[Politics] Election fever.

[davywavy]

Abraham Lincoln once famously observed that you can fool all the people some of the time and and some of the people all of the time, but not all of them all the time. Perhaps less famously (but possibly unexpectedly), Richard Nixon went further and tried to exactly quantify just how many people you can fool all the time. If you're an incumbent in a democracy, he said, it really doesn't matter how bad you are but some people will always vote for you and no matter how good you are, some people never will. He actually gave an exact figure - 18% - for this proportion of the population.
You can twirl your moustaches, cackle evilly and murderously pursue Penelope Pitstop to your heart's content and at least one member of the Anthill Mob (probably Dum-Dum) will still consider you the best candidate, or, looking at it another way, you can raise the dead from their graves and spray free liquor from every rooftop and about one person in every five would still rather have The Hooded Claw, thank you very much.

I was reminded of this 18% rule by the papers last week, when they reported that opinion polls currently show Labour on 19% and were speculating on how much further support for them may slump. My answer to that would be not much further, unless Nixon was wrong. What's perhaps most interesting about this is that even in the middle of Watergate, Nixon's approval levels didn't drop below 20% suggesting that if we were to hold a straight race between Gordon Brown and Tricky Dicky, Nixon would win by a mile. Now that's political unpopularity.
It's been interesting over the last few years to watch the decline in both Brown and Labour's fortunes. Three or four years ago when I would pop something onto LJ suggesting that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes I could reliably expect a pro-Brown greek chorus to pop out of the woodwork and start singing the praises of his natty attire. As Brown's manifest nudity became clearer it appears that the cheering section quietly hid their pom-poms in the back of the wardrobe and are pretending that the whole thing never really happened.

Truth may be the daughter of time, but it doesn't half make political debate a lot less fun.

Over the weekend, both the Telegraph and the Guardian led with the same story, and when they agree on something you can be sure that there is something seriously skew-whiff in the state of Denmark. This story was that according to opinion polls, more than two-thirds of people want an general election immediately. This is not all that surprising in the wake of political corruption scandals and economic collapse, and it's also no surprise that the opposition parties (who we may expect to benefit from such an election) are enthusiastically calling for an election too. It sometimes seems that the only person who doesn't want an immediate election is me.
This might surprise you given my well-established loathing for the band of meatheads who we laughingly call our government, but I'm rarely a fan of precipitate action in a crisis. The problem with elections in which one side is plainly going to lose and another plainly going to win (and, barring alien abduction, David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister) is that the obvious winners don't have to try - and that's a bad thing. Think back to 1997 when Blair was so obviously going to romp home that he didn't actually have to make any meaningful policy promises; all he had to do was smile lots, say some fine-sounding but noncommittal words and avoid being arrested for abducting schoolchildren and the election was his. Cameron finds himself in that position now and so he's busily making plenty of 'pledges' but few enough actual written promises - and I rather like to see what politicians actually plan beyond observing that they have a 'passion for excellence' or whatever the management buzzword du jour is.
The LibDems are actually doing rather better and putting forward some interesting and original ideas like the Repeal Bill, which is an excellent notion and something I've been banging on about for years. Indeed, were it not for the fact that the LibDem Constitutional Reform proposals were apparently written by someone with a serious head injury they'd probably have my vote.

But anyway; to summarise. I dislike snap general elections with an obvious winner ahead of time because that winner can avoid engaging with the electorate in meaningful terms. As such I'd say no to an immediate election, in the hopes that it will force some concrete proposals and promises about the people who are going to win it. As I said above; truth is the daughter of time and on this, the time we haven't had yet is just as important as the past.
But what do you think?

[Poll #1406417]

Comments

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I like the House of Lords, but I increasingly think it's really important to have at least one check on the elected and party dominated House of Commons. I'd be happy if it was abolished and replaced with a proper Supreme Court, or similar independent body.

Oddly, it seems to me if people are appointed for life they actually can display more principals than those who are constantly running to placate people for the next election. They can certainly be more honest for a start.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's the thing; the Lords members will take the long view when parliament thinks little beyond the next election. Having an short-term elected house overseen by a long-view organisation is a fantastic system that appears to work very well. I can't see any reason to change it. i'm sure we could come up with something just as good, but why make changes for 'just as good'?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I can agree here that the lack of long term planning in democratic government is a source of immense frustration, but I don't see a good alternative that incorporates both long-termism and representation.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

The original idea behind the US senate.

Longer terms, say ten years, but elections for half the house every five.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What's that your proposing? Another outlet for party politics?
Gee, that's guaranteed to improve things.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

While the current house of lords does have a sizable number of crossbenchers, about 27%, it is still a site for party politics; party based appointees proliferate the House.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I know. That was a shocking watering down of the Lords as an effective check & balance to parliament, but that's what Blair wanted I suppose - free reign.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

If we are going to have party politics, at least let's have democratic accountablity and not the Old Corruption.

Moreover, having longer terms,but perhaps only being allowed to sit one term, and baring them from holding government positions should allow Lords to be far more independent.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Alternatively, let's not have the party politics? It has to be said, it worked extremely well.

As I said to Grim: Proposing changing the Lords is like being the worst car salesman ever: "Sir, I absolutely, one-hundred percent guarantee that this new car I'm selling to you won't run any better than your current model".

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in a possible alternative to a currently bad system. For better or worse, we've already moved away from the system you propose. Aren't you selling a car that has already been sent to the scrap heap. I can't see a return to the old system as a platform any of the parties would adopt, or something people would vote for.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

My position on making changes is usually this: from where we are standing right now, any changes should be positive. As such, no changes you've proposed would be positive - at best, they'd be no better - and as such we should think very hard about whether the change is necessary. I think it isn't.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm interested to know how you think a change back to the old style Lords would be implemented, whether any party would have that as a policy on their manifesto and ultimately what sort of people would your Lords have in it and importantly who would select them and what criteria would they use.

Or, is the current system good enough?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As I say above; I try to look at things as they are right now.
For all that Blair spent the better part of a decade stuffing his patsies into the Lords in the hopes they'd make disagreement go away, the Lords consistently opposed things like the erosion of individual freedoms. It's like the instant they got into the house, some sort of thing in their mind - lets call it a conscience - was awakened by not having to toe the party line. In some cases, taking the long term view wasn't enough to entirely eradicate their history of left wing belief and pandering, but it certainly seemed to have a positive effect on many. Many more, it turns out, than were sat in the commons. As such, I'm cautiously happy with teh Lords as is. They've opposed the most law- and restriction-happy government we've seen since Edward the first and many turns, 9which is often more than her majesty's opoosition have done), and as a result any calls for changing what we've got will have to be backed up with solid argument and a basis in demonstrable benefits.

I believe that's your cue.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

When I have a moment this evening, I'll get back to you.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I hoped you would, but suspected you wouldn't.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Why seek an alternative when we've already got a proven, working system? :p

Proposing changing the Lords is like being the worst car salesman ever: "Sir, I absolutely, one-hundred percent guarantee that this new car I'm selling to you won't run any better than your current model".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

Because you can do better, I don't agree that it can't be improved and democratising it is one huge improvement.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Why? Where's your evidence for that statement?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

That accountability is better than unaccountability?
2k+ years of recorded history?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And we have an accountable legislature with an long-termist oversight committe who, as it turns out, do their job really really well. I'm waiting for you to present your evidence that changing that will make the oversight committee do it's job better, because with Parliament over the last decade I'm not seeing it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I suppose it depends what you mean by better. I regard a representative and accountable group that's elected as being a vast improvement over an unelected and unaccountable old-boys club.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I regard 'better' as meaning does the job we want it to; i.e. act as a brake upon reactionary and extremist lawmaking of the sort we've seen over the last decade - a long-term view, you might say.
I couldn't give two hoots about anything else, really. Why, what do you mean by 'better'.

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

My rather bat's view of the ideal house of lords is that we have x groups:
1] Peers. Yes, keep some of them. Talk about long term view!
2] Former MPs. Yes, like now! Gosh, some of them have surprising good sense.
3] Meritocracy members. Leaders of science, industry, eductaion. Put some of the people given Sir or Lady in there, plus a few others akin. Branson, Attenbourough, et al, they would shake things up and give a reality to the Lords. oh, and chuck in a few Military bods too.
4] Service. ah, here I get seriously contentious. You know jury service? right, that, for the house of lords. How about it DavyWavy? fancy a 3 year stint p/t as a member of the house? no votes. random selection from the rota of people eligible for jury service.

None of these groups should be in the majority, possibly 1/4 each?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's not bats - for starters, you're the first person to actually come up with a 'how and why' concrete proposal for change beyond 'Omg I don't likeses it', and I respect that. Remember a lot of the Lords is already made up of Former MPs and the people you list under meritocracy, so nothing contentious there. The jury system idea...maybe, I'm tempted, but I'm also put off by the sort of people who actually do jury service!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As a thought about the lottery, it seems on refelection that hereditary peerage system is a lottery; a lottery of birth, but it's no less random for all that. The big advantage that it actually gives is that the people in the pot for winning this lottery tend to be extremely highly educated, much more so than the average member of the population.