USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
- Thread starter Red Cloud
- Start date
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
A few quick notes:
1. 007 sounds 00-awful in that clip.
2. Hard to believe, considering that the United States has five times the population, that the Commons has more members than the House of Representatives by a total of 650-435. Anyone know why this is?
3. I'm so certain that a "hung parliament" sounds as doomful as many people make it sound. Though it is referred to in Canada as a "minority government" for reasons that I am also curious of, our neighbors to the north haven't had an election that resulted in a majority for nearly 10 years and they appear to be getting along relatively fine.
A few quick notes:
1. 007 sounds 00-awful in that clip.
2. Hard to believe, considering that the United States has five times the population, that the Commons has more members than the House of Representatives by a total of 650-435. Anyone know why this is?
3. I'm so certain that a "hung parliament" sounds as doomful as many people make it sound. Though it is referred to in Canada as a "minority government" for reasons that I am also curious of, our neighbors to the north haven't had an election that resulted in a majority for nearly 10 years and they appear to be getting along relatively fine.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Can someone describe the "first past the post" system to me? Apologies if I missed it earlier.
Can someone describe the "first past the post" system to me? Apologies if I missed it earlier.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Works just like Congress.
The guy who wins the most votes in your riding/district whatever is your new MP, the party who gets the most MPs (in most cases) gets to form a government.
Works just like Congress.
The guy who wins the most votes in your riding/district whatever is your new MP, the party who gets the most MPs (in most cases) gets to form a government.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
My guess is that they are attempting to extrapolate the vote district-by-district.
My guess is that they are attempting to extrapolate the vote district-by-district.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
I thought that too. The reason he himself does not appear in the clip, though, is that he has apparently sworn not to return to Scotland until they are independent.
Speaking of the SNP, they are continuing to make a stink over their exclusion from the main debates. They are now attempting to raise £50,000 to spend on legal action over this upcoming Thursday's final debate, not seeking to shut the broadcast down but instead seeking to have a member of the SNP involved.
It's actually increasing by 4 seats over the last parliament. I'm not sure why the numbers are as they are, though most constituencies in the UK represent far fewer people than congressional districts in the United States. Most are between 60k-80k people, but there's a big difference between the largest constituency (Isle of Wight, the only one over 100k, even the only one over 80k) and the smallest (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Scottish Outer Hebrides, the only one under 30k). So the numbers vary widely - they'd never fly in the US, but I think to some extent they are predicated on traditional geographic borders.
They're also, I think, partially driven by the fact that the House of Commons, in a practical sense, IS the government of the United Kingdom, whereas the House of Representatives is a lower elected house in the legislature of a multi-branch government. Sure, you've got the House of Lords and the Queen, but the Lords can no longer effectively stop the Commons from eventually passing legislation (although they can hold it up) and the Queen is nothing more than a figurehead.
Well, it's been about 6 years actually.
The problem with minority governments in Canada and elsewhere is that they're very tenuous. They depend on people who do not agree with each other on major issues (which is why they're in separate parties) working together for an extended period of time. When that cooperation ceases, the government ceases to function and a new round of elections pops up. That's fun for election watchers like me, but it sucks for the country. Majority governments can stay in power for the duration of their term since they can't lose votes of confidence (although they could call for early elections if they think they can increase their numbers). Take Canada - when the Liberals had three consecutive majorities, there were three elections between 1993 and 2004. Since the three consecutive minorities, 1 Liberal and 2 Conservative, there were three elections between 2004 and 2008 - and I fully expect another election either late this year or early next year. Minority governments in Canada tend to last less than two years, that's less than half of the usual four-year (by tradition) terms.
Some would say that a hung parliament, given the Westminster system used in Canada and the UK, might be the best equivalent of the American "gridlock" of separate parties controlling the House and Senate, or Congress and the White House, forcing moderation and compromise.
In the UK, though, a lot of the concern centers around the fact that the British electorate just doesn't usually return hung parliaments, and it means a great deal of concern over what that might mean for the country simply because they're not used to having a situation where one party has not been given a mandate.
They're more worthwhile than those polls. Generally in the United States, the Democrats always lead those National House polls and that doesn't always translate into a Democrat majority - they even led the final generic poll in 1994, which is telling.
Again, I think you go back to the differences between the House of Representatives and the House of Commons in terms of what their roles in government is. UK elections are a mashup of a Presidential election and a mid-term election in the US, since Britons will ultimately be electing a head of government (the Prime Minister) in addition to their individual MPs. Americans, by and large, are not voting for Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner for Speaker of the House in November, they're voting for their individual representative in Congress. The cumulative force behind which individual representatives are chosen will determine who the nation has chosen for Speaker, but it's not the main concern. The Speaker represents the will of the majority party of the House, she does not function as a head of government.
