Clegg

[The Minsky Moment]

A temporary fad that will recede by election day?

Or building momentum for a Lib victory in the popular vote?

[Josquius]

Victory I doubt.
A increase on where they were before. Probally.

[Brazen]

I love him and I'm going to have his babies.

At best there will be a revolution and he'll get in. I genuinely think the Lib Dems are ready to lead the country and they'd be damn good at it.

At worst, it will shake up future voting and campaigning processes and how other parties address the issues voters are concerned about.

[Gups]

They polled 22.6% last time and I expect them to beat that comfortably. Whether it is closer to 25% or 30% depends on whether people get a grasp of their policies or not. If they do, I think they will suffer since their policies are not populist at all - e.g. they are pro-EU, anti-jail for lots of offences and pretty "soft" on immigration. That's not to say that I disagree with them, but many Sun and Mail readers do and those papers are gunning for Clegg now.

For years they've been ignored and that's changed. Whether they flourish in the spotlight or wilt remains to be seen.

In any event they have no chance of having a majority in Parliament or even being the biggest party. What they can do is be in a position where they can demand electoral reform on the back of what is likely to be a grossly unfair election result. Unless the Tories pick up very substantially, a hung Parliament is looking odds on and that I think electoral reform is inevitable.

[Barrister]

In any event they have no chance of having a majority in Parliament or even being the biggest party. What they can do is be in a position where they can demand electoral reform on the back of what is likely to be a grossly unfair election result. Unless the Tories pick up very substantially, a hung Parliament is looking odds on and that I think electoral reform is inevitable.

While there may be something particular in Britain that makes it so, our Canadian experience says otherwise.  We are into our sixth consecutive year of minority government (one one Liberal, and two conservative, governments), and electoral reform is still not seriously on the agenda.

[Gups]

It may just be the way our system works. The latest  poll for instance has C 33% LD 31% L 27%. On a uniform national swing this would result in 258 Lab seats, 248 Tory, 113 LD. IMO the momentum for electoral reform would be irresitible if something like this were to happen, it's so palpable unfair and undemocratic.

Also, in any hung Parl. the LDs will insist on reform as a price of their support. Labour seem pretty open to it too.

[The Minsky Moment]

Labour seem pretty open to it too.

Trans: Gordon Brown is so desperate to hang onto power he would happily sign away Labour's inherent electoral advantage for perpetuity in return for a few more shabby years at 10 Downing.

[Gups]

Pretty much, though there's always been a sizable minority in the Labour party wanting electoral reform.

[Barrister]

It may just be the way our system works. The latest  poll for instance has C 33% LD 31% L 27%. On a uniform national swing this would result in 258 Lab seats, 248 Tory, 113 LD. IMO the momentum for electoral reform would be irresitible if something like this were to happen, it's so palpable unfair and undemocratic.

Also, in any hung Parl. the LDs will insist on reform as a price of their support. Labour seem pretty open to it too.

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

Again to come back to the Canadian example though - any idea if you'd actually see a coalition government?  Or would the biggest party attempt to rule on their own, getting support on individual bills as necessary, as has been happening here for the past six years?

Even if the LDs insisted on electoral reform, the other two parties have all the incentives in the world to resist such a change.  There's always room to fudge - buy the LDs off with a Royal Commission, or a confusing national referendum.  Check out what happened in British Columbia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_on_Electoral_Reform_(British_Columbia)

[Josquius]

Labour seem pretty open to it too.

Trans: Gordon Brown is so desperate to hang onto power he would happily sign away Labour's inherent electoral advantage for perpetuity in return for a few more shabby years at 10 Downing.

Thats not happening. Win or loose Labour are throwing him in front of the next lorry to pass by.
They're just sticking by him now as its really not the time to have a power struggle and show a lack of confidence.

[grumbler]

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

The problem with that argument is that it isn't clear that Bush really lost the popular vote:  the difference between the vote totals was within the margin of error.  That's not evidence of a strong need for reform (at least of the electoral college, which isn't expected to mirror the national vote anyway).

An outcome in which LD wins the popular vote by 6% over Labour and gets less than half the seats would be a much more dramatic argument.

[The Minsky Moment]

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

Can't Parliament enact constitutional reform with a simple majority?

The process of constitutional revision in the US is far more difficult.

[Oexmelin]

An outcome in which LD wins the popular vote by 6% over Labour and gets less than half the seats would be a much more dramatic argument.

Perhaps, but our latest elections in what is a British Parliamentary system have seen a lot of such distorsion (including in provincial elections), without leading, as BB mentionned, to any serious talk of reform.

[Josquius]

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

Can't Parliament enact constitutional reform with a simple majority?

The process of constitutional revision in the US is far more difficult.

Its not as simple as the US where the states and electoral college and all that is just a way of organising the votes.
In the UK you're actually voting for your local representative. That whichever party has the most MPs gets to rule is neither here nor there.
I stand by the popular vote not being used in any official capacity. The only reform I want is a transferable vote.

[Barrister]

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

Can't Parliament enact constitutional reform with a simple majority?

The process of constitutional revision in the US is far more difficult.

Its not as simple as the US where the states and electoral college and all that is just a way of organising the votes.
In the UK you're actually voting for your local representative. That whichever party has the most MPs gets to rule is neither here nor there.
I stand by the popular vote not being used in any official capacity. The only reform I want is a transferable vote.

Thanks Jos.  I'm sure none of us knew how the Westminster system worked without you telling us.