Politics is supposed to be about negotiation, compromise, and finding the least-sucky outcome for the greatest number of people.
The current British system is still, as Lord Hailsham put it in the mid-1970s, "an elective dictatorship".
(And since 1979 we've had a trend towards ruthless factionalism by whichever party is in power, pandering to their particular base at the expense of those folks whose votes don't count due to FPtP.)
Coalitions can still deliver strong, decisive action when it's essential -- or have we forgotten that Winston Churchill led a grand coalition during the war? But we don't need that level of control most of the time; we need horse-trading and boring negotiation instead.
So, yes, I'm broadly in favour of coalitions as a way of putting the brakes on the hard-liners of all sides.
I want a bunch of different people who will work together to find common ground to carry out the general will of the people. 30% of the people trampling the other 70%, followed by a different 30% trampling in a different direction is not my idea of good government.
I tend to agree I think. It seems to me to be A Good Thing that we are witnessing our putative leaders in an attempt to compromise, rather than the usual process of Kill! Crush! Destroy!
What'll be needed is a change of mind-set on the part of most of the electorate. And most of the press will be firmly set against allowing that to happen.
The press think they'll hate coalition government because, compromise? Meh.
In reality, they'll learn to love the weeks of high drama after each election.
Although on the third hand, Murdoch's going to hate it. Having a dupoloy makes it easy to stroke the right people. Having a true multi-party system makes lobbying a lot harder.
I agree. We are currently going through a process that most other European countries go through every 4 years. They seem to manage it without the world ending.
I suppose it doesn't help that our parliament is so confrontational. Things like PMQ's don't serve any real purpose, aside from generating soundbites for the news.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-11 09:04 am
Re: PR/STV
Politics is supposed to be about negotiation, compromise, and finding the least-sucky outcome for the greatest number of people.
The current British system is still, as Lord Hailsham put it in the mid-1970s, "an elective dictatorship".
(And since 1979 we've had a trend towards ruthless factionalism by whichever party is in power, pandering to their particular base at the expense of those folks whose votes don't count due to FPtP.)
Coalitions can still deliver strong, decisive action when it's essential -- or have we forgotten that Winston Churchill led a grand coalition during the war? But we don't need that level of control most of the time; we need horse-trading and boring negotiation instead.
So, yes, I'm broadly in favour of coalitions as a way of putting the brakes on the hard-liners of all sides.
Re: PR/STV
I want a bunch of different people who will work together to find common ground to carry out the general will of the people. 30% of the people trampling the other 70%, followed by a different 30% trampling in a different direction is not my idea of good government.
Re: PR/STV
What'll be needed is a change of mind-set on the part of most of the electorate. And most of the press will be firmly set against allowing that to happen.
Re: PR/STV
In reality, they'll learn to love the weeks of high drama after each election.
Although on the third hand, Murdoch's going to hate it. Having a dupoloy makes it easy to stroke the right people. Having a true multi-party system makes lobbying a lot harder.
Re: PR/STV
I suppose it doesn't help that our parliament is so confrontational. Things like PMQ's don't serve any real purpose, aside from generating soundbites for the news.