In the UK (and Canada), though, people tend to vote for parties (and their leaders) rather than local individuals, although the nature of the local individuals can sometimes play a role if they have a strong (or weak) personality or if they are themselves a major player in their party, though those candidates are usually running in safe constituencies in the first place.
The predictions that come down from the polls are based on "uniform swing," which has been a fairly predictable phenomenon in UK politics. These aren't hard and fast, because there is that local and regional element to every individual constituency. Labour might be struggling on a national level, but they may, for instance, be doing better in the North of England or in Scotland than they are in Lancashire or Southwest England. So the predictions or a hung parliament in either direction are general guesses, but the real numbers would potentially be plus or minus several seats.
At any rate, Labour took another blow yesterday from Nick Clegg, who swore that he would not support a government led by Gordon Brown if Labour finishes in third place, even if, as many polls have indicated, the party could still earn a plurality. Coupled with David Cameron's predictable refusal to support any government led by Gordon Brown, that means Labour needs to at least poll second in total votes if they are going to have a claim on Number 10. I do think the Lib Dems will eventually finish in third though - these rapid rises in the polls are usually hard to sustain long-term. So we'll have to wait and see.
I thought that too. The reason he himself does not appear in the clip, though, is that he has apparently sworn not to return to Scotland until they are independent.
Speaking of the SNP, they are continuing to make a stink over their exclusion from the main debates. They are now attempting to raise £50,000 to spend on legal action over this upcoming Thursday's final debate, not seeking to shut the broadcast down but instead seeking to have a member of the SNP involved.
It's actually increasing by 4 seats over the last parliament. I'm not sure why the numbers are as they are, though most constituencies in the UK represent far fewer people than congressional districts in the United States. Most are between 60k-80k people, but there's a big difference between the largest constituency (Isle of Wight, the only one over 100k, even the only one over 80k) and the smallest (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Scottish Outer Hebrides, the only one under 30k). So the numbers vary widely - they'd never fly in the US, but I think to some extent they are predicated on traditional geographic borders.
They're also, I think, partially driven by the fact that the House of Commons, in a practical sense, IS the government of the United Kingdom, whereas the House of Representatives is a lower elected house in the legislature of a multi-branch government. Sure, you've got the House of Lords and the Queen, but the Lords can no longer effectively stop the Commons from eventually passing legislation (although they can hold it up) and the Queen is nothing more than a figurehead.
Well, it's been about 6 years actually.
The problem with minority governments in Canada and elsewhere is that they're very tenuous. They depend on people who do not agree with each other on major issues (which is why they're in separate parties) working together for an extended period of time. When that cooperation ceases, the government ceases to function and a new round of elections pops up. That's fun for election watchers like me, but it sucks for the country. Majority governments can stay in power for the duration of their term since they can't lose votes of confidence (although they could call for early elections if they think they can increase their numbers). Take Canada - when the Liberals had three consecutive majorities, there were three elections between 1993 and 2004. Since the three consecutive minorities, 1 Liberal and 2 Conservative, there were three elections between 2004 and 2008 - and I fully expect another election either late this year or early next year. Minority governments in Canada tend to last less than two years, that's less than half of the usual four-year (by tradition) terms.Some would say that a hung parliament, given the Westminster system used in Canada and the UK, might be the best equivalent of the American "gridlock" of separate parties controlling the House and Senate, or Congress and the White House, forcing moderation and compromise.
In the UK, though, a lot of the concern centers around the fact that the British electorate just doesn't usually return hung parliaments, and it means a great deal of concern over what that might mean for the country simply because they're not used to having a situation where one party has not been given a mandate.
They're more worthwhile than those polls. Generally in the United States, the Democrats always lead those National House polls and that doesn't always translate into a Democrat majority - they even led the final generic poll in 1994, which is telling.
Again, I think you go back to the differences between the House of Representatives and the House of Commons in terms of what their roles in government is. UK elections are a mashup of a Presidential election and a mid-term election in the US, since Britons will ultimately be electing a head of government (the Prime Minister) in addition to their individual MPs. Americans, by and large, are not voting for Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner for Speaker of the House in November, they're voting for their individual representative in Congress. The cumulative force behind which individual representatives are chosen will determine who the nation has chosen for Speaker, but it's not the main concern. The Speaker represents the will of the majority party of the House, she does not function as a head of government.
In the UK (and Canada), though, people tend to vote for parties (and their leaders) rather than local individuals, although the nature of the local individuals can sometimes play a role if they have a strong (or weak) personality or if they are themselves a major player in their party, though those candidates are usually running in safe constituencies in the first place.
