5 days to go - UK General Election - Your Prediction

[clandestino]

About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?

And what do the resident Brits think about it?

[Palisadoes]

About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?

And what do the resident Brits think about it?

Proportional Representation.

Not really sure what people think on it - electoral reform is something only understood and concerned by those who are quite politically aware here. It's not a major issue for most people since they don't know what it's all about.

[jimmy olsen]

Tories 310~ seats
Labour 195~ seats
Lib-Dems 115~ seats

[Sheilbh]

About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?

And what do the resident Brits think about it?

I think they want Single Transferable Vote in multi-member seats.  I think similar to the German model.  Personally I support it.  My great voting dilemma is that I live in a Labour-Tory marginal.  I want to vote Lib Dem because I like PR and in this election I think share of the vote will matter - if the Lib Dems come second in that, but are still a poor third in seats then I can't see how our system can survive.  On the other hand if I don't vote Labour the Tories might get in with Joanne Cash as MP 326

Labour propose Alternative Vote which is roughly what we have in London's Mayoral elections.  But I think that's its problem.  To me it seems far better for that sort of election than national legislative elections.

Incidentally on the vote predicting I think it's even more difficult (ignoring the Lib Dem surge, Labour collapse etc) because of how anti-incumbent the mood in this country is.  Regardless, given the number of MPs not standing for re-election, we'll have less old MPs than after any election since 1945.  But I think that mood plus the expenses scandal could, with effective local campaigning lead to results that right now seem more or less unimaginable. 

For example a friend of mine's from Salisbury and he thinks that it could go Lib Dem - Salisbury is as old-school Tory as you get.  His parents are both staunch Tories but they're voting Liberal because the former MP (he's standing down) had some very dodgy expenses, but then there are local reasons like the Tory candidate isn't from Salisbury, said he didn't feel the need to campaign in the villages around the city because they're 'safe' (the Lib Dem's been doing hustings in all of them) and the local Tory council built a new council building that was massively over-budget and late.

It would still be nothing short of a miracle if the Tories lost Salisbury but I think there are all sorts of local dynamics going on that we don't know about.  Any MP with even remotely dodgy expenses will get slammed for them and the mood in the country is incredibly anti-incumbent, regardless of party.  I think that makes any predictions very, very difficult because safe Labour or Tory seats could face real challenges from nowhere.

[Josquius]

I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.

[Palisadoes]

I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.

It's pretty simple. See here.

[Josquius]

I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.

It's pretty simple. See here.

I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.

[Palisadoes]

I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.

You still have constituency MPs. Each constituency has multiple seats, and so you have 2 or more people representing your constituency. The one which you most align with (the one you voted for?) would be the one you choose to write to about an issue (or you could write to them both/all).

You can also vote for a candidate. The seats are awarded by party, with the individual candidate out of that party who got the most votes getting the first seat for that party. This is the method I believe the Liberal Democrats want implemented (and the policy I personally most agree with of theirs).

[Martinus]

Personally, I think the whole "MPs represent their constituency" concept is broken and dysfunctional. MPs are not there to represent their particular town or parish - they should be acting in the interest of the entire country, not just the shithole they come from. You have local government to take care of local issues.

The MPs who "represent their constituency" usually end up forcing the central government to engage in various dubious and wasteful public projects (through earmarks etc.) that are not in the interest of the general public and constitute a waste of public money.

[Sheilbh]

Personally, I think the whole "MPs represent their constituency" concept is broken and dysfunctional. MPs are not there to represent their particular town or parish - they should be acting in the interest of the entire country, not just the shithole they come from. You have local government to take care of local issues.

Well what we mean by MPs representing their community is that someone in their constituency has a problem, say, to do with their application for child tax credits.  The MP can then write to the minister or raise it in Parliament and get a response.

But there is a criticism that a lot of MPs have that basically they're not social workers and a lot of thing they're asked about are really local government issues (like bin collection days and so on).  All the MP can really do is write to the council/minister but they'll get listened to more than a normal person.

Personally I think it's actually quite important to have a link to the national legislature.  To know who you write to if you oppose a certain government policy for example, or to be able to go their surgery to talk about problems within your constituency.  But I do think that increasingly people seem to think that their MP is the conduit for their opinions, which they're not.  You can and should try and shape their views and votes on certain things but you elected an MP as a representative, not to represent your constituency's views.

The MPs who "represent their constituency" usually end up forcing the central government to engage in various dubious and wasteful public projects (through earmarks etc.) that are not in the interest of the general public and constitute a waste of public money.

This isn't the case in the UK.  We don't, to the best of my knowledge, have earmarks.  It's unheard of for MPs to play a significant role in drafting or amending the budget (the government presents it, their MPs support it, it gets Royal Assent).  Our MPs have really very, very little influence.  And there's no patronage or anything like that that an MP can use.

Edit:  Incidentally MPs are there to represent their town or parish, not the nation.  You are the MP for Erewash and though you partake in national politics part of that is to raise issues specific to your own constituency, that's entirely what the system's there for - not least because we have very, very centralised politics.  The Local Council has some powers over certain things but they get most of their funding from central government; education, health, policing, justice and so on are decided from the centre.  So are some planning decisions.  Central government matters a lot for local communities.

[grumbler]

Agree, Sheilbh.  I think Marti is just engaging in projection:  he thinks every country is like Poland, and so he sees Polish problems in Britain even though Britain's system is completely different.

Marti, the solution to the problem Poland has is to make the seats national, and just apportion them by proportional representation in a national vote.  I think this might be a good idea for the US senate as well.   Party already plays such a key role in politics, might as well make it explicit.

[Josquius]

I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.

You still have constituency MPs. Each constituency has multiple seats, and so you have 2 or more people representing your constituency. The one which you most align with (the one you voted for?) would be the one you choose to write to about an issue (or you could write to them both/all).

You can also vote for a candidate. The seats are awarded by party, with the individual candidate out of that party who got the most votes getting the first seat for that party. This is the method I believe the Liberal Democrats want implemented (and the policy I personally most agree with of theirs).

The constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.
This decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.

[Sheilbh]

The constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.
This decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.

To be fair we already have very, very small constituencies compared to most other countries.  I think in the UK it averages at one MP to 70-90 000 constituents. 

[Palisadoes]

The constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.

Yeah, constituencies would need to be bigger. I don't really see that as much of an issue, however.

This decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.

I agree it isn't as locally representative, but it's enough for me. Yeah, constituencies might be three times larger, but they're also being represented by 3 times as many people, so I don't really mind.

I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad. Their roads are better than a lot of the roads in the town centre, for instance. The main issues they have is stuff like afforable housing, transportation links, small businesses, etc. and these can add up and get a reaction if enough villages are expressing the same views to their local MP. I guess it really depends on the balance of urban and rural populations in each constituency - ideally there would be either an equally mixed urban/rural constituency, completely rural constituency or a completely urban constituency.

[Agelastus]

I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad.

Whoa!!!!

I'm that close to another Languishite? I'm a Desborough man, same constituency and only a few miles from you.


---------------------


As for "affordable" housing, I've never quite understood our government's need for "one person, one house" given the slow rate of population growth in our country, even allowing for immigration. And if they must build "affordable" housing, then they need to build flats, not what they are lumbering the county with.


---------------------


My election prediction was in the other thread. Small Tory majority leading to a three year maximum parliament. The Lib-Dems not making the gains they expect, either.