Clegg

[garbon]

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

[derspiess]

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

[garbon]

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

They vote for Queen.

[derspiess]

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.

[garbon]

I'd vote Amy Winehouse.

[derspiess]

I'd vote Amy Winehouse.

She's gorgeous.

[garbon]

Pointy elbows.

[Josquius]

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

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[Barrister]

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

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?

[Sheilbh]

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

[Agelastus]

But I agree that chances are we'll get PR

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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

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.

[Agelastus]

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.

[Palisadoes]

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!