Ed??

I’m confused. Right-wing conservative party A is having difficulty forming an agreement with right-wing conservative party B, and might instead consider right-wing conservative party C. Or have I got that backwards?

I do hope it all sorts itself out and we get the best combination of right-wing conservative parties to run the country. It is so important to ensure that the thugs, spivs, gangsters and kept men running the country properly reflects the democratic wishes of the people.

It will be educational to watch how that progresses. Gove & Mundell, Two very nasty men. They have a plan (Gove) I would be interested to find out anything about Gove so a picture can be made who the real Gove is. Gove is acting the nice concerned bloke. I am not convinced.

I have just heard the Tories are now offering AV.

This could mean the most important political issue in Britain now is stopping Miliband running for Leader of the Labour party.

I do not trust Cameron at all Craig based on webcameron insight as explained. Better the devil you know eh?

Cameron’s administration would challenge the terms of an agreement between the British and the US governments used to charge McKinnon in America. The medical evidence on McKinnon’s autism and the likelihood of suicide should and must lead to the extradition being blocked.

On torture remember Cameron contributed to the Conservative affiliated Young Britons Foundation branded guide to ‘essential reading for young Conservatives,’ according to the YBF’s chief executive, Donal Blaney, a Kent-based solicitor. The Guardian has also obtained photographs of him meeting the organisation’s director of strategy, vice-president, and then operations director before he denied knowledge of the group. Its director of research, Alex Deane, was formerly Cameron’s chief of staff.

“The YBF’s tentacles reach deep into the shadow cabinet and show the influence of the extreme anti-NHS, pro-torture, neocon wing of the party,” said Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman. “If Cameron claims not to know who they are he is being completely dishonest.”

Please be careful Craig in your deliberations – I myself was leaning towards Tory until I and many others learned the ‘inside track’ so to speak on webcameron.

I am more inclined towards a coalition with New Labour. Yes, the leadership has been hijacked by a authoritarian, neocon and militarist cabal, but such views are greatly at home in the Tory party. In the Labour party, they are not.

And such a coalition could produce voting reform, since ordinary Labour members are not dead set against it.

Jon Snow was just interviewing Alastair Campbell on C4 at some out door location

close to where it is all happening.

Very chummy. Sickening. But we could all

get AV! Doesn’t AV sound a little like

a nasty virus you could catch from a wild duck?

@Doug – David Miliband for Labour PM – that would amount to more hijacking! I regard him as a sort of Shadow Gove – both illustrate how to be ‘malicious in earnest’ very well indeed.

I don’t see why the Lib Dems have to dig any of these awful people out of their holes. I see Vronsky’s point, but at least the Lib Dem leadership haven’t got much form, by comparison.

Perhaps Clegg’s being threatened with a ConLabour pact. But if that does happen, and the country sees the two main parties continuing to vote with each other on their rotten legislation, a) not much will have changed and b) at least he won’t have sold out. Lib Dem support could only go up in the next election. No?

You gimme good price

I give you good parliament!

How much you give…?

Jon

Its actually difficult to know what the Labour party stands for. I actually always liked Brown, despite the several dubious things he signed up to. He was at least the most intellectually able politician since Thatcher. But the Labour party as you say was hijecked by Blair who suddenly found all his colleagues were willing to sell their souls and ride with him. Brown was associated with all that, failed to dissassociate himself and the new breed – Miliband, Balls – have either enthusiastically embraced the same philosophy or shown no sign of going elsewhere.

Prior to New Labour the Labour party was supposed to be socialist. Now its supposed to embrace anyone with power and throw money at the public sector, at least investmentwise. What next?

Craig, please can you explain something to me. You don’t think the Lib Dems should enter into coalition with the Tories or Labour, yet you want PR. Everyone says PR will lead to permanent coalition government. How would you expect the Lib Dems to bahave under PR if they couldn’t enter coalition?

A whole bunch of you folks don’t seem to understand what “neocon” means. To you, if something is bad, it’s “neocon.”

A very clear indication of herd mentality and lack of intellectual curiosity.

Larry, are you a neocon?

@Doug – I agree completely, if by “Labour Party” you mean the cabal in charge. The membership base, as far as I know, still believes in the political space somewhere between social democracy and socialism.

