• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Coalition in Westminster

Rolfe said:
I heard stuff I really liked on the radio this morning. Full implementation of the Calman Report (in fact they were saying "Calman plus"), and legislation to prevent Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs voting on English domestic legislation. There was even some hint of possibly further reductions in the number of Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Very nervous about what will come out of this coalition for Scotland - neither party will have anything to lose now and simply don't trust them.

Implementing Calman could easily equal - cutting Scottish funding and let them put up taxes if they want more (without of course handing over any of the ability to bring in revenue other than income tax)

English domestic legislation? What exactly does that mean? Are they going to be careful about separating English-only and primarily-English legislation or just exclude non-English MPs from voting on anything that smells a bit English? Effectively makes non-English MPs second class in the Commons.

Cutting Scotland's Westminister representation? Aye, fantastic. Give us even less say but keep us tied in to the Union! Why not just take all our votes away?

The Devil will be in the detail but we now have two parties who have shown they don't have Scotland's interests at heart making significant change in the system - I can't see that being good for Scotland.
 
This fixed term malarky seems a bit odd, would it be possible to have an impotent Government for a few years?, There is talk about requiring a vote of 2/3 - 3/4 of all MP's voting in no confidence.

Should this sort of thing not be decided by referendum?
 
lionking said:
What it does mean is that your second preference counts in a contest where there is not a clear majority, which is at least something. Don't get me wrong, the system is far from perfect. Parties do preference deals and put out "how to vote" cards. You sometimes see the Labor Party recommending second preferences for conservative christian parties in exchange for their preferences.

All in all, though, it seems far superior to the dog's breakfast you have there now.
Click to expand...

I don't think this has particularly been a dog's breakfast - it's just been the media/public/politicians aren't used to it. If we had an established PR system you'd probably have seen a Lib/Lab coalition without too much fuss however that just didn't compute for those raised under the FPTP Tory OR Labour no other options thinking.
 
lionking said:
Spot on, which is why I can't see the coalition lasting too long.
Click to expand...

Their core voters won't like them dropping their sine qua non policy; the Tory voters won't like them diluting their true-blueness; the rest of the voters won't like them cosying up to the Tories.

It's not exactly a political masterstroke as far as I can see.

Delscottio said:
This fixed term malarky seems a bit odd, would it be possible to have an impotent Government for a few years?
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why Cameron is suddenly quite keen on the idea ;)
 
Last edited:
In a PR system you could easily see the Greens or a conservative religious party having the balance of power. Does anyone want to see that?
 
richardm said:
Their core voters won't like them dropping their sine qua non policy; the Tory voters won't like them diluting their true-blueness; the rest of the voters won't like them cosying up to the Tories.

It's not exactly a political masterstroke as far as I can see.
Click to expand...


Push through fixed term and it might be a master stroke, 5 years time the economy will have picked up and everyone will be smelling of roses.
 
Since Australian voting (federal and state) is compulsory, we get a fuller cross-the-board result from the voters using the AV system - a 95%-plus turnout. That can be good and bad - for "interesting" election campaigns, you tend to get a truer representative result returned. For really dull election campaigns, the donkey vote and party-line vote play a bigger part. (And most elections ARE dull campaigns!)
 
lionking said:
I mean Tassie is the size of Geelong or Penrith. They hardly deserve to be a state.
Click to expand...
I ressemble that remark! I'm an apple-bender from way back! :mad:

Besides, Tassie is not that quite that small these days. Half a million voters...
 
lionking said:
In a PR system you could easily see the Greens or a conservative religious party having the balance of power. Does anyone want to see that?
Click to expand...
If it was true PR, every nutbag one-issue party and more would come out of the woodwork and try to get their share. But if you impose a quota...that's Hare-Clark!
 
Zep said:
If it was true PR, every nutbag one-issue party and more would come out of the woodwork and try to get their share. But if you impose a quota...that's Hare-Clark!
Click to expand...
You might be right Zep (and excuse the gratuitous Tassie sledge - I'm there often and like the place). I guess I have problems with the Greens sharing power anywhere.
 
lionking said:
You might be right Zep (and excuse the gratuitous Tassie sledge - I'm there often and like the place). I guess I have problems with the Greens sharing power anywhere.
Click to expand...
I think you will find they can be as pragmatic as the next politician over policy if it means a share of the power... ;)

Really, our Greens are just trying to be Labour's conscience - fill in where the old Democrats left off (I do miss them!). The Libs don't have a conscience, of course. ;)
 
I think we need to wait for the Queen's Speech to see where the real potential sticking points will be. However, interesting to see how local activists will spin it to constituents.
 
Last edited:
Zep said:
I think you will find they can be as pragmatic as the next politician over policy if it means a share of the power... ;)

Really, our Greens are just trying to be Labour's conscience - fill in where the old Democrats left off (I do miss them!). The Libs don't have a conscience, of course. ;)
Click to expand...


I dunno. I remember listening to the one-and-only dual-ticket Plaid Cymru/Green MP ever elected. He was tearing his hair out and the whole thing fell apart pretty quickly. The MP was actually PC, but PC had been persuaded to stand on the dual ticket. God alone knows how. The constituency was in the west of Wales, and desperately needed a new/upgraded trunk road to its main town, a port which was dying because of poor land connections.

The Greens fought singlemindedly against any improvements to the road, and against any economic development at all that might have an environmental impact. Which is to say, any economic development at all.

This was in the 1990s and they have perhaps grown up a bit since then but I wouldn't like to bet on it.

Rolfe.
 
We do have some MPs like that, but they tend to be the one-eyed, thick-headed religious zealots, not the Greens.


PS. I can't see the new UK alliance lasting very long. There will be tears before bed-time.
 
Last edited:
The sense of despair I felt while watching Cameron entering 10 Downing Street was unreal. Clegg will never be forgiven for this.
 
Zep said:
We do have some MPs like that, but they tend to be the one-eyed, thick-headed religious zealots, not the Greens.
Click to expand...
I don't know zep (and this is going a bit off topic). I think the Tassie Greens will oppose any development not in accord with their worldview, starting with the Gunns timber mill, regardless of the benefits to Tasmania. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
lionking said:
I don't know zep (and this is going a bit off topic). I think the Tassie Greens will oppose any development not in accord with their worldview, starting with the Gunns timber mill, regardless of the benefits to Tasmania. We'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
[derail]

I'm sort of with them on that. The Greens are not anti-jobs (eco-tourism thrives in Tasmania). But Gunn's proposal was just more of the same sort of rapacious greed like the HEC did to Lake Pedder and threatened to the Franklin that got them world-wide approbation a few decades ago. If they were prepared to revisit the concept, there were some viable options that could go forward. Pragmatism involves some give as well as take. Gunns didn't seem strong on the former...

[/derail]
 
Comment from Enemies of Reason [1]:

The dog days are over for little Englander pissants on messageboards roaring at PCgonemad and elfnsafety which youcouldn'tmakeup(eventhoughitturnsoutyoucould). You're in power now. This is what you wanted. Not quite exactly what you wanted - those pesky Liberal Democrats lurking behind David Cameron will no doubt take the brunt of all blame for anything that goes wrong between now and 2015 - but the end of Gordon Brown. Or Gordy McLiar. Or Gordon McClown. Or whatever hilarious slightly misspellings you could come up with today. Goodbye, too, to saying "Mugabe would be proud of you" when talking about the Government, or calling NuLab ZaNuLab.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the scene in the film The Guns of Navarone where Gregory Peck finally loses patience with David Niven's constant whining:

"Well, son... your bystanding days are over! You're in it now, up to your neck!"


[1] http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/05/12/youre-in-power-now/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom