Talk Elections

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13428909

He doth propose a Lords (or whatever it'd be called) of 300 members, 80% of which would be elected and for which terms would be 15 years. The elected members would be elected by STV and in thirds.

...

I think that's actually far worse than what we have at the moment.

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

I wouldn't go that far. I think what we have now is an abomination since the abolition of hereditary peers and the now annual ritual of busing in new Lords so one party get's an advantage over the other. Nick Clegg, yet again, is going for a stupid solution to a genuine problem (see AV)

A fully elected PR Upper Chamber would be fine. Simple as that. 4 or 5 year fixed terms.

Why STV? To prove AV wasn't a bad idea after all? And why these hideously long terms? You'd have tons of by-elections.

This.

And indeed, 15 years is just insane.

Can't we keep the House of Lords around but just make it so that they're forced to approve everything the House of Commons does? Like the Queen, kind of.

Unless they're actaully given some form of power... no.

Why, out of interest?

I do wonder why we need a second chamber at all, and unless someone comes up with a convincing argument abolition is the option I'd actually support, but if we are going to have one I think it should be elected (100%, and no bishops either).  Appointment gives too much control to the PM; see afleitch's comment, basically.

I like STV (reasonably proportional but retaining voting for the person rather than the party).  That leaves the election by thirds 15-year thing; I think I can see where they're coming from on this (and it isn't new, is it?) as an attempt to make it a different sort of chamber from the Commons while still being elected, but I'm not convinced.

Like with AV, Cameron's only gifted this to Clegg because he knows it'll be voted down.

Any change to the Lords can only be positive, and I support this, but need does need to be 100% elected and those terms need to be MUCH shorter. Why settle for a half-done idea?

Because it would not work. At all. If you must have an upper chamber, then in order for it to work it either has to be a weak revising chamber or a powerful body in its own right (the latter being a very bad idea of course, as the US Senate shows). Clegg's proposals manage to combine aspects of both in a way that's almost impressive in its lack of logic. It would also make certain specific problems that the Lords has worse; you are not going to solve the problem of lobbying by creating posts elected for fifteen year terms! There's a massive corruption scandal - and then a constitutional crisis - just waiting to happen right there.

Or, for that matter, patronage. Who will control the rights to these precious fifteen year terms, exactly? The party leaders.

You mean it was better when it was full (in theory, but almost never in practice) of hereditaries? Is there any reason to think that, beyond partisan interest? :P

Obviously the current system is a joke, but it's also a comparatively toothless one.

Bump, given that the bill has been published today.

STV has been replaced by semi-open lists.  But the main discussion seems to be whether Tory backbenchers will sabotage the bill entirely and whether the Lib Dems will blame Labour for this.

It's not quite as bad as what we have now, but it's up there.

He made a crap electoral reform proposal as well. He can't do anything right.

They are very good proposals

There is a compromise struck between what the Conservatives want (no change at all, see the Bishops still hanging around) and what we've always wanted (elected, accountable members)

As with the AV referendum, which was defeated by Labour, it's up to Ed Miliband to do the right thing.

Tradition.

I can think of philosophical reasons to support the system with all the hereditaries beyond partisanship or stodgy traditionalism, but almost none of them are reasons that the fundamental ideologies behind the current political systems of most Western countries would care about.

Do you regard Ed Miliband as having done the right thing last time, after all he personally supported it, but could do little to stop most Labour voters using it as a opportunity to kick the Lib Dems given it was an essentially meaningless and self-serving system you'd bargained for?

Of course he has much more control for this, so it'll be interesting to see Labour's response. I'm of the opinion anything's better than the current arrangement, and would prefer a proportionally elected setup although I have some misgivings about the proposals.

It wasn't meaningless or self-serving, AV would have been a stepping stone towards real reform and the Labour Party bunked off their responsibility by deciding to kick Clegg rather than support it.

Bad proposals. An upper house is usually found in a federal system, like the U.S or Canada. We don't live in a federal state. Unless the idea is we have every county electing Lords, a strange idea in itself, given that counties have no real power unlike states or provinces, the whole idea is totally pointless. One chamber is sufficient, as two equal ones would lead to paralysis and deadlock. Most states with two chambers were created to resolve the conflict between states rights and rep by pop. We don't have that in Britain so why are we creating one. I'll tell you why, because the Lib Dems want to have perpetual kingmaking power, so despite coming third with the support of less than a quarter of the populace, they can still get their policies enacted by blackmailing whoever is in power by threatening to block their proposals. Hardly democratic.

Utter dribble.

"The LibDems want to have perpetual kingmaking power".

That's not the reason for these  proposals, at all. I'm sure other small parties would like to have a voice in parliament and Government, it would be unusual if that were not the case.

You seem to be under the impression that the Coalition is somehow undemocratic.  Utter dribble, completely wrong.  Labour won with barely a third of the vote and managed to run the country without the Orchestrated Outrage Brigade having a whinge.

These proposals do something no government has done before - drag the country into the 20th century. Maybe it'll be the 21st before I'm pushing up roses.

The AV referendum which he personally supported, a system that was originally proposed by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

Of course not................Now you keep thinking what honest, wonderful people the Lib-Dems are.

I'm a card carrying LibDem for 12 years strong, you don't need to ask me.

If the Lords changed it's name to "The Senate" and was fully elected, I would have little problem with it.

Why would you need a Senate in a parliamentary system? Spain has one ("elected" I believe, and it does nothing). Clegg is a clown.

I repeat, the legitimacy of Lords comes for tradition and tradition is important for every nation.

A Senate would probably end up as an utter joke like in Canada.

To prevent parliament from overstepping it's boundaries, above anything else.


Once upon a time, slavery was considered traditional. Yeah, yeah. Cheap I know.

Slavery was an economical factor of certain production models. Very cheap.

Read Arend Lijphart, "Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration".

No.

I would have a massive problem with calling any kind of upper house a 'Senate'. Urgh.

A bland upper house is worse than none at all. And I'm of the opinion unitary states don't really need upper houses; who do they represent?

I say, now without irony, that the ideal solution would be to return to the pre-Blair hereditary system (if not even further back) whilst making the house completely powerless, maybe with some "prerogatives".

Right now the Lords is a farce, a Senate-for-life much like Canada's with the fairly unimportant distinction that its members get a noble title along with their seat. I mean, a life peerage is even less a noble title than it is just an honour. The political Lords has been terrible.

Yeah, that would sound very un-British.

Just watching the highlights of Clegg's speech on News at 10. Clegg getting laughed at, nothing I love more.

Government climbs down over the timetable (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18778639)

Looks like this is dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/03/lib-dems-abandon-lords-reform

Yes! Finally! Cameron was stupid to try and force these proposals through his backbenchers, he just weakened his own position.

God, the Liberals are ing useless (as if it was in doubt (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clegg&defid=5354014)).

Do they have any red lines at all?

Also shows that the Tory right are the same wreckers that they were in the 90s as well.

It's a British thing. You won't understand.

Most of us don't even understand.

Clegg fail.

It's pretty hilarious how far Clegg's star has fallen since he "won" that first debate.

Well, supposedly they're threatening to sabotage the boundary review as revenge.

The LibDems say a lot of things.

I'd believe that if I saw it.

Clegg says Lords reform plans abandoned, "coalition contract broken", will not back boundary review (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212)

Thought he said their fate wasn't tied together. ::)

Sums him right up. Truly disgusting, vile excuse of a politician. Just when we all thought his approval rating couldn't get any lower.

And as for the PM, he's looking more and more like John Major and less and less like Margaret Thatcher every day. Isn't it extraordinary that the Prime Minister of our country can't even urge his party to support his own position? Weak, weak, weak. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZUMEgHmCY8#t=4m10s)

It seems a bit petty, but I think Clegg would have looked even worse if he'd continued waving through every Tory idea, and this was probably easier than anything else to link to Lords reform.

Anyway, the initial map drawn by the English Commission was so awful that I can't see the boundary review as any great loss.  And a small point: Clegg's constituency was made noticeably less safe by the provisional map.

If Clegg had any grapefruits at all, he'd withdraw his support from the government before it's too late for them. If I was a LibDem MP, I would be pressuring him to end the coalition or risk getting kicked out the way he and others did to Charles Kennedy.

Yes, but I'm taking it for granted that he's not going to bring the coalition down.

Don't take it for granted that there's a contingency of Liberals who're actually against the coalition. And even if there was, what kind've party would trigger an election which would see a near 13-14% swing against them?

Key lefties like Ming Campbell and Simon Hughes would be voting to end their careers.

Someone care to point out exactly where the Tories breached the agreement?

Yeah, completely agree. The phrase humiliation was popping up a lot when news of this first leaked, and quite rightly: he couldn't support the Tories' side of the bargain whilst watching his own withdrawn without losing yet more face, not after the AV loss (the HOL reform had a whiff of attempting to assuage the Lib Dem loss there).

Delighted we escape those awful proposals.

House of Lords reform can wait.

Yup, already been waiting a century.

Poor Clegg, he hasn't really had any choices whatsoever since the last election. Every move he makes drags him deeper into the hole he's digging for himself and his only real options are suicide for his party now or suicide for his party later. I'm surprised, at the beginning I guessed there would be more leftist Lib Dem rebels then rightist Tory ones.

