Thought

[andrewducker]

Electoral Reform is coming, at some point. Labour had it in their manifesto, as did the Lib Dems.

As soon as it does, The Conservatives are fucked, because they just don't get that big a share of the vote.

It's therefore in their best interests to show that they can be part of a coalition government. Because electoral reform will lead inexorably to an end to monolithic governments. If they want to be part of the ruling government of the UK in the future then they need to show that they can be good partners and work well with others, or they're essentially consigned to history.

I wonder if that's why they were willing to compromise so far with the Lib Dems.

Comments

[star-tourmaline.livejournal.com]

God, I hope you're right about this.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Also, electoral reform means that they won't ever get utterly obliterated.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I hope so - I hope that that's what the Lib Dems are thinking also. How they could overturn the one thing they've been fighting for since their inception without some sort of long game I cannot fathom.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Some sort of electoral reform is coming, but it's not going to be full PR.

And the Conservatives in the past have had a far larger share of the vote. It's just that this time around they were not that popular. Doesn't mean they can't easily return to the sort of vote percentage they received during the 80's. Even John Major managed to get a larger share of the vote in 1992.

Share of popular vote - Conservative Party

1970 - 46.4%
1974 - 37.9%
1974 - 35.8%
1979 - 43.9%
1983 - 42.4%
1987 - 42.2%
1992 - 41.9%
1997 - 30.7%
2001 - 31.7%
2005 - 32.3%
2010 - 36.1%

[andrewducker]

Of course, 79 was the end of the Winter of Discontent - so you're seeing a massive anti-Labour vote, which you might not see in the same way under a more proportional system.

I agree that AV isn't the same as PR - but you'll likely see more people voting Lib->Lab or Lab->Lib. Or at least you would have done, before the latest alliance...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

To me it's really hard to tell what people would vote if they didn't have to tactical vote, or felt that their vote was actually doing something ... as I'm in a safe seat I can vote my heart rather than my head, because my tiny voice is drowned out by the rest.

But in full PR, each voice joins a section of the choir ...

The percentage of the vote for Conservatives makes an interesting graph on this site

What I'd like to see is the comparative percentages of the vote for the parties at each election for, say, the last 50 years, in a graph. Anyone spotted one?

[communicator.livejournal.com]

The Tories bring in some bullshit electoral reform which gerrymanders the constituencies in England to give themselves a permanent majority, and sets a fixed term parliament so they can't be got rid of until 2015. They will campaign hard against the PR referendum, and once that's lost they will ditch the Lib Dems. Why wouldn't they do that?

[andrewducker]

They can't bring in a change which gerrymanders constituencies without the support of the Lib Dems. And if they ditch the Lib Dems then they lose the ability to pass anything. In order to achieve what you're saying they'd have to be evil geniuses capable of hiding things incredibly well. Can't see it myself.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Fixed term parliament means that it's no longer the prerogative of the PM to call an election when they choose. If the govt loses a vote of confidence then an election will, AFAIK, still be forced, and this has been pointed out as a loophole to this legislation - a govt can deliberately provoke such a vote in order to bring about an election.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Yes, the confidence mechanism would still remain unless specifically removed by legislation (which no-one would get away with ... but particularly a govt running on a reform-of-parliament mandate.)

[communicator.livejournal.com]

They may set the majority for a no-confidence vote at 55% which means the Lib Dems can't get rid of them.

BBC here: We understand that under the new agreement for fixed-term parliaments, the only way to remove the government between elections would be a vote of no confidence with the support of 55% of MPs. At present, any no confidence vote requires only 50%, plus one MP.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

And history shows that those that call (and win) a vote of no-confidence are usually punished by the electorate (or so I'm told), so if they decided they wanted to have an election and deliberately threw a no-confidence vote, I think we should agree we have no-confidence in them either and vote them out!

[e-halmac.livejournal.com]

Quite.