Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

[Masterdog]

I have a question. I've seen various polls say that Labour could have a majority even if they come third in vote percentage. The Guardian, for example, says that Labour would have 275 seats with a vote share of 28%, compared with the Tories on 245 for 33% and Lib Dem on 99 for 30%.
Leaving aside the practicalities of how this actually happens, which I think I just about understand...It's obvious why Lib Dem want voting reform, but my question is why have Labour suddenly started supporting it, and why are the Tories opposing it? From the looks of it, each party would do better to reverse their position?

(And don't tell me it's for moral reasons, because I won't believe it )

 

[scorza]

I have a question. I've seen various polls say that Labour could have a majority even if they come third in vote percentage. The Guardian, for example, says that Labour would have 275 seats with a vote share of 28%, compared with the Tories on 245 for 33% and Lib Dem on 99 for 30%.
Leaving aside the practicalities of how this actually happens, which I think I just about understand...It's obvious why Lib Dem want voting reform, but my question is why have Labour suddenly started supporting it, and why are the Tories opposing it? From the looks of it, each party would do better to reverse their position?

(And don't tell me it's for moral reasons, because I won't believe it )

Two reasons imo:

1) Labour are proposing a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, which means you rank each candidate based on your preference e.g. 1 - Lib Dem candidate, 2 - Labour candidate, 3 - Conservative candidate. In this example if no candidate gets >50% of the vote in the constituency and the Lib Dem candidate finishes third he is excluded and the above vote becomes a vote for the Labour candidate. This is repeated until one candidate has >50% of the vote. Labour reckon that this will benefit them in more constituencies than not.

2) They are acknowledging that a hung parliament is probably outcome of the election and have started courting the Lib Dems now about a Labour/Lib Dem coalition in such an outcome, by talking about voting reform.

 

[Dolph]

I have a question. I've seen various polls say that Labour could have a majority even if they come third in vote percentage. The Guardian, for example, says that Labour would have 275 seats with a vote share of 28%, compared with the Tories on 245 for 33% and Lib Dem on 99 for 30%.
Leaving aside the practicalities of how this actually happens, which I think I just about understand...It's obvious why Lib Dem want voting reform, but my question is why have Labour suddenly started supporting it, and why are the Tories opposing it? From the looks of it, each party would do better to reverse their position?

(And don't tell me it's for moral reasons, because I won't believe it )

Both parties would do 'worse' under PR, in that they would have been very unlikely to have had a majority at any point during the last 21 years.

Labour's support for PR grows and wains depending on how well they are doing in the polls (they supported PR up until 1997, then suddenly it went away, and as it looks like they will lose again it has reappeared), and is also partly based on the idea that they are the most likely choice (or have been in the past) to form a coalition with the lib dems (although 13 years of Labour has shown just how far apart the two parties are, the Tories are closer ideologically...)

The Tories don't support PR because it tends to lead to weaker governments, and because they have (at least in the past) had no natural partner, although if the lib dem members could get over the tory blindness many of them suffer from, and actually look at the party policies, they would see more similarities there than Labour).

Being realistic, if PR is introduced, the current 3 party system will change dramatically. It wouldn't actually surprise me to see the liberal and social democrat groups that make up the lib dems split again (The lib dems were only formed in 1988). Likewise it wouldn't surprise me to see the Tories split along Europe and possibly also civil liberties (because the Tories do have some strong authoritarians in their group that don't approve of the direction of the last few years), and Labour splinter into those who want a return to strong left wing economic policies (no doubt still combined with social authoritarianism) and those who want the centre right economics of the party currently. PR is a complete game changer to be honest, and no-one really knows how it will actually change the game.

FWIW, I support PR, but feel we need a strong government (or a strong written constitution) to undo the damage done to civil liberties by Labour during their time in power.

Edit: Also, as Scorza says, the system Labour supports is not PR, it's just a variation of first past the post with the goalposts moved slightly. I much prefer mixed member voting as my voting system of choice

 

[Hatter The Mad]

FWIW, I support PR, but feel we need a strong government (or a strong written constitution) to undo the damage done to civil liberties by Labour during their time in power.

I don't. It makes it very difficult for us to 'throw out' a government. As David Cameron once put it - in some European PR democracies, after the election the governments enter a smoky room, come out again and nothing seems to have changed

 

[Dolph]

I don't. It makes it very difficult for us to 'throw out' a government. As David Cameron once put it - in some European PR democracies, after the election the governments enter a smoky room, come out again and nothing seems to have changed

There are ways around that though, specifically through defining that the parties have to work together based on the desires of the electorate, rather than allowing them to pick and choose their partners, or by mandating that potential associations are announced prior to the election.

It's worth remembering that I support strong constitutional reform that will dramatically limit the power of government anyway, so the risks are reduced through constitutional protection with regards to lawmaking and taxation.

 

[Dolph]

I find this quite interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/20/general-election-2010-liberal-democrats

Obviously there are caveats, especially around the opposition voting against the government by default, but it does seem that the Lib Dems have been agreeing with the Tories far more than Labour as labour's time in power has progressed.

