Languish.org

A temporary fad that will recede by election day?

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

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2010, 12:19:37 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
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)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 20, 2010, 12:42:04 PM

Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 12:48:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 12:48:19 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 02:10:14 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 20, 2010, 02:14:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 12:48:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 03:31:23 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 20, 2010, 02:14:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 12:48:19 PM
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. :rolleyes:

Jos doesn't know anything about the rest of the world, so why should you?

Wait-- they don't vote for President in England?????   :o

Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2010, 03:39:08 PM
Wait-- they don't vote for President in England?????   :o

They vote for Queen.

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2010, 03:42:53 PM
They vote for Queen.

Can't blame them.  I've been playing their two greatest hits albums a lot lately.  I'd still probably vote Beatles, though.

I'd vote Amy Winehouse. :bleeding:

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2010, 03:47:47 PM
I'd vote Amy Winehouse. :bleeding:

She's gorgeous.

Pointy elbows. :(

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 03:35:15 PM
Thanks Jos.  I'm sure none of us knew how the Westminster system worked without you telling us. :rolleyes:

Yet still you get people saying its unfair and that the popular vote should be what does it.
In the US I can see a case for that.
With the Westminister system it'd involve completely changing it.

This "election seat calculator" is quite a lot of fun :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

One should stress that it assumes a uniform swing, reality will be somewhat different but in an unpredictable way.

I've been putting various numbers into it and there is certainly the possibility of very strange and "unfair" results.

I agree with Gups that there is a possibility of this election more or less enforcing electoral reform; especially if there is a low turnout.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 04:32:19 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 03:35:15 PM
Thanks Jos.  I'm sure none of us knew how the Westminster system worked without you telling us. :rolleyes:

Yet still you get people saying its unfair and that the popular vote should be what does it.
In the US I can see a case for that.
With the Westminister system it'd involve completely changing it.

And who is saying that?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2010, 04:41:32 PM
One should stress that it assumes a uniform swing, reality will be somewhat different but in an unpredictable way.

I've been putting various numbers into it and there is certainly the possibility of very strange and "unfair" results.

There's been no big polls in Scotland and Wales for example, do they care about the election?  If the Lib Dems, Plaid or the SNP were to do well then Labour's overall seat number could really collapse. 

It's worth saying though that the Lib Dems are on 32-4% at the minute, but if they go to 36%, which is more than possible, they're second largest party with around 200 seats.

But I agree that chances are we'll get PR :w00t:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:47:20 PM
But I agree that chances are we'll get PR :w00t:

Well, I know from what Tyr has posted that he thinks it is democratic to permanently disenfranchise 40% of the population which is why he wants single transferable vote or PR. Why do you want PR? I'm curious.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 20, 2010, 05:04:09 PMWell, I know from what Tyr has posted that he thinks it is democratic to permanently disenfranchise 40% of the population which is why he wants single transferable vote or PR. Why do you want PR? I'm curious.

I don't think that would be the result.  With the exception of PR as an issue I actually think that a Lib Dem-Tory coalition is far, far more likely than Lib-Lab, it's just an advantage for the Tories to say 'vote Clegg, get Brown'. 

I've always supported PR - I'd like the German system personally.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 05:21:00 PM
I don't think that would be the result.  With the exception of PR as an issue I actually think that a Lib Dem-Tory coalition is far, far more likely than Lib-Lab, it's just an advantage for the Tories to say 'vote Clegg, get Brown'. 

I've always supported PR - I'd like the German system personally.

I'm not convinced it would be the result with PR either, mainly because it would let parties like UKIP flourish and blur the left-right dividing lines (not that I favour PR - I like voting for a man, not a list.) I am convinced that Tyr is right about what introducing STV would result in though, which is why his posts in the other thread nearly made me vomit.

However, I don't think meaningful Lib-Dem/Tory co-operation is possible. There's a couple of major fault lines/incompatibilities in their policies - voting reform and Europe simply being the most obvious. Not to mention the way they've been encouraging tactical voting aimed at the Tories for two decades now. There's major antagonisms between those two parties that simply do not exist between Labour and the Lib-Dems.

I must admit to a feeling of horror at the level of support the Lib-Dems appear to have gained from the TV debate (assuming it is not a blip.) Having between 10% and 15% of the electorate swayed by a single debate strikes me as a worrying sign of the low level of general political awareness of the British public.

Actually, I don't trust any of the polls at the moment; they are swinging far too violently. The latest poll has the Tories on 35%, Labour on 26% and the Lib-Dems on 26%. My own personal prediction is that we'll end up with the Tories on between 41% and 43%, Labour on between 31% and 34%, and the Lib-Dems anywhere between 18% and 24% when the election results are in. I think we'll have a slender Tory majority, but not one that will survive a full parliament.

There - I've nailed my colours to the mast...watch me be proved wrong.

I hope he gets destroyed in the next debate - I wouldn't want to risk having another Labour government. Saying that, I *kind of* hope for a hung parliament with a Tory-Lib Dem coalition which would be dependent upon adopting the PR voting system - we desperately need proportional voting, and AV is just an alternative which Labour hopes will keep itself in power forever.

After that we can actually have fair elections. Hopefully the Lib Dems would emerge as a viable alternative to Labour's socialism, and we can go back to glorious Liberal-Conservative politics!

Quote from: Agelastus on April 20, 2010, 05:36:39 PM
I'm not convinced it would be the result with PR either, mainly because it would let parties like UKIP flourish and blur the left-right dividing lines (not that I favour PR - I like voting for a man, not a list.) I am convinced that Tyr is right about what introducing STV would result in though, which is why his posts in the other thread nearly made me vomit.

I also don't know that Labour would stay together and, as you say, UKIP would get some votes.  I don't think anyone could predict what would happen in a PR system.  As a rightie you should be happy, judging from our continental brethren left-wing parties are uniquely bad for extraordinary incompetence and internal splits whether from the established party or with the Greens drawing votes from them.  I mean wherever you look - with a couple of exceptions - the stories are sad for the left.

On the voting for a man I favour the German system which is 50/50 constituencies and PR, that's precisely why I support it rather than some monstrous Israel style thing.

QuoteHowever, I don't think meaningful Lib-Dem/Tory co-operation is possible. There's a couple of major fault lines/incompatibilities in their policies - voting reform and Europe simply being the most obvious. Not to mention the way they've been encouraging tactical voting aimed at the Tories for two decades now. There's major antagonisms between those two parties that simply do not exist between Labour and the Lib-Dems.

