![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, after a particularly dull election campaign things finally got interesting in the fallout.
It's fascinating to watch. The desperate public attempts to look dignified whilst furiously jockeying for position behind the scenes have been particularly entertaining, and if this were happening to someone else's country I'd be finding it downright hilarious. Faced with their first ever test of realpolitik, the Libdems appear to be on the brink of bottling it and allowing ideology to win. A move which will be, as I see it, an error for them.
At the heart of all this lie two things; their desire for a change to the electoral system, and the beardy, sandal-wearing fringe of the party.
To lay out where the parties stand, David Cameron needs a deal with Clegg which gets him into No. 10 pronto, or his own party will fall upon him and devour him in moments like a scene out of The rats in the walls. If that happens, he'll be replaced by someone more on the right like David Davis. In the meantime, Labour desperately needs a coalition to avoid imploding into an orgy of backstabbing a recrimination which will render them unable to form a credible opposition for pretty much the entirety of the next Parliament. The problem is that a Labour/LibDem coalition will be a minority government and it'll be inherently unstable - we'll be looking at another election in 6 months, tops. From where Clegg is standing, he has an astonishing long-term opportunity. The only problem for him is the ideological fixation from some parts of his party appear to mean he's not going to be able to grab it.
If he were to form a limited period - say two years - coalition with the Conservatives and present it as a 'national government to resolve the financial crisis', he could well go into another election in two years time solidly poised to overtake Labour. The electorate has just demonstrated it'll go with what they know and he needs the room to position himself as a good pair of hands. Do that, and the Libdems become the political alternative, not Labour.
However, it may well not be going to happen, and the core of the problem is the demand for a change to the electoral system. Whichever option Clegg takes he isn't going to get it, but his own party are so blinded by what they see as their big chance they're not prepared to let reality get in the way of ideology.
If the Libdems form a coalition with the Conservatives they'll get a referendum on AV which (barring accidents) they'll lose. If they do a deal with Labour they'll get a commons vote on PR which they'll lose. In the first instance the public haven't been sold on the idea and the vested interests in constituencies will guarantee a fail. In the second instance the Conservatives will vote en bloc against it out of pique, and there are enough Labour MPs terrified of losing their safe seats to lose it as well - that minority coalition just can't achieve it, I'm afraid. As such Clegg's best option is the Conservatives and a long-term play to gain a sustainable place for his party in the top-two of British Politics and I think he knows it, as do the smart frontrunners in his party. Alas for him, he has to get agreement out of 75% of the bearded nutters amongst his supporters who thought that getting rid of Trident was an ideological rather than a financial policy.
So, back to changing the electoral system. I know a lot of you out there are fans of the idea. To outline my own position, it is a matter of supreme indifference to me which system we use. First Past the Post works pretty well as it provides an excellent filter for nutters and extremeists which means that British politics tends to be pretty centrist and stable compared to others. PR offers a greater spread of opinion in government, but it also leads to less governmental stability and more whackos. The difference is swings and roundabouts.
As such, I'm inviting people to present me with their arguments for (or against) a change to the electoral system. I'm open to being convinced either way. However, in presenting your arguments I'll ask you to consider a few things:
1) I don't much care which system we use. Appeals to either tradition or a desire for change will fail because neither are necessarily a good reason for doing something.
2) If you use the word 'fair' (or 'fairness'), I'll ignore you. If saying 'it's not fair' were enough to win an argument then I would have been bought an awful lot more Liquorice Allsorts when I was six. 'Fair' is the political Barnum statement du jour which means all things to all people and is therefore meaningless. From experience, all 'fair' really means when people use it is "Me getting more of what I want".
3) I want you to present a case, and so I'll ignore rhetorical questions like "Do you want your vote to count". If you can't present your case without rhetorical tricks, it's probably not a case worth making.
4) Ultimately the reason to change anything is to make improvements. Improvements can take many forms from greater efficiency to increased stability of the end results.
