What UK election result is best for the country?

[andyandy]

Ok,

so not what who you want to win - but which of the poll scenarios will be best the the country?

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the party you want to win is the party you think will do the best job?

[funk de fino]

I have said hung and thats what I want. The party I vote for would never be the best UK govt party even if it was possible.

ETA Should have added. No Tory involvement in the govt.

[Fiona]

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the party you want to win is the party you think will do the best job?

^this.

Is there a hidden premise underpinning the OP?

[Undesired Walrus]

I have said hung and thats what I want.

Well hung?

[funk de fino]

Well hung?

I wish. So does she.

[andyandy]

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the party you want to win is the party you think will do the best job?

See my now submitted poll options!

You might be voting for Lib Dems and hoping for a hung parliament with big third party split. You might be voting Green but think that of the realistic poll options a labour majority is best. You might even be voting conservative, but not want them to have a big majority....With so much negativity about politics it's hard to believe that outside the few party enthusiasts there are that many people who are tribally or ideologically wedded to any of the three main parties. I would imagine the majority of the voting public will be looking at the least worst option for the country overall....

[andyandy]

I ran out of poll options - so i've not included the less likely ones - like lib dem majority or lib dem most seats in a hung parliament.....

so let's restrict ourselves to the poll options - and no moaning! :D

[Undesired Walrus]

Labour- 400

Lib Dem- 250

Con- 0

[Tsukasa Buddha]

BNP!

[Big Les]

Been drinking, have we?

[MarkCorrigan]

BNP!

Ok, that's obviously a joke, but someone voted TORY?

Eww.

[jimbob]

No option for massive majorities?

Edited for a spelling error that made my post more nonsense than usual by changing the meaning.

[Uzzy]

Ok, that's obviously a joke, but someone voted TORY?

Eww.

Seven people also voted Labour. Eww.

[jimbob]

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the party you want to win is the party you think will do the best job?


Not necessarily: There could be a party that voted to give semiconductor engineers free housing and massive tax breaks, which would be tempting for me, but which I probably wouldn't think is actually best for the country....

And I didn't vote for a small lib dem majority because I don't think it would happen.

[andyandy]

And I didn't vote for a small lib dem majority because I don't think it would happen.

ditto - of the poll options there i think the lib dem majority would be best, but i think it's barely conceivable. Equally it's worth saying that it would be the best of a bad bunch - the Lib dems are hardly the left wing alternative - just the alternative.

[Rolfe]

I seem to have posted this in the wrong thread.

It's a bit scary, but I have no clue as to the answer to this poll. I regard all the options with equal horror.


Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

Equally it's worth saying that it would be the best of a bad bunch - the Lib dems are hardly the left wing alternative - just the alternative.

The fact that the Liberal Democrats don't propose doing away with the current Trident and instead wish to pursue alternatives like extending its life or developing new warheads was brought up by David Miliband after the recent debate. It seems that this may have the effect of actually increasing the current stockpile.

It also highlights the issues behind the Greens desire to do away with all of them if they get into power. Miliband makes the point that it may be more helpful and intelligent to international peace to slowly reduce the number in line with other nations, in the same way Obama has recently done with Russia. You need to agree to cut down at exactly the same time as other nations in order to reduce the worlds stockpile, rather than going it alone.

[geni]

The fact that the Liberal Democrats don't propose doing away with the current Trident and instead wish to pursue alternatives like extending its life or developing new warheads was brought up by David Miliband after the recent debate. It seems that this may have the effect of actually increasing the current stockpile.

Doubtful. While it would allow us to increase our tactical nuclear stockpile I'm not sure we have enough tritrium for an increase in strategic weapons.

[Soapy Sam]

I'd like to see several hundred independent MPs elected.

I don't know what good it would be, but it would be fun to watch.

I have pretty much concluded that I cannot, in all honesty, vote any of the existing parties into power.

[geni]

I'd like to see several hundred independent MPs elected.

I don't know what good it would be, but it would be fun to watch.


Last time we tried that we ended up with the thirty years' war.

[Mojo]

I ran out of poll options - so i've not included the less likely ones - like lib dem majority or lib dem most seats in a hung parliament.....


You might have been able to include at least one of those if you hadn't had "Conservatives most seats in hung Parliament - small third party split" twice.

[Rolfe]

I'd like to see several hundred independent MPs elected.

I don't know what good it would be, but it would be fun to watch.

I have pretty much concluded that I cannot, in all honesty, vote any of the existing parties into power.


I used to think that - when I was about 13.

The trouble is, even a bunch of independents will form cabals and voting groups and so on. Even a bunch of schoolgirls electing a class monitor becomes more effectve when parties form and agree on candidates. (That's when I figured it out.)

Do you favour electoral reform, though?

Rolfe.

[Cuddles]

I voted Lib Dem majority (well, technically I voted "Lid Dem", but I'm guessing I got the right gist of it). Not because theirs would necessarily be the best government, but simply because it would prove that this isn't just a two party state. I don't want a government made up entirely of independents but two parties just isn't enough, especially at times like this where they've both drifted to pretty much the same point on the left/right spectrum.

[Rolfe]

Do you think they've done that because that's what they perceive will get them votes, i.e. that that's what the voters actually want, though?

It seems odd to me that we have parties who're trying to get votes, and yet they've all gravitated to the same part of the political spectrum which we seem to think isn't what most voters want.

Then I put my CT hat on and wonder how much of this is down to the Press Barons....
[/CT]

Rolfe.

[jimbob]

I heard Cameron claiming that we need a strong authoritarian authoritative government.

Changing the voting system would give permanent hung parliaments, and the ruling party would have to avoid being too unpopular because they would lose their majority.

I am in favour of an STV type system, because that still allows voting a constituancy MP out*. A proportional list-based system could lead to jobs for the "boys", because, as long as a party has a sufficient proportion of the votes, then the candidates in the top of the list wiould get elected... In other words the important constituancy for a potential MP would the party representatives who could put them in the top of the list. This would be asking for favours and kickbacks.



*The change would be that the least unpopular candidate would win as opposd to the current system which is the one with the most votes. This would tend to keep extremists out.

[Rolfe]

I heard Cameron claiming that we need a strong authoritarian authoritative government.


If he thinks a hung parliament would be so damaging, maybe he should withdraw from the election. Splitter.

Changing the voting system would give permanent hung parliaments, and the ruling party would have to avoid being too unpopular because they would lose their majority.


They seem to manage in many countries and the sky hasn't fallen in yet. Caveat. Italy doesn't count.

I am in favour of an STV type system, because that still allows voting a constituancy MP out*. A proportional list-based system could lead to jobs for the "boys", because, as long as a party has a sufficient proportion of the votes, then the candidates in the top of the list wiould get elected... In other words the important constituancy for a potential MP would the party representatives who could put them in the top of the list. This would be asking for favours and kickbacks.

*The change would be that the least unpopular candidate would win as opposd to the current system which is the one with the most votes. This would tend to keep extremists out.


I remember saying this in this forum once before, and received a lengthy lecture to the effect that what I (and I think you) describe is not in fact STV as she is properly defined. The actual STV system was beyond my poor brain to fathom.

The preference vote in the constituency (don't know the proper term) is something I used to favour, but it really isn't anywhere close to actual PR, and even as a first step I'm no longer convinced it's all that good an idea.

You're right about the list system, that's how it works in Scotland where there is a list system for about half the seats in the Scottish parliament. Mind you, it's not that different from handing the grandees the safe seats - though I agree it's much harder to dislodge them if they sin.

Rolfe.

[Lothian]

Labour- 400

Lib Dem- 250

Con- 0Labour 324
Lib dem 324
Speaker 1
Green 1
Con 0 (650 lost deposits)

[Puppycow]

Why no option for the monster raving loony party (http://www.omrlp.com/)?

[Dave Rogers]

Although I think it would be a very bad result in the short term, I think the result I would find most amusing would be one that's a genuine, though rather tenuous, possibility at the moment: that the Liberal Democrats get more total votes than Labour or Conservative, but fewer seats than either. In the long term it might be very beneficial, in that it would render completely irrefutable the argument that electoral reform is necessary; it would simply become a question of what kind of electoral reform.

Dave

[jimbob]

I heard Cameron claiming that we need a strong authoritarian authoritative government.


If he thinks a hung parliament would be so damaging, maybe he should withdraw from the election. Splitter.

Changing the voting system would give permanent hung parliaments, and the ruling party would have to avoid being too unpopular because they would lose their majority.


They seem to manage in many countries and the sky hasn't fallen in yet. Caveat. Italy doesn't count.

Germany is better example of a place with coalition government.


I am in favour of an STV type system, because that still allows voting a constituancy MP out*. A proportional list-based system could lead to jobs for the "boys", because, as long as a party has a sufficient proportion of the votes, then the candidates in the top of the list wiould get elected... In other words the important constituancy for a potential MP would the party representatives who could put them in the top of the list. This would be asking for favours and kickbacks.

*The change would be that the least unpopular candidate would win as opposd to the current system which is the one with the most votes. This would tend to keep extremists out.


I remember saying this in this forum once before, and received a lengthy lecture to the effect that what I (and I think you) describe is not in fact STV as she is properly defined. The actual STV system was beyond my poor brain to fathom.


There do seem to be several flavours, but I'd argue that what I am describing is about the purest and simplest version of STV.


(But I am a physicist/engineer not an expert on political philosophy).


The preference vote in the constituency (don't know the proper term) is something I used to favour, but it really isn't anywhere close to actual PR, and even as a first step I'm no longer convinced it's all that good an idea.

You're right about the list system, that's how it works in Scotland where there is a list system for about half the seats in the Scottish parliament. Mind you, it's not that different from handing the grandees the safe seats - though I agree it's much harder to dislodge them if they sin.

Rolfe.

[geni]

They seem to manage in many countries and the sky hasn't fallen in yet. Caveat. Italy doesn't count.

Belgium?




I remember saying this in this forum once before, and received a lengthy lecture to the effect that what I (and I think you) describe is not in fact STV as she is properly defined. The actual STV system was beyond my poor brain to fathom.

Math nerds spend way to much time trying to come up with an ideal voting system. Most of them are completely incomprehensible.


The preference vote in the constituency (don't know the proper term) is something I used to favour, but it really isn't anywhere close to actual PR, and even as a first step I'm no longer convinced it's all that good an idea.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems#Criteria_in_evaluating_single_winne r_voting_systems

Enjoy.


You're right about the list system, that's how it works in Scotland where there is a list system for about half the seats in the Scottish parliament. Mind you, it's not that different from handing the grandees the safe seats - though I agree it's much harder to dislodge them if they sin.

I would tend to argue that it is mildy worse since it can act as a fallback option for those outright rejected and constituency level. At least be sending such people to the lords their votes are more dilute.

[Cuddles]

Do you think they've done that because that's what they perceive will get them votes, i.e. that that's what the voters actually want, though?

It seems odd to me that we have parties who're trying to get votes, and yet they've all gravitated to the same part of the political spectrum which we seem to think isn't what most voters want.

I think the basic problem is that you can't please everyone. Politicians don't want to rely solely on their established hardcore supporters because what happens if the opponent's core is bigger? That means trying to attract a wider range of people, which in turn means promoting policies closer to what they want. However, at the same time you can't promote the policies they actually want, because your core supporters don't want that at all and would stop supporting you.

So what we end up with is everyone gravitating towards the middle. No-one actually wants the policies there at all, but swinging too far one way or the other either ensures that you won't gain new supporters or alienates your old ones. I don't think it requires any interference from the media (although I did read an amusing article the other day which noted that Murdoch throwing his support behind the Tories seems to have actually weakened their position), it's simply a result of politicians trying to get voted in simply for the sake of being voted in, rather than wanting people to support their policies.

[Seismosaurus]

None of the above. Give me the option of Conservative with a large majority and I'll vote that.

[Rolfe]

I finally decided to vote, on a rather narrow criterion, and went for the best possible LibDem result. Mildly surprised to see that's the most popular choice.

