The UK Election!!!!

I'm not sure why you said all of that. You suggested you wouldn't have voted for x if you had known they would have watered down their policies. I simply said that experience should have given you all you need to know that the policies in everyone's manifesto would be watered down, added to as things went along.I wasn't asking for you to vote for me, just that the watering down and adding policies happens EVERY time whether you like it or not... Again - the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were both clear on their position regarding Hung Parliament. The Libs said it would be a great opportunity for politics, the Conservatives said it would be a potential disaster for the country as politicians make deals and water down their manifesto promises.If you weren't paying attention, or are under the strange impression that the manifesto is the Be All and End All of all things in politics - then perhaps it is no wonder you were taken by surprise. That was basically the Conservative Party's position, yes. Although they said 'vote for us to help avoid it'. That was your position, not my suggestion:

quote:

---

If I...knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them.

---

You said you'd change your voting preferences if you knew that we lived in a Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy with a strong possibility of a hung parliament...not me. How are we serving the system when we vote and the vote results in a hung parliament? I knew why before, I was paying attention

The whole thing can be read here. Since electoral reform has been the topic here:

quote:

---

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

---

A controversial change: Instead of 50% + 1 - they propose 55%. This helps a coalition, but is likely to meet with resistance since it is a significant constitutional change.

quote:

---

The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum... Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

---

So there will be a referendum (which Legend can at least dig) on AV and the Conservatives will probably campaign against it.

quote:

---

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

---

We'll have to wait to see what a 'serious wrongdoing' was. 10% is about 6,000 signatures. Interesting - at least it gives people the idea of what PR would look like.

quote:

---

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full

---

This is complex stuff but includes the e-petitions as a route for people to get their voices heard in Parliament, backbenchers with more power and other stuff.Hey Legend, have you read through it? What do you dislike about this 'watered down' version? What Conservative ideas are you sad to see get cut or diluted? Are there any LD ideas you are glad got in?

Because you said:

quote:

---

If you would have asked me before the election I would have told you that all of the parties would be watering down their policies AND they would introduce measures that they didn't put into their manifestos.

---

You're missing the point: my second-guessing what they're going to do based on my experience *isn't the same as knowing* what they're going to do, based on what they say/promise to do!So, while you're right in saying I should have guessed, I'm saying that guessing isn't good enough. A system that relies on the electorate guessing what the people they vote for are going to do isn't good enough. No, sorry, but that's not 'being clear on their position', that's just a vague declaration of their liking/disliking of the situation. Being 'clear on their position' means explicitly declaring what policies they'd be prepared to sacrifice or add in the event of a Hung Parliament.Don't confuse soundbytes with clear policy statements. I wasn't taken by surprise, I'm just saying it shouldn't happen that way. Yes it was your suggestion! You said:

quote:

---

You probably should have abstained or voted for an smaller party if you really did not want to vote for a Party that was likely to have most of the power but would have to make compromises.

---

That's a clear suggestion to change my voting preferences because the system doesn't ensure that I get what I voted for, if I ever saw one. My remark was made following your suggestion to change my voting because the system is flawed, i.e. the citizen serving the system. [qs=Modulous]You said you'd change your voting preferences if you knew that we lived in a Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy with a strong possibility of a hung parliament...not me.[/qs=Modulous]No, I said that my voting preferences are shaped by the policies the parties declare to support and not by my trying to imagine what yet undeclared policies they will support under certain circumstances.You, on the other hand, suggested that I should abstain or vote for a smaller party because the system doesn't ensure I get what I voted for.In other words, you're saying I shouldn't vote whom I want to vote because the system is flawed. That's fair enough, but that's a travesty of a so-called 'democracy'. In a democratic system the electorate should know what they vote for and they should get what they vote for. We need radical reforms now, way over simply changing the representation system we need to get rid of it altogether and set up direct democracy.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Your direct democracy theory remains very poorly thought out. You still haven't adequately answered the following issues:

Who decides which issues ever get to the point of being voted on?

Who words the options voted on? (This can have a massive effect on a vote)

Who decides whether a matter is "constitutional"?

Who decides what is required to change the constitution?

How do you avoid the constitution and all the checks and balances that have been put in place to protect the constitution being completely wiped out in one constitutional change?

How do you protect against media manipulation resulting in the sort of popularist knee-jerk and ill considered decicisions that we rightly deride politicians for making?