Clare Short – my last MP – was rather euphemistic when she said that ‘The Labour Party has lost its way’. Hmmpph!

@technicolour – I would be worried that if Clegg doesn’t deal with the devil it knows (New Labour) then the next election will result in a worse showing for the Libs as the electorate is bullied into “delivering stable government” by the right-wing press. Meantime I don’t think electoral reform is possible without a referendum, and that will take a long time to organise (possibly longer than a coalition will last!). As CM has said before, it will also have most of the press maneuvering against it.

Julian,

Under PR I would be prepared to enter coalition.

I think PR would lead to a reforming of political parties along new lines ref;ecting the authoritarian/libertarian split which is now the most critical division in british politics.

I think most readers here could provide a decent definition of ‘neo-conservative’. But trolls continuing to lob “awkward grenades” into proceedings here is tedious – comments and discussion on-topic though is welcomed. Even from people who often disagree: where’s Alfred?

Henry Jackson Society?

Intervention?

Pre-emption?

Torture?

Military tribunals?

Rendition?

Illegal wars?

Murder?

Sorry Glenn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7696484/MPs-accused-of-Wikipedia-expenses-cover-up.html

Deceitful and corrupt tricksters.

Are you a neocon, Larry? Tell us what your idea of a neoconservative might be. Tell us, Larry, who you are. The time for obfuscation is over. Time for truth.

Miliband? He voted for the Iraq war and against an inquiry, like most of his nasty playmates. He’s eager to change the law in order to provide a safe haven for Israelis wanted for war crimes. Little twits don’t come any more loathsome than that. Why on earth would LibDems want to throw a lifeline to such freaks?

Look at this bleedin’ lineup! Crumbs, what a depressing array (see link).

(Apols, it’s the Daily Wail).

The way I see it is this; Labour cannot deliver on any form of PR including AV because it would only take a few rebels to scupper the bill.

Whereas a binding referendum on AV could be won even with The Tory press campaigning against it (probably).

I think the LDs should go with the Tories.

Mary,

indeed. But not very clever or web-aware, deleting from their office or own home connections, eh?

Derek,

AV isn’t worth having. That’s why the Tories are offering it. We need STV.

It’s really rather urgent that we debate and learn about the various types of electoral system. Some systems would probably make matters worse.

Craig?

You have a tallent for making things clear…

if “the authoritarian/libertarian split …is now the most critical division in british politics”, you sound like you’re erring to the tories.

I can understand that Craig – but look at it this way – you get PR, you prevent a double dip recession – and then you drop them and there’s another election under PR – and every election after that is under PR – and then the strangle-hold of the big parties is broken forever and the decent part of the Labour party can form it’s own party separate from the careerists and the money-grubbers.

(to be fair to him Gordon Brown, for all his many faults as Chancellor and Prime Minister – including backing the Iraq war, was never in it for the money and status the way Blair and Byers were)

A reminder of the Electoral Reform Society’s calculation of the result of this election using AV and STV

PR and the election 2010 result

SOURCE: ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY

CON LAB LIBDEM SNP PC Other

FPTP: TOTALS 307 258 57 6 3 19

AV: TOTALS 281 262 79 5 3 20

STV: TOTALS 246 207 162 13 4 18

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010

There would still be a stalemate.

Yes, but it would be a fair stalemate.

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people”

Abraham Lincoln

Devolution? Tories were dead against it – now they embrace it.

PR? Tories are dead against it – but in Scotland, it’d give them Westminster seats (more than one, that is!). The only reason they have any seats at all in the Scottish Parliament is PR. Ironic, eh?

In Scottish politics, the Tories are usually in fourth place.

Craig Murray joins Lib Dems

“The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it’s not you who changes the system; it’s the system that will eventually change you.”

Immortal Technique

Mary,

it’s meant to be a stalemate. Or rather, an overall majority is not the norm under more representative systems. Debate in the House becomes meaningful, rather than a foregone conclusion based on party policy and the party whips.

But it’s the long term effect that is more important. With a system that doesn’t favour the Big Two to the exclusion of all others, we’ll see a big change in the complexion of the House, with more independents and smaller parties represented. Voters will be free to vote for a good candidate of whichever party, even independent, without fearing that they’ll split the vote and let in someone they really don’t want.

that’s very unfair on Craig – he’s still criticising the Lib Dem leadership as a Lib Dem party member. If he was just parroting Nick Clegg you might have a point, but he’s not.

(my last post was in reply to the anonynmous post, not Clark’s)

The Alternative Vote certainly doesn’t seem to have made much difference in Australia

In a country like Britain, PR, whilst appearing “fairer”, may actually produce results that are the opposite of what many advocates of electoral reform want and expect.

Introducing substantive changes to the electoral culture will probably result in a fundamental re-alignment of party politics; the demise of old parties and the birth of new ones.

Mary’s post at 8:45.

With STV, you rank the candidates in order of preference. Such preferential votes were not cast, so the figures given are an estimate.

But as voters get used to the new system, they vote differently, so the figures are doubly speculative.

Consider Craig at Norwich North. Many voters may have considered him the best candidate. However, they probably REALLY didn’t want the candidate of one of the two biggest parties to be elected. Unless they can be sure that enough other voters (tens of thousands) will vote for Craig with them, they’ll vote AGAINST the candidate they DON’T want, by voting for the other big party.

This is what is so sad about the current system; it turns politics into a predominantly negative business, putting voters off, increasing apathy, depressing turnout. It is fundamentally ANTI-democratic. No wonder the Big Two parties love it and the Gutter Press and the City support it.

Under STV, the voters of Norwich North could have ranked Craig as their first choice, and their Big Party as their second. If Craig had not been elected, those votes would have been transferred to the Big Party of their choice. No danger for the voter of wasting their vote; they can vote for who they believe in without fear.

Writerman and others,

I think we need to start being specific; a generic “PR” is too vague. Different systems lead to different results.

Writerman – how can bringing in a voting system that lets people vote for the candidate or party they agree with most, instead of voting negatively for which big established party they dislike less, possibly lead to worse results from elections? Any examples from countries that adopted PR? I’ve not seen any.

And by PR i mean Single Transferrable Vote or else the Additional Member System used in the Scottish Parliament.

Of course no system of voting will change the result if no-one changes how they vote, but we’ve already seen in Scotland that the Additional Member System has got Greens elected and at one point there were six Socialists elected to the Scottish Parliament.

That’s flat out impossible under first-past-the-post election systems because under those the vast majority always vote only for one of the biggest parties to keep another of the biggest parties out.

Craig, I don’t recall seeing your opinion on this.

Would you accept the offer of AV instead of PR (I assume STV)?

By taking more information from each voter it would solve the problems of “wasted votes”, split votes and tactical voting*, as well as punishing those whom everybody hates (BNP). No longer would voters not vote LD because LD “couldn’t win” and they wanted to keep Nulab or Tories out.

I also expect it’s the most reform of the Commons electoral system that the Commons would accept, even if one or other Labservative leadership endorses STV.

Maybe under an AV election getting STV through would be easier.

STV for the Lords, councils and European elections should be workable though.

*It is provable that no single winner electoral method is immune to tactical voting, but with a preferential method unless you’re know exactly how everyone else votes trying to vote tactically will probably bite you in the arse.

Andy – “Doesn’t AV sound a little like

a nasty virus you could catch from a wild duck?”

Personally, I think the Sexually Transmitted Vote would be more than a little retrogressive.

Jon – “where’s Alfred?”

Avoiding the comments left under the Voting Tree, I think.

Unsourced quote from anon -”The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it’s not you who changes the system; it’s the system that will eventually change you.”

Tell Gorbachev.

Thanks Clark for taking the trouble to explain things. Would the size of constituencies stay the same? I seem to remember from the list of regional candidates for the European Parliament in my region, I knew of none of them and many of them were several counties distant to me.

And btw where is Cameron? I have only seen his stooges Hague and the shifty looking Letwin appearing and speaking today. Does Cameron want to lead or not? Why can’t he be more manly and tell what’s going on.

Larry – please tell us more about the 1% doctrine.

Duncan:

“The Alternative Vote certainly doesn’t seem to have made much difference in Australia”

Not very comparable. I don’t believe they ever had a 3rd party get anything like 23% of the votes under FPTP. The old Australian Democrats got 11% before they imploded.

Clark:

“AV isn’t worth having.”

It gives voters more choice and allows them to register much more detailed opinions of the candidates. That has got to be an improvement.

“With STV, you rank the candidates in order of preference. Such preferential votes were not cast, so the figures given are an estimate.”

They also don’t account of all those people who voted for X to keep Y out even though they’d have preferred Z. Under AV or STV they would have ranked them Z, X, Y. It is wildly speculative to estimate seat totals from AV without a specifically designed and probably very large poll.

Nick must hold out for PR or walk away. Looks like he is doing a good job of holding out and upping the ante so far.

I think STV is the best system. I don’t think AV is significantly better than FPTP. Party list systems are absolutely the worst of all.

I’ve just looked up AV (Alternative Vote) on the Electoral Reform Society site. It looks OK *within* constituencies (the same as my example above), but can still return a disproportional result nationally, depending upon how the boundaried are drawn.

Maybe my criticism of the Tory offer was misplaced. I just find it hard to believe that they (or Labour) would relinquish their periodic “elected dictatorship”. I’d suspect their offer to be false, and for them to wiggle out of it later.

Mary: Wikipedia is fairly good here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stv

STV is a multi member constituency system. AV is the single member version of the same system (sometimes they are called STVM and STVS). A 3 member STV constituency would be formed by joining 3 current constituencies (unless you want to reduce the number of MPs).

AV algorithm:

Set a minimum level that would get an MP elected (50%+1).

2. Assign each vote to the voter’s highest preference.

If a candidate has got to the winning threshold elect him/her

Otherwise reject the candidate with least votes and return to 2.

The STV algorithm is similar but with different thresholds (e.g. a 3 member constituency has a winning threshold of 25%+1 as only three candidates can get >25%) and candidates with more votes than the threshold have their excess redistributed (in the form of fractions of votes) as otherwise not all positions may be filled. There are several variants.

STV is PR, with larger constituencies being more proportional.

If computerised voting were used other algorithms become possible. A Condorcet method is a preferential method that will always elect a candidate that would have beaten any other candidate in a one on one run off if one exists. Modern Condorcet single winner election methods include ranked pairs (which provides a final ranking of all candidates) and Schulze. A PR version is CPO-STV.

Electoral methods are judged by criteria that can be proven (e.g. “Majoritarian: if most voters vote for a candidate that candidate will win”). Most modern systems are preferential (other systems provide little information or are too easily gamed).

Unfortunately the best resource for this stuff is offline.

http://condorcet.org

Chris Dooley, are you asking me to defend the One Percent Doctrine? Why should I?

Chris Dooley, are you asking me to defend the One Percent Doctrine? Why should I?

Craig, thanks for the reply. I agree that list systems are horrible (including AV+/AMS and variants) as they reinforce party power but I’d settle for AV at the present time. STV is the ultimate goal (actually for me CPO-STV is as soon as computerised elections can be proven as safe as paper elections).

Clark:

“I’d suspect their offer to be false, and for them to wiggle out of it later.”

They’d campaign against it in a referendum and would get their media allies to help.The Tories attacked it in a recent PMQs very dishonestly, claiming it would make it harder to get rid of an unpopular government. In fact it would make it easier to get rid of one or any unpopular party: prefer anyone who could beat them, and your vote will go to anyone who can. This may be the real reason they don’t like AV: they suspect that many British voters hate the Tories and would prefer both LD and Lab over them. That would leave them hosed everywhere they don’t have >50% of the votes.

Milliband is overblown because Labour elites assume he will guarantee them Murdoch media’s support. The average voter does not know what this creepy little man is up to, nor does he make himself approachable.

Clark at May 10, 2010 10:00 PM

If it were false, then their coalition/pact wouldn’t last 5 minutes.

The they’d risk the wrath of the electorate in pretty short order.

I suspect the tories want a Lib-Lab pact that won’t last long before they clean up. Another “unelected” PM and a change in the democratic process without public consultation via a referendum when it had been offered would not make Lab or Lib look good.

http://www.nme.com/video/id/l_FZVD5lsAw/search/thewho

Who are you, Larry?

I really wanna know.

I should say that the algorithm I gave above is for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). AV is the election of a whole chamber by IRV in each constituency. IRV is the term usually used in the US.

Terms can be confusing. Many people (especially continentals) use “PR” to mean list systems, which few people in the UK have ever supported. LD proposes STV.

Optional Preferential AV is a consideration Clark introduced I believe in Australia in the 90′s to some areas – detail here:

http://tinyurl.com/opavote

Amk,

I’ve linked below to the Wayback Machine, the web archive, a very useful facility. Condorcet is archived there.

Clark

I’m getting sick and tired of cretins in media and elsewhere rabbiting on about an “unelected” Prime minister.

These morons haven’t the faintest clue how our system works, and are clearly too much schooled in American media and their presidential system.

If this is an example of just how stupid our media are today then we’d be better to totally exclude them from any voice at all.

Things are bad enough without ill-educated media morons running rampant talking absolute drivel.

Close them down quickly, before they destroy us all!!

gawdelpus at May 10, 2010 10:26 PM

Staying 4 months until A.N. Other replaces him is playing a constitutional loophole – cunning stunt, that.

Larry -

You are my favourite loser. Please promise that you will keep posting your nonsense on this blog. Please.

Fulano, in what way? The only strong opinion that I’ve voiced on this blog is that 911 was not an inside job. Are you still harping on that?

Larry from St. Louis at May 10, 2010 10:39 PM

Have you seen this:

http://www.captainsherlock.com/pattern_times.html ??

We have all been wrong about Adam Boulton. Apparently he’s not a Tory after all. And here is a new use for Alistair Campbell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZm5cm0ZtL4

Amk,

AV is not necessarily proportional. But can it be so, if boundaries are chosen appropriately? Would it lead to political pressure upon whoever was choosing the boundaries?

STV “becomes more proportional with bigger constituencies” – but is it, too, susceptable to boundary manipulation?

Plenty of ‘unelected PM’s’ in history ScouseBilly including Churchill. If only Robin Cook was alive but there exists others.

Here are my favs for senior positions in a LibLab coalition:

Jeremy Corbyn MP

John McDonnell MP

Kelvin Hopkins MP

Go for it Nick – you know it makes sense to 66% of the electorate.

Craig has started a thread on this subject now.

STV is resistant to gerrymandering. AV is as vulnerable as FPTP, and the results are no more proportional.

Off to the new thread now.

There used to be a system in which people took part in a debate, listened to what was said and then decided how to vote. Party whips were far less powerful. I suppose it’s too late to go back to such a system.

Straw man and Miliband could arrange some overnight rendition flights for the Liberal democrat negotiating team.

Just to make them more pliable you understand.

ScouseBilly, that one’s new to me. Does it blame the Jews for 911?

ScouseBilly, that one’s new to me. Does it blame the Jews for 911?

hey folks why attack Larry?and why should he tell you or me who he really is? this forum is not to threaten someone and he has not said anything so objectionable. I am certainly no supporter of neocon-but even if Larry is then he has every right to his opinion without others asking him to explain. please! Is this liberalism or obnoxious new labnourism?or rublican party line?

Antone can ask anyone who they are. Is there a law against it? Is it liberal for you to raise this and suggest that no-one ever ask anyone who they are? Anyway, who said we’re all liberal?

Larry raised the issue of the use of the word, ‘neocon’ – I asked him to define it, in his terms. He did not respond. Over the past few months, I have invited Larry in very amicable terms to engage in discourse, yet he does not even respond even to these amicable requests.

I would suggest that he is qualitatively different from most other people who blog on this site.

Why is is it unreasonable to ask someone who they are? Larry does not take part in debates, he seems to drop in largely in order to disrupt. He has every right not to respond, and I have every right to continue to ask him to do so, and to ask him to reveal something of his provenance. That, I would suggest, is liberalism.

There are cyber-disruptors who constantly attempt to engineer an association between certain websites and anti-Semitic phrases and argumentation – witness the post earlier in this thread (just prior to your own post) – in order to enhance the likelihood of the website being blacklisted. Craig Murray established a clear position critical of the hard state and its active role in the prosecution of imperial war, as well as the deliberate erosion of due process domestically. This makes Craig Murray’s website a prime target for disruption.

Dear Duncan,

It’s perfectly possible to have a “fairer” proportionally representative electoral system that leads to “worse” results than under the present system.

PR, in itself, doesn’t necessarily, lead to better government or more “democracy.”

For example, it can lead to chaos and a lack of decisive government, at a time when one needs good, solid, government, when struggling with a Great Depression.

If, for example, there are two blocks, with roughly equal electoral support, a third block, perhaps far smaller, holds the balance and therefore has far more power than its electoral support “entitles” it to.

One can study Germany in the 1930′s for an historic example of how dangerous such a system can be.

In contemporary politics there’s the case of Denmark, where the most important party, with about 12% of the votes, the Danish People’s Party, a zenophobic, racist, populist, group, holds the balance of power between left and right.

PR is, on the face of it, a much fairer system, but it does have drawbacks too, which is all I am trying to point out.

Larry from St. Louis at May 11, 2010 1:04 AM

No, Larry it does not blame the jews.

It’s only 30mins – try watching it.

Suhayl writes: “in order to enhance the likelihood of the website being blacklisted.” Now what does that mean?

Well, Suhayl, as it turns out, apparently you are one of those idiots here who thinks that the secret agent men are out to get him. I merely offer a different opinion about 911, suggesting that perhaps it really was 19 Arab Muslims who pulled it off, and you’ve apparently decided that I’ve a government-sponsored agent of destruction.

And then, in a quite weaselly way, you keep wanting to have a pleasant conversation with me.

Suhayl, you don’t begin a friendly conversation by accusing someone of being a government spy. Just one of those rules.

“you don’t begin a friendly conversation by accusing someone of being a government spy”

Or, for that matter, by insisting that “everybody here” is a “loon”, as I’ve seen you do repeatedly. Or, for that matter, by persistently dragging up “911″, that our host has asked be kept to the thread he provided for that purpose. I won’t bother to provide you with the link yet again, given the way you ignore it. It does look like a deliberate attempt at disruption. It can only either incite other people to forget our host’s request or waste his time deleting you, as he threatened (I’m sure he has more important things to do).

However, the conversation hardly “begins” here, does it ?

avatar singh – this isn’t out-of-nowhere, you’ve come in in the middle of a long-running “discussion” (or lack of it).

Hi writerman – granted, there’s no electoral system that will produce good results if a large proportion of the electorate enthusiastically back fascism or stalinism or similar. No electoral system in the world could have prevented Hitler or Mussolini coming to power after the Great Depression (and the attempt by conservatives and big business in Germany to use an alliance with the Nazis to keep socialists and communists out of government).

So from that point of view, yes, PR could make it easier for fascists like the BNP to get elected – it’d also allow socialists, greens (and even maybe a few more independents) to get elected.

Our biggest problem in Britain is that our electoral system bins the votes of the majority of people unless they vote Labour or Conservative.

P.R wouldn’t guarantee more progressive politics – and it’d allow some BNP MPs – but it would be more democratic and at least allow some greens, socialists and independents in. The ‘campaign group’ on the left of the Labour party would likely become a separate party as well – and finally have some influence that way.

Larry from St Louis,

there is not, nor can there be, anything “weaselly” about trying to establish more personal, honest and open communication.

Behave like a person and you’ll be perceived as a person.

Act like a cypher and you’ll be perceived as a cypher.

Now. What do you care about? How do you feel about it?

Or are you Louis Cyphre, my Angel Heart?

Thank you, Richard and Clark.

“Thank you, Richard and Clark”

It’s the difference between having a conversation and standing on a soap-box shouting at people.

“Whichever way your pleasure tends,

You plant ice you’re going to harvest wind”.

That’s brilliant, Richard! Is that from a song, or a poem?

“Is that from a song, or a poem?”

My tony_opmoc streak – have a bit to drink and I revert to the ancient music of my youth. It’s from one of the songs on the Grateful Dead’s “Blues For Allah”. (1974. The final high-water mark of their glory days, imo).

Yes, lovely lyrics, graceful contributions. Suhayl’s never shouted unpleasantly at anyone. I miss dreoilin and am ashamed that Larry managed to call her vicious names without anyone realising it. But then it was apparently on the 9/11 thread, which I didn’t read.