Skip to main content

Clegg cruises in the debate

Just to add my sixpence worth on the second leaders' TV debate. I think Brown and Cameron raised their games. Nick Clegg was a bit flatter than last week, but he was still scored as either first (by most observers) or very close second to Cameron (by Tory supporters). Despite the attempt to smear the Liberal Democrats back down in the polls, and to launch personal attacks on Clegg ahead of the debate, Nick Clegg was generally unruffled and again did well.

That Cameron did better than last time is not enough: he needed to obliterate the memory of the last bravura performance from Nick Clegg- and he couldn't do it. Although he tried to talk to the camera, he was more clunky- it was obviously something he had been told to do, and it looked uncomfortable. This was not the game changer that it needed to be for the Tories.

I think that the third debate will not be a game changer either. We will need to absorb the impact of the concerted Conservative smear campaign against the Liberal Democrats- which might end up hurting the Tories at least as much as the Lib Dems. However, it now seems highly likely that the Liberal Democrats are on course for a sensational result. What happens next is less clear, my personal view is that it is most likely that the next government will be a minority: and that will take us into a new situation in British politics.

Nick Clegg maintained momentum, and could not be disrupted by Brown or Cameron- in the end that is probably going to be sufficient to prevent the Lab/Con duopoly from continuing unchecked. The British people are showing their distrust of the power of the Lab/Con system and their disgust are where it has brought us.


Newmania said…
I thought the Press attacks on Clegg were pathetic
On the debate however I think the “Get Real Nick” moment was telling and on immigration and Europe the best you can say is that he defended the indefensible gamely .On the Economy I fear the opportunism dishonesty and confusion in the Lib Dem manifesto will be exposed .
Big picture , however , I have been coming to the conclusion that FPTP cannot be sustained now we have three Party politics . The maths is becoming ridiculous ,its sad but there it is . On the other hand there are huge problems with PR in a country that expects to dismiss governments, know what it is voting fo,r and see an accountable face . Not least its tendency to be corrupt

I was wondering if some sort of compromise top up formula might be arrived at .With a thorough review of constituencies reducing to 400 of equal size and English votes addressing the over representation of Labour , Scotland and Wales I was thinking of something like ....
Each Party gets additional MPs equal half the difference between that and its Proportional entitlement of the adjusted total ? Something imperfect deal of that sort ?
Not my bag really , but the perpetual uninterrupted rule of politicians doing deals at the centre is not on.
Cicero said…
Well, actually, Newmania I agree with you. I don't want an electoral fix, I want electoral fairness.

For me though, the best system is the STV system where voters have multi member constituencies, like, say, East Sussex. There are, say, eight MPs as there are now, and voters list them in order of preference. They can still vote for 8 Tories if they want (they simply list the candidates in order of preference). They can choose between candidates from the same party (so not a list system), therefore they can punish individual candidates without voting against their party. They can vote for candidates of different parties, if they want to, but it is not required.

It gives the voters a more open choice in my view. It is still possible for majority governments to be formed, but pretty much only if they get a majority vote (or something very close to it). It is still possible, though, for individuals to be elected as independents. It also keeps a clear constituency link, its just that the constituencies are a bit bigger, but to be honest most people will not say they live in "Wealden" or "Mid Sussex" - their identification is with the county- and until the late 19th century multi member seats were not unusual, so it does work in the Westminster system. More importantly, no vote is wasted and tactical voting is unnecessary. It would probably give Conservatives seats in cities like Liverpool and Glasgow, which have been Tory-free for decades, likewise Labour and the Conservatives in Cornwall, which is currently 100% Lib Dem on only about 55% of the vote. It would give Lib Dems maybe two more seats in E. Sussex (though we might get more under FPTP this election!). Ireland has a similar system, and they have not got a centre party swinging between the FF and FG- quite often there have been majority governments, though not always of course.

In my view STV answers your questions- and if it were introduced I would be happy to support a reduction in the size of the House of Commons too.
Newmania said…
Thats the old poltics CS .Do you even need to sneak feeble second choice votes in ? For me a system where you do not have to make a choice at all reduces the electorate from active participants in forming a constituency, to an infantilized focus group . Consequences are distant , accountability diluted yeuch
Voting systems in any event do not deliver stable accountable government We have a system that is understood by its participants and has been broadly successful . This not a thing to ignore People are not atom,s they are formed by the past and sweeping away the riches of centuries to replace it with a year zero doodle from a politics graduate’s note pad taste like a Lemon to me . On the other hand , it is now clear that we must face the most odious of things “change “.

I hope to see an evolution which addresses the geographical distribution of the LD vote in a pragmatic way , no more . New Labour will give you STV as the system that most hurts Conservatuve interests they have always liked it .
No doubt you are enjoying this revolt against old style politics ( I am not ) lead by a fresh face with a simple message of change . Thought you might like this

:) Sing up CS sing up
Cicero said…
Just a quick comment- since I have to go and catch a plane- which is a lot less easy than it used to be- Labour loath STV- which is why they want a stitch up based around AV or AV+ which gives the parties, not the voters, the power.

We have got address the fact that under the current system the people have massively unequal votes- only swing voters in swing seats control the system- so your vote in Lewes gets ignored and my vote in Westminster (this time) gets ignored.

If the Tories are serious about reform or even "change" then they have got to support voting reform. Unless they do, then they are not serious about political reform at all.
Cicero said…
Oh and surely you think this is the better version
Newmania said…
Newmania said…
Beware in your enthusiasm to abolish old loyalties you don`t need them some time

...and we get Avatar..sums it up.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo