|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 15, 2010 15:59:05 GMT 1
From the Economist: "Of the ten largest fiscal retrenchments carried out by OECD countries since the 1970s, seven were pushed through by coalition or minority governments." The Lib Dems have said that their main conditions for supporting a minority government would include constitutional reform and serious action to reduce the deficit. Neither the Tories nor Labour have offered ANY specifics as to how they intend to balance the books.
Cali: sounds like a vote for your "incumbent" would be a vote to change the two-party system we have. I'd pick the incumbent MP rather than the incumbent political system any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 15, 2010 17:05:12 GMT 1
How many of those fiscal retrenchments were taken by a coalition or minority government in the UK, I wonder?
Labour's failure to hold a spending review before the election means nobody has been able to offer specifics on how they'd cut the deficit because nobody has all the numbers with which to do so. As for voting to get rid of the two-party situation we have at the moment, it seems to me that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for a two and a half party system instead, where a party that's never going to get enough votes to govern outright is going to constantly hold the balance of power over the two main parties instead. I can't get my head around why that would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 15, 2010 17:24:45 GMT 1
As far as I know/remember, the UK hasn't had a coalition government since WWII, or a minority government since the late 70s (although Major came close). The system is designed to prevent that, at the expense of making the vast majority of votes count for nothing at all - most UK elections are decided by a few tens of thousands of voters in marginal seats.
A hung parliament would probably deliver constitutional reform and a more proportional system, which might very well open up UK politics to more than 2.5 parties; the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens and UKIP would become much more influential (and numerous) - as would the Lib Dems themselves. Am I wrong to be irritated by a system that gives 20% of the voters less than 10% of the seats in parliament, or allows less than 30% public support to be interpreted as an overwhelming mandate? It would also create a system where politicians have to negotiate and do deals with one another, like they do in most civilised countries, rather than just slinging mud at each other all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 15, 2010 17:59:16 GMT 1
I'm not arguing that the system's perfect as it is, of course it isn't! But I can't see that the minor parties besides the Lib Dems are going to become more influential in any real way under proportional representation. Given that ~35% of the populace vote Labour, same Conservative and ~20% Lib Dem fairly consistently and no party seems likely to ever get a greater than 50% share of the vote, we'd be in a situation where your vote for a particular party's beliefs is by extension muddled in with the beliefs of whoever else, big or small, is included in your party's coalition. We'd go from a situation where some votes matter more than others to a situation where a vote for one thing is implicitly a vote for a whole other set of policies as well.
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 15, 2010 18:27:26 GMT 1
Well, the fact of having a proportional system in the first place would probably dramatically change how people chose to vote; a vote for a small party would no longer be "wasted", so more people who would like to would probably do so. The Greens might well get a look in, for example. And apparently, if everyone actually voted for the party whose policies they most nearly supported, the Lib Dems would get a majority. ;D
As for voting a party that then forms a coalition... well, yes. That's how politics works in most democratic countries; your vote gives your party something to take to the negotiating table, where they thrash out a deal with a different party, and what they can win there depends on how much influence they have. That's how policy works, that's how international relations works, that's how governments have to work on a day-to-day basis - it's also how you make a political party in the first place, by striking deals with people whose goals are different-from-but-not-necessarily-contradictory-to one's own. Nearly all democratic countries function in this way; even the US two-party system generally requires some kind of consensus to pass legislation, as Obama has been learning to his cost. The UK system is almost unique in being so outdatedly, absurdly, meaninglessly adversarial.
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 15, 2010 18:52:52 GMT 1
And apparently, if everyone actually voted for the party whose policies they most nearly supported, the Lib Dems would get a majority. ;D Man, the Lib Dems really ought to get that bit of wisdom out there then! As for the rest of it, I'm doing a pretty poor job of wording my reservations about reform but I guess it boils down to uneasiness about changing how things have always been done here. I don't think I'm alone in that feeling, so if it's something the Lib Dems are really going to push for then the onus is on Clegg to outline what they'd change and why it would be better. While he's busy talking about how untrustworthy the other two parties are, I don't find myself trusting his version of change any more than anyone else's. Maybe the televised debates will change that, the Lib Dems certainly have the most to gain from them. Who's watching them?
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 15, 2010 23:21:36 GMT 1
I just watched the first, and having been away from British TV news for the last several years I have to say I was pretty disappointed by Clegg. In terms of content he generally had much more intelligent things to say than the other two, but he kept bloody repeating himself and his delivery was flawed, with the result that he sounded rather plaintive to me. Smart chap, but he just didn't sound like a statesman. A real pity.
Cameron was polished but shockingly vacuous. Brown displayed to full effect the tendency for the government of the day to duck the question, and needs more voice coaching.
