UK: March general election.

[Undesired Walrus]

It's going round that Brown will call a general election in March, hoping to avoid the Budget and take advantage of the most favourable poll numbers Labour have got in years (Some put it as close as 6%).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954609.ece

The Labour party is gearing up for an early general election as a new Sunday Times poll reveals a narrowing of the Conservative lead.

Party chiefs have ordered staff to be ready to fight an election any time from the new year amid growing Labour optimism that a Conservative victory can be averted.

Gordon Brown last week addressed a private “key seats” meeting, when candidates were told to have their campaign literature ready for publication by the end of next month.

March election 'Likely' says Cameron.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/fourth-estate/2009/12/march-election-brown-tax

 

[Arcade22]

Are there any extensive Opinion polls about which party people would vote for?

 

[Merko]

Everything suggests the Tories will win.

I think it's mainly another case study in why the run-to-the-center strategy is flawed. The 'New' Labour have governed for a long time now, but their policies have been right-of-center. Left wing voters voted for them because they had no alternative. Centrist voters voted for them because Blair was charismatic. And some right wing voters voted for them because the Tories were not fit for government.

Now that the Tories are doing a better job at offering a credible alternative, right wing voters obviously prefer the 'real deal'. Centrists are not hot for Brown because he does not have star power. And leftists can't see the point of voting for a party whose policies are mostly conservative anyway. Perhaps a few years with the Tories will be worse, but at least that would bring the chance of a political re-evaluation within Labour.

 

[Puppycow]

People tend to get tired of one-party rule after a long time, especially when the economy is in poor shape. It happened recently in Japan.

 

[Francesca R]

It's going round that Brown will call a general election in March, hoping to avoid the Budget and take advantage of the most favourable poll numbers Labour have got in years (Some put it as close as 6%).

Everything suggests the Tories will win.

Current polls suggest that there would not be an outright winner. My suspicion is that the public would be sufficiently scared of a hung parliament (which would not likely last long anyway) that current polls are unlikely indeed to stay that way. Best guess is, indeed, that the Tories win.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I hope after this election we never hear of 'New Labour' again. People to take out of the Labour shadow Cabinet: Harman, Balls, Benn, Cooper, Hain, Darling. Get rid of the horrific sleaze and pathetic populism (No more celebrities standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister on issues of African debt, please). Become the party again of people who don't travel in first class.

I can imagine Alan Johnson will be leader after Brown. I don't agree with his support for PR, but he wouldn't be a poor choice. A former postman and highly charismatic. He would appeal to Old Labourites.

 

[Architect]

My suspicion is that the public would be sufficiently scared of a hung parliament (which would not likely last long anyway)

Some of us have survived several years with a coalition government just fine, and seem to be working away quite merrily at present with a minority one......


....oh, and did I mention a form of PR too?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The kind of PR used in the EU elections -for instance- completely destroys the link between the public and the representitive. It is less democratic, not more, as you don't vote for the mind who will carry out the politics, just the party. Furthermore, coalition governments are less democratic, making backroom deals, utterly against the will of the public who wanted their leadership to be devoid of the party their one just teamed up with.

One only has to look at the BNP's recent wins in the same election to see how certain parties can disproportionately win seats, simply because the vote has decreased for other parties.

 

[Darat]

April 1st is a Thursday.... Please! Please!

 

[commandlinegamer]

I just hope they field a candidate from the Monster Raving Loony Party in my constituency. (I miss David Sutch :-( )

 

[mbp]

Furthermore, coalition governments are less democratic, making backroom deals, utterly against the will of the public who wanted their leadership to be devoid of the party their one just teamed up with.

Unlike in your preferred system where a party the majority of the public wanted their leadership to be devoid of can be in complete control without having to resort to any backroom deals at all.

I can see some value - mainly increased accountability - in knowing exactly who your elected representative is. But in all other respects proportional representation is far preferable, IMO.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Unlike in your preferred system where a party the majority of the public wanted their leadership to be devoid of can be in complete control without having to resort to any backroom deals at all.

Who says I'm in favour of FPTP?

I can see some value - mainly increased accountability - in knowing exactly who your elected representative is. But in all other respects proportional representation is far preferable, IMO.

