Sir Ed Davey - Lib. Dem Leader
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
It's a Catch-22 - you get to be the biggest party by being popular, but you can only be popular (electorally) by being the biggest party. The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
I'll mention Labour's result in 1951 again: they increased their vote share and their total vote (to a new historical record at the time) but lost their majority. So it's not even enough to be popular, apparently. What about the SDP-Lib Alliance in 1983 - 25% of the vote but 23 seats, against Labour's 209 with just 2.2% more of the vote? Or, to use that GE as a single example of a broader problem - 53% of the votes cast were for Labour or the Alliance, but what the electorate got was a 144-seat Conservative majority. What about UKIP - third largest party by vote share in 2015 but only a single seat?
If you can only muster a little under half of the vote - when more voters pointedly expressed that they didn't want you as their representative, why should you have sole representation of a constituency? And why, when that principle is applied nationally, should a government be able to hold supreme executive power? Conversely, surely having a majority of 30+% of the votes in a constituency should mean something different to holding it by 0.2% of the vote (and 46.2% v. 46.0% at that)?
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 11th May 11:28
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
You only get to be the biggest party by being the most popular. And if you're the most popular, then in a democracy you get the say-so
The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Equally, why should the party which received 37% (I think it was) of votes cast at the last election have total power? And remember, that's 37% of, what, 70% (I think it was) of registered voters, so in actual fact a very small portion of the total population of the country. The system biases power towards the bigger parties. If you'd like to have that power, all you need to be is big. And to be big all you need to be is popular.
And if you aren't popular, why should you have much power?
Derek's vote counts 1 just like everyone else's. If lots of those 1s disagree with Derek's 1 then sorry Derek, you've been outvoted. It's not that he's disenfranchised, he's just been outvoted. It's not that his vote didn't count. His vote increased the winner's challenge by 1.
If you'd like a Lib Dem MP, then they are available. In places where the Lib Dems get more 1s than anyone else does.
Just because you're the "most popular", doesn't mean you deserve a majority government.
Maybe the wrong things get done, granted. If they make a poor job of applying that power, then we can give the power to someone else next time.
Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
SpeckledJim said:
That's the tug-of-war I'm talking about. Two people with opposing views are not able to govern by consensus. The view of one eventually HAS to be dominant over the view of the other.
Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Bold bit - well, yes. The Tories dominated the coalition 2010-2015. Plenty happened. It was all really quite fine. It did not unfold how you describe. We have evidence of how it can work, we do not to rely on fevered imaginings.Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's the tug-of-war I'm talking about. Two people with opposing views are not able to govern by consensus. The view of one eventually HAS to be dominant over the view of the other.
Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Bold bit - well, yes. The Tories dominated the coalition 2010-2015. Plenty happened. It was all really quite fine. It did not unfold how you describe. We have evidence of how it can work, we do not to rely on fevered imaginings.Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
SpeckledJim said:
Bannock said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's the tug-of-war I'm talking about. Two people with opposing views are not able to govern by consensus. The view of one eventually HAS to be dominant over the view of the other.
Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Bold bit - well, yes. The Tories dominated the coalition 2010-2015. Plenty happened. It was all really quite fine. It did not unfold how you describe. We have evidence of how it can work, we do not to rely on fevered imaginings.Whether that dominance is established quickly at the ballot box, or over months and years of protracted and paralysing wrestling between governing coalition members in the Cabinet, it has to happen. Or nothing happens.
Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
LibDems are now apparently resurgent to the extent they're being talked of as coalition partners again. Politics going around and coming around is just what happens. We shouldn't design voting systems on the Political impact it might have on a party. We should design them to enfranchise everyone's vote equally. FPTP clearly fails this test.
SpeckledJim said:
The Lib Dems went into coalition and it all but destroyed them because they were bounced into supporting things their voters hated.
Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
That's the Lib Dems' problem for being either dishonest before the election or weak-willed after it. That's not a baked-in problem with coalitions or PR, and it's for the Lib Dems' members and voters to deal with (as they by and large did by deserting the party in droves). Let that be a lesson for parties to have more backbone than to back your partner's controversial (and largely hated by your voter base) increasing of benefit sanctions in return for a 5p charge on plastic bags...and then crowing about it as if this was some great achievement. Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
SpeckledJim said:
The Lib Dems went into coalition and it all but destroyed them because they were bounced into supporting things their voters hated.
Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
More people know Nick Clegg used to be the LimpDim leader and is now the evil face of facebook than know or care who's the LD leader this week.Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
SpeckledJim said:
Derek Smith said:
In the 2010 GE, the LDs polled 23% of the votes. (That's some camel.) It is open to speculation what their percentage might have been if voters thought there was a chance of them gaining power. As it was, 23% of the population wanted neither Cameron nor Brown to lead them and many voted for the least objectionable; at least I did. Also, when the SDLP started, one of the opinion polls put them at over 40% of the vote as to which party people wanted in power.
23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
You aren't 'disenfranchised' because you don't get what you want. You get to vote. You're not entitled to have that vote to be significant.23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
If more people agreed with you than agreed with anyone else then you would win. That's pretty democratic.
The current way isn't perfect. But we saw the abject s
tshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.If the party representing your point of view, and that of a number of others, perhaps even 23% and probably many more, has no chance of forming a government, then there is no point in voting for them. Many must see this and vote for the least worst of the the others. That is, in essence, being disenfranchised.
Other countries seem to cope well enough with most people having their voices heard in the House. I see no reason why we shouldn't.
2xChevrons said:
SpeckledJim said:
The Lib Dems went into coalition and it all but destroyed them because they were bounced into supporting things their voters hated.
Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
That's the Lib Dems' problem for being either dishonest before the election or weak-willed after it. That's not a baked-in problem with coalitions or PR, and it's for the Lib Dems' members and voters to deal with (as they by and large did by deserting the party in droves). Let that be a lesson for parties to have more backbone than to back your partner's controversial (and largely hated by your voter base) increasing of benefit sanctions in return for a 5p charge on plastic bags...and then crowing about it as if this was some great achievement. Tempers frayed. Green biros were found and used. Memberships were resigned. Seats were lost. Careers were ended. Have Lib Dem voters forgiven them yet? In part but not in whole, and we're how many elections post the event now?
It just seems a recipe for constant flux. In, out, fit of pique, coercion, brinksmanship, betrayal, briefing, paralysis, paralysis, paralysis.
On the one hand that sounds like great spectator sport. And I appreciate the comments around representation. I just can't see it leading to things getting done.
Derek Smith said:
SpeckledJim said:
Derek Smith said:
In the 2010 GE, the LDs polled 23% of the votes. (That's some camel.) It is open to speculation what their percentage might have been if voters thought there was a chance of them gaining power. As it was, 23% of the population wanted neither Cameron nor Brown to lead them and many voted for the least objectionable; at least I did. Also, when the SDLP started, one of the opinion polls put them at over 40% of the vote as to which party people wanted in power.
23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
You aren't 'disenfranchised' because you don't get what you want. You get to vote. You're not entitled to have that vote to be significant.23% of 650 is, it appears, 57.
The current FPTP ensures those (of us) who want something different have no way of having our points of view represented other than as an emasculated minor party in opposition. We are, is essence, disenfranchised.
If more people agreed with you than agreed with anyone else then you would win. That's pretty democratic.
The current way isn't perfect. But we saw the abject s
tshow that happened when Teresa May inadvertently handed the DUP a hint of power. We'd have that happening every time under PR.If the party representing your point of view, and that of a number of others, perhaps even 23% and probably many more, has no chance of forming a government, then there is no point in voting for them. Many must see this and vote for the least worst of the the others. That is, in essence, being disenfranchised.