Lib Dems are far more civilly libertarian and all about the decentralisation the Tories now support, they're also far more right-wing economically than Labour.  I think that, alas, the populist authoritarianism of Blair and centralising instinct of Brown will survive in Labour for some time - as well as the disregard for civil liberties.  If they do well it would effectively be a serious constitutional crisis, aside from that if a Tory government focused on Europe rather than the economy, their decentralisation agenda and civil liberties then they wouldn't deserve to govern.

QuoteI must admit to a feeling of horror at the level of support the Lib-Dems appear to have gained from the TV debate (assuming it is not a blip.) Having between 10% and 15% of the electorate swayed by a single debate strikes me as a worrying sign of the low level of general political awareness of the British public.

Well to be fair there was at least one poll from before the debate (though released afterwards) that had the Lib Dems at 27% enjoying a manifesto boost.  And for a very long time lots of people have had the Lib Dems as their first choice if they had a chance in their constituency.  Given the general mood with politics right now I can understand the 'fuck it, let's just vote Lib Dem' attitude.

In my experience it is not terribly unusual for a smaller party (that often gets completely ignored the rest of the year) to get a bump during the writ period, largely because of the increased exposure.  They can often then come back to earth as they can start to sputter under increased scrutiny (though not always).

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 05:46:21 PM
Lib Dems are far more civilly libertarian and all about the decentralisation the Tories now support, they're also far more right-wing economically than Labour.  I think that, alas, the populist authoritarianism of Blair and centralising instinct of Brown will survive in Labour for some time - as well as the disregard for civil liberties.  If they do well it would effectively be a serious constitutional crisis, aside from that if a Tory government focused on Europe rather than the economy, their decentralisation agenda and civil liberties then they wouldn't deserve to govern.

Rabid as I am about Europe, I am certain that a Tory government would concentrate on the economy, decentralisation and civil liberties, so I wouldn't worry there. One has to be solid at home before one can see about changing things abroad, after all - and anyway, to the joy of certain of our European partners, Brown held on long enough to deprive the country of the Tories promised referendum on the last European Treaty. Europe's going to be a dead-letter for at least a couple of years in the next parliament.

As for decentralisation? I haven't seen much hope in the plans of any of the parties, since none of them seem to have any sensible blueprint for federalising the country, which is in all honesty the only logical outcome of Labour's policies on devolution over the last three parliaments.

If a party said, "Right, let's ditch all this nonsense of Assemblies with one set of powers and Parliaments with another set of powers, and let's solve the West Lothian question" I'd probably vote for them regardless of their other policies. For example, I'd hive off Greater London as a capital district in the same way the USA and Australia have them, I'd split England into Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and an (enlarged) Anglia, and then I'd legislate so that the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and "English regional" parliaments all had the same powers.

Just my little fantasy, of course.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 05:51:01 PM
In my experience it is not terribly unusual for a smaller party (that often gets completely ignored the rest of the year) to get a bump during the writ period, largely because of the increased exposure.  They can often then come back to earth as they can start to sputter under increased scrutiny (though not always).

It's also a lot easier for said smaller parties to take the position of the public in an argument. That is, as they are often overlooked in politics, they can come out as a voice representing the everyday person who also sees their own views as being overlooked.

Smaller parties can offer something more radically different, which can often appeal in times of crisis (such as the recession and after generations of apparently "failed" Tory-Labour governments). The small parties also seem to get overlooked in scandals by most of the public too, thus meaning they can avoid a lot of criticism from the uninformed.

One comment on the lib dem rise- look at where these polls are coming from.
Many are from yougov. A website where you get paid 50p a time to do oppinion polls. The kind of people who will use this site will be those who are poor and have plenty of time on their hands...in large part students. It is already known students tend to support the lib dems more than the general population.

Quote[And who is saying that?

Minsky hinted that way saying something about reform and a simple majority.
There is a set of Tory supporters with whom its all they ever prattle on about 'oh the British system is so biased against us. Even if we get 36% and labour 30% they win' blah blah.
Completely ignoring that the 3 party system is actually biased heavily in favour of the tories.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 20, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Well, I know from what Tyr has posted that he thinks it is democratic to permanently disenfranchise 40% of the population which is why he wants single transferable vote or PR. Why do you want PR? I'm curious.

Beats the other alternative of disenfranchising 60% of the population with majority rule.
With PR that 40% could still be right wing. They can be even more right wing than they would otherwise be and feel free to vote for UKIP or some other group of idiots who would otherwise be a wasted vote. The correct leanings of the general population however would be more properly reflected.

QuoteIf a party said, "Right, let's ditch all this nonsense of Assemblies with one set of powers and Parliaments with another set of powers, and let's solve the West Lothian question" I'd probably vote for them regardless of their other policies. For example, I'd hive off Greater London as a capital district in the same way the USA and Australia have them, I'd split England into Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and an (enlarged) Anglia, and then I'd legislate so that the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and "English regional" parliaments all had the same powers.

That would be nice.
Sure beats the horrific idea of a common English parliament. At the very least there should be a north/south split.

QuoteI'm not convinced it would be the result with PR either, mainly because it would let parties like UKIP flourish and blur the left-right dividing lines (not that I favour PR - I like voting for a man, not a list.) I am convinced that Tyr is right about what introducing STV would result in though, which is why his posts in the other thread nearly made me vomit.

Indeed. Democracies are corrupt institutions ran by the jews. We must always make sure to limit democracy and misrepresent the people as much as possible.

FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour. The last hung parliament we had in the 70s had Labour as the government despite the Tories being the largest party. The same could go for this - Labour could be the third party in share of the votes, yet still have the largest number of seats. I guess it doesn't help with the way the constituencies are drawn - MPs in traditional Labour areas (i.e. Scotland and Wales) often represent less constituents than MPs in other parts of the country.

This is why PR is the only credible voting reform for this country, in my opinion. It's the fairest voting method.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 20, 2010, 06:50:36 PM
FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour.

In a 2 party system- perhaps. Ish. But then most systems give underpopulated area disproportionate representation.
In our 3 party system though- definitely not.
You're a conservative- you vote conservative.
You're a progressive- do you vote labour or do you vote lib dem...hmm...decisions....

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 03:31:23 PM
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.

Transferable vote?  That's a terrible reform.  No civilized country could possibly withstand that sort of thing.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:55:33 PM

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 20, 2010, 06:50:36 PM
FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour.

In a 2 party system- perhaps. Ish. But then most systems give underpopulated area disproportionate representation.
In our 3 party system though- definitely not.
You're a conservative- you vote conservative.
You're a progressive- do you vote labour or do you vote lib dem...hmm...decisions....

