emphasises the point that calculations such as this are meaningless with a first past the post system. The election result will depend, not on the national percentage of votes cast for each party, but how they were cast within each constituency.

You could theoretically have a situation where turnout in one constituency was 1000, with 600 people voting labour and 400 for all the rest. Labour win. Then you could have a constituency with a turnout of 50,000, where 25,000 vote tory and 25,000 for all the rest. Tory win.

Would this mean, nationally, that "it takes 25,000 votes to elect a tory but only 600 to elect labour"? Of course it doesn't, and the only people who would make play of such results would be those with their own political axe to grind.

Total nonsense, but I suspect you know that already. Even some Labour supporters admit that the way the current boundaries are drawn leaves a built in advantage to Labour, given the preponderance of smaller inner city constituencies. I've heard Dennis Skinner (hardly the Tories friend!) say this myself.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point, which you have effectively confirmed, is that it is how the votes are cast in individual constituencies that throws up this anomaly.

[crankedup]

Derek Smith said:

Indeed. I'd just left a print company that concentrated on advertising when that came out and I have to say it was a classic campaign. Tremendous, and it was suggested a significent influence on the electorate. Very clever too as despite the message being obvious - If you want work then vote tory - there was no suggestion that the tory party would provide extra jobs.

There was a very real chance that labour could have got in then, 1979, at a time when it was a shambles. Many suporters wanted something different but Thatcher, one of the most unpopular PMs we've ever had, wasn't really setting the hustings alight. The Saatchi campaign seemed to spur the tories into all sorts of spin. It was so very clever.

At a subsequent election labour bought saatchi support and so campaigns bacame nothing more than spin and spin again.

When I worked for the advertising printers I saw a short film on advertising which consisted of identical products, one with a brand name that had been on billboards on the way into the supermarket and another that was slightly cheaper but without any advertising of its brand. Customers who bought the branded item, this was at a rate of something like 3:1 (I can't remember the precise figure), were interviewed and asked about advertising. They all said they were not influenced by it, and then were asked why they had bought the branded item rather than the unbranded one.

Most suggested that they felt they could trust the branded one yet it was a spurious company.

We were then confronted by the answers to a questionnaire we had filled in before we entered regarding advertised items and those that were not.

Advertising affects everyone. It is only the buying power of the poor which is not altered but that's because they go for the cheapest stuff, although still want Pepsi.

Saatchi's campaign was brilliant. Worth every penny the tories paid but it changed political campaigns, probably forever. Now though we get a sweaty Cameron and we're supposed to go overboard for him.

Indeed it is a memorable campaign and as you point out, utterly brilliant and well executed. It put the Company on the World map and the Tories into Government. I believe this was the first time such gloss and hard hitting 'spin' was used in the U.K. which added to the effect. 2012 and I suspect we are all rather jaded by such theatre and manipulation regards Politics.

[crankedup]

wollowizard said:

NailedOn said:

wollowizard said:

This is true, and no matter who you ask everybody would have their own priorities based on their own situation. What we should be doing as good citizens is giving our leaders a little trust and putting a little faith in them to do what's right, after all forming a coalition with your oldest enemy must have taken some bottle and keeping it going this long even more so, especially knowing that you will be made to look the 'baddies' just for doing what you think is right.

I don't think our current leaders are the best we have ever had, I don't think they would even make the all time top ten, but they do have one of the most difficult situations to manage in our history and people that knock them for trying should hang their heads in shame.

WTF: Agreement and common sense in an NPE forum. Well done folks!
Here's a thought. I reckon that the Coalition are doing their best, it is just that they are in very difficult circumstances and their best is not up to much.
I cite two personal examples for this second point:
[1] My company ( a large well known one ) participated in an parliamentary exchange scheme. Most of our managers and directors were pretty contemptuous of MPs and this came across to those MPs we met. Peter Bottomley addressed this by saying that by choosing to go into business we had elected to be governed by those inferior to us.
[2] At a different but well known company populated on the whole by bright hard working high achievers, one of the managers was notorious for being out of his depth, not very sharp and small minded. His performance was taking him towards the door. He is now a Tory MP.
These people's best is not good enough. I have no answer to this but the best brains in the country are not running it, nor are they in opposition.

We could pay them more and offer huge bonus's for success, after all £64,000 isn't considered a decent enough salary to attract the biggest brains.

