Guardian ditches Labour for Lib Dems

[olddutch]

Nick Clegg, recieved a boost after the Guardian switched its allegiance to Lib Dem
The left-wing Guardian newspaper dealt Gordon Brown another blow last night when it backed the Liberal Democrats.The newspaper, has been a staunch supporter of Labour.

But this evening it launched an extraordinary attack on the party for failing to ditch Mr Brown as Prime Minister.'In spite of polling an abject 15.7 per cent in the European elections, and with four Cabinet ministers departing, Labour chose to hug Mr Brown close,' it said in an editorial.

'It was the wrong decision then, and it is clear, not least after his humiliation in Rochdale this week, that it is the wrong decision now.

'Invited to embrace five more years of a Labour government, and of Gordon Brown as prime minister, it is hard to feel enthusiasm.'

The newspaper said that if it had a vote next week 'it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats'.It said that 'after the exhaustion of the old politics', the Lib Dems 'reflect and lead an overwhelming national mood for real change'.

The newspaper was particularly enthusiastic about Nick Clegg's demands for a change in the voting system that would guarantee his party a permanent place at the top table

Will this be the final nail in Browns Political Coffin and a potential boost for a fairer voting system?

[Buenchico]

Brown's political coffin doesn't require any more nails anyway. It was super-glued shut a long time ago!

That's not written as an 'anti-Labour' statement. It's simply a statement of the bleedin' obvious ;-)

[jno]

The reason Labour didn't ditch him ages ago is that it had nobody better. Arguably it still doesn't. He has no people skills, and he misreads the public mood badly, particularly over bankers. But though everyone on AB is convinced he doesn't understand 'ordinary people', what they invariably mean is 'people who agree with me'. Brown still has a lot of appeal to the sort of people who don't go onto Q&A websites - in a way the likes of Blair and Cameron do not. But there aren't enough of them to make a difference.

As for the voting system, there's no way either Labour or Tories will change it to let the LibDems in unless they're forced to by Clegg as the price of a colaition, should it come to that. I hope it does, but I'm not betting on it.

[sandyRoe]

Is PR fairer? Wouldn't it mean that the Lib-Dems would always be part of a coalition?

[David Black]

It would be nice to remove the grip of Scottish and Welsh MP's from decisions that only addect England.

Scottland has its own prime minister Alex Samond so why do we have to put up with what the Scottish electors threw out last time?

[jno]

PR tends to give a boost to all sorts of smaller parties so it might mean Ukip or the Greens instead of the LibDems, if that's what voters want. Big party leaders can spend a while trying to round up enough support from other parties. But it gives you a result closer to the way the public vote.

[sandyRoe]

I never thought I'd associate the Gruniad with the phrase: 'rats leaving a sinking ship'.

[Buenchico]

PR is only one type of 'fairer' voting system.

Gordon Brown has indicated his possible support for 'single transferable voting', which retains the existing constituency system but removes the anomalies of 'first past the post'. Student unions have been using that system for at least 40 years and the vast majority of new clubs and associations, drawing up their constitutions, will almost certainly use 'STV'. It seems that, rather belatedly, our politicians might finally be coming into the 'real world'.

[jno]

they won't unless they have to, Chris. Would you? Would a turkey vote for Christmas?

[olddutch]

Under PR (hoping we get there) votes for smaller parties on stuff like say Immigration, EU membership, War, etc. would force the major parties to seriously listen to the voter - and maybe change their policies to accommodate big majority views. Politicians from different Parties should be grown up enough to work together, where necessary, to do this on specific majority view policies.

[jno]

the trouble is, sometimes 'ordinary people' are a little inconsistent. They are outraged that immigrants take away jobs from locals by getting paid less - but they'll still switch from M&S to Tesco if Tesco are cheaper, even if they're cheaper because they employ cheap labour. They want more money spent on the NHS and schools and prisons - but they vote for the party that says they'll cut taxes most. They want cheap travel, but they want the airports to be in someone else's backyard.

If people can't sort out what they want, they can't be too surprised if politicians have to do it for them.

[olddutch]

Regrettably, sometimes politicians are a little inconsistent too - and all too often the voters wants and needs go unheeded by remote self serving politicians who live on Planet Dictat - that privileged place where elite practices and distortions like the expenses scandal evolve - democracy should deliver on a reasonable basis the policies that the majority public want - if there are any obvious issues of inpractibility then these should be thoroughly hammered out in dedicated forums between politicians and public until the holistic argument is won - Blind trust in politicians and deferential acceptance that MPs always know best is not the way to proceed - much greater genuine accommodation of voters real needs and wants should be the New Deal - the New Democracy.

[modeller]

Why do alternative vote devotees assume that if a crowd of people with opposing views get together and talk they will arrive at a solution which is best for the country ?
The best you can hope for is a fudge which may not be what the country needs.
Very often the smallest extreme party prevents the very thing that is needed.
Here in the UK the government has to take measures which we are not going to like . If we get a hung parliament it will show us what will happen under PR. It will be an interesting experience.