You choose the party which aligns most to your views. Under a PR system this would allow for the "progressives" to not have their vote split due to wasted votes, but actually give a better representation of how the "progressives" are split on a national level (i.e. less wasted votes for one progressive party over the other since there are multiple seats for each constituency, thus meaning more than one "progressive" candidate can get elected to represent the constituents there).

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:39:47 PM
Beats the other alternative of disenfranchising 60% of the population with majority rule.

The fact that a left-wing party has won the last three elections rather exposes the flaw in your argument.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:39:47 PM
That would be nice.
Sure beats the horrific idea of a common English parliament. At the very least there should be a north/south split.

Yes, when devolution in Wales and Scotland occurred I was thinking that a north-south split for England might work, perhaps with parliaments at Oxford and York due to the historic nature of the two cities. Then I realised that the Midlands did not really fit with either the north or the south so hit on the idea of a more equal split harking back in part to the "Heptarchy".

It actually worries me that you like my idea, given how much I despise your general politics... :D

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:39:47 PM
Indeed. Democracies are corrupt institutions ran by the jews. We must always make sure to limit democracy and misrepresent the people as much as possible.

:lmfao:

The fact that you can post this with even a slightly straight face given your desire for a permanent "dictatorship of the left" via electoral reform makes me shudder.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 12:48:19 PM

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.

Both parties have to be burned that in relatively close succession to get  any serious movement for reform. If Kerry had won Ohio and lost the popular by a few million then we would have seen a big push for it.

I like the idea of PR in theory, but the main thing that would keep me from ever supporting it is that all of the PR systems I know anything about implement it by taking control over who the actual legislators are away from the people and giving it to some party bosses--at least partly. That's a dealbreaker for me. If I could ban political parties altogether I would--but if we have to have them, we should at least preserve the voter's right to vote for an actual person and not a color.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2010, 09:37:55 PM
I like the idea of PR in theory, but the main thing that would keep me from ever supporting it is that all of the PR systems I know anything about implement it by taking control over who the actual legislators are away from the people and giving it to some party bosses--at least partly. That's a dealbreaker for me. If I could ban political parties altogether I would--but if we have to have them, we should at least preserve the voter's right to vote for an actual person and not a color.

I think most PR systems have a constiuency link. The two proposed by the Libs (STV) and Labour (AV+) both do.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 20, 2010, 05:58:40 PM


Rabid as I am about Europe, I am certain that a Tory government would concentrate on the economy, decentralisation and civil liberties, so I wouldn't worry there. One has to be solid at home before one can see about changing things abroad, after all - and anyway, to the joy of certain of our European partners, Brown held on long enough to deprive the country of the Tories promised referendum on the last European Treaty. Europe's going to be a dead-letter for at least a couple of years in the next parliament.

I'm surprised by this comment. Europe remains the most important issue for both the Tory rank and file and for a plurality of tory candidates. There's a clear manifesto commitment to renegotiation and while I would expect a Tory Govt to act prgamatically I's also expect them to make a lot of anti-Euro noise. The Libs would not be able to stomach this in coalition. We also have major policy clashes on immigration & crime the two dog whistle issues for most Tories.

I's put the chances of a Tory/Lib coalition at barely above 0%.

Quote
The fact that you can post this with even a slightly straight face given your desire for a permanent "dictatorship of the left" via electoral reform makes me shudder.

Except it wouldn't be this.
1: The left is far from united. There would still be the issue of whether the lib dems or labour are ranked higher in your choices. And hell. Even the tories have a lot of left wing policies this time around, they can (and are trying to) attract a certain kind of progressive voter.
2: All through history we've moved steadily leftwards. As we moved left the old centre became the new right and so on.
The system though tends to lag behind, as the tories themselves learned in recent elections by trying to be too conservative for a population which has moved on.
The system won't permanently exist with 6x% of the population on the left and 3x% on the right. The centre will shift and we'll end up with more even numbers.
It could be that at some time the right do win as the centre left would prefer the centre right to the loony left.

QuoteThe fact that a left-wing party has won the last three elections rather exposes the flaw in your argument

Not really.
Labour has been popular whilst the tories not only had their dodgy recent history in power stopping them but also their current state.
Just look to the 80s. Thatcher won a lot despite being a complete disaster- there was no option with labour in dissaray.

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2010, 07:04:28 PM
Transferable vote?  That's a terrible reform.  No civilized country could possibly withstand that sort of thing.

Australia and Ireland have it and it works fine. According to wikipedia a few local places in the US do too.

QuoteYou choose the party which aligns most to your views. Under a PR system this would allow for the "progressives" to not have their vote split due to wasted votes, but actually give a better representation of how the "progressives" are split on a national level (i.e. less wasted votes for one progressive party over the other since there are multiple seats for each constituency, thus meaning more than one "progressive" candidate can get elected to represent the constituents there).

You'd be totally changing the system though. Part of the goodness of our system is you have your own MP. Who cares if you vote for UKIP and this is pooled nationwide into a UKIP MP on the other side of the country. And what about the poor people there, only 1% of which wanted UKIP?
The only way around this I can see would be to seperate elections for the PM from elections for MPs.
Which...would ruin the system, we could get a Labour government but a majority of Conservative MPs.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2010, 09:37:55 PM
I like the idea of PR in theory, but the main thing that would keep me from ever supporting it is that all of the PR systems I know anything about implement it by taking control over who the actual legislators are away from the people and giving it to some party bosses--at least partly. That's a dealbreaker for me. If I could ban political parties altogether I would--but if we have to have them, we should at least preserve the voter's right to vote for an actual person and not a color.

People do vote for a person. In PR systems there are multiple seat constituencies, and you vote for a candidate personally. They allocate the seats by party, with the first, second, third, etc... places being the candidate of that party getting the highest number of votes in that party.

Quote from: Gups on April 21, 2010, 03:23:59 AM
I'm surprised by this comment. Europe remains the most important issue for both the Tory rank and file and for a plurality of tory candidates. There's a clear manifesto commitment to renegotiation and while I would expect a Tory Govt to act prgamatically I's also expect them to make a lot of anti-Euro noise. The Libs would not be able to stomach this in coalition. We also have major policy clashes on immigration & crime the two dog whistle issues for most Tories.

I's put the chances of a Tory/Lib coalition at barely above 0%.

I'm surprised at your surprise.

After all, as I have posted, I consider the possibility of a Lib-Dem/Tory pact to be zero myself, although I used the examples of electoral reform and Europe as the fault lines, rather than immigration. But Europe is a dead letter in British politics until the continental countries get around to their next round of treaty negotiations, and I am not aware of this coming due within the next couple of years. As I said, to the pleasure of our European "partners", Brown held on long enough.

Besides, Clegg is being rather heavy-handed in his courtship of Labour. It's quite clear he will join them, but the price will be Brown's head.

On the other hand, the DUP has come out saying they will vote in parliament "for the good of the country" rather than coming out with the "snouts in the trough" approach of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. I can quite easily see them holding the balance of power, and their more likely to side with the Tories than Labour...I think.

My mistake, I thought you were suggesting a Tory/LD coailition was likely.

DUP would certainly side with the Tories but I'm sure they's have a price just as much as the nats. Northern Irish politics is hardly stuffed with sea-green uncurruptibles. But I doubt if they would have the balance of power with just 9 or 10 seats. The Tories are a good 5-6% short of getting anywhere near the level where they could depend on minor parties to prop them up against liblab opposition.

 (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F4%2F22%2F1271920327971%2FNewspapers-attacking-Nick-008.jpg&hash=14ca9b7eff097efdc64fc57eee1b601c43971ad6)

The Tory press really laying inito Clegg now. The Mail article is particularly outrageous if you read the actual article Clegg published a few years ago.

Which of those newspapers is owned by Mr. Fair and Balanced?

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 05:51:01 PM
In my experience it is not terribly unusual for a smaller party (that often gets completely ignored the rest of the year) to get a bump during the writ period, largely because of the increased exposure.  They can often then come back to earth as they can start to sputter under increased scrutiny (though not always).

Is this the sputtering under increased scrutiny?

Quote from: Fate on April 22, 2010, 09:58:56 AM
Which of those newspapers is owned by Mr. Fair and Balanced?

Only the Sun. Interestingly, News Corp are really wrong footed by the Lib Dem surge and probably have the most to lose of any of the papers. See article by the former editor of the Sun below.

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.

Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.

I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)

I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.

So while we sent a team of five, plus assorted senior staff, to both the Tory and Labour conferences, we sent nobody to the Lib Dems. And while successive News International chiefs have held parties at both those conferences, they have never to my knowledge even attended a Lib Dem conference.

It gets even worse. While it would be wrong to say the Lib Dems were banned from Murdoch's papers (indeed, the Times has a good record in this area), I would say from personal experience that they are often banned – except where the news is critical. They are the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored. But it is worse than that, because it is not just the Murdoch press that is guilty of this. The fact is that much of the print press in this country is entirely partisan and always has been. All proprietors and editors are part of the "great game". The trick is to ally yourself with the winner and win influence or at least the ear of the prime minister.

The consequence of this has been that the middle party has been ignored, simply because it was assumed it would never win power. After all, why court a powerless party?

So, as the pendulum swings from red to blue and back to red, the newspapers, or many of them, swing with it – sometimes ahead of the game and sometimes behind.

Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.

We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle. For he is untainted by it.

Just imagine the scene in many of our national newspaper newsrooms on the morning a Lib-Lab vote has kept the Tories out of office. "Who knows Clegg?" they would say.

There would be a resounding silence.

"Who can put in a call to Gordon?" another would cry.

You would hear a pin drop on the editorial floor.

The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.

I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.

All of us who care about democracy must celebrate this over the coming weeks – even if Cameron wins in the end, at least some fault lines will have been exposed.

Quote from: Gups on April 22, 2010, 10:58:31 AM

Quote from: Fate on April 22, 2010, 09:58:56 AM
Which of those newspapers is owned by Mr. Fair and Balanced?

Only the Sun. Interestingly, News Corp are really wrong footed by the Lib Dem surge and probably have the most to lose of any of the papers. See article by the former editor of the Sun below.

Do you really think so? Obama has been a bonanza for Fox News, even though the administration is very cool to them. I would think that a strong force for more integration into Europe would help sell papers to a euro sceptic audiance.

We've had decades of both parties courting Murdoch and his media empire. He's now burnt his bridges with Labour and teh Lib Dems and that could hurt him pretty badly over here. Selling a few extra papers (unlikely) due to a more Europhile Govt pales into insignificance if he doesn't get his customary easy ride on monopolising pay tv, sports rights etc.

Quote from: Gups on April 22, 2010, 11:31:05 AM
We've had decades of both parties courting Murdoch and his media empire. He's now burnt his bridges with Labour and teh Lib Dems and that could hurt him pretty badly over here. Selling a few extra papers (unlikely) due to a more Europhile Govt pales into insignificance if he doesn't get his customary easy ride on monopolising pay tv, sports rights etc.

That sounds like significant institutionalized corruption where politicians determine media rights based on their relationships.

It's not as clear cut as all that but Governments can, for instance, introduce legislation protecting certain sporting events from being broadcast only on pay tv. Similarly we have an independent commission on Monopolies but that's not to say that teh Govt doesn't have some weight.

And all significant media organisations want at least a decent working relationship with Govt, that goes without saying.

Ah, well. As long as there's a quango to watch over things, it all right.

Britons, how went the second debate?

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 22, 2010, 03:33:05 PM
Britons, how went the second debate?

I think Clegg won which is impressive given that they're anti-Trident, pro-Europe and more liberal on immigration.  The polls may say Cameron but I think he had a very unimpressive night.

Personally I think Brown came across about as well as he can.  So though he'll poll worse than the other two, that's a given so it doesn't actually matter.  Brown would probably need to be caught beating a child to damage his reputation at this point.     

Edit: Oh my favourite line was from Gordon Brown to a female pensioner asking a question: 'Woman - and you are one of them' :lol:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 12:23:00 PM
Ah, well. As long as there's a quango to watch over things, it all right.

The UK's always liked quangos, look at the Royal Commissions.

Who or what is a Clegg anyway?

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2010, 03:46:16 PM
Who or what is a Clegg anyway?

QuoteMain Entry: 1clegg
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English clogge short thick piece of wood
Date: 14th century

1 a : a weight attached especially to an animal to hinder motion b : something that shackles or impedes : encumbrance 1
2 : a shoe, sandal, or overshoe having a thick typically wooden sole

BBC just interview BNP deputy leader.  He started by moaning about the Americanisation and dumbing-down of politics then led into this:
"We'll be an Islamic Republic within 30 years.  Which would be a disaster."
".....Do you really think that?"
:lol:

Incidentally I recommend this superb interview with the party leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT5qRqHHoJo&feature=player_embedded#!

The only interesting thing to emerge from the Media's feeding frenzy on Clegg is that he once worked as a lobbyist for RBS, where he was apparently active on their behalf in opposing increased banking regulation. Even that's little more than a storm in a teacup, though.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 03:40:16 PM

Edit: Oh my favourite line was from Gordon Brown to a female pensioner asking a question: 'Woman - and you are one of them' :lol:

:lol:Can you add the context?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2010, 03:59:25 PM:lol:Can you add the context?

An elderly woman (85, raised 5 children) asked about her low state pension (because she'd interrupted her working life she is on a lower rate), Gordon Brown was saying (or meaning to) that this tends to discriminate against women especially those who raise children which is a problem.  Unfortunately he said 'Woman - and you are one.'  Grace looked reassure to finally have this confirmed.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 03:55:27 PM
BBC just interview BNP deputy leader.  He started by moaning about the Americanisation and dumbing-down of politics then led into this:
"We'll be an Islamic Republic within 30 years.  Which would be a disaster."
".....Do you really think that?"
:lol:

Incidentally I recommend this superb interview with the party leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT5qRqHHoJo&feature=player_embedded#!

Wow, :lol:
Funny, and just last week a friend was insisting UKIP aren't the old school Tories we think they are....yet even the way this guy speaks!
Its almost like something out of Brenner, Bird and Fortune...

Quote from: Tyr on April 22, 2010, 04:08:19 PM
Funny, and just last week a friend was insisting UKIP aren't the old school Tories we think they are....yet even the way this guy speaks!

I know.  Discussing the banks after an enormous recession and financial collapse 'this is minutiae' :lol:

Apparently the insta-polls (and it took a while for these to be worked out) are roughly 30-30-30.  One narrowly for Cameron (he did as well last week), one narrowly for Clegg and Brown doing well to be a respectable third.

Edit:  But my sense is that that's a loss for Cameron who needed a 'comeback kid' moment and, alas, he has George Osborne who people dislike spinning for him now.  I also think the ganging up on Clegg may backfire on the other two (it legitimises him in a slightly different way than the 'I agree with Nick' last week).  But I think the anti-Clegg stuff is difficult because he doesn't come across as a looney so there's a disconnect between the attacks and what people see on TV.

Much more even in this debate. Clegg got his policies mutilated (thankfully), and Brown appeared a LOT stronger than he did before. Cameron started off slow but found his feet in the end, and turned out to be quite good.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 22, 2010, 04:43:50 PM
Much more even in this debate. Clegg got his policies mutilated (thankfully), and Brown appeared a LOT stronger than he did before. Cameron started off slow but found his feet in the end, and turned out to be quite good.

I'd say the opposite on Cameron and Nick.  I think Clegg did well in his toughest bits (Trident, Europe and immigration - I think he dominated immigration 'how can you deport them when you don't know where they live?') and had a great closing argument.  Cameron I thought started strong but his closing argument was weak - I also didn't like the fact that he seemed to promise free eye tests/prescriptions for the elderly just because he was challenged.

Paddy's spinning for the BBC :Wub: :mmm:

I think Clegg did a pretty good job of explaining his otherwise nutty seeming policies.
He's not chosing to do what he wants to do because its his first choice, he's doing it as its actually doing something and helping to tackle the problem a little rather than doing the normal thing and just shouting at the problem until it vanishes on its own.
As a fabian I agree :bowler:

QuoteClegg shows he's no 1-hit wonder in Britain debate
By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press

LONDON – Nick Clegg proved he wasn't a one-hit wonder in Britain's second election debate Thursday, holding his own against Labour's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Conservatives' David Cameron over thorny issues such as Afghanistan, the Catholic sex abuse scandal and the special relationship with the United States.

An initial poll gave Clegg a slight edge in the debate, but it appeared to be close to a three-way tie. Still, Clegg managed to keep some of his political stardust — respondents said the Liberal Democrats' 43-year-old leader seemed the most honest.

Clegg shook up the race last week, emerging as a clear winner after giving a smooth and confident performance in Britain's first U.S.-styled election debate and boosting his party's profile.

Thursday's debate came as dozens of anti-war protesters and other activists clashed with police outside the studio hosting the prime-time duel. Pro-Palestinian groups outside protested Israeli incursions in Gaza. Others held placards that read "Troops Home!" There are some 10,000 British troops still stationed in Afghanistan.

It was the closest Britain has come to the famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate — every grimace and blemish were seen in high-definition television format. The candidates' performances make the razor-close May 6 election even harder to predict.

Polls suggest that no party will win an outright majority. That situation could turn the Liberal Democrats into a kingmaker, bartering with both Labour and the Conservative for things they want — namely electoral changes that could weaken Britain's traditional two-party system.

Brown was on the attack for most of the debate, ridiculing Clegg and Cameron — both 16 years his junior — and at one point comparing them to his children. He also lashed out at Clegg, accusing him of being anti-American, and going after Cameron for being "anti-European."

"These two guys remind me of my two young boys squabbling at bathtime, squabbling about referendums on the EU when what we need is jobs and growth and recovery," said Brown, 59. "I'm afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti-American and both are out of touch with reality."

Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats voted against the U.S.-led Iraq war and who has questioned British "subservience" to U.S. interests, denied he was anti-American, but said Britain should reevaluate how it deals with its trans-Atlantic ally.

"It's an immensely important special relationship, but it shouldn't be a one-way street. We shouldn't always do what our American friends tell us to do."

An automated telephone poll taken by ComRes after the debate showed that 2,691 viewers favored Clegg by a tiny margin. About a third of viewers believed that Clegg won the debate, while 30 percent believed that Brown or Cameron won. The margin of error for that sample size is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Cameron, who gave a lackluster performance in last week's debate, appeared to learn from his mistakes — he looked directly at the camera and seemed more confident Thursday. He almost lost his temper when he accused Brown of allowing campaign leaflets that suggested a Conservative government would cut benefits for the elderly.

"These lies you are getting from Labour are pure and simple lies. I have seen these lies and they make me very, very angry."

Both Labour and the Conservatives voted for Britain to go to war in Iraq, a stance that has hurt them with anti-war sentiment still strong in Britain. The Labour Party, which has been in power for 13 years, lost many seats in the 2005 general election when voters cast protest ballots against Tony Blair's decision to lead Britain into Iraq.

Afghanistan, the latest nettlesome mission, in which 280 British troops have died, is now one of Britain's longest and most costly conflicts, draining government coffers as the country tries to recover from its worst recession since World War II.

Clegg criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and said troops needed better equipment. The party would support other operations if they were in the interests of Britain but, "If you put soldiers into harm's way, you either do the job properly or don't do it at all," he said.

An audience member asked whether the leaders backed Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain in September, and if they supported the church's stance on the sex abuse scandal, condoms, homosexuality and stem cell research.

All three men said they supported the visit, which is due to cost taxpayers some 15 million pounds ($22.5 million).

Cameron was most definitive, however, on other differences with the church, saying the church has "very serious work to do to unearth and come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened."

Clegg, a former member of the European Parliament, once backed Britain adopting the euro and has talked about forging stronger ties with Europe. He stressed Thursday that Britain needs cooperation from other European countries if progress is to be made on terrorism, immigration, climate change and bank regulation.

Cameron has long been a euro-skeptic and stood apart from both Clegg and Brown on Thursday when he suggested again there should be a referendum allowing British people to decide how they feel about being a part of the European Union.

Clegg is unlikely to become prime minister because Britain's electoral system is not proportional so parties must win the majority of districts not the popular vote. This puts smaller and newer parties at a disadvantage. Most core voters still either vote Conservative or Labour.

Candidates managed to get across their campaign mantras throughout the debates — with the Conservatives warning that a hung Parliament and a coalition government could hurt the pound and Britain's credit rating and Brown insisting that a government shake-up could jeopardize an economic recovery.

The British electorate has reached an all-time low for trust in politicians after an expenses scandal last year tarred all three major parties.


Associated Press Writer Raphael Satter in London contributed to this report.

Quote"These lies you are getting from Labour are pure and simple lies. I have seen these lies and they make me very, very angry."

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv66%2FEricDerKonig%2FJunk%2Fhulk-smash.jpg&hash=d7213f185e79964692b3f80a7dc7db21c17580c2)
CAMERON SMASH!

Oh man, he was my dead cert until I heard last night he's anti nuclear power :weep: Get back to the 1950s, hippy!

Quote from: Brazen on April 23, 2010, 04:22:39 AM
Oh man, he was my dead cert until I heard last night he's anti nuclear power :weep: Get back to the 1950s, hippy!

That is offputting, but his arguments are more practical than anti-nuclear in itself though.

Yes, the problem is that electricity shortages start in about 3 years time and commissioning a nuclear power station takes a lot longer. Meanwhile, world gas supplies and sources are increasing; gas power stations produce about half the carbon dioxide of a coal plant and are quick to commission. There is a rational argument for saying that the interim solution is to get some gas stations up and running.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 04:53:00 PMI think Clegg did well in his toughest bits (Trident, Europe and immigration - I think he dominated immigration 'how can you deport them when you don't know where they live?')

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

Quote... and had a great closing argument.  Cameron I thought started strong but his closing argument was weak

The closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

QuoteI also didn't like the fact that he seemed to promise free eye tests/prescriptions for the elderly just because he was challenged.

That is how it seemed, but the Tories hadn't actually hadn't stated a policy. Because of this, Labour stated that the Tories would not promise these things. This turned out to be false, and Labour had just taken the negative option, with no basis for printing and publishing such "lies".

It has since turned out that the SNP and also the Liberal Democrats have criticised Labour for doing the same things to them. This has led to people saying that Labour have been caught red handed.

QuotePaddy's spinning for the BBC :Wub: :mmm:

I do like Paddy, but I did find it a bit ruude when he was shouting over the others.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 23, 2010, 12:09:58 PM
That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

This highlights the "stupidity" of any argument:  everytactic has "been proven to be a failed tactic" somewhere.

QuoteThe closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

I get the strong vibe that the relevance of opening and closing arguments in your mind are directly proportional to the ability of Cameron to deliver in them.  :P

QuoteThat kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

Except deporting them doesn't work. Its being tried and and its failing. Everyone always wants to be tough and have no illegal immigrants at all but thats a lot easier said than done.
Rather than let them continue to exist illegally working on the black economy (at best) it is better to include them legally.

Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 23, 2010, 12:09:58 PM
That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

This highlights the "stupidity" of any argument:  everytactic has "been proven to be a failed tactic" somewhere.

Haha! True! :P

Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 12:24:37 PM

QuoteThe closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

I get the strong vibe that the relevance of opening and closing arguments in your mind are directly proportional to the ability of Cameron to deliver in them.  :P

Nah, they're just boring and rehearsed. Completely uninteresting and they just allude to the actual content which is contained in the debate subjects.

Quote from: Tyr on April 24, 2010, 05:21:01 AM

QuoteThat kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

Except deporting them doesn't work. Its being tried and and its failing. Everyone always wants to be tough and have no illegal immigrants at all but thats a lot easier said than done.
Rather than let them continue to exist illegally working on the black economy (at best) it is better to include them legally.

Deporting them does work, it's just that the authorities have been crap at finding them to deport them.

I'd rather keep them on the 'black economy' - they likely won't be earning over £10,000 (so won't be paying taxes), and because they earn so little they will become eligible for benefits. An amnesty would just encourage people to come here illegally more as it sets a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty every now and again and allow them to stay. Moreover, by "it's proven not to work", I meant "it's proven to make things worse".

I can't wait for the Lib Dem mansion tax to be ripped apart.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 24, 2010, 05:44:58 AM
Deporting them does work, it's just that the authorities have been crap at finding them to deport them.

:lol: In other words, deporting them does work, except that it doesn't work.

QuoteI'd rather keep them on the 'black economy' - they likely won't be earning over £10,000 (so won't be paying taxes), and because they earn so little they will become eligible for benefits. An amnesty would just encourage people to come here illegally more as it sets a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty every now and again and allow them to stay. Moreover, by "it's proven not to work", I meant "it's proven to make things worse".

The policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2010, 11:24:34 AMThe policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

Maybe so, but amnesties have been proven to be more worse than other ("conventional") methods.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 12:59:08 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2010, 11:24:34 AMThe policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

Maybe so, but amnesties have been proven to be more worse than other ("conventional") methods.

They have?
I missed the last time we tried it. When was that?

In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 01:27:50 PM
In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

I really don't see how it would make things worse.
People already risk life and limb to get here at all costs. You can't really encourage them to come anymore than they already are.
Also I can find nothing about the US or Spanish amnesties  being particularly (well...except in the case of Spain having them pretty regularly. That seems daft) bad and making things worse.

The amnesty idea to me sounds like a far from perfect solution but at least Clegg is proposing a different approach. Yelling at the problem until it goes away doesn't work utterly. This is untried in the UK and the past experience of the other amnesties abroad is there to be built in.

What I could see this doing is sorting out the desirable, decent illegals who aren't doing any harm to the country from those who we really should be seeking to deport at all costs.

Rather than just picking at this idea and saying 'it wouldnt work!' why not suggest something which would work instead?