Other countries seem to cope well enough with most people having their voices heard in the House. I see no reason why we shouldn't.
We saw what happens to a junior coalition partner. The principles that got them there are instantly put to the test, and they either roll-over (rightly disgusting their own supporters) or they stand up for themselves and crash the government into a wall, and we all go down the snake to square one.
SpeckledJim said:
Are voters going to be able to handle their party going into government, and voting through policies that are opposite to the manifesto principles that got them elected?
The same way they do now, I imagine? In countries with PR politicians and voters are used to the idea that parties have policies which are non-negotiable, some which can be negotiated/compromised with parties of similar political hues in coalition and those which are 'parliamentary majority only' ideas. And in those countries there are usually some very common coalition groupings so you often get 'complementary' manifestos. It's up to the politicians to be honest with the electorate about what will/won't happen in coalition with regard to policy and to act on that.
The Lib Dems' main problem was that they were elected on two flagship policies - a pledge to abolish tuition fees and a referendum on PR voting. They completely abandoned the first one, and did so in return for a useless watered down version of the other that no one actually wanted.
They were bad coalition partners (and dishonest politicians, to be frank) which, as I've already said, is a LD problem not a PR/ coalition problem. Part of the 'Lib Dem problem' is that, like most British political parties, they are actually two or three ideological groups in an uneasy alliance under a single brand, because that's what's needed to stand a chance under FPTP. The LDs have their Liberal branch (which in many ways are more Conservatives than the Conservatives) and their Social Democrat branch (which were more left-wing than New Labour). Nick Clegg was an 'orange booker' Liberal, as were most of the other LD higher-ups, while the membership and much of the voters leant more social democratic. That's why the LDs were so 'at ease' in coalition with the Cameron-era Tories and why they so roundly middle-fingered their voters.
Under PR you'd probably see the emergence of new, more ideologically compact parties which would be able to more directly represent their membership and voters' politics and more staunchly defend their policies in coalition. You'd have voters and parties much closer aligned (unlike the LDs in 2010 and more generally in British politics where the main parties are hugely adrift from the political views of the electorate, across the spectrum) and more 'compatible' coalition partners - not a party with a social-democratic voter base led by liberals going into coalition with a neoliberal conservative government. And the political and electoral process would make it much clearer which policies would and wouldn't be up for change, and by how much.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 11th May 12:20
So when these parties with more internal integrity get into government, do they roll over, or do they crash the government into the wall?
They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
2xChevrons said:
Under PR you'd probably see the emergence of new, more ideologically compact parties which would be able to more directly represent their membership and voters' politics and more staunchly defend their policies in coalition. You'd have voters and parties much closer aligned (unlike the LDs in 2010 and more generally in British politics where the main parties are hugely adrift from the political views of the electorate, across the spectrum) and more 'compatible' coalition partners - not a party with a social-democratic voter base led by liberals going into coalition with a neoliberal conservative government. And the political and electoral process would make it much clearer which policies would and wouldn't be up for change, and by how much.
Yepand you would also likely see the Conservatives split almost immediately.
After seeing what has happened since 2019 I am more in favour of PR now. At least you would have a chance to vote for a party you agree with.
SpeckledJim said:
So when these parties with more internal integrity get into government, do they roll over, or do they crash the government into the wall?
They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Is this a feature of the many governments out there with proportional voting systems? There are 111 countries out there that use some sort of PR. Are they all continually paralysed by political gridlock or collapsing into 'tools-down-all-out-war'? They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Are countries like Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands etc. etc. all in perpetual stalemate, chaos or division, looking at us on our sceptred isle of Albion, thinking "if only we had the political stability and democratic engagement afforded by their voting system..."?
2xChevrons said:
SpeckledJim said:
So when these parties with more internal integrity get into government, do they roll over, or do they crash the government into the wall?
They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Is this a feature of the many governments out there with proportional voting systems? There are 111 countries out there that use some sort of PR. Are they all continually paralysed by political gridlock or collapsing into 'tools-down-all-out-war'? They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Are countries like Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands etc. etc. all in perpetual stalemate, chaos or division, looking at us on our sceptred isle of Albion, thinking "if only we had the political stability and democratic engagement afforded by their voting system..."?
I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
SpeckledJim said:
2xChevrons said:
SpeckledJim said:
So when these parties with more internal integrity get into government, do they roll over, or do they crash the government into the wall?
They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Is this a feature of the many governments out there with proportional voting systems? There are 111 countries out there that use some sort of PR. Are they all continually paralysed by political gridlock or collapsing into 'tools-down-all-out-war'? They could be be well-organised in themselves, but they're still going to face that constant dilemma of stand firm or bend, and regular paralysis and crashing of governments into walls seems inevitable. Little to no stability. Only ever one Cabinet ruck away from a tools-down-all-out war, again.
Are countries like Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands etc. etc. all in perpetual stalemate, chaos or division, looking at us on our sceptred isle of Albion, thinking "if only we had the political stability and democratic engagement afforded by their voting system..."?
I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
What have Brits made of that? We'll find out next year. I just wish we could do so properly, instead of having to elect Labour by default.
SpeckledJim said:
It's a question of degrees, not absolutes. As I already said, I'm sure it does 'work'. I'm just not persuaded it will 'work better'. There are upsides, and downsides.
I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
I did indeed leave Belgium off my list - for obvious reasons. I notice you left Belgium off your list. 589 days (I googled) without a government whilst everyone stood up for their principles and had a good old-fashioned ding-dong.
What would Brits make of that?
Different but not completely different - Stormont. Take people with diametrically opposing views, give them all a veto, and ask them for a single agreed position. On anything. Doesn't often work.
As to what 'Brits' would make of it? I'd have thought that the typical NP&E libertarian superman would quite like nearly two years without a functional government.
Belgium is rather like Stormont, in that the system is trying to hold together a society with deep and divergent cultural/identarian issues in a country that is, more than most, artificial. The Belgian system is also, as a legacy of the country's creation, purposefully designed to produce indecisive election results and perpetual coalitions between parties of similar strength. That's not an inherent feature of PR, just Belgian PR
PR isn't a panacea and it's not perfect. I don't think anyone is saying it is.
I'd take "it won't work any better, but will be more democratic", thanks. Even if I actually believe it would provide better outcomes. Personally I'd also take the occasional political ding-dong over a system that perpetually produces strong governments that most of the electorate didn't vote for.
I went to Belgium a few times in the aftermath of the 2010 election and I can't say it was immediately noticeable that its political system was in paralysis - mostly because I suspect that its the party political system that was in paralysis while the business of government and administration largely ticks on regardless. The elections since then have promptly returned heads of government in the days after the election and then a working coalition within six months.
You seem to place a high value on government stability and strength, perhaps over absolute democratic representation? Like your CEO metaphor - you seem to like 'strong man' politics with one inviolable source of authority within the system. Which may well get things done (gets the trains to run on time, perhaps?) but isn't necessarily terribly accountable, representative or democratic?
SpeckledJim said:
Plenty of rather unfair dog-whistles in there!
Apologies if I am being unfair, but just laying it out as it comes across - I would take a more directly representative but 'weak' government over a less representative 'strong' one. I'd take a representative and strong government, but a) that's not likely to happen unless the electorate is unnaturally unified in its political views and b) 'strong government' (maybe, more accurately, powerful government) isn't something I'm very keen on as a point of principle. Your main concern about PR seems to be the loss of government strength (ability to enforce a programme) and stability. But if a PR system delivered a government with, say, 80% of the votes then it deserves all the parliamentary power that comes with it. The issue with FPTP in the UK is that you can wield virtually unlimited legislative power with a minority of the votes, or even when your main opponent got more votes than you. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff