Election period

[french frank]

Terrible news (for Lib Dems) that this year's crop were scythed down by almost half! The good news is that the actual victims will just spend 'more time with' ... their dayjobs. Most employers allow time off for council duties. Retired people will have more time for their hobbies.

But, slightly sad, is that Lib Dem councillors traditionally spend far more time on their duties, communicating with the public &c. And - though a Green councillor was elected here last year, I've only heard from her once since - a request for a donation for a judicial review which they were backing to stop a huge Sainsbury's supermarket up the road (I did donate, the review was lost).

Since I've lived here the councillors have been, first Tories x 2, then Labour x 2, then Lib Dem x 2, and now Green x 2. Lib Dems have been the only ones who ever put out newsletters other than at election time. But, vox populi ... :-)

[Beef Oven!]

Terrible news (for Lib Dems) that this year's crop were scythed down by almost half! The good news is that the actual victims will just spend 'more time with' ... their dayjobs. Most employers allow time off for council duties. Retired people will have more time for their hobbies.

But, slightly sad, is that Lib Dem councillors traditionally spend far more time on their duties, communicating with the public &c. And - though a Green councillor was elected here last year, I've only heard from her once since - a request for a donation for a judicial review which they were backing to stop a huge Sainsbury's supermarket up the road (I did donate, the review was lost).

Since I've lived here the councillors have been, first Tories x 2, then Labour x 2, then Lib Dem x 2, and now Green x 2. Lib Dems have been the only ones who ever put out newsletters other than at election time. But, vox populi ... :-)

Indeed, that will be a loss to local communities and a blow to devolved politics. As a breed, LibDem local politicians are pretty good.

BUT, it just serves to strengthen my view that there is a serious leadership issue here.

[MrGongGong]

Terrible news (for Lib Dems) that this year's crop were scythed down by almost half!

You know who is to blame
So time to give him the boot
and maybe one day we will get electoral reform :-)

Welcome back DON ;-)

[ahinton]

You'll set hares running with that one (or are they rabbits?).

I don't know; either would be shot for the pot anyway.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't know; either would be shot for the pot anyway.

Careful, there are vegans in this forum.

[Beef Oven!]

You know who is to blame
So time to give him the boot
and maybe one day we will get electoral reform :-)

Welcome back DON ;-)

Don's feeling more himself, today. ;-)

[ahinton]

Careful, there are vegans in this forum.

Well, that's all the more rabbit and hare for the rest of us, then.

[french frank]

and maybe one day we will get electoral reform :-)

What becomes clear is that people don't want PR. They don't mind coalitions as long as it's the right parties in coalition and they do what people want. We need an electoral system that will keep out the nasties and ensure the goodies keep the upper hand.

The real problem, for them, is democracy (we know Mr Grew's view).

People had their chance to take (what reformists considered) the first step towards changing the system. You can either blame them for chucking the chance away, or the Lib Dems for not delivering the whole package. But that's the problem with PR: parties can't deliver the whole package if they're not in charge.

The realignment of the parties makes FPTP more likely to continue because it serves the purposes of the two major parties who are quite willing to keep the 'Buggins' Turn' system. They'd rather have that than be in coalition with anyone.

The notion that the Lib Dems could have done better in coalition needs other evidence than that 'they didn't do very well: the big guys won'. Yes, they failed to demonstrate that coalition works. In this country maybe it doesn't, because political attitudes and allegiances are too entrenched. But that would spell the end for hopes of PR.

[Serial_Apologist]

The notion that the Lib Dems could have done better in coalition needs other evidence than that 'they didn't do very well: the big guys won'. Yes, they failed to demonstrate that coalition works. In this country maybe it doesn't, because political attitudes and allegiances are too entrenched. But that would spell the end for hopes of PR.

I think what was said back in 2010 was more to the point than the legitimacy or otherwise of coalitions per se in the public's mind; namely that had the Tories been forced to run a minority government, it would have been the temporary alliances over getting specific policies through parliament that would have revealed the literal guilty parties by association.

[french frank]

I think what was said back in 2010 was more to the point than the legitimacy or otherwise of coalitions per se in the public's mind; namely that had the Tories been forced to run a minority government, it would have been the temporary alliances over getting specific policies through parliament that would have revealed the literal guilty parties by association.

It may be true that it would have revealed the 'literal guilty parties', but the argument was whether such 'temporary alliances' or fluctuating coalitions could possibly work when what's needed, even under the current system, is longer term planning, not limping from policy to policy, not necessarily consistent with each other. That isn't what PR is supposed to deliver.

(Might have been interesting to see Labour and Tories in alliance to raise tuition fees! Facetious, but does pinpoint the most predictable result: whichever major party proposed it, the other would vote it down).

[Serial_Apologist]

It may be true that it would have revealed the 'literal guilty parties', but the argument was whether such 'temporary alliances' or fluctuating coalitions could possibly work when what's needed, even under the current system, is longer term planning, not limping from policy to policy, not necessarily consistent with each other. That isn't what PR is supposed to deliver.

Well they tried that in Italy for many years, didn't they? And it resulted in governments changing every six months or something - the very opposite of longterm planning! Or is somebody going to come back and tell us they chose the wrong form of PR?

[french frank]

Well they tried that in Italy for many years, didn't they? And it resulted in governments changing every six months or something - the very opposite of longterm planning! Or is somebody going to come back and tell us they chose the wrong form of PR?

I did say 'what was/is NEEDED'. Not sure what you're saying they tried in Italy???

A key point is, Who is the Government? Who is responsible? Why should any party want to run a minority 'government' if it can't follow through the broad policies that, rightly or wrongly, it believes to be the correct ones? Would you not get popular policies passed and unpopular ones blocked? Or is that what democracy means?

[ahinton]

I did say 'what was/is NEEDED'. Not sure what you're saying they tried in Italy???

A key point is, Who is the Government? Who is responsible? Why should any party want to run a minority 'government' if it can't follow through the broad policies that, rightly or wrongly, it believes to be the correct ones? Would you not get popular policies passed and unpopular ones blocked? Or is that what democracy means?

If "democracy" (as it is supposedly understood) is something that can survive in the kind of "four-party politics" environment which it appears that member Beef relishes, it must be a phenomenon amenable not only to minority government but to coalition governments formed of at least two parties - but is it? If there are four main parties but their respective representation in HoC does not reflect the numbers of voters who have voted for each, whiever voting system is used (first past the post or any of the various variations on the PR theme), can it realistically expect to be seen as representative democracy? I am not speaking out against the notion of democracy in asking this; merely questioning its meaning and how it might be expected to function effectively in such a context.

[Serial_Apologist]

I did say 'what was/is NEEDED'. Not sure what you're saying they tried in Italy???

The wrong form of PR, I guess.

A key point is, Who is the Government? Who is responsible? Why should any party want to run a minority 'government' if it can't follow through the broad policies that, rightly or wrongly, it believes to be the correct ones? Would you not get popular policies passed and unpopular ones blocked? Or is that what democracy means?

Too generalised a question iimss - as also are ahinton's in the post following. I think these issues and who serves different interests have to be related to the kind of economic system we are all expected to bow to and serve, and how that determines what does and doesn't work, or any discussion flounders.

[french frank]

Too generalised a question iimss - as also are ahinton's in the post following. I think these issues and who serves different interests have to be related to the kind of economic system we are all expected to bow to and serve, and how that determines what does and doesn't work, or any discussion flounders.

That might be an argument for a totalitarian state?