There is more than increased accountability in electing a representative. One can be a pro-EU Tory but still find that their vote helped elect Daniel Hannan under PR.

 

[mbp]

Who says I'm in favour of FPTP?

What sort of system would you prefer then?

There is more than increased accountability in electing a representative. One can be a pro-EU Tory but still find that their vote helped elect Daniel Hannan.

I don't see how, in any system featuring parties, you can avoid the risk of having your vote end up sometimes supporting people of policies you don't like.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What sort of system would you prefer then?

AV, although I don't mind FPTP.

I don't see how, in any system featuring parties, you can avoid the risk of having your vote end up sometimes supporting people of policies you don't like.

But yet the current system allows for a far more direct method of removing or installing someone than PR. Infact, it is the most direct method. Once someone is installed by PR, there is utterly no way of directly removing them unless the party is so unpopular it loses the ability to have elected members.

One advantage of FPTP is that it stops a highly populated but small area (Say the South of England) making the decision on who should lead the country even though the a less populated but larger area (Say the North) votes in the complete opposite. FPTP allows the current Government to more accurately represent a cross-section of the population, as it doesn't rely on the number of votes but the number of areas.

 

[mbp]

AV, although I don't mind FPTP.

I think AV would provide fairer results within each constituency, but it can't really mitigate what I see as problematic about the overall results.
Do you think the fact that your system routinely hands power to a party backed by significantly less than half the voters is a problem, but one which is outweighed by the benefits of the system? Or do you not see it as a problem at all?

Once someone is installed by PR, there is utterly no way of directly removing them unless the party is so unpopular it loses the ability to have elected members.

What do you mean by "directly"?
Not all PR systems are the same. But in the one I know well (the one used in Denmark, obviously) you vote for a party and (optionally) also for a specific candidate from that party. The total number of votes cast for the party determines the number of candidates elected. Which of the candidates for a party make it in then depends on the number of votes each of them received personally. So to be (re-)elected you need to be popular among the people who vote for your party.

One advantage of FPTP is that it stops a highly populated but small area (Say the South of England) making the decision on who should lead the country even though the a less populated but larger area (Say the North) votes in the complete opposite

I can't make any sense of that. If the South is more heavily populated it will have more constituencies and return more MPs. Thus if the candidates for the "Evil Southerners" party win all over the South and the "Plucky Northerners" party win everywhere in the North then the southerners will rule. Which, if they've received more than half the votes cast, is surely the fairest outcome?
Of course with FPTP it could be that in the south they won every race 51%-49% while in the north they didn't receive any votes at all. And then you really would have the more populous region imposing its will against the wishes of the majority of the overall population.

FPTP allows the current Government to more accurately represent a cross-section of the population, as it doesn't rely on the number of votes but the number of areas.

In the Danish system the country is divided into ten districts, each of which return a number of MPs proportional to the size of their population. A candidate can only run in one of these areas which ensures that the MPs elected represent all areas of the country. So while you don't get your own personal MP, you do know exactly what people were elected in your district and who (if any) your vote ended up benefiting.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Ok, I seem to have erroneously thought that PR did away with regions.

The advantage of retaining the constituency system with a single elected MP is that regardless of how unpopular people find the main parties, you'll notice that their attitude toward their local MP is favourable. It's because people appreciate someone living in their area, talking to their people, and being more accountable than somebody who isn't on the ballot paper. PR is likely to detach the populace from politics even more.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Ok, I seem to have erroneously thought that PR did away with regions.

The advantage of retaining the constituency system with a single elected MP is that regardless of how unpopular people find the main parties, you'll notice that their attitude toward their local MP is favourable. It's because people appreciate someone living in their area, talking to their people, and being more accountable than somebody who isn't on the ballot paper. PR is likely to detach the populace from politics even more.

I'm not sure you really understand PR, we have STV here, and I still have a local representative, in fact it's better than the UK, because I have two.

If I wish to complain about the forest of red tape strangling innovative small businesses I can go to Noel Dempsey's surgery for help, and he's in the cabinet so in a position to do something about it.
If on the other hand I want to complain about the endless stream of godless filth RTE pump into my home then I can go to Damien English, who isn't in government, but is from a more socially conservative party, so more likely to care.

It's not perfect but there don't seem to be the problems you are describing.