Cameron wins Third Debateby Clifford F. Thies
David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party of Great Britain, capped an improved performance in the second debate with a clear victory in the third debate. As a result, a ‘hung’ Parliament is now only slightly favored, and it would not be much of an upset were the Tories to win an outright majority.
With its multi-party system and “first past the gate” rule, the guideline in British elections is that 40 percent of the popular vote translates into a majority of the seats in Parliament. Prior to the first debate, the Conservatives seemed likely to hit the 40 percent mark and, thus, to organize the next government.
But, a strong showlng by Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the first debate, introduced some real uncertainty into the race. Following the first debate, no party was indicated to be in the high 30s, no less above 40.
At this time, the Conservatives have partially restored their pre-first debate position, in first place, in the mid to high 30s, and with a lead in the mid to high single digits. The Liberal Democrats appear to have established themselves as the second largest party in terms of popular votes, relegating Labour to third place. And, uncertainties about the distribution of the votes across the United Kingdom make indetermine whether the Conservatives will secure a majority of the seats in the new Parliament.
If, as it seems to be the case, almost all of the gains by the Liberal Democrats are coming at the expense of Labour, the Conservatives might be able to achieve a majority in Parliament with a popular vote below the 40 percent mark.
An interesting aspect of this possible outcome is that the national assembly of the United Kingdom would be ruled by a party whose members are almost all elected from England, with only a handful of members from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Could further devolution be in the offing?
Perhaps the socialist districts of the United Kingdom should join with the deep blue states of the United States and the Atlantic provices of Canada, to form a country known as the United Moochers of North Atlantic (UMNA). The red and purple states of the U.S. could then join in free association with the western provinces of Canada and England, leaving Quebec to consider whether it really wants to become known as North Haiti.
9 Bloviations:
Great article Cliff. May be you can help with this. Below is an excerpt from my blog. It would be great if the conservatives win, but it would seem uphill:
Labour owes its ability to hang on despite the weak economy to several advantages. Since Tony Blair's landslide victory in 1997, Labour has an advantage in the number of seats it holds in Parliament that is out of proportion to its share of the popular vote. In the last election in 2005, Labour won 36.2% of the votes but 56.5% of the seats in Parliament. The Conservatives won 33.2% of the votes but only 31.5% of the seats. The Liberal Democrats won almost one in four votes but fewer than one in 10 of the seats.
The result: Labour won three percentage points more of the vote than the Conservatives, but dominated Parliament with 355 seats to the Tories' 197. To overcome that advantage, political analysts estimate that the Conservatives will need to win around six percentage points more of the vote, just to overcome the disparity.
The chief reason for this is that Labour wins seats in Parliament with fewer votes. Labour-heavy Scotland and Wales have more seats compared with their population than Tory-leaning England. Even in England, Conservative constituencies are larger. The average Tory seat held 72,950 voters, and the average Labour seat 66,802 . . .
Not according to ComRes when people are asked about "voting intentions":
"Voting intention after this week's debate
Which party would you vote for?
Conservative 36%
Labour 24%
Lib Dem 36%
Other 4%"
I still hold its gonna be a hung parliament with Conservatives as the largest party.
May I quote Reuters on today's Drudge Report:
"Conservatives lead in opinion polls but most polls see them failing to gaining 116-plus seats they need to guarantee a majority."
Reuters says the Conservatives will have to have to cut deals with the Nationalist parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales or with the Liberal Democrats.
Hmmmm. . . Divided government, many political parties, free elections where your vote really matters.
Sounds good to me. Maybe we should try this in America instead of the current one-party dictatorship.
"The chief reason for this is that Labour wins seats in Parliament with fewer votes."
Right Guy, this is called Gerrymandering. I have been voting for thirty-eight years. Because of Gerrymandering in thirth-eight years I have voted only once in a contested House race.
Most voters have no voice in Washington. I think they used to call it taxation without representation.
Amazing. UK is going Coservative while we're going Socialist and then Communist.
God help us all.
While the polls has shown the Conservatives leading since month, there may be an interesting outcome. a so called hung parliamant is possible, perhaps with Labour in third position. SOme say the GBP will take a nosedive should this happen. The party or parties that will govern will face a momentous task of reducing the debt, cutting spending drastically, if they do not want to increase taxes... the UK is comparatively in worse financial crisis than the US, plus they have a stonger socialist (or socialist leaning...for those that want to be cautious with terms) backbone, and some of the mixed economy the Conservatives also support, like the DHS, with notable exceptions like Daniel Hannan.
One can have the interesting outcome that the party witht he most seats do not necessarily have the highest percentage. The Westminister system has in certain countries on the past already lead to a majority of seats by a party that had the minority in terms of percentage of votes!
All the candidates were still relatively vague, but compared to Obama's "hope and change" much more descriptive! on their economic policies especially.
I watched the last two debates. On SKY news today there was an interesting unscientific report about differenc ein undecided outcome among those who listened on the radio and those that
watched it on TV.
Texasrita:
If you value liberty, you wouldn't like the positions of the UK Conservative Party.
They believe in socialized medicine (aka, National Health Service); are entirely on-board with the nuttier of the environmental policies pushed by the Greens (including "carbon allowances" for individuals, monitored and enforced by the State); have been eager supporters of transferring power and sovereignty to the unelected bureaucracies of the European Union; support the infamous UK bans on firearms and knives, and are on record for severe restrictions on bb guns and paintball guns.
The platform of the UK Tory Party is more to the left than the bulk of the U.S. Democratic Party.
@Rita:
And I have always said that it's not easy to compare American political parties to European parties or parties in any other country.
Europe is way to the left of the US. What you or I consider left they consider centrist. There is no real "libertarian" or even a "tea party" in the UK or Europe that makes any difference. Their culture is so ingrained with socialism that such thought from such parties is anathema to what they believe. Such is the way of Farm Animals®.
OK got you both on this.
thanks.:)
Post a Comment