Sadly I don't think any single one of the current lot would have the brains or balls to suggest such a thing.

Its a thought, but would ultimately wreak the democratic system we have. Big brains and big bonus bucks tempt greed, look at the bankers.

[andymadmak]

rs1952 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point, which you have effectively confirmed, is that it is how the votes are cast in individual constituencies that throws up this anomaly.

Not necessarily. The size of each constituency and the demographic of the voters included therein determines the outcome - its a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
So as a (silly) example: You have two inner city constituences, which due to changes in population might only have 40 thousand voters in each, and one country constituency which has (say) 60 thousand voters in.
Turnout in the inner city is 40% and the vote goes 35% labour, 25% Tory 45% the rest - so effectively 5600 votes gets each Labour bod elected! Lets say the vote in the shires 60% (higher turnout demographic) and the vote goes 35% Tory, 25% labour and 45% the rest - it therefore takes 12600 votes to elect one Tory - versus a total of 11,200 for two labour MPs to be elected!
What should really happen is that each Constituency should have (say) 60 thousand voters and the boundaries should be drawn so as to easily achieve this. Quite what this would do to the balance of power in Parliament I'm not sure, but if Labour were returned as the Govt it would at least be on the basis of a fair OPPORTUNITY of representation for all MPs, regardless of differences of turnout between constituences.

[will_]

martin84 said:

I used to quite like the Liberal Democrats, I'd never vote for them but I had time for them in the days of Charles Kennedy but being in Government has shown how they just don't get it. How about they focus on something which the public cares about? They wanted a referendum on AV - a voting system even Clegg once described as pathetic - and it was rightly rejected. They make gay marriage and House of Lords reform main priorities, really?

The problem is, they never had to "get it" and they certainly never to be realistic in their manifestos and pledges, because they were never going to be in power. When they had the opportunity to crawl into No 10, they had to sell their principles to get in bed with the Tories, which was never going to make them look trustworthy. They also realised that they'd been pledging to do things that were ridiculous - easy to do when you think you'll never have to follow through. No wonder they look like a right mess.

What has always bothered me is the fact that the Lib Dems have sought to heavily influence government policy when the votes they received should only have ever allowed them to be a bit-player. They have certainly exerted more influence than (in my view) they had any right to do, simply because they can, and not because that is what the country wanted. If the country wanted the Lib-Dems to be in a seriously powerful role they would have voted them there. They didn't.

Of course the same could be said for the Tories, but in hindsight they would have been much better as a minority government.

[crankedup]

Johnnytheboy said:

crankedup said:

Said that many Lib-Dems will move to the left, whats in it for the Lib-Dems to hang on in Coalition, may as well start to consider bailing out soon, the longer Lib-Dems hang on now the more damage will be inflicted by a fracturing coalition. Bring in Cable to head up Lib-Dems and re-build for the future. The M.Ps remaining loyal to the Party will serve (if elected) as opposition to Government or even may prop up Labour! (doubtful). The Tory back bench have damaged the Coalition and I cannot see how that damage can now be repaired, it is not possible to run any form of Government under those circumstances.

I've asked before and never got a satisfactory answer. The LibDems can only realistically be a minor party of a coalition, and seem to be deeply uncomfortable with being in one with the Tories.

Ergo their only realistic and desirable (to them) goal is a Lib/Lab coalition.

If I've got that right then what is the point of them? Why don't they all join the Labour Party and save a lot of fannying about?

Much the same question could now be aimed at the Conservatives, move over to UKIP. When you mention 'satisfactory answer' do you actually mean I didn't get an answer I liked or agreed with'?
Defection to a opposing political party is a decision for each individual Party Member. Of course if a number of M.P. decide to defect that could damage the Party further perhaps.
Until a credible alternative third Party evolves I cannot see Lib-Dem losing more support, they are at the bottom as suggested and the only way forward is for a new leader to re-build the Party. Possibly the worst thing the Lib-Dems joining the Conservatives to form this Coalition? Another chapter in the history books.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

martin84 said:

I think people here are looking at things with a heavy Tory bias by thinking the Lib Dems cannot afford an election because they'd lose. An election is something neither want but the Lib Dems have half a chance of getting enough votes to form a coalition with Labour if people went to the polls now. The Tories would certainly be back on the other side of the house so if anything its Camerons lot who can't afford an election.