That's why this is such a British thing ;)

The man from Washington County is not entirely wrong, actually. The comparatively clever thing to do would have been to have at least threatened (in public) to end the coalition and maybe to bring down the government; it's true that a snap election would likely reduce the LibDems back to phone box status, but it would also likely see the defeat of the government generally and don't think that all those senior Tories would happily wave goodbye to their ministerial cars...

And the LibDems would?

Obviously not. All I'm doing is pointing out that, actually, they do have a little bit of leverage over their senior partner. Or at least they would do if they weren't so utterly incompetent at this whole 'politics' lark.

Are the Liberals supposed to be centrist or centre-left?

Where do we start?

On the record, raw votes in parliament and such things, it'd be incredibly difficult call them "centre-left" by any definition. There front benchers, by default, have nodded through every government policy once it got to a division.

I'd, personally, have a painful time calling them centrist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/07/david-cameron-boundary-changes

Exactly, all this can't go on unless Dave's wanting to hit the eject button. If that's the case, he must genuinely think he can overcome a 10 point Labour lead on Ed Miliband's wonkishness alone despite being without any major (popular) policy achievements.

The Tories need a 10.5% lead for an outright majority, on current boundaries. On average, they're 10% behind in polls. I can't really see how he'd get them passed without sizeable Liberal support, and yet I can see the desperation that'd lead them to press on regardless. :D


Depends who you ask. Historically centrist, for me  - and centre-right these days.

Both.  And centre-right too, e.g. David Laws.

...and resign from British politics and go raise sheep in New Zealand.

So, what are the chances UKIP overtake them in 2015? They really have become quite an embarassment.

None. LibDem vote is concentrated, while UKIP vote is more evenly spread.

Well, chance of overtaking them in the popular vote?

It's possible, if the chickens really come home to roost.

No......no.....NOOOO!!!!!!!!

Chatham Island maybe?

I was thinking more the Pitcairn Islands :)

Seriously the guy sounds like a slippery, patronizing w****r.

As long as Lord Clegg of Hallam is as far away from Parliament as possible by the end of May 2015, everything'll be okay.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-to-defy-clegg-over-boundary-changes-8015834.html

Cameron is to push through Boundary Changes with or without the Liberals.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nick is "crying to music" right now, as he does "regularly".

Correction: Cameron is going to attempt to push through boundary changes with or without the Liberals, and fail if it's the latter, because the Conservatives are a minority.

This would be an incredibly stupid issue to die in a ditch for. Just saying.

Would someone with more knowledge of the constitution clarify for me? Wouldn't all the LibDem ministers have to resign if that was to happen, Cameron trying to shove them through parliament? If that's the case, I wonder how long Clegg'll go before making a u-turn on "I'm not supporting the boundaries".

I'm assuming Cameron's banking on the LibDems not wanting to go for the early election, for obvious reasons.

Logically, the ministerial solidarity is a custom, but I don't think it forcing resignation.
Cameron may sack them, through.

Only technically.

As is our constitution.

If they didn't resign, it'd set dangerous precedent for future divided cabinets (such as Major and Brown's and even Blair's at times). Again, as is our constitution.

Is he perhaps trying to set a point of differentiation from the Conservatives, to try to pacify the half of the Lib Dem supporters he upset by backing the Coalition?

Possibly, but are Lords reform and damn boundary changes really what those people were in it for?

[I really don't see the use of having a House of Lords if it's not to at least some extent possible to be hereditary. The element of 'luck of the draw' in that respect strikes me as partially the point and rather than have the half-formed abortion of an upper house that currently exists or other versions of such that are being proposed and have been proposed it strikes me as more sensible to just put 'another place' out to pasture like an old grey mare and henceforth use the concept of the nobility as a knighthood-type honor without a necessary political aspect to it the way they do or are supposed to do in Belgium and Spain. But I digress.]

Those voters were supporters, past tense. Something as trivial to the man on the street as the boundary changes isn't going to win back the 60% of their 2010 voters that they've lost.

But I thought their voters basically were more middle class liberal types who cared about such issues a Lords Reform.

No voter cares about Lords Reform, neither boundary changes.

They probably broadly support it, but it's not likely to be a make or break issue.  And note that the Lib Dems haven't achieved Lords reform (or electoral reform) but they have signed up to Osbornomics, high tuition fees, NHS "reform" and various bright ideas that have come into Michael Gove's head; I doubt their more left-wing (ex-)voters see much to be impressed about.

The ones you find on online election forums are, yes...

The reason being that he knows Nick Clegg well and does not consider him a vertebrate?

The obvious reason for the Liberals wanting to avoid an election at all costs being that predicted swing from 24% to 10%.

Because the Tories would be perfectly happy with new elections caused by a collapse of the coalition?

Exactly, an election right now wouldn't suit either party.