Cleggover/'Call me Dave' Dave - get a room!

StevieJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If they had not come in fourth last time. The Tories were barely ahead of the Greens last time, and I can't imagine that Chris Grayling's "B&B gaffe" will have gone down too well in that part of the country...

Assuming a swing against Labour (which could well go to the Greens), and some Tories peeling off to the Lib-Dems then the Greens could well sneak up the middle, although I wouldn't put money on it.

Odds

Green 1.9
Cons 3.2
Lab 6.0
LD 34.0
Oth 60.0

tomterm8

There is no way either party will accept PR in the house of commons; the LD's may get their way insofar as PR in the (renamed) House of Lords. But more likely is 4 months with a temporary National Government where an emergency budget is agreed between Labour and the Conservatives, then election MK II.

Sir_Humphrey

tomterm8 wrote: »

There is no way either party will accept PR in the house of commons; the LD's may get their way insofar as PR in the (renamed) House of Lords.

They might not have any choice. Even if it happened with an elected HoL (which would be as big if not a bigger constitutional change as moving to a PR HoC) then the HoL would just claim greater legitimacy and start to be more powerful. The Tories would be just as stuffed.

How the HoL would be elected if the HoC moved to PR would be an interesting question, as normally different houses are elected with different systems (or indirectly elected in the case of the German Bundesrat upper house).

tomterm8 wrote: »

But more likely is 4 months with a temporary National Government where an emergency budget is agreed between Labour and the Conservatives, then election MK II.

The last budget was only two months ago or so. I think it very unlikely that the parties would go for a budget so soon. Why would Labour or the Lib Dems want to do that anyway as neither party agree with immediate cuts anyway? Any such emergency budget would be toothless and half-baked after party compromise in any case.

What would be the point of another election if the result under FPTP would be the same?

What we are actually looking at is a potential constitutional crisis IMHO. Working out the constitutional issues would take a very long time, as any half-baked constitutional change ideas (such as the election within six months idea by Cameron) would just immediately cause more problems.

StevieJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What would be the point of another election if the result under FPTP would be the same?

.

They held another election in 1974 and the result changed enough.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GE1974.htm

tomterm8

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What would be the point of another election if the result under FPTP would be the same?

What we are actually looking at is a potential constitutional crisis IMHO. Working out the consitutional issues would take a very long time, as any half-baked constutional change ideas (such as the election within six months idea by Cameron) would just immediately cause more problems.

In some ways, it would be more of a constitutional crises if one of the parties won a clear victory with less than a third of the people who vote, actually voteing for them.

At that point, people would be entitled to ask what kind of a democracy we have where (e.g.) labour wins a clear majority with 33% of the vote, while the liberal democrats get only 100 seats with 32% of the vote.

Not very sustainable.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

Odds

Green 1.9
Cons 3.2
Lab 6.0
LD 34.0
Oth 60.0

The Green Party should rename themselves the economic collapse party! No more credible than UKIP or the BNP really.

• £112bn taxation increase by 2013, including raising fuel duty by 8%/year
• An end to the use of nuclear power
• £30bn of road maintenance funds cut
• Minimum wage of £8.10
• 35 hour week
• No tuition fees
• £170/week pension

Sir_Humphrey

tomterm8 wrote: »

In some ways, it would be more of a constitutional crises if one of the parties won a clear victory with less than a third of the people who vote, actually voteing for them.

I don't think a majority on 33.3% of the vote is on the cards. I guess it would be a theoretical possibility.

StevieJ wrote:

They held another election in 1974 and the result changed enough.

It was hardly conclusive and soon led to a Lib-Lab pact.

Also, the Liberal party had very little support in 1974 compared to the Lib-Dems. If Lib-Dem support ebbed away after the election, then a second election could lead to an overall majority. In conclusion, the Feb 1974 parliament was not nearly as hung as the 2010 parliament may well be.

Also, the legitimacy of the actual voting system was not really in question back in 1974. FPTP is simply not rational when you have a genuine three-way system.

Figures:

Share of vote

Feb 1974: Con: 37.8% Lab: 37.2% Lib: 19.3%
Oct 1974: Con: 35.7% Lab: 39.3% Lib: 18.3%

Seats:

Feb 1974: Con: 296 Lab: 301 Lib: 14
Oct 1974: Con: 276 Lab: 319 Lib: 13

Note that the Liberal share of the vote was very up on 1970, when they only got 7.5% and 6 seats.

Like Mancunian policing, politics back then was like being on a different planet!

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

FPTP does benefit both Labour and the Tories. The advantage to Labour in the current system would exist in most constituency based systems, as it is a mainly a function of the margin of victories in those constituencies rather than poorly drawn boundaries.

Agreed that the predominant advantage to Labour is that they don't have huge majorities that are effectively wasted, as the Conservatives do.

But the boundaries are a problem. The average electorates for constituencies:
Con 70485 Lab 67600 Lib 67175 Nat 59058

And the problem is more acute at the margins. The Conservatives have one constituency with over 100,000; Labour have only 6 with over 80,000.
Meanwhile the Conservatives have only six constituencies with less than 60,000; Labour have 35, and even the Liberal Democrats have 11 - one of which is a third the size of the largest Conservative seat. You can't deny that that's imbalanced.

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

Agreed that the predominant advantage to Labour is that they don't have huge majorities that are effectively wasted, as the Conservatives do.

Well I did make it clear that it was not the only issue.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Well I did make it clear that it was not the only issue.

Oh, I know you didn't, don't worry. Everyone's allowed a perspective!