On the face of it I agree, but maybe the circumstances aren't so straighforward.

If enough voters see what a potential fracture was caused by i.e. Clegg hissyfittery - the AV vote was allowed, the boundary changes should therefore go ahead - then as much as the electorate dislikes disunited Parties, we may find equal dislike for disloyalty and it's Clegg spinning for his reputation now not CMD.

That said, I have very little respect for CMD, even though he has behaved more honourably in this affair than Clegg would want people to believe.

Lib-Dems will elect a new leader when the Coalition implodes.

[crankedup]

wollowizard said:

turbobloke said:

Wasn't the stumbling block allegedly an insistence that Gordon had to go?

Now it's Clegg facing a similar call.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/0...

Yes that's what I thought but derek is saying labour made an offer, my understanfing is the liberals laid down their terms and gordon refused to talk to them

Much to and fro and the Country had to wait with Labour still clinging onto power. Was it seven or eight days following the General Election that the Lib-Dems decided to pitch in with Conservatives?

[rs1952]

crankedup said:

wollowizard said:

turbobloke said:

Wasn't the stumbling block allegedly an insistence that Gordon had to go?

Now it's Clegg facing a similar call.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/0...

Yes that's what I thought but derek is saying labour made an offer, my understanfing is the liberals laid down their terms and gordon refused to talk to them

Much to and fro and the Country had to wait with Labour still clinging onto power. Was it seven or eight days following the General Election that the Lib-Dems decided to pitch in with Conservatives?

And although this sort of thing is quite commonplace in other European countries, that almost always have coalition governments, we're not used to it in the UK. That doesn't make it wrong, simply that we're not used to it.

There have however been precedents. I am old enough to remember Ted Heath trying to get into bed with Jeremy Thorpe (might be a poor choice of words there...) in 1974 before he finally conceded defeat and labour formed a government.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

1. The Tories do hold the greater balance of power, but I will say that your reading of my posts seems skewed. If it makes you feel better why haven't the Lib-Dems brought forward sooner rather than as now, later, growth plans.
2. One can only assume that the Government has had to inject 80 billion into the banks specifically for loans to SME for fun then. The banks are simply not making loans available without ridicules strings attached when they do make an offer. Month after month SME have been shouting about the funding problem. I'm not being funny when I say this but do you read the business and politics news.
3. Comms is in the hands of just a few big players, Government cannot dictate how they should spend their cash. But I do agree our Comms is dreadful and way behind major competitors.By encouragement by Government how would that work, what have you in mind?
4. Tax rates are reducing, including business rates, but this is simply not enough to stimulate the growth required.
5. Cutting back the minimum wage is not going to help IMO, those persons affected would end up claiming tax credits and the like. Why should the tax payer subsidise private businesses.

6. Possibly some common ground here for a change. We all want the same thing, strong growth, full employment and rising living standards. Likelihood of achieving within the next decade = zero.

(1) I think I read your posts exactly as they are intended. You are quite evidently anti-Tory and have admitted being a LibDem accolyte. You appear to forget at times that your fellow comrades are jointly in power.

(2) Banks were castigated for poor lending decisions and the government insisted they increase their capital adequacy. To then expect them to lend to SMEs in the middle of a recession (when SMEs are far more likely to default) is....hopeful (to give benefit of doubt!).

They have broadly met the lending targets they were set. That SMEs are still screaming (if indeed they are) is not all that relevant where further castigating banks is concerned.

Regardless, if they were allowed to keep more of their own earnings for reinvestment, they wouldn;t need to borrow (as much).

(3) Many things are in the hands of a small number of big players. Who do you think own the airports you want to build?

How to encourage investment in our comms networks? Grants? Govt loans (as opposed to bank ones)? Tax breaks? Any number of opportunities. Though I would like govt to start factoring in some profit-share opportunity too in large projects they help fund.

(4) You are correct, the business tax rate reductions being proposed are simply not enough to stimulate growth. They are, as with most proposals the current govt ends up with, nibbling at the edges of a scab. They need to yank the thing off. Make some radical cuts.

(5) These measures would not be done in isolation. You forget that I would also be in charge of the Welfare bill. Which would also need drastic cuts to (more than) offset reduction in business taxation and to ensure that people sat on their arses doing nothing were not better off than those who work (To that end I wouldn't be paying cash benefits at all).

