How likely is a Canadian-style outcome for the UK?

[pragmatic liberal]

Actually, how likely is a Lab-LD pact? I'm skeptical that Labour would actually be willing to support PR, and they'd almost certainly have to ditch Brown if the Lib Dems were to support them. Brown's not going to go without a fight, and PR would ensure that Labour never again wins a full majority. Plus PR would have netted Labour even fewer seats than the present system.

So it seems likely that even if Labour emerges as the largest party, they won't be able to get Lib Dem support and whether the Queen asks Cameron to lead a minority administration or dissolves parliament right away, there would be an election again in the late summer or fall, probably leading to Tory gains at the expense of both the Lib Dems and Labour and a Tory minority government, with the opposition split between Labour and the Lib Dems. And of course, though small, there'd be a separatist faction, the SNP, in the mix too.

Not all that different an outcome from the present Canadian stalemate, except that the BQ is a much larger faction in parliament than the SNP.

Likely or not?

[Хahar 🤔]

A hung parliament (the norm in Canada) appears very likely at this point. A Lab-Lib pact is unlikely, given that Labour's the government now and the LibDems are running against the government. We haven't had a hung parliament since 1974, so what happens is anyone's guess, really.

An analysis of the smaller parties, as I understand it:

NI unionists are whores; they'll vote for anyone. SDLP is petulant; they won't vote for anyone. Plaid and SNP might be willing to support a government if they get certain concessions. They're far more likely to support Labour than the Tories.

[minionofmidas]

In the SNP's case, these "concessions" are an Independence Referendum.

PR on the Welsh model (ie, only nominally PR, really - ensuring community representation and not leading to proportional results at all) might actually be acceptable to Labour (though they'll much prefer IRV... as that hurts the Tories most. ). Pure PR wouldn't be, partly because it would be suicide in the current alignment.

[mileslunn]

A hung parliament (the norm in Canada) appears very likely at this point.

Actually hung parliaments have not historically been the norm in Canada either.  It was only due to the creation of the Bloc Quebecois that they started to become the norm as they always take a sizeable chunk of seats in Quebec making it difficult for either party to win a majority.  Chretien did win three majorities in the 90s in spite of this since he was able to sweep Ontario due to the divided right.  Once the right united, the ability to sweep Ontario ended.  Even though in Britain you have the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party, their overall clout in parliament is small compared to the Bloc Quebecois.

This time will probably be a hung parliament due to the closeness.  As a side note, how likely do you think the chances are of the party that comes in third in terms of votes wins the most seats.  I could see Labour Party coming in third in votes and winning the most seats.  Likewise I could see the Liberal Democrats coming in first in terms of votes, but third in seats.  I cannot see the Conservatives being in either scenario although I could see them winning the popular vote, but second in terms of seats.

[Hatman 🍁]

I am just flabbergasted at the UK... Labour has such an ingrown advantage based where the seats are located. This wouldn't happen in Canada in quite the same way. No way would a party win the most votes yet be third in parliament.  Take a look at Quebec in 2007. They had a 3 way race, and the seat totals actually reflected the popular vote. It would be interesting to apply the UNS to that election, and see if the ADQ would have been as short changed as the Lib Dems...

[Verily]

I am just flabbergasted at the UK... Labour has such an ingrown advantage based where the seats are located. This wouldn't happen in Canada in quite the same way. No way would a party win the most votes yet be third in parliament.  Take a look at Quebec in 2007. They had a 3 way race, and the seat totals actually reflected the popular vote. It would be interesting to apply the UNS to that election, and see if the ADQ would have been as short changed as the Lib Dems...

Quebec does actually have some inherent advantage for the PQ in the same way Britain has an advantage for Labour (although for totally different reasons) as the PLQ piles up enormous numbers of wasted votes in seats like D'Arcy-McGee. The presence of the ADQ in 2007 (and to a lesser extent in earlier elections and in 2008) blasted the PQ advantage apart, however, as the ADQ wins more sovereigntist votes than federalist ones.


Anyway, it's mostly because of the ingrained class divisions between Labour and the Conservatives, resulting in Labour seats always having disproportionately lower turnouts and Conservative seats always having disproportionately higher turnouts. There's some slight malapportionment as well, but that's secondary.

Also, Labour would never actually win the most seats while coming third in the PV (unless third meant a result of something like 31-31-30), whatever UNS says.

[Хahar 🤔]

A hung parliament (the norm in Canada) appears very likely at this point.

Actually hung parliaments have not historically been the norm in Canada either.  It was only due to the creation of the Bloc Quebecois that they started to become the norm as they always take a sizeable chunk of seats in Quebec making it difficult for either party to win a majority.  Chretien did win three majorities in the 90s in spite of this since he was able to sweep Ontario due to the divided right.  Once the right united, the ability to sweep Ontario ended.  Even though in Britain you have the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party, their overall clout in parliament is small compared to the Bloc Quebecois.