How do you protect against devolved responsibility and mob mentality taking effect and leading to poor decisions for which no-one is held accountable or feels any individual responsibility?

I don't think it's anything at all like what Legend wants, but I've heard before similar proposals for direct democracy, but the actual system of governance wouldn't change so much. There would still be elections to Parliament to form the government, and the early stages of bill formation would remain the same -with everything televised for free (much like it is now). The vote on the final reading (or earlier readings by some proposals) wouldn't be done in Parliament. The bill at all stages of progress would be freely available to read on the internet, and the final version would be there for a while before the vote for any interested party to study. The vote would then be done electronically, with every registered voter having the right to say yea or nay.This wouldn't actually let people decide what is debated, except through the traditional Parliamentary means, so I doubt Legend would like it. The potentials for fraud in such regular electronic votes seem huge as well. Interesting idea, though.

I know to what you were responding to, Legend. I just don't see the connection between what I said and what you said.Legend: If fact x was known, I would not have done action y.
Mod: Fact x was known. I guess that means you shouldn't have done y, then?
Legend: But sub facts x1, x2 and x3 were not known at the time. And you weren't a candidate.
Mod: I don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.
Legend: Because you said stuff about Fact x.
Mod: erm, so why did you bring up x1-3?It seems you were simplifying your answer. When you originally said,

quote:

---

If I...knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them.

---

what you seem to have meant to actually say was:

quote:

---

If I...knew that the party I voted for would make political compromises on certain specific points...then I wouldn't have voted for them.

---

I'm assuming you voted Conservative.
The party you voted for explicitly said that in a hung parliament, deals would be made, unsound compromises etc, here are some quotes from their political broadcast which imagined a Hung Parliament:

quote:

---

We, the Hung Parliament Party, aim to change the very face of politics. We feel the disillusionment so many of you have with modern politics. We want to do away with the old conventions and set out a new vision for Britain. It's time for real change.

​

We're going to bring in "Behind closed door politics"... Under a Hung Parliament government where no party has a majority, 'under the table deals' will be the order of the day.

---

The Party you voted for told the whole country what they thought would happen...for some reason you think the response to this information would be 'don't vote for the Conservative Party'. I don't agree this is the best response, but you said it. So, taking your words at their face value, given that you were well aware that the most likely outcome was that the Conservative Manifesto would not be implemented in full...why did you vote for them? That isn't my position. That was me taking your position (If I...knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them') to it's logical conclusion (ie., you wouldn't vote for anybody). Might I now conclude, based on your reaction in general and the above paragraph quoted, that the original phrase under contention was hyperbole? No - you were saying that because the system is flawed and because politicians are neither perfectly honest nor perfectly clairvoyant, you would not vote for them knowing that they would make political compromises or form cross party coalitions if they deemed it was necessary to do so.Even at the best of times, political compromises are required. Manifestos are rarely realized. The polls were suggesting a slight Conservative majority or a hung parliament. You know all this. I'm sure it's one part of your long lists of grievances with the present system. Given that you know it - it would seem by your stated principle you would not vote. I can only assume that what you said was more of an expression of your anger about it rather than a voting strategy.My view, for what its worth, is to keep voting for a Party whose philosophy and campaigning has been for a more representative parliament and whose membership is composed of people that feel strongly that Parliament does not fairly reflect the will of the people and to avoid any Party which has many members who are conservative and prefer to keep the present system. To recap - what you actually saw me do was reach a conclusion based on your premise. Given your strategy of not voting for a party you know won't realize it's Manifesto 100% etc, the conclusion is - don't vote for such a party. I'll break it down:You probably should have abstained....if you really did not want to vote for a Party that...would have to make compromises.If you REALLY did not want to vote for a Party {that would do x} then you probably should not vote for a Party {that would do x}. That's all I was saying. I was pointing out that your strategy might have been a little overboard. I wasn't suggesting you change voting strategies, I was suggesting that your stated voting strategy is absurd and in contradiction with your own stated views.Just as an interesting aside: The modern Conservative Party is fully known as the Conservative and Unionist Party since they themselves are the remains of a coalition with the Liberal Unionists many moons ago. The Liberal Unionists split from the other Liberals who in turn would go on to merge with SDP to for the Liberal Democrats. So this coalition is, in a sense, the reuniting of long lost brethren.abe: I hope that clears up any confusion that may still have been lingering.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I glanced through it, looks ok, The only big issue the Tories seem to have backtracked on is the Proportional Representation, but that's something that I favoured anyway.I'm glad one of the main reasons I voted for them hasn't changed:

quote:

---

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

---

Let's hope the authoritarian, micro-managing zealotry of the Labour party comes to an end.As far as electoral reform goes, I see small positive steps, nothing major though. I like this one:

quote:

---

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

---

Although, as you point out, it depends on what is defined as 'serious wrongdoing'. Let's remember that the expenses scandal wasn't technically a 'serious wrongdoing', so I'll just wait and see. I see they managed to get the tax-free allowance on income tax to 10,000. That's a good thing I suppose.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

The public in a public forum, much like this one. The issues that are most popular get to be voted on. Administrators (civil servants) word it in liaison with the originator(s) and then submit it back to the forum for public approval A 'court' of 111 randomly selected jurors who each have a two-year tenure. The public, following the process in #1 decides if there is a need to change the constitution. The amendment then has to go through a special majority vote over an extended period in order to be approved. You can't completely avoid it, much as you can't completely avoid it now. Constitutional changes would require very large majorities over extended period of time, so it actually would be more difficult to brush it aside than it currently is. The same way you do now: by providing affordable/free education for everyone so that they develop their own analytical thinking capability. You mean like happens now? Well, it would be difficult to not bear individually responsibility when you directly voted for a bad decision. As for accountability, everyone's accountable to everyone else, as everyone directly bears the consequences of everyone else's decision. Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Let's take these one at a time. So 40 million people are expected to take part on a forum and somehow it is judged what the most popular issue is? How?Multiple threads covering different aspects of the same broad but relatively difficult to pin down issue will be inevitable. Participation based on perceived knowledge rather than importance seems likely.The idea of which issues are deserving of being put to the vote sounds like it will require a highly subjective interpretation of the forum as a whole and the sheer scale of what you are talking about sounds practically unworkable.See Message 296 as a limited effort to test your thinking on this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is indeed.I think our political system is a bit like an old European city. It has been cobbled together bit by bit and piece by piece. It has evolved by means of gradual and incremented changes over a long period of time. Each new aspect building on what was already there. And the bottom line is that it works. We have a functioning democracy. Arguably one of the more functional democracies in the world. Yes there are flaws and yes there are obvious improvements that are very much needed. But the bottom line is that our nation functions, deep injustices are relatively rare and although everyone grumbles the government doesn't generally impose decisions on us that have mass opposition. When they do (e.g. poll tax and the Iraq war) we (i.e. the public) are in a position to be quite vociferous in our oppoistion and, although it may take time, we can hold those decision makers to account by giving them a very hard time and ultimately getting rid of them. Far from perfect. But not totally dysfunctional.To return to my analogy - It seems to me that Legend wants to do the equivalent of bulldozing an imperfet but nevertheless functional and in many ways great city like London and instead build some sort of conceptual equivalent of Milton Keynes over the top of it. But the Milton Keynes he wants to build isn't even thought through or planned by those who actually know about town planning. As a result I suspect he will have sewage running down the streets of his 'looks good on paper' soulless little pet project.

I want to try and do a very rough test of how easy or difficult Legend's direct democracy idea would be to implement. If we cannot make this work easily with 10(?) or so people I fail to see how it can ever function on the scale of 40 million plus. Based on what Legend has said about how this will work I suggest that we try to do the following:1) Decide between us what the top two political issues facing the UK are at the moment.
2) Seek to agree wording of a question for each of these two issues on which a meaningful and representative vote can be taken.
3) Actually vote on the questions posed as a result of point 2 above.So - To get things started I will suggest three possibilities for the key issues to consider. Remember we have to prioritise it down to two for the final vote. In no particular order:

Voting reform

Deficit reduction

Troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

​

Remember it is not what your forum can do for you but what you can do for your forum.

I'm voting for:

Voting reform

Deficit reduction

​

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

For me:

Deficit reduction

Troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

This is how I would cast my vote.Deficit reductionVoting reform

Just to be clear: These are the 3 issues I would choose from. Others are free to throw others into the pot. You don't have to choose two from my suggestions. If I have hit on the three key issues that everyone would pick their top two from then fair enough but we don't have to limit it to my choices.The point is to test Legend's methodology. And with 40 million potential participants I would imagine that there will be a multitude of competing issues. But let's see.