I decided this would be a positive result after attending a hustings meeting last night. The LibDem candidate was impressive, but that wasn't the point - I wouldn't trust that woman as far as I could throw her, and then some. However, during the discussion she raised the point that the LibDems are a federalist party, and support an entirely federalist structure for Britain. Since I believe this would be a far better result for Scotland than the present set-up, I hope they get a chance to put their money where their mouth is.

I hadn't heard them refer to that policy for quite some time, but this one did, and she should know, so I assume it's still current policy.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the party you want to win is the party you think will do the best job?

I don't have a party that I want to win (for the first time in my political life) but I do have a party I don't want to win i.e. the Tories.

[Darat]

Germany is better example of a place with coalition government. ...snip...

Yeah but look at their economy compared to ours, their social welfare system, educational outcomes and so on, do we really want to have a system that delivers those standards?

[Francesca R]

In my view a conservative party majority will be best for the UK, because it is likely to produce a government more committed than any other (and more effective) at making the magnitude of public spending cuts that are a necessity to address the severe mis-match between the size the state has grown to, and the ability of economic growth and the willingness of taxpayers and debt markets, to collectively finance.

On the basis of manifestos, no party has credibly addressed the perilous risks to the UK's long term solvency that the current fiscal plight portends. The conservatives edge out the others though.

For people who loathe the Tories, they can be somewhat reassured that the next government is likely to only serve one term, since the (necessary) austerity that will ensue stands a good chance of accumulating a big voter swing back away from whomever is in power.

The other good outcome would be for the Liberal Democrats to come second in share of the vote (no way will this happen with seats, unfortunately), since this will probably set off a chain of events (including reform of elections) that can cement them as one of the two main parties once more. A coalition with the Tories would also do this, but I am sure they will do better as the de-facto opposition for one term than they can as coalition partner with Tories. By the time of the 2014-5 election, they may have evolved much more sensible (less illiberal, less anti-market) policies as well.

[Tatyana]

I was going to vote Lib Deb until I heard of the massive cuts they were planning for public services, including education and the NHS.

[andyandy]

In my view a conservative party majority will be best for the UK, because it is likely to produce a government more committed than any other (and more effective) at making the magnitude of public spending cuts that are a necessity to address the severe mis-match between the size the state has grown to, and the ability of economic growth and the willingness of taxpayers and debt markets, to collectively finance.

On the basis of manifestos, no party has credibly addressed the perilous risks to the UK's long term solvency that the current fiscal plight portends. The conservatives edge out the others though.

For people who loathe the Tories, they can be somewhat reassured that the next government is likely to only serve one term, since the (necessary) austerity that will ensue stands a good chance of accumulating a big voter swing back away from whomever is in power.

The other good outcome would be for the Liberal Democrats to come second in share of the vote (no way will this happen with seats, unfortunately), since this will probably set off a chain of events (including reform of elections) that can cement them as one of the two main parties once more. A coalition with the Tories would also do this, but I am sure they will do better as the de-facto opposition for one term than they can as coalition partner with Tories. By the time of the 2014-5 election, they may have evolved much more sensible (less illiberal, less anti-market) policies as well.

This is certainly a decent argument - Mervin King reportedly said that whoever wins will be out of power for a generation because of the stringent cuts/tax rises necessary....there was another think tank report out yesterday that said there would need to be an equivilent to a 6p rise in income tax to close the debt down to manageable levels....god help any government who has to raise that sort of tax revenue or bring in equivilent cuts....(see the furore over the relatively small NI effort....)

Francesca, what's your prediction for the Eurozone? Are we going to see another financial crisis on the back of a potential Greece default?

[Francesca R]

If a 6% rise in the basic rate of tax was enough to fix the government's funding problem that would be fine (achievable). My source of info (IFS page 162 (http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2010/gb2010.pdf)) says that would only raise about £24 billion, which is less than 2% of GDP. Spending would still need to be cut by approx £40billion.

Raising the upper rate (which kicks in at about £44K) to 50% at the same time would only raise another £8.5 billion accorsing to the same source. It is also a widely agreed economic consensus that tax rises knock back economic growth more than spending cuts do.

I expect that child benefit and winter fuel payments for wealthy folks are on the way out with near certainty. Also faster rises in state retirement age for everyone. National Social Care will not happen this decade. Etc . . .