Yeah, that's true, but hung parliaments are and will continue to be the norm, until Canadian politicians learn to accept coalitions. The last time a conservative party won a majority without winning Quebec was in 1930, before a real multi-party system developed, and the Liberals have only ever won a majority without Quebec in the Chrétien years, when they had all those seats in Southern Ontario that they'll never get back. The current four-party system doesn't allow for a majority under everyday circumstances.

[Hatman 🍁]

I am just flabbergasted at the UK... Labour has such an ingrown advantage based where the seats are located. This wouldn't happen in Canada in quite the same way. No way would a party win the most votes yet be third in parliament.  Take a look at Quebec in 2007. They had a 3 way race, and the seat totals actually reflected the popular vote. It would be interesting to apply the UNS to that election, and see if the ADQ would have been as short changed as the Lib Dems...

Quebec does actually have some inherent advantage for the PQ in the same way Britain has an advantage for Labour (although for totally different reasons) as the PLQ piles up enormous numbers of wasted votes in seats like D'Arcy-McGee. The presence of the ADQ in 2007 (and to a lesser extent in earlier elections and in 2008) blasted the PQ advantage apart, however, as the ADQ wins more sovereigntist votes than federalist ones.


Anyway, it's mostly because of the ingrained class divisions between Labour and the Conservatives, resulting in Labour seats always having disproportionately lower turnouts and Conservative seats always having disproportionately higher turnouts. There's some slight malapportionment as well, but that's secondary.

Also, Labour would never actually win the most seats while coming third in the PV (unless third meant a result of something like 31-31-30), whatever UNS says.

Oh, I guess the argument would then be that if Labour doesn't win the PV, but wins the most seats, they could say they are representing the people who did not vote...

Anyways, if the Libdems can take votes away from Labour like the ADQ did from the PQ, then they shouldn't be too worried. But I am aware, that we are dealing with apples and oranges here.

I'm trying to understand UK politics more, so forgive my ignorance. 

[mileslunn]

A hung parliament (the norm in Canada) appears very likely at this point.

Actually hung parliaments have not historically been the norm in Canada either.  It was only due to the creation of the Bloc Quebecois that they started to become the norm as they always take a sizeable chunk of seats in Quebec making it difficult for either party to win a majority.  Chretien did win three majorities in the 90s in spite of this since he was able to sweep Ontario due to the divided right.  Once the right united, the ability to sweep Ontario ended.  Even though in Britain you have the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party, their overall clout in parliament is small compared to the Bloc Quebecois.

Yeah, that's true, but hung parliaments are and will continue to be the norm, until Canadian politicians learn to accept coalitions. The last time a conservative party won a majority without winning Quebec was in 1930, before a real multi-party system developed, and the Liberals have only ever won a majority without Quebec in the Chrétien years, when they had all those seats in Southern Ontario that they'll never get back. The current four-party system doesn't allow for a majority under everyday circumstances.

That could change after BC, Alberta, and Ontario get more seats as this will weaken Quebec's influences.  In fact I think the Tories would have come pretty close to a majority last time around under the new seat arrangements depending on where the new seats are located.  Still minorities do look likely for the foreseeable future, although I think if the NDP and Liberals merged you would see the end of them.  Not that the they would always win, but they would win sometimes and also enough Blue Liberals would probably go to the Tories as well as some NDPers would stay home in disgust.

For one thing Britain is much smaller country in terms of area so there aren't the regional differences to the same degree as Canada.  Minority governments at the provincial level occur, but far less often.

[mileslunn]

I also wonder what role the Queen could have to play as if the party who win the most seats proved they couldn't govern, we should grant another election right away or let the next most party have a chance.  And also if there is hung parliament and the Labour Party doesn't win the most seats, but insists on hanging on anyways, would she agree or would she insist on the party with the most seats getting first shot.  I know we pretty much use the same system, so I am guessing the Queen's role is much like the governor general in Canada.

[Хahar 🤔]

A hung parliament (the norm in Canada) appears very likely at this point.

Actually hung parliaments have not historically been the norm in Canada either.  It was only due to the creation of the Bloc Quebecois that they started to become the norm as they always take a sizeable chunk of seats in Quebec making it difficult for either party to win a majority.  Chretien did win three majorities in the 90s in spite of this since he was able to sweep Ontario due to the divided right.  Once the right united, the ability to sweep Ontario ended.  Even though in Britain you have the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party, their overall clout in parliament is small compared to the Bloc Quebecois.

