h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't understand. Liberal Democrats came a poor 3rd. Why is the party that came 1st(conservatives) talking about a coalition with them instead of the party that came 2nd (Labour?)

Because that is some that they would never consider or allow in a million years. The gulf between them is just too big.


Geggs

Nope .... still not understanding In any other kind of competition if you come a close second, then you could be described as joint winners and you could work together if the competition required it.
Why on earth would you ignore the runner-up and go straight to the one who came a poor third to work with? I'm guessing it's to do with some arcane British legislation from the 17th century or thereabouts?

Nope, they just hate each other to death. I mean, even a conservative voter and a Labour voter were they to meet in RL would be more likely to kill each other than stoop so low as to help the other were they in need of help.
The gap between the underlaying principles of the two main partys is too great... and neither would give in enough on any of their policies to enable a coalition to work...

The LibDems, on the other hand, do not have the same level of visceral hate to (or from) the other parties. So could carefully be persuaded to join a colation.


Geggs

The same reason Brunel skin users and Alabaster skin users will never be friends, but both are willing to tolerate Goo users as long as they criticising their mutual enemy.

Well in the same way that Elton John would ask Sue Perkins for sex...it wouldn't happen...well, it might but there would be silence for about 3seconds and then they would all fall about laughing.

It would be like matter and anti-matter coming together.

ah right Makes sense. But it does mean that theoretically there could be a party in power that hardly anyone voted for.. seems undemocratic really.

Why can't we just have a system that says "party A got 1,000,000 votes, party B got 1,000,001 votes. Therefore Party A is the winner". Isn't that the logical way?

A merkin friend said the same thing on facebook earlier.

And the answer I gave is that they are still short of an overall majority in the House of Commons. The Tories needed 326 seats to have more than anyone else. So, techincally, they have won, but they haven't won by enough to make a majority.

So the other parties could gang up on them and block every single bill they put down. Therefore they need an agreement with somebody (and the LibDems are the obvious choice) in order to achieve anything.


Geggs

You could look at Norn Irn! We have a weird and wonderfully engineered system of democracy that forces the 2 largest parties - even though they hate each others guts - to share power. Boy but it's hard work! And there is no real opposition party, which can be a useful cog in functioning government.

The coalition between the CDU and the SDP in Germany kind of worked, which would be broadly similar to a Tory/Labour coalition, I think.

For me they curb the wilder excesses of each other's party and the voter doesn't get shafted from both sides at once which is a result of sorts.

And don't forget that under PR it would have been a lot closer, numbers wise, for the LibDems.

On a slight tangent - what do people think of the prospects for genuine electoral reform in the UK?

From the other side of the planet, the current UK system looks very strange indeed and in desperate need of replacement with something that produces a clearer reflection of the mood of the population. I'm a big fan of preferential voting (the system we use in Australia at the national level and in most states in a variety of forms) but I'm not going to advocate any particular system; I'm just wondering how likely it is that Something Will Be Done to fix a defective system...

I have very little hope - it's in the major parties (ie the 2 main parties) interests to keep it as it is.

And... the country doesn't even have a written constitution! So there are probably a bazillion more pressing issues before they get round to electoral reform.

>Something Will Be Done<

Yeah the Tories are talking about Conferences and Committees.

But, surely the point is; Any or all of those 'more pressing' issues won't be able to be addressed, won't be able to get through the house of commons, unless the Conservatives can gain enough votes to put them through; Which means effectively 'Bribing' someone, say the Lib Dems, to vote with them, and get economic/social/whatever bills through... and I have an idea the Lib Dems would be up for getting bribed with a few suitable bills being helped through regarding the electoral reform matters...

I'm probably one of the very few who isn't ruling out a Tory/Labour coalition

Based on the last 30 years, you'd think it was only natural...

"the country doesn't even have a written constitution!"
That's cos it is implicit in all the laws, traditions and rules of the country.

Can't remember the quote - something about only needing a written constitution to protect rights if there is an assumption of might makes right. In an enlightened society there would be no need - it would be the fundamental assumption on which everything else is based.

>>
Why can't we just have a system that says "party A got 1,000,000 votes, party B got 1,000,001 votes. Therefore Party A is the winner". Isn't that the logical way?
<<

I think you mean Party B is the winner.

That's only going to work if you limit your system to 2 parties. With three (or more) parties if you say the party with the most votes gets to govern, then you can just let the Tories be it this time, even though most people voted for Labour or the Libs.


>>But it does mean that theoretically there could be a party in power that hardly anyone voted for.. seems undemocratic really. <<

Actually it's more democratic. With the MMP system that NZ uses we frequently have small players in government. That's increased representation if you think about it (unless you believe in mob rule - the party with the biggest hit, or as in the US, the parties with the most money). Plus it keeps the bigger parties more real and less inclined to do whatever the hell they like once in power.

Also, the Lib-Dems got *23%* of the vote - almost one in four. I wouldn't qualify that at "hardly anyone"...

On the contrary, my reaction would be "What an insane system that denies so many people equal representation."

But then, I'm not British...