(6) Right now, I'm not that fussed about rising standards of living. I'd take stable. I'd even accept small drops. Both are probably wishful thinking. Full employment isn't necessarily a key objective either.

Strong growth definitely. Deficit converted to a surplus 100%. Majority/all our debt paid off oh yes. Then start gentle work on standards of living and employment in earnest from a sound foundation.

The way our leaders are going sbout things, and the way the general public and media react, however, I will never see this in my lifetime.

1. Yes I am a Lib-Dem, being part of Government offered the opportunity to transfer some manifesto ambitions into Policy and legislation. Quite an attractive proposition. Some of the Conservative Policies I find difficult to stomach whilst others acceptable, thats democracy for you.

2. The main principles for banks was to support businesses and provide secure investments. Most of that has been swept aside over the past 20/30 years. The Government has had to step in with the 80 billion for banks to distribute to SME and private individuals.

3. Agreed, and the Corporate giants are not exactly splashing their cash either, preferring to hoard it away. Like the rail network, Government has to put into motion 'tweaks' that will instil confidence in business environment. This is what has been lacking, at last the Government are waking up to the fact that cuts alone are not enough.

4. The Country desperately needs a new major airport hub, its the Governments responsibility ensuring the correct cogs mesh in creating the environment that gives the Corporations confidence to go ahead and get building. That is what is missing at the moment, confidence.

5. Yes I have acknowledged that cuts are required.

6. I disagree, full employment is highly desirable and should be every Governments objective, along with rising living standards for all, Social cohesion with a fair and sustainable welfare and health policy. How that is achieved is what separates the political Parties, and gives cause for much debate on this forum.

[Derek Smith]

B Huey said:

Derek Smith said:

The tories have always been one step ahead when it comes to image manipulation.

It's funny that they pretty much invented it but are now so bad at it.

Cameron used to be a PR man didn't he?

We now have the tories supporting sports in schools and saying how good they are. Lovely headline.

At the same time they are closing school playing fields, stopping compulsory PE and creating schools whith no playgrounds or outside space. Perhaps Caemron's previous role is becoming useful.

[andymadmak]

Derek Smith said:

We now have the tories supporting sports in schools and saying how good they are. Lovely headline.

At the same time they are closing school playing fields, stopping compulsory PE and creating schools whith no playgrounds or outside space. Perhaps Caemron's previous role is becoming useful.

Thats a little disingenuous

[wollowizard]

Derek Smith said:

We now have the tories supporting sports in schools and saying how good they are. Lovely headline.

At the same time they are closing school playing fields, stopping compulsory PE and creating schools whith no playgrounds or outside space. Perhaps Caemron's previous role is becoming useful.

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

[anonymous-user]

rs1952 said:

fbrs said:

is this really in dispute?
2005 general election results for england;
Labour 286 seats 8,043,461 votes
Con 194 seats 8,116,005 votes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...

That is the best bit of selective quoting I've seen for ages. How come you missed out the next line?

Lib Dem 47 seats 5,201,286 votes

If you argue (as I presume you do) that the electoral system is skewed against the tories, the surely you must agree that it is even more skewed against the lib dems?

of course its skewed against the libdims also but you 2 were talking about con/lab. first past the post is even worse for ukip but thats irrelevant.
the quote is selective for an obvious reason, if you can't see why i doubt explaining it will help, but then i provided the link so your implication i'm distorting the data is silly. i'm sorry if the stats disprove your point.

Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 8th August 16:01

[TankRizzo]

wollowizard said:

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

The Grauniad said:

Cameron also disputed recent figures obtained via a freedom of information request by the Guardian, showing 21 playing fields had been sold in the last two years. He said 14 of these schools had closed, four had become amalgamated, and four had sold some surplus marginal grassland, and used the proceeds to improve school facilities.

[wollowizard]

TankRizzo said:

wollowizard said:

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

The Grauniad said:

Cameron also disputed recent figures obtained via a freedom of information request by the Guardian, showing 21 playing fields had been sold in the last two years. He said 14 of these schools had closed, four had become amalgamated, and four had sold some surplus marginal grassland, and used the proceeds to improve school facilities.

That doesn't stop people like derek spouting their version of the truth as usual.