 

[stockhausen]

... it does seem that the Lib Dems have been agreeing with the Tories far more than Labour as Labour's time in power has progressed.

I have long believed that the Lib-Dems were the natural party for "Tories with a Conscience" but since Blair's New labour were just an alternative Tory party, the Lib-Dems have become more palatable.

However, I suspect that the Lib-Dems would never manage to work with the Tory party in view of their fundamental differences over Europe and PR. Added to that, they are likely to have irreconcilable differences over replacing the Council tax with a Local Income Tax, Road & Rail, Political party funding, doing away with the House of Lords and probably taxation in relation to the super-rich who finance the Tories and dictate their policies.


There is a good BBC site for comparing the three significant parties' policies HERE - Enjoy


ps - Vote Lib-Dem - choose Change!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

doing away with the House of Lords

Why would this be a good thing? Where is the check on Government whips forcing and rushing through sloppy legislation, crude and crass laws (that we spend billions cleaning up after)?

and probably taxation in relation to the super-rich who finance the Tories and dictate their policies.

Isn't their first tax policy a tax cut for the rich, by raising the personal allowance to £10k?

ps - Vote Lib-Dem - choose Change!

Change from what? Old politics? Vested interest? Posh boys? Ya right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg

 

[stockhausen]

Why would [doing away with the House of Lords] be a good thing? Where is the check on Government whips forcing and rushing through sloppy legislation, crude and crass laws (that we spend billions cleaning up after)? ...

I believe that the Lib-Dems favour the idea of replacing the House of Lords with a wholly democratically elected second chamber rather than a bunch of cronies of the two major parties, the descendants of people who pimped out their daughters and wives to royalty and a few Christian fundamentalists

 

[Luseac]

The concept of a wholly elected House of Lords is flawed; the beauty of the House of Lords at the moment is that they act as the ultimate check on the Commons without the need to appease the masses.

 

[Dolph]

I'd support getting rid of the house of lords if the replacement was a strict constitution explicitly forbidding laws and taxation based on anything other than hard evidence and minimal intervention to achieve the needed balance or protection of rights.

It's not likely to happen though as it would decimate our current laws which are, for a large part, stupid, pointless and ineffective.

 

[robgmun]

I believe that the Lib-Dems favour the idea of replacing the House of Lords with a wholly democratically elected second chamber rather than a bunch of cronies of the two major parties, the descendants of people who pimped out their daughters and wives to royalty and a few Christian fundamentalists

It pains me to say it.

But the House of Lords have been a beacon of common sense since Labour started to losing the plot a few years ago. They have stopped or made difficult to pass some of Labours worst of their loony laws

So i have seen their vaule now!

 

[Luseac]

Quite, Just a shame about the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I believe that the Lib-Dems favour the idea of replacing the House of Lords with a wholly democratically elected second chamber rather than a bunch of cronies of the two major parties, the descendants of people who pimped out their daughters and wives to royalty and a few Christian fundamentalists

Then it would just be 'another' house who will vote according to the party whip.

 

[Doogle]

 

[Eddietop]

I really hope the lib dems don't get in. If they reform parliament like they want to, bringing in proportional representation etc, I believe it will mean weaker governments in the future because the power will be more balanced, making it harder to get things through.

 

[krooton]

I really hope the lib dems don't get in. If they reform parliament like they want to, bringing in proportional representation etc, I believe it will mean weaker governments in the future because the power will be more balanced, making it harder to get things through.

As opposed to the current situation, of things that the current majority party likes getting through easy and the ones they don't not getting through at all?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Quite, Just a shame about the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949

I'd disagree, while the Parliament Acts have allowed some rather dubious legislation to be passed, on balance it is more important that the HoL is not able to completely stymie the HoC as they have done in the past. I don't agree with some of the instances where the Parliament Acts have been used but I think the overall principle is worth more than the occasional misuses although I wouldn't be totally averse to a possible re-write of the conditions under which they can be used.

I haven't done too much further investigation yet (maybe that's something for my enforced vacation over the next few days) but I suspect my preference will be unchanged for the Liberal Democrats as it was in the previous poll.

 

[danny_mac]

 

[Dolph]

I'd disagree, while the Parliament Acts have allowed some rather dubious legislation to be passed, on balance it is more important that the HoL is not able to completely stymie the HoC as they have done in the past. I don't agree with some of the instances where the Parliament Acts have been used but I think the overall principle is worth more than the occasional misuses although I wouldn't be totally averse to a possible re-write of the conditions under which they can be used.

I haven't done too much further investigation yet (maybe that's something for my enforced vacation over the next few days) but I suspect my preference will be unchanged for the Liberal Democrats as it was in the previous poll.

The parliament act, until new Labour, has been used only rarely and for important issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949#Use_of_the_Parliament_Acts

It has been used 7 times, 3 of which have been during the current Labour administration.

The real issue was the abuse of the parliament act to force through the hunting bill that made it look bad, the parliament act itself is not a problem, arrogant populist governments that ignore all forms of scientific evidence are. Unfortunately, Labour have threatened repeatedly to use the parliament act to get bad legislation through...