Overall though immigration isn't really such a issue for me. Its greatly exagerated a problem in the media and we've got more pressing concerns- ones which good solutions (rather than least bad solutions) can be found for.

Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 01:27:50 PM
In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

The conditional amnesty portions of the IRCA are viewed as successful in the US.  That probably counts as "making the problem worse" to those who want very much to believe that all amnesties are unsuccessful, but to those of us without that axe to grind, it doesn't count as making things worse.

What makes immigration numbers "worse" is economic success.  The number of immigrants entering the US remained steady until that fucker Bill Clinton embarked the US on a program of steady economic growth, and then illegal immigration became, as you put it, "more worse."

Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2010, 11:35:09 AM

Quote from: Gups on April 22, 2010, 11:31:05 AM
We've had decades of both parties courting Murdoch and his media empire. He's now burnt his bridges with Labour and teh Lib Dems and that could hurt him pretty badly over here. Selling a few extra papers (unlikely) due to a more Europhile Govt pales into insignificance if he doesn't get his customary easy ride on monopolising pay tv, sports rights etc.

That sounds like significant institutionalized corruption where politicians determine media rights based on their relationships.

The British relationship with the media is a bit unusual.

Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.

Quote from: Warspite on April 25, 2010, 05:18:15 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.

The amusing thing is that the majority of complaints I've heard in daily life about immigration are complaints about the number of Poles over here. "Darkies" don't get a mention.

And you're right; immigration is nowhere near as big a problem as it is made out. That doesn't mean you should reward criminality with amnesty, though.

Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Neither.
Its not much of a problem and the bitching about it goes back to even when the times were good and we absolutely needed the immigrants to make up for labour shortages.
Its just the thing that the conservative press, and ignorant folk in general, really like to bitch about. It lets them be against 'those people' without actually being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever else can't be done these days.

Quote from: Warspite on April 25, 2010, 05:18:15 PM
Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.

Same.  Areas that poll immigration as a major issue tend to have least issues (and most of the anti-immigration stuff is to do with Poles because they've gone everywhere - ironically that's legal immigration), in London as a whole for example the issues that poll as most important are the economy and the NHS. 

I heard from my parents that according to the Dorset Echo it's immigration and, weirdly, tramps - though the Dorset Echo has issues with them.  I once saw a front page that was a picture of a tramp with the headline DEAL WITH THEM.

Personally I think the Lib Dem immigration policy is one of their most attractive ones.  It seems to me entirely humane and sensible.

Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2010, 01:44:40 PMI really don't see how it would make things worse.
People already risk life and limb to get here at all costs. You can't really encourage them to come anymore than they already are.
Also I can find nothing about the US or Spanish amnesties  being particularly (well...except in the case of Spain having them pretty regularly. That seems daft) bad and making things worse.

Illegal migration to Spain rose 15 times after it's amnesties (6 in 20 years, IIRC), and whilst the estimates of illegal immigration into the USA did drop immediately following their amnesty, this is the anomaly (the 6 amnesties in Spain - which gets most of it's illegal immigrant via it's ports as we do - yielded an increase in illegal immigrants due to successive amnesties). This at least represents the danger of a setting precedent on such matters.

QuoteThe amnesty idea to me sounds like a far from perfect solution but at least Clegg is proposing a different approach. Yelling at the problem until it goes away doesn't work utterly. This is untried in the UK and the past experience of the other amnesties abroad is there to be built in.

I would rather not try it here myself. I am unconvinced with the successes of tried amnesties, and to me it is rewarding criminal behaviour with citizenship.

QuoteWhat I could see this doing is sorting out the desirable, decent illegals who aren't doing any harm to the country from those who we really should be seeking to deport at all costs.

Setting a precedent is a dangerous thing, however (as noted with the case of Spanish amnesties).

QuoteRather than just picking at this idea and saying 'it wouldnt work!' why not suggest something which would work instead?

More checks at our borders, perhaps?

QuoteOverall though immigration isn't really such a issue for me. Its greatly exagerated a problem in the media and we've got more pressing concerns- ones which good solutions (rather than least bad solutions) can be found for.

For me it is not a direct issue either. However, I recognise it as something with long-term consequences, as well as short-term problems given our economy at the moment (specifically: lack of jobs and unemployment).

Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2010, 02:51:08 PMThe conditional amnesty portions of the IRCA are viewed as successful in the US.  That probably counts as "making the problem worse" to those who want very much to believe that all amnesties are unsuccessful, but to those of us without that axe to grind, it doesn't count as making things worse.

I wouldn't say I have an axe to grind with this issue, just that I do not believe in allowing an amnesty for people who have broken the law.

QuoteWhat makes immigration numbers "worse" is economic success.  The number of immigrants entering the US remained steady until that fucker Bill Clinton embarked the US on a program of steady economic growth, and then illegal immigration became, as you put it, "more worse."

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate the fact that not all immigration is necessarily bad. In your first sentence here you seem to imply that my stated opinion is that large numbers of immigrants (note: not the illegals specifically) is bad. As I say, it is not necessarily the case that large migration into the country is bad, just that illegal immigration should not be encouraged.

Secondly, and to answer your point, it is quite obvious that economic factors do play a large role on determining whether one wishes to emigrate. However, that does not mean that we should encourage illegal immigration into our countries by setting a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty after a few years so we can get them on our books.

I like a policy of fake amnesty whereby those who show up to be registered are secretly deported. :)

Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2010, 07:17:37 PM
I like a policy of fake amnesty whereby those who show up to be registered are secretly deported. :)

The government would get shafted by some civil rights group, no doubt.

Amnesty's an inaccurate term.  As you indicate it's a one off.  Their policy is that if you've got a clean rap, speak English and have stayed for more than 10 years then you should be able to earn citizenship. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2010, 01:20:46 PM
Amnesty's an inaccurate term.  As you indicate it's a one off.  Their policy is that if you've got a clean rap, speak English and have stayed for more than 10 years then you should be able to earn citizenship.

It has been accepted by the Liberal Democrats themselves that this could still leave a large portion (IIRC it is reckoned between 10-15%, which would be 100,000-150,000 people) of illegal immigrants not coming forward for this amnesty due to such conditions. I guess it's just down to opinion whether or not this is the lesser of two evils, though I remain unconvinces that it is an effective long-term solution to such a problem.

Just put £100 on Labour to win the largest number of seats at Betfaitr at 11/2. Can't believe that the odds are so long when virtually every opinion poll is pointing to that result. Even 3/1 would have been very decent.