Cali, I take your point about the Lib Dems needing to sell their idea of reform. Actually, post-Ashdown they stopped banging on about the constitution because a lot of people thought it wasn't the most pressing problem facing the country. Arguably it's become more topical lately, but they're still a bit cautious, I think, about sounding like constitution nerds.
As for your reluctance regarding political reform, well, I can see where you're coming from, but if you take a good look around the rest of the developed world I think you'll agree that there are better ways of choosing a government. There are many wonderful things about dear old blighty, but our so-called constitution really isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 16, 2010 12:35:25 GMT 1
No real mention of any different reform from Clegg than what Brown had already proposed, last night. Lords reform confuses me, if you want an elected second House than you might as well disband the Lords and call it a Senate, surely.
I found the reaction to the debate interesting (more so than some of the passages of it) because the polls handed 'victory' to Clegg by a large margin. My gut feeling was that he won on style (he managed at one point to make his proposed tax cut sound like a good idea while at the same time putting D-C on the defensive about cutting spending) but Brown did much better than I expected, he was able to sound like a wise old Prime Minister when the other two really should have been able to take him apart over Labour's record.
I was disappointed by Cameron's reluctance to attack Brown and Labour, he seemed to be shooting for the moral high ground by focusing on his own party's policies but it seemed to backfire and let the other two spend far too much time talking about how bad the Tories were. Interestingly, the one girl we listened to it with said Cameron came off sounding the best and Radio 4 (no tv licence, sad I know!) interviewed some women from my home town of Worcester, a marginal seat, who also said the debate had made them more likely to vote Tory. Given that women are more likely to vote and make their decision about who to support later, perhaps D-C did better among that key group than the polls (which have a more representative mix) suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 16, 2010 13:06:49 GMT 1
You're right, Clegg didn't talk much about political reform - although I thought he was convincing on expenses. Brown suddenly started talking the talk on political reform a few months ago, but as he personally had been fighting tooth and nail to prevent it for the previous 12 years (most notably in the late 90s) it sounded very insincere to me. I think the idea of electing the Lords is that this might then give them the legitimacy to play a more meaningful role than they currently do. Senate, Lords, potato, potahto. Mind you, I think a unicameral legislature would make more sense. The real problem isn't the Lords, but the way the Commons operates. A hung parliament would be probably the only way to change that; naturally neither of the two big parties want to introduce any checks or balances to the powers they currently have when in government. As for Clegg on tax policy, the reason he sounds convincing is that unlike Labour or the Tories, the LDs have actually calculated and announced how they would pay for their plans. That's why he kept banging on about "being straight with you," although he could have made his point more clearly. The current rate of capital gains tax is ludicrously low, and has been cynically left unchanged by a Labour party who like to talk tough on income tax; the result is that the rich banker-types who get paid in shares still pay LESS tax on their real incomes than people on the minimum wage. Plugging that and a few other loopholes would provide more than enough money to let them cut tax for the poorest. It was the Tories' proposal, a few months back, of a tax break for married couples, that really convinced me they hadn't changed at all since the Major years. They talked about helping deprived families by encouraging them to stick together, but there are any number of better ways to do that; what it blatantly IS is a tax break for the affluent, who are of course far more likely to be married than the genuinely poor. Edited to add: On which note: mydavidcameron.com/posters/rich1
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 16, 2010 17:21:55 GMT 1
I have no doubt that Brown's talk about reforms is insincere, it was even pointed out during the debate that he was trying to line up with Lib Dem policies in order to make working with them seem more appealing. As for tax breaks for married couples, I'm going to choose to take that as a statement of social policy rather than financial. It's obviously a part of the values of the party, it's something I believe in and I'm glad to see recognised. As for it being a tax break for the affluent, it's something I don't mind seeing at all, though I'll admit my middle class background now.
How do you feel about the Lib-Dem policy of not replacing Trident?
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 16, 2010 18:53:13 GMT 1
You mean, married people like should pay less tax because we're more moral, or something? Lovely. Personally, though, I think my being married is none of the government's business. Just sharing a room with my wife already saves me shedloads of money compared with a single person; I don't see why the tax system should care about the ring on my finger.
So, you don't feel it's unfair that poorer people pay a larger proportion of their incomes in tax than wealthier people? *Blinks in bemusement.* I guess you should vote Conservative then.