Yeah, that's true, but hung parliaments are and will continue to be the norm, until Canadian politicians learn to accept coalitions. The last time a conservative party won a majority without winning Quebec was in 1930, before a real multi-party system developed, and the Liberals have only ever won a majority without Quebec in the Chrétien years, when they had all those seats in Southern Ontario that they'll never get back. The current four-party system doesn't allow for a majority under everyday circumstances.

That could change after BC, Alberta, and Ontario get more seats as this will weaken Quebec's influences.  In fact I think the Tories would have come pretty close to a majority last time around under the new seat arrangements depending on where the new seats are located.  Still minorities do look likely for the foreseeable future, although I think if the NDP and Liberals merged you would see the end of them.  Not that the they would always win, but they would win sometimes and also enough Blue Liberals would probably go to the Tories as well as some NDPers would stay home in disgust.

For one thing Britain is much smaller country in terms of area so there aren't the regional differences to the same degree as Canada.  Minority governments at the provincial level occur, but far less often.

Liberals and NDP merging? I've never heard that before. Interesting.

[Mr. Morden]

Also, Labour would never actually win the most seats while coming third in the PV (unless third meant a result of something like 31-31-30), whatever UNS says.

So what if it's something like?:

LD 33
Con 30
Lab 27

You think the LibDems would then actually come in 1st in seats?

[Verily]

Also, Labour would never actually win the most seats while coming third in the PV (unless third meant a result of something like 31-31-30), whatever UNS says.

So what if it's something like?:

LD 33
Con 30
Lab 27

You think the LibDems would then actually come in 1st in seats?

On that result? I would say about a 65% chance of LDs at most seats, 30% chance of Conservatives, 5% chance of Labour. UNS be damned, the swing will not be remotely uniform across seats on such a major overall change.

In particular, seats with particularly LD-hostile demographics (usually safe Labour seats, sometimes safe Tory seats) will see minimal swings, increasing vote efficiency.

However, previously safe Labour seats that swung heavily Lib Dem in 2005 would continue to see such huge swings (much larger, since the 2001-2005 Lab-LD swing was much smaller than that 2005-2010 Lab-LD swing would be on that result but the demographics swinging are the same), turning many other seats that look unwinnable for the LDs on UNS yellow.

Similarly, the LD vote is nearly maxed-out in the close LD-Con marginals, meaning only a small boost for the LDs in the hotly contested seats because everyone in those seats has known the LDs to be contenders for ages. These small swings are still enough for gains like Weston-super-Mare or Wells, but they prevent the vote from piling up in those seats. Instead, the LD-Con swing would be larger in seats where the LDs have a significant vote but have not in past seriously contested. If it weren't David Cameron's seat, Witney would be a good example of a potential surprise on that kind of result (although maybe not, since the Con vote went up there in 2001 and 2005--would have to scout around for better "surprise" possibilities).

Also, there will be substantial tactical shifts in the Lab-Con marginals from 2005. There was some unwind in 2005, but this was people switching Lab -> LD, not new anti-Labour tactical votes. In 2010, there will be more anti-Labour tactical voting in those seats and less anti-Tory tactical voting as the LD tactical vote unwinds or switches to the Conservatives. This will not be in effect in seats that are not Lab-Con marginals to begin with, meaning the Lab -> Con swing will be concentrated in seats that matter most (especially with both parties down on 2005).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

UNS be damned, the swing will not be remotely uniform across seats on such a major overall change.

Even though it was - at least relatively speaking - in 1974 and 1983? Though we're talking hypothetical upon hypothetical here and I don't think UNS is much more useful than a really crude tool, there's no reason to assume that LibDem percentages will be tiny in their worst constituencies under this scenario. Have a look at the 1983 results in the Black Country, South Essex or the Yorkshire Coalfield if you think I'm bullshitting. I'm also sceptical that we'll see even larger shifts than 2005 in (for example) constituencies with large Muslim populations.

[minionofmidas]

I want to see a poll of Muslim voters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I want to see a poll of Muslim voters.

Yeah, might be quite interesting. There are some big problems with doing it well, of course, and there's likely to be less media interest (and thus £££) in doing so than in 2005. Evidence from midterm elections (including the otherwise trainwreck of the European elections) is of a strong swing back to Labour, but there's no reason to suppose that Muslims do not watch television and are not influenced by the same things as everyone else.

[minionofmidas]

Exactly. I expected a strong swing back to Labour before this LD rise; I'm not sure I ought to still expect it.

[afleitch]

Exactly. I expected a strong swing back to Labour before this LD rise; I'm not sure I ought to still expect it.

Depends on whether Iraq/Afghanistan is an issue in the next debate. It seems that the debates will influence everything.

[Gustaf]

Electoral reform would be death to the Tories though, I don't seem them going along with it unless they absolutely have to.

After all, all the other parties hate the Tories.