So the UK have US style televised debate, the overnight the disengaged electorate seem energized. I am not sure I honestly think that Clegg's party will end up actually winning the seats and influence the current polling would suggest. But I do think that many more people will be discussing politics, actually reading the manifesto's of the 3 main parties, and deciding to go out and vote. That is a great thing.
The UK system of first past the post electing of MPs across the country to form then majorities then governments does always cause disconnects between the actual vote, and the resulting influence of the party which wins. Perhaps this has brought more stability and evolutionary change to the UK. But it's hard to say that other countries with more proportional systems have somehow struggled in any area of governing their countries versus the UK. Economic growth and Educational standings are all a mixture I believe. So I do not see a hung parliament in the short term, or a move to more proportional representation in the long term as a bad thing per se. The platform that has been given Clegg is great for having opened up these as legitimate discussion points. Why accept things as they have always been?
A popular take from the Daily Mail
Leaders debate: Historic first as Brown, Cameron and Clegg lock horns
| Mail Online
The Economist, as ever, for a decent overview
The Liberal Democrat surge: Getting a Clegg up | The Economist
concluding...
"The more disturbing problem faces Labour and the Tories. Contempt for politics was stoked by last year’s expenses scandal, but it was there before. True, there is some ugly nihilism mixed in with voters’ legitimate grievances. And given Britain’s prosperity in recent decades, popular cynicism may be the product of a kind of complacent assumption that the good times would just keep rolling. Still, this anti-politics Zeitgeist is a reality, and the two major parties have found no answer to it. In such a climate, perhaps the strangest thing about the breakthrough of the Lib Dems—less besmirched by fiddled expenses than the other parties, and untainted by office—is that it took so long to come."
The UK system of first past the post electing of MPs across the country to form then majorities then governments does always cause disconnects between the actual vote, and the resulting influence of the party which wins. Perhaps this has brought more stability and evolutionary change to the UK. But it's hard to say that other countries with more proportional systems have somehow struggled in any area of governing their countries versus the UK. Economic growth and Educational standings are all a mixture I believe. So I do not see a hung parliament in the short term, or a move to more proportional representation in the long term as a bad thing per se. The platform that has been given Clegg is great for having opened up these as legitimate discussion points. Why accept things as they have always been?
A popular take from the Daily Mail
Leaders debate: Historic first as Brown, Cameron and Clegg lock horns
| Mail Online
The Economist, as ever, for a decent overview
The Liberal Democrat surge: Getting a Clegg up | The Economist
concluding...
"The more disturbing problem faces Labour and the Tories. Contempt for politics was stoked by last year’s expenses scandal, but it was there before. True, there is some ugly nihilism mixed in with voters’ legitimate grievances. And given Britain’s prosperity in recent decades, popular cynicism may be the product of a kind of complacent assumption that the good times would just keep rolling. Still, this anti-politics Zeitgeist is a reality, and the two major parties have found no answer to it. In such a climate, perhaps the strangest thing about the breakthrough of the Lib Dems—less besmirched by fiddled expenses than the other parties, and untainted by office—is that it took so long to come."
Comments