Delighted. It's high time we stopped pretending to have an independent nuclear deterrent - as if we could somehow go it alone without the US in a nuclear war, or could even have Trident in the first place without the Americans holding our hands all the way from the drawing board to the submarine. Even during the Cold War, it was a pointless waste of money, given that it was the US who guaranteed our security; now, when there's no realistic threat to deter in the first place, it's just silly. Having lived for years in Germany and Belgium, and I'm sure our Nordic friends would agree, one really doesn't live in fear of nuclear attack simply because one lives in a country that doesn't feel the need to wave its ludicrously tiny nuke-peen about. Obama, being the US president, quite rightly talks about multilateral disarmament, but the British nuclear forces are so utterly insignificant, we might as well just decommission them and save ourselves some money.
|
|
|
Post by Caranir Elmheart on Apr 17, 2010 2:18:44 GMT 1
So, you don't feel it's unfair that poorer people pay a larger proportion of their incomes in tax than wealthier people? *Blinks in bemusement.* I guess you should vote Conservative then. No, I feel it's unfair that income tax takes a higher proportion of someone's earnings the harder they work. That's a tax on aspiration! I'm bemused at your bemusement, given that voting in your own interest is hardly a new concept in democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 17, 2010 12:01:44 GMT 1
I see what you mean about a tax on aspiration, although I vehemently disagree. I don't think one's income is a linear function of how hard one works, or how beneficial one's work is to society. Lots of people on something like minimum wage do long hours in tough jobs essential to the public good (care assistants, cleaners, soldiers), and many of the people with astronomical salaries have relatively cushy jobs that privatise profit and socialise costs (non-exec directors, senior managers, but also footballers, fashion models, pop stars, oil workers and financial workers - and don't tell me any of these work harder than those I mentioned in the first category). Really, a person's income reflects the marketability of their skills and experience; skills in high demand and low supply get paid more. That's how the free market works, and I don't attack it, but I don't accept the idea that people with marketable skills *deserve* their higher incomes relative to those whose skills are important but worth less money. They may (or may not) work hard, but fundamentally, highly-paid people are just fortunate.
As for voting in one's own best interests, I would vigorously defend your right to do so, and indeed most people do (myself included). However, leaving aside the arguably intelligent option of voting in your parents' best financial interests, if you as an individual can reasonably expect, as a new graduate, to earn the kind of money that would mean you'd do better under Tory tax plans than Lib Dem ones, I'd be astonished.
Speaking of which, apparently the Lib Dems have had a HUGE bounce in the polls after that TV debate. There's hope (from my point of view) yet!
Gosh, I'm enjoying this far too much. Stop me if you get bored. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kaylaneh on Apr 17, 2010 12:22:48 GMT 1
Gosh. Big debate about the British government. And you all only have 3 choices or so. We in Holland, have about 15 in total! But as I said earlier, Dutch politics will make your head spin so, bleh. Now, knowing next to nothing about British politics but do have my own viewpoint on things, here's my oppinion on some of your quotes. I foresee a HUGE clash between me and Caliyen, since I'm pretty red. You know, Socialist Ludicrous Caliyen! That means that if people want to live together but don't marry, they can't get a tax break? A big WTF on that side. I think religious (inspired) stuff like marriage should be banned from all government policies. They are so incredibly old-fashioned! Yeah, I'm an atheist. ;D Also, the government system in the UK is pretty fucked up from my point of view. Not saying that us Dutchies do much better, our politicians constantly argue through backrooms and get nothing done. I do think that something as a 'House of Lords' whose members inherit the titles as far as I know (tell me if I'm wrong) is pretty bad. I know both our countries have a Queen but luckily ours will be completely powerless in a couple of years apart from being a symbol. I think I largely agree with Ald's points of view.
|
|
|
Post by Aldrannath on Apr 17, 2010 14:21:08 GMT 1
There aren't very many hereditary peers in the House of Lords any more, and most of them don't bother coming to debates; that was one of the early Blair reforms. The ones that are left won't pass on their positions to their heirs. The vast majority of the Lords are political appointees; former ministers, tired MPs and wealthy donors. There are also a few oddities like the Anglican bishops. At any rate, the Lords have zero democratic legitimacy as a legislative, or even consultative body. The "Law Lords" are actually not the same, although they're also called "The House of Lords" on paper. They're basically the supreme court, and they are all proper judges, appointed, as far as I remember, in much the same way as any other judges. So that's not as bad as it sounds. Curiously, they are still the final court of appeal for a few Commonwealth countries; Trinidad & Tobago recently changed their constitution to remove this element, because the Lords were striking down all their death penalties - as they are obliged to do under the (EU) Treaty of Rome. Edited to add: as for the Queen, on paper she has enormous powers, comparable to the US President, but in practice she doesn't use them. The last royal veto on legislation was in 1708. In practice her powers are exercised by the Prime Minister. As a consequence, the major constitutional problem with the UK executive is that all their dictatorial powers are a matter of written law, and all the checks and balances are "gentlemen's agreements" based on convention. That means an unscrupulous PM (such as Tony Blair) can come along and rip up the (unwritten, vague and ephemeral) constitution, running the country entirely as he or she sees fit, and there would be no law to stop it. Anyone familiar with 20th century European history should instantly spot how unspeakably dangerous this would be, if someone even more unscrupulous than Blair were to get his greasy mitts on power.
|
|