Agree that those are very fine odds; I guess that punters are reasoning the labour won't be able to get their vote out on the day.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 07:15:51 PM
Illegal migration to Spain rose 15 times after it’s amnesties (6 in 20 years, IIRC), and whilst the estimates of illegal immigration into the USA did drop immediately following their amnesty, this is the anomaly (the 6 amnesties in Spain - which gets most of it's illegal immigrant via it's ports as we do - yielded an increase in illegal immigrants due to successive amnesties). This at least represents the danger of a setting precedent on such matters.

Six amnesties? Source, please.

And, by the way, correlation doesn't prove causation... Many years ago one of my teachers showed us a very pretty graphic to make us understand this. Number of natives in Mexico, number of cows, and time from the Conquest 1521-1600.

Guess what? Apparently, cows eat natives. Or perhaps colonists introduced cows in the fields because smallpox had killed the natives. Or perhaps they just saw cows would prosper in the plains of northern Mexico and that had nothing to do with natives...

Intrade odds on winning the election: Conservatives 82%, Labor 15%, Lib Dems 5%. (these are based on last traded amounts so they don't add to 100%)

A recent Guardian poll has the Lib-Dems winning seats primarily at Labour's expense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/liberal-democrats-labour-marginals-poll

Quote from: Gups on April 27, 2010, 06:13:23 AM
Just put £100 on Labour to win the largest number of seats at Betfaitr at 11/2. Can't believe that the odds are so long when virtually every opinion poll is pointing to that result. Even 3/1 would have been very decent.

Couldn't Labour come in third with like 25%, but still end up with the most seats?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2010, 07:17:51 AM
Intrade odds on winning the election: Conservatives 82%, Labor 15%, Lib Dems 5%. (these are based on last traded amounts so they don't add to 100%)

This is who will win it if anyone wins it right?
As I'd have thought a hung parliament would be 70% or something.

Quote from: Alatriste on April 27, 2010, 07:17:26 AMSix amnesties? Source, please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8629354.stm

Start from the "Will it work?" bit. The paragraph to the bottom left of the graph in that section.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 28, 2010, 10:04:05 PMCouldn't Labour come in third with like 25%, but still end up with the most seats?

Yes, which is why we need electoral reform.

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 29, 2010, 06:46:16 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on April 27, 2010, 07:17:26 AMSix amnesties? Source, please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8629354.stm

Start from the "Will it work?" bit. The paragraph to the bottom left of the graph in that section.

An interesting story (and Oxford study), given that so much in it appears to be wrong-headed or just plain wrong. 

For the US, for instance, it argues that "the large-scale amnesty implemented in 1986 has not reduced, and has in fact increased, undocumented migration to the US" when actual evidence for this assertion is completely missing.  The Oxford study it cites reaches no such conclusion.

Another example of the famous "BBC professionalism?"

The article references that by 2000 it had risen to such a level (which, as mentioned earlier in this thread, was due to the economy picking up in a large way). It does also give a graph indicating pre- and post- amnesty which shows it decreased. But yes, the written stuff regarding the US amnesty is crap.

Regarding the Spanish ones it is correct. Here are the actual numbers:

Year:        Number of immigrants:
1985/86 - 44,000
1991      - 135,000
1996      - 21,000
2000      - 127,000
2001      - 314,000
2005      - 700,000

Also, here are the Italian figures:

Year:        Number of immigrants:
1987/88 - 119,000
1990      - 235,000
1996      - 259,000
1998      - 308,000
2002      - 700,000

Quote from: Tyr on April 29, 2010, 06:20:25 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2010, 07:17:51 AM
Intrade odds on winning the election: Conservatives 82%, Labor 15%, Lib Dems 5%. (these are based on last traded amounts so they don't add to 100%)

This is who will win it if anyone wins it right?
As I'd have thought a hung parliament would be 70% or something.

I think that rules at intrade are that if it is a coalition government, it is the coalition party with the most seats, and if it is a minority government, it is the party forming the government.

Quote from: Alatriste on April 27, 2010, 07:17:26 AM
Six amnesties? Source, please.

And, by the way, correlation doesn't prove causation... Many years ago one of my teachers showed us a very pretty graphic to make us understand this. Number of natives in Mexico, number of cows, and time from the Conquest 1521-1600.

Guess what? Apparently, cows eat natives.

They taste like corn.   :)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.aftenposten.no%2Farchive%2F01260%2FAPTOPIX_BRITAIN_EL_1260882x.jpg&hash=6b74d86f8ca41cb859cb483cf618f920847765c3)

Going against convention David Cameron preferred to appeal to the almighty rather than try to wow the public with a riverdance style dance number like his opponents did

For anyone who doubts the awesome of Clegg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZRIquiqAYw

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg522.imageshack.us%2Fimg522%2F4339%2Flolcleggz1.jpg&hash=0108a2f939608f33e529aa03c1c57988765617f9) (http://img522.imageshack.us/i/lolcleggz1.jpg/)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg87.imageshack.us%2Fimg87%2F4686%2Flolcleggz2.jpg&hash=a36745e39d43ab5fed11228ddcb7d8be4ca091e3) (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/lolcleggz2.jpg/)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg202.imageshack.us%2Fimg202%2F1298%2Flolcleggz3.jpg&hash=e495b442a19cbcb2510526e1fea4638c59b50dbf) (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/lolcleggz3.jpg/)

More lolcleggz here:
http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/04/28/lolcleggz-i-can-haz-lib-dems/ (http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/04/28/lolcleggz-i-can-haz-lib-dems/)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalbetting.s3.amazonaws.com%2FGeneral%2BElection%2B2010%2Fhate%2Bdecision%2Bvoting%2Btree.jpg&hash=ada7726ecc11261666611be05a5f6187db31c7bb)

The Liberal Democrats need to hate some more. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv690%2FAntonII%2Fhitler.gif&hash=fc262dd35092d8727485ffc0f4d09d0c898c2c25)

Foxes?  The LibDems are animal rights scum?

What if I hate everybody but Jeremy Clarkson?

Quote from: jamesww on May 02, 2010, 10:44:30 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2010, 10:41:42 AM
What if I hate everybody but Jeremy Clarkson?

Hello Jeremy.

I only like cars that cost over 100,000 pounds and am slightly mad.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2010, 10:41:42 AM
What if I hate everybody but Jeremy Clarkson?

You can't follow a flowchart then can you.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2010, 10:41:42 AM
What if I hate everybody but Jeremy Clarkson?

Then you hate the French, and so go to http://www.ukip.org/ (http://www.ukip.org/) (which you might like: it has the word "barking" right on the home page  :P).