Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[MikeG]

They instigated the rapid rise in the tax free personal allowance, from around £6,000 to over £10,000, for the benefit of large numbers of people in poorer paid jobs.

They introduced the Pupil Premium, with individual pots of money following poorer performing pupils wherever they went through Primary School.

I don't recognise the privatisation of the NHS, however often The Don states it as fact.

 

[The Atheist]

I maintain that a coalition government is deeply undemocratic for the reasons outlined above.

You what?

What could be a fairer representation than reflecting the actual vote.

If the voters don't have a single party with enough seats to govern, then clearly the electorate doesn't feel they're fit to govern alone.

That is real democracy.

FPTP is absurd. Like or not, UKIP took a large share of the vote, yet those votes were worthless. 13% of votes being completely ignored is deeply unfair.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't vote for UKIP for money. Or blonde hookers.

 

[Francesca R]

Also the SNP is vastly over represented. To their credit they would be the first to admit this and they don't support the system that got them so many MPs.

 

[3point14]

You what?

I a coalition government, the representative I voted for runs the very real risk of not being the representative I get.

Anyone that voted for a Libdem MP at the last election voted for a representative that opposed a rise in student fees.

They all got a representative that wholeheartedly supported the rise.

In a very real way the representative they voted for is not the one they ended up with.

 

[Francesca R]

I voted for a lib dem in 2010 (which is when you mean) but did not support the proposed policy about scrapping student fees. There was not a candidate that would have or could have done everything I favoured. And it was a safeish labour seat anyway since the 1980s (bit like Corbyn's actually, and next to Corbyn's) so there was rather little chance of my candidate winning.

Tories in my constituency (of which there are some including Boris Johnson) have even less chance of being represented by an Islington MP.

Them's the breaks. Of democracy. You seem to want something else.

 

[The Atheist]

I a coalition government, the representative I voted for runs the very real risk of not being the representative I get.

In what way does that differ from FPTP?

If a candidate wins an electorate, they go to Parliament. Same as now, except that fewer MPs come from electorates.

Anyone that voted for a Libdem MP at the last election voted for a representative that opposed a rise in student fees.

The Lib Dems sucking is not an excuse to presume it will always work like that. In fact, I'd contend that the very system they're trying to beat left them in a no-win situation.

If they bring the gov't down, they get arseholed for years and lose their vote; if they support the gov't and the voters don't like it, they get arseholed and lose their vote. I'm still astonished that the UK voters punished them for Cameron and voted him back. It's like the slaves voting for slavery.

If it had been a proportional government, the coalition burden would have been shared with more parties and you end up with moderates holding the balance of power, which north Euro countries have found beneficial. Even then, if it blows up, the blame tends to be shared more equally.

In a very real way the representative they voted for is not the one they ended up with.

What party hasn't done that?

 

[3point14]

I voted for a lib dem in 2010 (which is when you mean) but did not support the proposed policy about scrapping student fees. There was not a candidate that would have or could have done everything I favoured. And it was a safeish labour seat anyway since the 1980s (bit like Corbyn's actually, and next to Corbyn's) so there was rather little chance of my candidate winning.

Tories in my constituency (of which there are some including Boris Johnson) have even less chance of being represented by an Islington MP.

Them's the breaks. Of democracy. You seem to want something else.

I still fail to see how voting for a candate that promises a manifesto of AABCBA and getting a politician that votes for AACCCA is democratic.

A coalition seems then to be a licence to simply disregard the entire platform they ran on and vote in total opposition to the promises that got them elected.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, I have heard the best things to be said about FTFP is that you get:

a) accountability in government (i.e non-coalition governments where blame cannot be easily spread around) and

b) the opportunity to "kick out the bums".


With this coalition government it seems that few people are sure who is responsible for what until after the fact (if the assumptions about the Lib Dems' "restraint" on the Tories is correct), but also that the electorate did get to kick out the bums (i.e the Lib Dems again, whereas with PR the Lib Dems could still have got back in - or else UKIP would have replaced them and made demands on further "independence" from Europe a condition of joining a coalition).

I think that instead of the travesty of FTFP that allows a minority of say 40% to get their way, PR often results in the far happier and more equalitarian result of nobody getting their own way and an inability to be rid of the previous government.

 

[3point14]

The Lib Dems sucking is not an excuse to presume it will always work like that.

No, but it demonstrates that it can be done and we all decide that 'oh well, politicians lie, it's no big deal. I really do think it's a big deal, we're just numb to it. I don't think we should be

In fact, I'd contend that the very system they're trying to beat left them in a no-win situation.

If they bring the gov't down, they get arseholed for years and lose their vote; if they support the gov't and the voters don't like it, they get arseholed and lose their vote. I'm still astonished that the UK voters punished them for Cameron and voted him back. It's like the slaves voting for slavery.

If it had been a proportional government, the coalition burden would have been shared with more parties and you end up with moderates holding the balance of power, which north Euro countries have found beneficial. Even then, if it blows up, the blame tends to be shared more equally.



What party hasn't done that?

And we sit here and decied 'oh, no big deal, they're politicians' and we end up with utterly lousy career politicians driven by lust for power and not a desire to run the country for the good of the population.

 

[Craig B]

You have it backwards. STV and all forms of voting that result in greater proportional representation than winner-takes-all, are more likely to deliver coalitions not less.

Which is good in my view. And more democratic yes

So careful what you wish for. (Shouldn't have told you probably)

I can't believe that a LabCon coalition would be "democratic".

 

[MikeG]

I can't believe that a LabCon coalition would be "democratic".

Refer back to my diagram a page or two ago. Any coalition agreement between these two would result in a centrist compromise, representing the majority opinion of the majority of the electorate. Presumably you can point to another government that has been able to say this?

 

[Craig B]

Refer back to my diagram a page or two ago. Any coalition agreement between these two would result in a centrist compromise, representing the majority opinion of the majority of the electorate. Presumably you can point to another government that has been able to say this?

by adding the opinions of one with the opinions of the opposite, you don't get the opinions of most, but the opinions of none.

 

[shuttlt]

I have been looking for some evidence that MikeG is correct about the shape of the political viewpoints of voters. I am still looking for one for the UK, but this seemed relevant for the US:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/21/want-to-reduce-polarization-give-parties-more-money/

 

[MikeG]

by adding the opinions of one with the opinions of the opposite, you don't get the opinions of most, but the opinions of none.

Because of course, those on the right of the Labour party are a million miles away from those on the left of the Conservative party, obviously.

 

[shuttlt]

Found one for the UK:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political_news/13525237.Revealed__indyref_created_a_surge_of_support_for_the_left/

It doesn't look like a Bell Curve.

 

[angrysoba]

Because of course, those on the right of the Labour party are a million miles away from those on the left of the Conservative party, obviously.

Well if they are not then the two parties don't offer a choice between them. If they are, then they cancel out the choice by forming a coalition.

 

[Francesca R]

Found one for the UK

That's pretty fascinating . . .

I find the bimodal one that you linked for the US to be more plausible for what I have often suspected in the UK

 

[shuttlt]

That's pretty fascinating . . .

I find the bimodal one that you linked for the US to be more plausible for what I have often suspected in the UK

But the bimodal ones are for political donors, are most people in the US political donors. I'd have thought the left hand graph is closer to the general population.

 

[MikeG]

Well if they are not then the two parties don't offer a choice between them........

That only applies if there were no spread of opinion within political parties. The very existence of Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) MP demonstrates the error of this assumption......as does, say, Ken Clarke, Bill Cash and David Davis being members of the Conservative party.

 

[Francesca R]

But the bimodal ones are for political donors, are most people in the US political donors. I'd have thought the left hand graph is closer to the general population.

Well it seems my suspicion about what's plausible is wrong anyway.

Wonder where the parties score on that UK chart?