The predictions that come down from the polls are based on "uniform swing," which has been a fairly predictable phenomenon in UK politics. These aren't hard and fast, because there is that local and regional element to every individual constituency. Labour might be struggling on a national level, but they may, for instance, be doing better in the North of England or in Scotland than they are in Lancashire or Southwest England. So the predictions or a hung parliament in either direction are general guesses, but the real numbers would potentially be plus or minus several seats.
At any rate, Labour took another blow yesterday from Nick Clegg, who swore that he would not support a government led by Gordon Brown if Labour finishes in third place, even if, as many polls have indicated, the party could still earn a plurality. Coupled with David Cameron's predictable refusal to support any government led by Gordon Brown, that means Labour needs to at least poll second in total votes if they are going to have a claim on Number 10. I do think the Lib Dems will eventually finish in third though - these rapid rises in the polls are usually hard to sustain long-term. So we'll have to wait and see.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
This is something that those of us unused to multiparty systems have a hard time imagining. From the outside as a naive viewer, the 3 parties seem to be on a spectrum from left (LD) to center-left (L) to center-right (C). How then would an LD/C coalition work, excluding the "middle"? How do you have coherent policy that doesn't either drive the LD off or annoy the C voters?
This is something that those of us unused to multiparty systems have a hard time imagining. From the outside as a naive viewer, the 3 parties seem to be on a spectrum from left (LD) to center-left (L) to center-right (C). How then would an LD/C coalition work, excluding the "middle"? How do you have coherent policy that doesn't either drive the LD off or annoy the C voters?
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
One wouldn't have to look far back or away to see one similar case - the NDP were the guarantors of the first Stephen Harper government after the 2006 elections in Canada. The political chasm between the Conservatives and the NDP in the Great White North is probably even farther than between the Tories and the Lib Dems in Britain. The idea there was that Jack Layton and the NDP would keep the government from falling as a repudiation of the Liberal Party. That government didn't end when Layton withdrew his support, it ended when Harper thought he could snag a majority in 2008. After he didn't, Layton was pretty cheesed and was an element that led to the attempted political coup d'etat in December 2008 when he teamed up with the Liberals to try and form a coalition goverment (which is unheard of in peacetime Canada).
The situation would probably be similar here - Clegg is campaigning on a platform of change, so it would be fairly hypocritical of him to then support Brown. Of course, according to his argument, supporting Cameron wouldn't be much different since he equates the two parties, but at least there'd be some aspect of change, and if Cameron slipped up, he'd be in position to continue the Lib Dems' electoral growth by essentially saying "see, I told you," and having had some degree of power in the interim. I doubt it would be a formal coalition, but Clegg would certainly have some power and influence over the Conservatives' minority government (as would Gordon Brown, for that matter).
That might end up being the most interesting scenario of all. Despite the dissolution of Parliament, Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister, and remains as such until such time as a single party gains the confidence of the House. If he's stubborn enough, he can still try to claim a minority government based on a plurality, but if Clegg doesn't go for it, it's going to be a tough sell.
The tactical voting element is starting to grow and that's likely to undercut Clegg's support. Brown is saying that a vote for Clegg makes a Tory government more likely to try and rein in left and center-left voters. Cameron is saying that a vote for Clegg makes a Labour government more likely to try and rein in right and center-right voters. Undoubtedly, as the Lib Dems continue to plateau rather than continue to gain, they're going to start losing support. So I don't think a third-place finish for Labour is realistically going to happen.
That tactical voting element is very interesting. We see it all the time in the US (which is why third parties continue to fail, because they usually just succeed in getting the candidate they are least like elected), but the fact that it happens in a nation with a competent third party and so many actually relevant minor parties is intriguing.
EDIT: Here's another way to look at it from Lord Owen, one of the founders of the SDP, one of the parties that merged to form the Lib Dems - "If you can't work with one, you can't bargain with the other. This puts him in a much better negotiating situation."
One wouldn't have to look far back or away to see one similar case - the NDP were the guarantors of the first Stephen Harper government after the 2006 elections in Canada. The political chasm between the Conservatives and the NDP in the Great White North is probably even farther than between the Tories and the Lib Dems in Britain. The idea there was that Jack Layton and the NDP would keep the government from falling as a repudiation of the Liberal Party. That government didn't end when Layton withdrew his support, it ended when Harper thought he could snag a majority in 2008. After he didn't, Layton was pretty cheesed and was an element that led to the attempted political coup d'etat in December 2008 when he teamed up with the Liberals to try and form a coalition goverment (which is unheard of in peacetime Canada).
The situation would probably be similar here - Clegg is campaigning on a platform of change, so it would be fairly hypocritical of him to then support Brown. Of course, according to his argument, supporting Cameron wouldn't be much different since he equates the two parties, but at least there'd be some aspect of change, and if Cameron slipped up, he'd be in position to continue the Lib Dems' electoral growth by essentially saying "see, I told you," and having had some degree of power in the interim. I doubt it would be a formal coalition, but Clegg would certainly have some power and influence over the Conservatives' minority government (as would Gordon Brown, for that matter).
That might end up being the most interesting scenario of all. Despite the dissolution of Parliament, Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister, and remains as such until such time as a single party gains the confidence of the House. If he's stubborn enough, he can still try to claim a minority government based on a plurality, but if Clegg doesn't go for it, it's going to be a tough sell.
The tactical voting element is starting to grow and that's likely to undercut Clegg's support. Brown is saying that a vote for Clegg makes a Tory government more likely to try and rein in left and center-left voters. Cameron is saying that a vote for Clegg makes a Labour government more likely to try and rein in right and center-right voters. Undoubtedly, as the Lib Dems continue to plateau rather than continue to gain, they're going to start losing support. So I don't think a third-place finish for Labour is realistically going to happen.
That tactical voting element is very interesting. We see it all the time in the US (which is why third parties continue to fail, because they usually just succeed in getting the candidate they are least like elected), but the fact that it happens in a nation with a competent third party and so many actually relevant minor parties is intriguing.
EDIT: Here's another way to look at it from Lord Owen, one of the founders of the SDP, one of the parties that merged to form the Lib Dems - "If you can't work with one, you can't bargain with the other. This puts him in a much better negotiating situation."
Last edited:
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
The Tories today hit back against the growing sentiment among a portion of election that a hung parliament is a desirable outcome, releasing their fourth party election broadcast mocking the "agenda" of a hung parliament as consisting of back-room horse-trading with no transparency, economic stagnation, and a new election within the year.
A quick look at the InTrade prediction market underscores the reasons why this attack vector is in for the Tories:
No party to hold overall majority: 62.6%
Conservative Party to hold overall majority: 30.6%
Labour Party to hold overall majority: 1.4%
Any other Party to hold overall majority: 1.1%
So conventional wisdom has the opinion that the only two likelihoods are a hung parliament or a Conservative majority, and the former has a 2-to-1 advantage. Given that, one would expect Labour and the Lib Dems to clearly prefer the hung parliament.
We know Clegg needs a hung parliament in order to possibly grab a bit of power - but bear in mind that while he'll be able to offer a one-stop shop for minority support or a coalition government, the Tories in particular will likely have the chance to put together support from other minor parties, especially since many of them would likely line up behind them. Clegg will have the upper-hand, but if he doesn't win enough seats to render the minor parties irrelevant, or if the Tories can at least approach the majority line of 326, his hoped for role of kingmaker won't be absolute.
SNP/Plaid: Labour is SNP's mortal enemy these days, as they are the Nats' primary roadblock to growing their Westminster allotment. The Plaid is in the same boat (though not as fervently, they have to compete with the Tories too), but they are more or less allied with the SNP. As mentioned a few weeks ago, however, the Tories could potentially come under fire if they work with parties who have independence as one of their planks.
UUP: The Tories are already in an electoral alliance with the Ulster Unionists, so any seats they take in Northern Ireland will become part of the Conservative caucus in Westminster. The problem is, they don't currently have any seats there - the one UUP candidate elected in 2005 left the party and is running as an independent due to her opposition to the alliance.
DUP: One of the more interesting cases is the Democratic Unionist Party. They hold 8 seats in the Commons at present as the largest party in Northern Ireland and the fourth-largest in the Commons. They are poised to play a key role in a hung parliament, especially if they can grow their ranks at all. The Tories would be a potential partner, but there are issues. The DUP is definitely to the right of the Tories, and they've had some internal issues - most notably, the former MP wife of the party leader and Northern Ireland's First Minister, Peter Robinson, who in January admitted to an adulterous relationship with a 19-year-old Catholic (she's a 60-year-old Protestant). She has since left the party and elected office, but the fallout may result in UUP gains, especially since the UUP topped the DUP in last year's European elections.
SDLP: As mentioned before, the SDLP would almost certainly ally itself with Labour, though whether they'll have enough MPs to make a difference is in doubt.
Green: Basically the same as the SDLP. The Greens would almost certainly be an appealing partner for Labour, but they'll have 2 or 3 MPs at the most, if any.
UKIP: They'd probably be open to working with the Tories if they get any MPs elected, but the question is whether the Tories would be willing to work with them, as they've tried to distance themselves from an outright anti-European policy.
BNP: No chance whatsoever of the BNP, should they gain any seats, being part of any coalition or tacit support. Any party seen working with the BNP or even accepting their support would have serious problems.
Respect: A small party that I haven't mentioned and that does have one seat in Parliament (George Galloway, who you may remember as the pro-Saddam MP). He's a former Labour MP (who was tossed out during the lead up to the Iraq War), but he despises the Tories as much as he despises his old party. Hard to see him offering support to either, but the party might be more interested in Labour. They may not win any seats at all anyway.
Independents: Obviously, they'll differ on each individual basis, but in a hung parliament, expect the handful of independents that will be elected to choose sides.
The Tories today hit back against the growing sentiment among a portion of election that a hung parliament is a desirable outcome, releasing their fourth party election broadcast mocking the "agenda" of a hung parliament as consisting of back-room horse-trading with no transparency, economic stagnation, and a new election within the year.
A quick look at the InTrade prediction market underscores the reasons why this attack vector is in for the Tories:
No party to hold overall majority: 62.6%
Conservative Party to hold overall majority: 30.6%
Labour Party to hold overall majority: 1.4%
Any other Party to hold overall majority: 1.1%
So conventional wisdom has the opinion that the only two likelihoods are a hung parliament or a Conservative majority, and the former has a 2-to-1 advantage. Given that, one would expect Labour and the Lib Dems to clearly prefer the hung parliament.
We know Clegg needs a hung parliament in order to possibly grab a bit of power - but bear in mind that while he'll be able to offer a one-stop shop for minority support or a coalition government, the Tories in particular will likely have the chance to put together support from other minor parties, especially since many of them would likely line up behind them. Clegg will have the upper-hand, but if he doesn't win enough seats to render the minor parties irrelevant, or if the Tories can at least approach the majority line of 326, his hoped for role of kingmaker won't be absolute.
SNP/Plaid: Labour is SNP's mortal enemy these days, as they are the Nats' primary roadblock to growing their Westminster allotment. The Plaid is in the same boat (though not as fervently, they have to compete with the Tories too), but they are more or less allied with the SNP. As mentioned a few weeks ago, however, the Tories could potentially come under fire if they work with parties who have independence as one of their planks.
UUP: The Tories are already in an electoral alliance with the Ulster Unionists, so any seats they take in Northern Ireland will become part of the Conservative caucus in Westminster. The problem is, they don't currently have any seats there - the one UUP candidate elected in 2005 left the party and is running as an independent due to her opposition to the alliance.
DUP: One of the more interesting cases is the Democratic Unionist Party. They hold 8 seats in the Commons at present as the largest party in Northern Ireland and the fourth-largest in the Commons. They are poised to play a key role in a hung parliament, especially if they can grow their ranks at all. The Tories would be a potential partner, but there are issues. The DUP is definitely to the right of the Tories, and they've had some internal issues - most notably, the former MP wife of the party leader and Northern Ireland's First Minister, Peter Robinson, who in January admitted to an adulterous relationship with a 19-year-old Catholic (she's a 60-year-old Protestant). She has since left the party and elected office, but the fallout may result in UUP gains, especially since the UUP topped the DUP in last year's European elections.
SDLP: As mentioned before, the SDLP would almost certainly ally itself with Labour, though whether they'll have enough MPs to make a difference is in doubt.
Green: Basically the same as the SDLP. The Greens would almost certainly be an appealing partner for Labour, but they'll have 2 or 3 MPs at the most, if any.
UKIP: They'd probably be open to working with the Tories if they get any MPs elected, but the question is whether the Tories would be willing to work with them, as they've tried to distance themselves from an outright anti-European policy.
BNP: No chance whatsoever of the BNP, should they gain any seats, being part of any coalition or tacit support. Any party seen working with the BNP or even accepting their support would have serious problems.
Respect: A small party that I haven't mentioned and that does have one seat in Parliament (George Galloway, who you may remember as the pro-Saddam MP). He's a former Labour MP (who was tossed out during the lead up to the Iraq War), but he despises the Tories as much as he despises his old party. Hard to see him offering support to either, but the party might be more interested in Labour. They may not win any seats at all anyway.
Independents: Obviously, they'll differ on each individual basis, but in a hung parliament, expect the handful of independents that will be elected to choose sides.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
BBC International had a very interesting story on street sentiment in a northern steel town (Middleborough?) which sounds a lot like Youngstown, OH in the 70's. The steel plant has closed, the locals feel like Labour didn't give them anything but promises (the general sentiment is that the government should have stepped in and saved the industry). Not much support for the Tories, but a lot of apathy and cynicism, and it sounded like this was a prototypical working class Labour stronghold that was going to sit this election out.
BBC International had a very interesting story on street sentiment in a northern steel town (Middleborough?) which sounds a lot like Youngstown, OH in the 70's. The steel plant has closed, the locals feel like Labour didn't give them anything but promises (the general sentiment is that the government should have stepped in and saved the industry). Not much support for the Tories, but a lot of apathy and cynicism, and it sounded like this was a prototypical working class Labour stronghold that was going to sit this election out.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
This seems like spin coming out of the Guardian (the Labour-backing version of the Telegraph), which claims that Nick Clegg has backed off of his proclamation that Labour could not hold Number 10 if they come in 3rd. Apparently yesterday while reiterating, Clegg substituted and said that Gordon Brown could not remain Prime Minister if Labour finished 3rd.
The Guardian takes that to mean that Labour could still control the government with a 3rd place showing as long as they dumped Brown and they immediately mentioned David Miliband as a potential replacement as Prime Minister.
The only thing I can say to that is... uh, what? They take the assumption that the Lib Dems prefer to form a coalition with or support a government by Labour. The only problem is that around Great Britain, there are twice as many instances on city councils or other local governments where there are more successful Lib Dem/Tory coalitions than there are Lib Dem/Labour coalitions. So yes, while I'm sure Clegg and Company are almost certainly open to the idea of forming a coalition with Labour or supporting a Labour plurality if they come in second, I don't see what dumping Brown for Miliband or anyone else really is going to do for the idea that a party that polls the third-most votes can't really claim to speak for the people.
No party has earned a majority of votes in any election in 80 years, but Labour could be in a position to pull in somewhere around 25% of the vote. I was thinking this before Clegg said it - can a party which polls that low, coming behind two other parties, really stake a claim to power? With three major parties now and a round estimate of about 10% of the electorate choosing minor parties, it seems reasonable that a figure over 30% anr/or coming in at least second (with the plurality of seats) would be a prerequisite for staking a claim to be the mandate of the people in a system like this.
This seems like spin coming out of the Guardian (the Labour-backing version of the Telegraph), which claims that Nick Clegg has backed off of his proclamation that Labour could not hold Number 10 if they come in 3rd. Apparently yesterday while reiterating, Clegg substituted and said that Gordon Brown could not remain Prime Minister if Labour finished 3rd.
The Guardian takes that to mean that Labour could still control the government with a 3rd place showing as long as they dumped Brown and they immediately mentioned David Miliband as a potential replacement as Prime Minister.
The only thing I can say to that is... uh, what? They take the assumption that the Lib Dems prefer to form a coalition with or support a government by Labour. The only problem is that around Great Britain, there are twice as many instances on city councils or other local governments where there are more successful Lib Dem/Tory coalitions than there are Lib Dem/Labour coalitions. So yes, while I'm sure Clegg and Company are almost certainly open to the idea of forming a coalition with Labour or supporting a Labour plurality if they come in second, I don't see what dumping Brown for Miliband or anyone else really is going to do for the idea that a party that polls the third-most votes can't really claim to speak for the people.
No party has earned a majority of votes in any election in 80 years, but Labour could be in a position to pull in somewhere around 25% of the vote. I was thinking this before Clegg said it - can a party which polls that low, coming behind two other parties, really stake a claim to power? With three major parties now and a round estimate of about 10% of the electorate choosing minor parties, it seems reasonable that a figure over 30% anr/or coming in at least second (with the plurality of seats) would be a prerequisite for staking a claim to be the mandate of the people in a system like this.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
The "Hung Parliament Party" election broadcast I mentioned yesterday from the Tories:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1oMooR9yBc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1oMooR9yBc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Anyone else notice that piggy bank is full of American coins?
ITN describes how a hung parliament would work:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjbPasmFTIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjbPasmFTIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
The "Hung Parliament Party" election broadcast I mentioned yesterday from the Tories:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1oMooR9yBc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1oMooR9yBc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Anyone else notice that piggy bank is full of American coins?
ITN describes how a hung parliament would work:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjbPasmFTIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjbPasmFTIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Can you give us a quickie primer on the English bloids?
Can you give us a quickie primer on the English bloids?
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Sure.
You've got the Times, which is pretty straight laced despite being in Rupert Murdoch's stable. They backed Labour in '01 and '05.
There's the Independent, which vacillates from time to time - lately they've been fairly left-of-center and I think they're probably behind the Lib Dems right now.
The Telegraph and the Guardian are pretty similar news sources, with the former being largely behind the Tories (hence, "the Torygraph") and the Guardian pretty firmly in support of Labour. The Guardian, you may remember, was the paper which supported a campaign for its readers to call people in Ohio in 2004 in support of John Kerry. They're not exactly equivalent, as the Telegraph is a broadsheet and the Guardian's a tabloid, but they're close.
Then there are the true tabloids, Sun and Mirror. They are to Britain what the Post and Daily News are to New York, and like the Post and the Daily News, they fall on opposite sides of the spectrum, the Sun to the Tories and Mirror to Labour.
Matter of fact, the Sun is notable for its support of the Tories in a historic way. The day of the 1992 election, it appeared that Labour was about to unseat John Major and the Conservatives from power. Neil Kinnock (Americans may remember him as the guy Joe Biden ripped speeches off from in 1988) seemed poised to become Prime Minister and the Sun ran a headline which read "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights." (Odd thing to think of today given the UK's current immigration debate) Instead, Major and the Tories pulled out an unexpected victory and majority, which prompted the Sun the next day to trumpet: "IT'S THE SUN WOT WON IT." That phrase, and variations thereof, has become part of the British political culture. After the backlash from the Guardian's efforts in Ohio in 2004, the Independent had a story which included the phrase "it's the Guardian wot lost it."
The other newspapers aren't really as prominent. Daily Star and Daily Mail are pretty much right-wing, the Daily Express tends to favor the Tories. Financial Times, the UK's version of the Wall Street Journal, is to the left, and the Evening Standard has of late been backing the Tories.
I don't think any of the newspapers have made any official endorsements yet, but I'll take a wild guess on what we'll see.
Tories - Times, Telegraph, Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Evening Standard
Labour - Guardian, Mirror, Financial Times
Lib Dems - Independent
Not sure about the Daily Star. I could see them jumping off the Tory bandwagon and getting behind the UKIP.
Northern Ireland has two major newspapers that fall on either side of the divide - the Irish Times, predictably, tends to support nationalist parties, the Belfast Telegraph tends to back unionist parties.
All of it really is part of another area of British political culture which is different from American culture. You'll never hear Fox News come out and say they're conservative, just as you'll never see MSNBC come out and admit that they're liberal. Same with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but in Britain, it's no big secret that the media is split along political lines. They don't make too many bones about their biases other than the BBC, which still claims to be unbiased although right-wingers insist they're leftist. It's kind of refreshing, actually.
Sure.
You've got the Times, which is pretty straight laced despite being in Rupert Murdoch's stable. They backed Labour in '01 and '05.
There's the Independent, which vacillates from time to time - lately they've been fairly left-of-center and I think they're probably behind the Lib Dems right now.
The Telegraph and the Guardian are pretty similar news sources, with the former being largely behind the Tories (hence, "the Torygraph") and the Guardian pretty firmly in support of Labour. The Guardian, you may remember, was the paper which supported a campaign for its readers to call people in Ohio in 2004 in support of John Kerry. They're not exactly equivalent, as the Telegraph is a broadsheet and the Guardian's a tabloid, but they're close.
Then there are the true tabloids, Sun and Mirror. They are to Britain what the Post and Daily News are to New York, and like the Post and the Daily News, they fall on opposite sides of the spectrum, the Sun to the Tories and Mirror to Labour.
Matter of fact, the Sun is notable for its support of the Tories in a historic way. The day of the 1992 election, it appeared that Labour was about to unseat John Major and the Conservatives from power. Neil Kinnock (Americans may remember him as the guy Joe Biden ripped speeches off from in 1988) seemed poised to become Prime Minister and the Sun ran a headline which read "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights." (Odd thing to think of today given the UK's current immigration debate) Instead, Major and the Tories pulled out an unexpected victory and majority, which prompted the Sun the next day to trumpet: "IT'S THE SUN WOT WON IT." That phrase, and variations thereof, has become part of the British political culture. After the backlash from the Guardian's efforts in Ohio in 2004, the Independent had a story which included the phrase "it's the Guardian wot lost it."
The other newspapers aren't really as prominent. Daily Star and Daily Mail are pretty much right-wing, the Daily Express tends to favor the Tories. Financial Times, the UK's version of the Wall Street Journal, is to the left, and the Evening Standard has of late been backing the Tories.
I don't think any of the newspapers have made any official endorsements yet, but I'll take a wild guess on what we'll see.
Tories - Times, Telegraph, Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Evening Standard
Labour - Guardian, Mirror, Financial Times
Lib Dems - Independent
Not sure about the Daily Star. I could see them jumping off the Tory bandwagon and getting behind the UKIP.
Northern Ireland has two major newspapers that fall on either side of the divide - the Irish Times, predictably, tends to support nationalist parties, the Belfast Telegraph tends to back unionist parties.
All of it really is part of another area of British political culture which is different from American culture. You'll never hear Fox News come out and say they're conservative, just as you'll never see MSNBC come out and admit that they're liberal. Same with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but in Britain, it's no big secret that the media is split along political lines. They don't make too many bones about their biases other than the BBC, which still claims to be unbiased although right-wingers insist they're leftist. It's kind of refreshing, actually.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
The Guardian also has the best football podcast of the British papers.
I belong to Jimbo!
The Guardian also has the best football podcast of the British papers.
I belong to Jimbo!
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
US newspapers started out with explicit party funding and backing. The penny presses of "yellow journalism" fame broke the monopoly of political control of newspapers in the mid 19th century by introducing a subscription business model. (They had to be popular, hence they drove towards the sensationalistic.) Prior to that, the "free press" of the Founders' era was really just a duel between party propaganda organs.
US newspapers started out with explicit party funding and backing. The penny presses of "yellow journalism" fame broke the monopoly of political control of newspapers in the mid 19th century by introducing a subscription business model. (They had to be popular, hence they drove towards the sensationalistic.) Prior to that, the "free press" of the Founders' era was really just a duel between party propaganda organs.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Scandal blowing up this afternoon. Gordon Brown was caught on an open mic describing an older voter he had just spoken to as a "bigoted woman." He didn't realize that he was still wearing the Sky News mic that he'd put on for his walkabout in Rochdale. He was asked about it almost minutes later in a BBC Radio interview and he immediately apologized and recanted.
The woman, Gillian Duffy, received a call from the Prime Minister with an apology as well, but this is not going to bode well for Labour's chances moving forward. She had asked him about the national debt and pensions, but had later moved on to immigration later in what was a very long discussion for a walkabout. After leaving the conversation she had mentioned that she planned to support Labour, but she told Brown during his phoned apology that she would not be voting at all.
Also of note - not completely unexpected of course, but the SNP's legal action (which last night was joined by the UKIP) has been shot down and tomorrow's debate will go on as scheduled. Really not too surprising considering that Alex Salmond isn't a candidate for Prime Minister.
Here's a slightly humorous observation from the Beeb: Reporters at Sinn Fein's manifesto launch in Belfast have been given a free computer memory stick, says BBC Ireland correspondent Mark Simpson. It contains the party's united Ireland manifesto, and is branded with the Sinn Fein logo plus a sticker which says 1GB. Aides quickly emphasised that the GB stands for gigabyte and not Great Britain.
Scandal blowing up this afternoon. Gordon Brown was caught on an open mic describing an older voter he had just spoken to as a "bigoted woman." He didn't realize that he was still wearing the Sky News mic that he'd put on for his walkabout in Rochdale. He was asked about it almost minutes later in a BBC Radio interview and he immediately apologized and recanted.
The woman, Gillian Duffy, received a call from the Prime Minister with an apology as well, but this is not going to bode well for Labour's chances moving forward. She had asked him about the national debt and pensions, but had later moved on to immigration later in what was a very long discussion for a walkabout. After leaving the conversation she had mentioned that she planned to support Labour, but she told Brown during his phoned apology that she would not be voting at all.
Also of note - not completely unexpected of course, but the SNP's legal action (which last night was joined by the UKIP) has been shot down and tomorrow's debate will go on as scheduled. Really not too surprising considering that Alex Salmond isn't a candidate for Prime Minister.
Here's a slightly humorous observation from the Beeb: Reporters at Sinn Fein's manifesto launch in Belfast have been given a free computer memory stick, says BBC Ireland correspondent Mark Simpson. It contains the party's united Ireland manifesto, and is branded with the Sinn Fein logo plus a sticker which says 1GB. Aides quickly emphasised that the GB stands for gigabyte and not Great Britain.
Re: British Election 2010 - Jolly Good
Here's the news report from shortly after the incident:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-Ixqw85_P0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-Ixqw85_P0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Good indication that this is bad, bad news for Labour - Brown is now taking time out from his pre-planned campaign schedule (remember, that's pronounced "shed-yule") to visit Mrs. Duffy at her home for a personal apology.
Here's the news report from shortly after the incident:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-Ixqw85_P0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-Ixqw85_P0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Good indication that this is bad, bad news for Labour - Brown is now taking time out from his pre-planned campaign schedule (remember, that's pronounced "shed-yule") to visit Mrs. Duffy at her home for a personal apology.