These, for me, are the most depressing statistics of the Thatcher Years.

[Wat_Tyler]

Thatcher never won more than 44% of the vote.
(I combined the Liberal/Labour vote for each election, purely to show that it was consistently above 50%)

May 3rd 1979 -
Conservative - 43.9%, 339 seats
Labour - 36.9%, 269 seats
Liberal - 13.8%, 11 seats
Others - 5.4%, 16 seats
(Labour and Liberal total - 50.7%, 280 seats)

June 9th 1983 -
Conservative - 42.4%, 397 seats
Labour - 27.6%, 209 seats
Alliance - 25.4%, 23 seats
Others - 4.6%, 21 seats
(Labour and Alliance total - 53%, 232 seats)

June 11th 1987 -
Conservative - 42.3%, 376 seats
Labour - 30.8%, 229 seats
Alliance - 22.6%, 22 seats
Others - 4.3%, 23 seats
(Labour and Alliance total - 53.4%, 251 seats)

April 9th 1992 -
Conservative - 41.9%, 336 seats
Labour - 34.4%, 271 seats
LibDem - 17.9%, 20 seats
Others - 5.8%, 24 seats
(Labour and LibDem total - 52.3%, 291 seats)

[roguevalley]

1. even I, sitting here in Alaska and Oregon at the time hated her and

felt hugely for England.

[Wat_Tyler]

2. It's the fact that you can take less than 44% of the vote,

and use that as a mandate to gut a nation.

[applegrove]

7. That has never happened in Canada. First past the post protects

Liberals and keeps the silly neocon conservatives out of power. Big neocon fans of the USA.. Australia tried to gut first past the post. I'm guessing a series of small groups (like tribes) in parliament that stopping first past the post results in.. leaves room for sociopathic neocons to play groups off against each other.

We like pluralities and democracy in Canada.

Tell the truth? Liberal, Block, NDP or Conservative?

Come on be honest? We know you are not a liberal. We know that. So which of the other three parties do you belong to?

Trying to create a negative "first past the post" buzz? "My gosh I should get rid of 100 years of stability, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism and a very happy nation..just because there is a buzz on the DU!!"

ROTFLMAO!

[Wat_Tyler]

12. 'First past the post protects Liberals'

Precisely a reason to abolish FPTP - why should one group be protected over others. Where is the democracy there?

'Australia tried to gut first past the post'
Not sure what you're talking about there. New Zealand, however, did replace FPTP, leading to a more democratic PR-based system and a two-term Labour government (with Progressive support) that is about to be elected again.

'Trying to create a negative "first past the post" buzz? "My gosh I should get rid of 100 years of stability, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism and a very happy nation..just because there is a buzz on the DU!!"'

Sorry? Should I not suggest alternatives? What is this meant to mean?
And by the way - 100 years of fiscal conservatism? Hardly - look at the deficits of the Trudeau-Mulroney years. Fiscal conservatism has only existed in the federal government since 1993.

'ROTFLMAO!'
I've been reasonable and respectful with you. You've responded with derision and scorn. What does that say about you?

I'm a New Democrat. Without my party, you would not have had your cherished medicare plan - product of a minority federal government. Another point for PR there, I'd say.

[applegrove]

13. We would not have had Medicare so early but all Western democracies

except USA have the plan so we just would have instituted it later.. instead of it being incredibly brilliant and early.

The USA had the same deficits. Everyone in the world had them. Inflation caused job losses. Trudeau was a man of his times. And as soon as fiscal conservatives said "right - time to gut the debt" all hands were on that in every country in the world.

First Past the Post makes it easier to win a majority with less numbers. So it would be easier for conservatives to do it. They just don't because they do not represent values across the country. And with the break up of the parties we have today.. there will likely be minorities as often as not. A good chance for the coaltion building. But majorites are great because the government can institute a whole plan without having to beg from people who only represent smaller parts or sections of the country at every turn. More gets done.

Okay it was New Zealand if you say.

Coalition type governments are governments that coercion works best in. No surprise that Sharon is in power in Israel.. the man is crazy!!! I do not want to see crazies and neocon type tactics become the norm. Also - they seem to want a 4 year election cycle (that way the politicians do not control the election cycle.. but the political operatives do). I like our two month cycle. You set the dates in stone for elections and you end up with a 2 year election cycle like they have in the US.

[applegrove]

3. Sweetie - don't fret. It is always this way in a three party state. They

often have a first past the post way of adding things up which gives more to the first party (in terms of seats) then less to the second party. That way there is a majority more often than if they just gave each party the percentage of votes.

It means that you do not get coalition as often (think Israel for non first past the post situations). So somebody who wins 44% wins the legislature for 4 or 5 years. Someone who wins 37% of the vote and that is the highest anyone got..would end up with a minority government where they would have to form coalitions periodically (actually any time a budget bill tries to pass). That way they have to agree to compromise with other people the whole time they are in power. Or they go to election within a year.

