how come PR works just fine on mainland europe?

Doesn't work that well here in Spain.

what are the problems with PR in Spain mogrim?

If you listen carefully you can hear the right-wing wolves baying for Cameron's blood. He knows his neck is on the line and will do a deal at almost any cost.
Clegg also has to play it carefully with his MPs and grass roots (many who voted tactically anti-Tory), or we could have three new party leaders and a new election before the year is out.

Demos, riots, overturned cars in the streets, many more homeless, infrastructure decay, a rise in crimes against the person and property, a happy time perhaps for the City and the secure middle classes, a dreadful time for the vulnerable, the disabled, the physically and mentally ill, the homeless and the poor.

I'm amazed how popular this narrative is (hell, I'm impressed by how skilled Labour are at using narrative in general – the time spent studying postmodernism obviously paid off), that as soon as the Tories get in, they start spitting on plebs and create a virtual civil war, whilst under Labour, everything is hunky dory.

We've seen the police killing and beating people at demonstrations, our economy implode, a huge rise in crimes against the person (mainly because people carry more high value items, and cars are more difficult to steal) which hasn't been dealt with, local councils spying on people, and a huge amount of racial / religious tension whipped up by overblown claims about the threat of terrorism.

But of course, the Tories are the nasty party and Labour are lovely.

a huge rise in crimes against the person (mainly because people carry more high value items, and cars are more difficult to steal) which hasn't been dealt with

Stats to back that one or did you just make it up on the spot?

Labour are lovely.

Indeed they are. It's the New crowd that are shite.

But of course, the Tories are the nasty party

Tru dat.

Blimey, I just read the transcript of the Adam Boulton moment….oops!

But of course, the Tories are the nasty party and Labour are lovely.

Two sides to a blunt,rusty sword IMO.

what are the problems with PR in Spain mogrim?

* The balance of power is held by small, regional parties, leading to an uneven distribution of funding, duplication of services and layers of government, etc.

* Party lists mean politicians are much more disconnected from the local populace.

* Extremist parties (the political wing of ETA springs to mind) in government.

The last point I'm slightly divided on, if they're elected in a free election, they should have the right to representation. And Sinn Fein is a perfect example of how political engagement can soften positions.

our economy implode the world economy implode

Fixed that for you.

I don't understand why people think a coalition would be best when it's between two parties that are far apart on ideological grounds? Seems to me the problem is that LD/Con wouldn't get on well because they are too far apart, and LD/LAB/Others wouldn't get on because there'd be too many of them.

I still vote for the latter though because at least Plaid/SNP/Green etc are on the same side, so to speak.

It's great watching all the tory boys frothing at the mouth.

Of course Nick Clegg is going to examine all the options before throwing his lot in with whoever he picks. Why on earth would he back CallMeDave, Osbourne and Hague before being absolutely sure that they are compatible? Likewise with Uncle Grumpy.

It's only a couple of days since the election FFS and looking at the percentages each party commanded, no-one exactly set the world on fire did they?

* The balance of power is held by small, regional parties, leading to an uneven distribution of funding, duplication of services and layers of government, etc.

ok but isn't that actually an argument for proper devolution?

Of course Nick Clegg is going to examine all the options before throwing his lot in with whoever he picks. Why on earth would he back CallMeDave, Osbourne and Hague before being absolutely sure that they are compatible?

I quite agree, he has a duty to get the best deal for his party, and I voted tory. Everyone else would do the same.

the world economy implode

Whilst that is true we were over spending so now times aren't so good the budget deficit is horrendous and pain will follow.

Personally if I were Dave et al, I'd be letting the Labour/ Lib Dem lot have it. Let them cock it right up and force an election in 6 months.

Indeed – the trouble is that whilst it would probably be good for the Torys in the longer term, such a weak coalition unable to take decisive action quickly wouldn't be at all good for the country right now (and surely Clegg knows that?)

"The balance of power is held by small, regional parties, leading to an uneven distribution of funding, duplication of services and layers of government, etc."
ok but isn't that actually an argument for proper devolution?

Only if you think the tail should wag the dog.

"our economy implode the world economy implode"
Fixed that for you.

Not at all. Unless of course you believe everything Gordon says about the recession being nothing to do with any decisions that have ever been or ever will be taken in this country.

I am starting to tire of this "between them Labour and Libs got 54% of the vote therefore they have the popular mandate to rule". That's like saying Liverpool and Everton got more points than Chelsea in the Premiership so they should share the trophy instead.

Whichever way it goes it could get messy and the Libs may not come out of it smelling of Roses.

– Cleggs gonna look stupid if he goes with Labour after going on about working with the party with the most votes/seats
– the Libs start throwing their (little) weight about to make stupid policies happen. Won't be a good advert for their beloved PR.
– Labours track record of blaming others – it'll no doubt be the Libs fault if things go pear shaped in a LibLab pact.
– Again, Cons won't be far behind blaming Libs if they cosy up together.

Wouldn't want to be Clegg now. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think Clegg knew he had to look to the Tories first after what he said in the campaign. However many of the lib dem activists and voters would not be happy in coalition with the Tories. Thus Clegg has to get a very good deal to sell it to the party. This then leaves the Tories in a difficult position as a deal that would keep the lib dems on side would not be acceptable to the frothing tory right – PR, positive on Europe, etc.

To me it doesn't look like there is a deal to be made there unless its a policy by policy one. They are too far apart for coalition.

A deal between Labour and the lib dems is much easier to do. However getting and keeping all the odd bods on side as well would never be easy. However that could backfire badly on the Lib dems as "keeping labour in power"

I think the tories should conceed enough to the lib dems to get a queens speech thru – but not enough to get a full coalition in place and then run as a minority government.

A one year programme and then new elections

Wouldn't want to be Clegg now

Surely you'd want to be Clegg rather more than you'd have wanted to be leader of the Lib Dems after any other election for the last 90 years? At least he does have some power now – I shouldn't think he really cares that much if it makes him a bit unpopular.

Slight problem with Labour/Libdem is that they'd need to get other minor parties to join in too. I can't see that anyone can give more on the PR thing than offering referendum.

I think the tories should conceed enough to the lib dems to get a queens speech thru – but not enough to get a full coalition in place and then run as a minority government.

That does of course depend on the Lib Dems accepting that without insisting on them conceding something they can't get past the rest of the Tory party.

That's like saying Liverpool and Everton got more points than Chelsea in the Premiership so they should share the trophy instead

It's nothing like it! Sport is adversarial, and the aim is to find one winner. The electoral system is not like that at all, it's meant to a) represent the people and b) allow governments to govern. Totally different set of requirements.

Only if you think the tail should wag the dog

as I said, its a argument for proper devolution. The idea that minority views are somehow less important because they are regionally biased just indicates the farcical deliniation of national/regional boundaries and the electoral system in many cases.

If the tail is wagging the dog then there needs to be two dogs (or something like that 🙂 )

Cameron has been negotiating for 3 days and has not been able to get agreement with Clegg, they then start panicking and make offer of voting reform which was obviously not on the table when negotiating.

I just cannot see why anyone is hammering Clegg when he has tried to get a deal with Cameron, personally I do not care what happens anymore but am fed up with the pathetic reporting. The interview with Adam Boulton and the interview with Kay Burley what the hell is going on?

I can't see that anyone can give more on the PR thing than offering referendum.

Apart from making it law and then offering a referendum on whether to keep the law (which is Labour's preferred form of "democracy").

Either way, the person/party coming third should not hold so much sway. Nor should a multiply disgraced, unelected conman.

So who should hold sway, the party that failed to comprehensively beat one of the most unpopular PMs of recent times, in the middle of a financial crisis?

It's nothing like it! Sport is adversarial, and the aim is to find one winner. The electoral system is not like that at all, it's meant to a) represent the people and b) allow governments to govern. Totally different set of requirements.

Exactly

'straight PR will never happen in the UK – one simple reason, the BNP – no party is willing to countenance being responsible for The Nazis having more seats than the SNP, the greens, Plaid Cymru, DUP or SLDP – Fifth biggest party, over half a million votes!'

That's one of the reasons we need PR, then when the BNP gets some seats it will force the major parties to deal with them by reclaiming voters rather than let them continue to be a continual thorn in everyones side as they are now.

It's beginning to look like no-one really wants to form a government as they know they will have to cut services and raise tax, and the negotiations are all about avoiding being the fall guys…

ocrider,

Thanks for that link. I think if nothing else it shows what a brilliant performer Alastair Campbell is and how desperate some of the tories backers, like Sky/Murdoch are.

I especially loved the bit where Campbell reminded Boulton that they were on television – what a pro!

So who should hold sway, the party that failed to comprehensively beat one of the most unpopular PMs of recent times, in the middle of a financial crisis?

I just love the circular argument here, that because your opposition is rubbish and you didn't manage to thrash them, that makes you so rubbish that your rubbish opponent should do the job instead.

when the BNP gets some seats it will force the major parties to deal with them by reclaiming voters

By adopting BNP policies? 😯

I am starting to tire of this "between them Labour and Libs got 54% of the vote therefore they have the popular mandate to rule".

+1. Completeley irrelevant and it still doesn't give a majority. There is no way this could be justified.

It shouldn't be funny but..

View post on imgur.com

That is all..

You think this is bad? Wait until/if we get some sort of PR.

The main reason for the intransigence currently is that Clegg and Cameron can and do agree, as they can at No 10, its just that the "jobs for the boys society" down the road, don't like it, as they know that their jobs for life will be under threat with PR. Now explain to me why that would be a bad thing.

Before you know it, major political parties will have to cosy up to extremist loons to form a government.

If you look at a normal distribution curve is is self evident that 80% of any population is likely to be near the middle. Currently under the first past the post system we get extremist governments. Hopefully once people realise that they can get a moderate government elected they will start to vote honestly for what they actually want, rather than tactically for what they dislike least. Most people I know hate the constant clash between left and right and simply want rid of dogma.

Either way, the person/party coming third should not hold so much sway.

Why not? I do beleive that is precisely what the electorate voted for. Or do the plebs with the votes not count?

Nor should a multiply disgraced, unelected conman.

I totally agree, so why is it that Cameron doesn't see that, and keeps banging on about his right to govern? Stop listening to the rhetoric, and get with the programme. The population voted for "None of the Above". Now the twunts have to sort it out between them..

It shouldn't be funny but..

It's not. The poor fecker has been in a plane crash.
Do you laugh at bombings? house fires?

The population voted for "None of the Above". Now the twunts have to sort it out between them..

So the politicians choose the government, not the people.

I just love the circular argument here, that because your opposition is rubbish and you didn't manage to thrash them,

Not thrash them, just beat them under the current system. Face it, the Tories missed a massive open goal here.

Sport is adversarial, and the aim is to find one winner. The electoral system is not like that at all

Really?

So the politicians choose the government, not the people

Correct

The population voted for "None of the Above"

No they bloody didn't, some of them voted lab, some con and some ld. So that's why we need PR, and it's also why there is negotiation going on.

Fail to see why this is so hard to understand. Elections are NOT competitions, seriously. Get this out of your heads folks.