It's fascinating to watch. The desperate public attempts to look dignified whilst furiously jockeying for position behind the scenes have been particularly entertaining, and if this were happening to someone else's country I'd be finding it downright hilarious. Faced with their first ever test of realpolitik, the Libdems appear to be on the brink of bottling it and allowing ideology to win. A move which will be, as I see it, an error for them.
At the heart of all this lie two things; their desire for a change to the electoral system, and the beardy, sandal-wearing fringe of the party.
To lay out where the parties stand, David Cameron needs a deal with Clegg which gets him into No. 10 pronto, or his own party will fall upon him and devour him in moments like a scene out of The rats in the walls. If that happens, he'll be replaced by someone more on the right like David Davis. In the meantime, Labour desperately needs a coalition to avoid imploding into an orgy of backstabbing a recrimination which will render them unable to form a credible opposition for pretty much the entirety of the next Parliament. The problem is that a Labour/LibDem coalition will be a minority government and it'll be inherently unstable - we'll be looking at another election in 6 months, tops. From where Clegg is standing, he has an astonishing long-term opportunity. The only problem for him is the ideological fixation from some parts of his party appear to mean he's not going to be able to grab it.
If he were to form a limited period - say two years - coalition with the Conservatives and present it as a 'national government to resolve the financial crisis', he could well go into another election in two years time solidly poised to overtake Labour. The electorate has just demonstrated it'll go with what they know and he needs the room to position himself as a good pair of hands. Do that, and the Libdems become the political alternative, not Labour.
However, it may well not be going to happen, and the core of the problem is the demand for a change to the electoral system. Whichever option Clegg takes he isn't going to get it, but his own party are so blinded by what they see as their big chance they're not prepared to let reality get in the way of ideology.
If the Libdems form a coalition with the Conservatives they'll get a referendum on AV which (barring accidents) they'll lose. If they do a deal with Labour they'll get a commons vote on PR which they'll lose. In the first instance the public haven't been sold on the idea and the vested interests in constituencies will guarantee a fail. In the second instance the Conservatives will vote en bloc against it out of pique, and there are enough Labour MPs terrified of losing their safe seats to lose it as well - that minority coalition just can't achieve it, I'm afraid. As such Clegg's best option is the Conservatives and a long-term play to gain a sustainable place for his party in the top-two of British Politics and I think he knows it, as do the smart frontrunners in his party. Alas for him, he has to get agreement out of 75% of the bearded nutters amongst his supporters who thought that getting rid of Trident was an ideological rather than a financial policy.
So, back to changing the electoral system. I know a lot of you out there are fans of the idea. To outline my own position, it is a matter of supreme indifference to me which system we use. First Past the Post works pretty well as it provides an excellent filter for nutters and extremeists which means that British politics tends to be pretty centrist and stable compared to others. PR offers a greater spread of opinion in government, but it also leads to less governmental stability and more whackos. The difference is swings and roundabouts.
As such, I'm inviting people to present me with their arguments for (or against) a change to the electoral system. I'm open to being convinced either way. However, in presenting your arguments I'll ask you to consider a few things:
1) I don't much care which system we use. Appeals to either tradition or a desire for change will fail because neither are necessarily a good reason for doing something.
2) If you use the word 'fair' (or 'fairness'), I'll ignore you. If saying 'it's not fair' were enough to win an argument then I would have been bought an awful lot more Liquorice Allsorts when I was six. 'Fair' is the political Barnum statement du jour which means all things to all people and is therefore meaningless. From experience, all 'fair' really means when people use it is "Me getting more of what I want".
3) I want you to present a case, and so I'll ignore rhetorical questions like "Do you want your vote to count". If you can't present your case without rhetorical tricks, it's probably not a case worth making.
4) Ultimately the reason to change anything is to make improvements. Improvements can take many forms from greater efficiency to increased stability of the end results.