You have a two party system in the US. Usually the president gets more than 50% of the vote. But not always. I think the variability with a three party system is more (in terms of swings) which is great.

But you also have an executive branch that a PM of Britain or Canada or Australia never has. The Prime Ministers are nothing more than the House of Commons Majority leader. And they have to be on the floor of the house to answer question 4 days a week while the house sits. So a George Bush type leader (puppet) could never get into power. You have to be able to be on your toes (looking good in photo ops is much less important than the ability to debate - which is a 1 hour photo op every day).

So with the multi party state .. the advantage is given very much to the group of people who have the highest percentage of the vote and as long as they are above 40% of the vote.. they get a clear power.

Too bad MT was in power for so long. But she was a great debater. No other reason than that that she won.

Often the third, fourth parties (and in Canada the 2nd party because they are usually the Conservatives..who just cannot win the heart of a larger percentage of Canadians without going Liberal in the end) want the first past the post thing to be done with and stopped. Constant coalitions and negotiations would allow them to extract a pound of flesh every so often from the big guys..when now the big parties pretty much do what they want when they get into power. But in Canada things have been worked into smaller groups and it may be that minority governments are more common that before (which is almost the same thing a coalition governments though loose). It was one of those Canadian minority governments in the 1960s that gave us Universal Health Care. And we love it more than anything!!

[Wat_Tyler]

4. No, I understand the system - I'm a Canadian myself.

What I was pointing out was the tragedy of First Past the Post, that it allows such revolutionary governments as Thatcher's (or Lange/Douglas in New Zealand) the full control of the governmental system with a minority of the total votes cast. I favour the Single Transferable Vote system, as used in Germany and the Scots Parliament - I find a system that allowed Thatcher to win 397 of 650 seats with only 42.4% of the vote undemocratic. Of course, that same system gives Blair an even more lopsided majority.

[applegrove]

6. Okay - sorry. Yes there is much support for first past the post in

Canada. From opposition parties who never get into power so they would like to be part of coalitions.

I am of the school of thought that says.. no conservative is a good conservative. I am happy with how conservatives get locked out of federal government most of the time. In Britain.. they had her and yes it was bad.

But so far, first past the post works fine for me. Neocon conservatives always represent a very few wealthy Canadians or Canadians who live in a very wealthy province. Also the religious right you are 20% in Canada. They try to represent Quebecers who do make up one third of the electorate. And they have to represent that group if they ever want to get into power.

Quebec ors lived under indirect rule for 200 years. They lived in the religious tribalism that Bush & neocons want to impose on their populations (easier to control people and have your elite elected if you can slice & dice the electorate into tribes and keep them from voting together - the British ruled successfully that way all over the world (including Quebec)). So - coming from families that were purposely stuck in poverty and ruled by customary laws of the church.. and knowing that in their own lives or in the lives of their parents...quebecers are not about to jump on that neocon tribalism pony any time soon. If you came from a family of 12.. and the bad job the father of that family had.. and the pain it caused that none of your issues were ever addressed.. and the people who didn't speak your language but were the elite living in mansions on the hill... and you hear the stories of those harsh lives and see the results every day..you are not going to vote for it.

So the conservatives. who cannot win unless they break through in Quebec... would love to get rid of first past the post..because there is no other way really for them to have any sort of power in this country.

And then what? All the rest of us Canadians can look forward to the return of tribalism, customary law, and warlike relationships with your neighbors.. all so that the elites can sit on top of the whole pile, make money and not be bothered with an election because the people will be fragmented? Is that what you want for me. Cause

1) I am a woman and I'd like the woman in my family to live happy industrious family lives.. with only the very best information at their fingertips and not with the propaganda that says I need to be naive so the misogynist will have someone to destroy & kids to abuse.

2) I am a Scot. You may want to keep me on the working hard for the good of all the country track rather than the fighting and stealing from anybody but people who share my last name. Poverty and the unemployment the neocons (and our conservatives) want for the middle classes will cause this.

3) I want our country to be so filled with immigrants of all shapes and sizes that blonds will disappear in 100 years and white skin..in 200. We will all just be sort of golden here (which will be a god-send since the ozone hole will be much bigger). Cause I don't want to be fighting with anybody else, or seeing anybody else being excluded, when we can no longer use cars to get to suburbs and the Americans want my lake.

I know the neocons want access into Canada. And they try in starts and stops. And the whole Missile Shield thing would have been a great wedge issue but Martin didn't fall for it.. respecting the deeply held wishes of Canadians. And that seat at the table for "free" would have cost us the right to sue some Yankees ass when a nuclear bomb gets blown up 80 miles above Baffin Island and there are 'health costs' and 'environmental cleanup costs'.

I know have sweet the deal sounds to the NDP (we will get a say...) but minority governments will give the NDP a say. As long as the block exists.. the NDP will have a say.

