Do you agree with democracy?

[Miles]

I wouldn't be so surprised if a Lib Lab Coalition passed it. What would happen is the Lib Dems would refuse to agree to any of the reforms that Labour wants unless they do something about electoral reform, and Labour might think that if they introduce PR they will be in power perminantly, whereas they might think that under FPTP they wouldn't be able to get in as much.

When Blair came to power he said that he wanted Labour to be in power most of the 21st century (the conservatives were in power for 2/3 of the last centurty), and Labour MPs might also hold this view - they might think that forming a coalition with the Lib Dems and being in a coalition for most, if not all, of the 21st century, is better than being in power for 1/3 of it.

The same thing might happen if the Lib Dems form a coalition with the Conservatives (which is possible, even though a Lib Lab coalition is more likely due to them both being 'left' party's). If the Tories get around 10% more than Labour in the next general election, and still don't have a majority of seats (it's said that the conservatives need around a 11-12% lead over Labour to get into power) then they might think that they will never get into power under FPTP due to it being so biased to Labour, and hence they also might want electoral reform.

It very much depends on what happens in the next general election - if someone get's a majority I don't think that we will have any electoral reform, but if we get a Hung Parliament I think that there is a chance that we will end up voting under some sort of PR system.

/Miles

 

[LeoCrasher]

I don't see a LibLab coalition being in the realms of the reasonably probable. The reason for this being the make up of the libdem party itself - essentially a mixture of those YesYesNoNos which have defected from either party (and their descendent). Therefore it would be a lot more reasonable to assume that any coalition prospect during a hung parliament would split the LibDems right through the middle, with half being against it and half for it. The irony being that a strong, organised and centralised LibDem party has the most to gain from such a situation. I only have two words to project my thoughts on that matter - Menzies Campbell :P. Speak to a few lib dem councillors, you will be hard pressed to find one that has the same ideas as another.

So this leaves you with a minority government, although whether this government will be labour or conservative is anyone's guess. A minority government will not pass PR - that would be like turkeys voting for christmas, and a conservative govt will not perform any type of electoral reform whatsoever. At least if Cameron keeps to his word (but he did change his mind on topup fees). Besides, how far up on the list of priorities is PR going to be if some urgent sep11 scale event occurs. Its all very relative.

Conversely however. A LibLab coalition which implements PR, would be notoriously difficult to shift from power. Blair wants Labour in power for 'most of the century' - this would certainly be the way to achieve it. However still, can't see the libs agreeing to it without hemmorging members.

Its probably also worth noting that hung parliaments can be very different depending on the determination of the people in the parties, and the number of seats which have been gained. Although, late night debating in the commons will not do anything to restore the image of politicians.

I think the next election will change nothing. Unless Brown or Cameron can come up with something substantial in the next few years which leads to a strong government, we're going to have a very weak Conservative party in power, which will benefit no one.

If you want a hung parliament, vote LibDem .
/Leo

 

[Miles]

I agree with most of that Leo, but I really do think that Menzies will unite his party on electoral reform if it means that they will be in power, and especially if they think that it will turn into them being in power for a long, long time. Remember he's relatively new to his job, and if you give him some time I'm sure he will be able to get his Party united on something this important.

One thing that I just saw on CNN is "When Tony Blair gives way to his successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown...." (paraphrased) - I would've thought that a CNN political corespondant would've heard of a little thing called a leadership election. Shows how much America knows about us =p.

I didn't know that you were political Leo =), did you do it for A Level?

/Miles

 

[Peart]

I only skimmed the last couple of posts, but are you implying some kind of Hitler style rise to power? i.e., not acieving a majority in the election, but then teaming up with another party in order to gain one? It does seem possible, but my money would still be on a flat out tory win


EDIT: this has got to be the fist successful political thread on lomcn. I think there should be a politics sub forum. ftw!

 

[Miles]

I only skimmed the last couple of posts, but are you implying some kind of Hitler style rise to power? i.e., not acieving a majority in the election, but then teaming up with another party in order to gain one? It does seem possible, but my money would still be on a flat out tory win


EDIT: this has got to be the fist successful political thread on lomcn. I think there should be a politics sub forum. ftw!

Hmm, I don't quite understand the first part of your post - what I'm saying is that when there is a Hung Parliament there are 2 different things that can happen.

1) 2 (or more) Partys can either join together in a coalition (basically a partnership) so that they have the required number of seats to control Parliament (a majority) and the members of the Government will be drawn from their ranks (the PM will probably be from the larger of the coaliton partys). This means that the Conservatives could have 300 Seats, Labour could have 200 and the Lib Dems could have something like 150. Lets just say there are 650 seats (in reality that's more like 627). Nobody has a majority of seats - they would need 326, and hence there is a hung parliament. If Labour and the Lib Dems form a Coalition they will have 350 seats, which is over the required 326, and hence they can form a government. That's an example of a Coalition Government being formed.

2. The other thing that can happen is that if nobody can form a coalition, the Queen will offer one of the partys the chance to form a minority government (the head of that party would be the PM), but they would find it very, very hard to get any of their manifesto commitments done - and they would be open to a vote of no confidence (if this is passed then the PM has to resign). These minority governments don't happen very often (I don't have the figure on hand, but I think there was one in 1970) and when they do another general election is usually called by the PM pretty soon (In 1970 the minority government was formed in Febuary, and there was another General election in October)

I hope the clears things up =). In regards to having a politics forum, who would post in it? lol. I deffinitely would support one, but only if it would actually get used (not just by me, you and Leo =p). If you really want to talk about politics I'm happy for you to contact me on MSN - [email protected]. I'm not exactly an expert, but I do enjoy the subject =D.

If enough people did want a politics forum (we could always talk about American politics aswell, which frankly is even more interesting than British politics), then I'd be happy to make one =).

/Miles

 

[LeoCrasher]

I agree with most of that Leo, but I really do think that Menzies will unite his party on electoral reform if it means that they will be in power, and especially if they think that it will turn into them being in power for a long, long time. Remember he's relatively new to his job, and if you give him some time I'm sure he will be able to get his Party united on something this important.

One thing that I just saw on CNN is "When Tony Blair gives way to his successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown...." (paraphrased) - I would've thought that a CNN political corespondant would've heard of a little thing called a leadership election. Shows how much America knows about us =p.

I didn't know that you were political Leo =), did you do it for A Level?

/Miles

I think he might give it a try, then I think he'll fail. There's sly underdogs, and then there's dead dogs. He just doesn't command enough support within the ranks of the party to be able to rally them to a cause. No matter how unifying the prospect of power may be. Although, if he could get Kennedy to be his 'deputy' - stranger things could happen. I've watched Menzies in the commons, and I can think that he's a stumbling caretaker, not a leader.

I think CNN rather than just being plain ignorant, is just telling it like it is. Any leadership election will largely be a formality. Members are already positioning themselves favourably in order to get jobs under the chancellor - they're not going to let someone jepodise their chances. Support who you think will win so you get rewarded later .

We're all political at heart :P

I only skimmed the last couple of posts, but are you implying some kind of Hitler style rise to power? i.e., not acieving a majority in the election, but then teaming up with another party in order to gain one? It does seem possible, but my money would still be on a flat out tory win

EDIT: this has got to be the fist successful political thread on lomcn. I think there should be a politics sub forum. ftw!

Coalitions happen more often than you would think. Its a little drastic to compare it to hitlers rise to power. He did a lot more than just align with other conservative minorities.

I don't think a subforum would be a good idea. The GoT'ers have been kind enough not to interrupt this thread so far, and this is the first thread of its kind. Therefore making a forum for it is a little unreasonable .

If enough people did want a politics forum (we could always talk about American politics aswell, which frankly is even more interesting than British politics), then I'd be happy to make one =).

/Miles

*scoffs* - only because of the Americans lack of deference, unjustified patriotism, media and the dominance of dodgy factions like the Christian right. If Labour affiliated themselves with the England football team, our politics would be just as corrupt and mismanaged :P (they'd also be unmovable from power due to support from the typical apathy crowd - chavs, and hooligans).

/Leo

 

[Peart]

Pff, I've had loads of political thread ideas that I simply don't post because well.. it's GoT :P. I think a well moderated debate/discussion forum would have it's place here; I'd post in it, I assume you and miles would, Urban I'd imagine would stop by, and I'm sure Atom would love somewhere to voice his opinions on the world !

Ah yes, and what I meant was that the Nazis and the Nationalists didnt simply form a coalition, but actually combined into a single party in order to take over. Coalitions are weak, and all parties aim to get into power, so for how long would each party want carry on in such a way?

 

[Sawell]

I don't understand democracy, mainly because I've never involved myself with it - but this thread has taught me a lot, there also seems to be a high number of posters interested in the subject.

I don't necessarily agree with a forum, but I don't see that you guys should hold back from posting about current affairs, ideals and politics on a whole (so long as some kind of anti-spam rule was enforced regarding serious discussions, as currently it's within the rules to be allowed to spam in GoT.

 

[shorty606]

I agree with textbook democracy - the theory of it is sound, just like communism works in theory but in practice it is a totally different story. I do however think democracy is the best option as nothing works perfectly but democracy often comes close.
Just my Opinion ::

 

[Peart]

To quote PJ O'Rourke:
"Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stone-washed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the libary. And - since women are a majority of the population - we´d all be married to Mel Gibson."

democracy is the counting of heads regardless of content: a good way of deciding what WILL be done, but it can make no such claims about what SHOULD be done.

 

[FUTURA]

The last time democracy truly existed was when neanderthal man walked the Earth. This has as much point as saying, for example, 'do you agree with religion?'