Sorry. First past the post leads to stability. We do not have a problem with successive conservative governments in Canada. Our successive governments are Liberal. There is not need for change if you like good government and fairness. Our liberals are fiscal conservatives. They like a transfer of wealth every generaton. I like it just the way it is.

After all haven't the Liberals been in power all but 20 years in the last century? And our budget is balanced and our schools really good. And our cities are safe. We all get health care. We are just about to have a daycare plan. Surpluses. We have a small population and lots of resources. We are lucky, lucky, lucky.

What is to fix... unless you are a neocon and you want to destroy it all and give it to the elites.

[Wat_Tyler]

11. 'Okay - sorry. Yes there is much support for first past the post in

Canada. From opposition parties who never get into power so they would like to be part of coalitions. '

Wrong.

First Past the Post (our present system) could allow Harper's Tories to gain a majority government with 39% of the vote (Chretien won a majority in 1997 with only 38.5%). Under Proportional Representation, which I am an advocate for, the CPC would have to gain at least 50% of the vote (which in recent years has only been acheived by Mulroney in 1984 - barely), which would give them a majority of the seats. If the last election were run under PR, the Tories would have received roughly 30% of the seats for their 30% of the vote.
The present system is infinitely more likely to present us with a Conservative Government than any variation of Proportional Representation.

'What is to fix...'
Democracy. I want to make all votes equal.

'We are just about to have a daycare plan.'
How many successive governments have promised this since 1979? If we get it at all, it'll be precisely because First Past the Post has delivered a minority position for the Liberals - replicating the position that would already exist under a PR system.

'And the whole Missile Shield thing would have been a great wedge issue but Martin didn't fall for it.. respecting the deeply held wishes of Canadians.'

Again, because we have a minority government - a majority government under Martin would've been much more likely to deliver for the US and sign up for Star Wars.

'I am a Scot. You may want to keep me on the working hard for the good of all the country track rather than the fighting and stealing from anybody but people who share my last name.'

I was born and raised in Scotland. I have no idea what this comment is meant to mean, but it sounds like either a racist comment on the Scots or some bizarre assumption on my position based on nothing.

'They try to represent Quebecers who do make up one third of the electorate. '

The population of Quebec is 7.5 million, around 24% of the population - and not all of those people are French Canadian.

[applegrove]

14. Don't be paranoid about the Scot thing - everyone here has creation

myths and I am allowed my own too.

[NEOBuckeye]

5. Too bad we can't do the same here in the US

Someone has already done the research:
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~csallen/parl-soe.pdf

[non sociopath skin]

8. Let us be careful about that "anti-Tory" majority, however.

The genesis of the SDP, during its existence the stronger partner of the so-called "Alliance," was specifically anti-"left" or "old" Labour.

In a hung parliament, the likes of David Owen would have been more at home in coalition with Thatcher (whom, like Bliar, he openly admired) than with Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock.

The Skin

[Wat_Tyler]

10. Yeah, that's why I added the disclaimer.

I combined that total to highlight the fact that the Tory vote was a minority - clearly there would've been serious friction in any hypothetical coalition between Labour and the Alliance - having expounded all that effort to leave Labour, Owen, Jenkins et al would not exactly rush to support Labour.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Depressing indeed!

I used to say during her long and evil reign, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time; but if you can fool 42% of the people once every 4 years, it can do just as well!"

[LSdemocrat]

15. Actuallly what is more depressing are the poll figures between elections

IIRC, the Tories rarely had sustained leads in polls taken between elections. Especially during their first term the Tories would be far behind in the polls to Labour and even the Alliance for a short period of time.

However at in the run-up to an election the Tories always managed to con/scare the country into putting them back into power.

[D-Notice]

16. Deja-vu

"Always managed to con/scare the country into putting them back into power"

Sounds like Labour's tactics this time round... voting for Lib Dems is a vote for Howard

[Wat_Tyler]

17. I think it's pretty clear that were it not for the Falklands,

Thatcher may well have lost the 1983 election - even with the Falklands factor, the Tory percentage actually dipped slightly from 1979.

[T_i_B]

18. Given the scenario at EU elections...

...where we are voting for fixed party lists, which mean that any MEP's elected are many more times likely to be loyalist hacks, and the fact that PR in the EU elections has merely resulted in the election of UKIP types such as Robert Kilroy-Silk I'm not too impressed by PR.

Here in Britain the Liberal party has been advocating it for decades, but I tend to be very cynical about this as they would be the main people to benefit from such an arrangement by being the only plausible partner in the coalition government a PR system would inevitably produce.

[Wat_Tyler]

19. I think one great strength of it is

that a radical rearrangement of the state such as Thatcherism or Rogernomics would be far more difficult to achieve under a PR system - one of the main reasons New Zealand moved to a mixed-member system in 1996.