The UK General Election
Posted by Covfan
Gordon Brown is to step down as Labour leader by September - as his party opens formal talks with the Lib Dems about forming a government.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[news.bbc.co.uk]
i know the Tories didn't win by the required majority, but how ridiculous would it be if the 2nd and 3rd placed parties (Labour and LD) formed a coalition, along with other smaller parties to reach the magic 326 seats to rule, leaving the Tories with nothing?
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Like Dave says, happens alot in other country's. Doesn't happen alot here that the biggest party doesn't end up in the government, but it's possible if they can't reach an agreement with other party's to reach to majority of the seats. Difference is here there are alot more party's, there, you can only talk with Labour and LibDems, and that's it really.
Surely if Labour form a coalition with the Lib Dems, and Brown steps down, it will be a newly appointed Labour leader that in effect takes the lead role of the nation. Someone we don't know yet, and certainly didn't vote for.
We voted for a party AND a leader, not just the party itself.
Otherwise it defeats the object of the party leaders promoting themselves.
In which case, surely that justifies a real reason why this should not be allowed? Nobody voted for them?
I think it will be a disgrace if Lib Dem form with Labour, unless there is a re-election when Brown steps down. Otherwise that is incredibly unfair.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
We voted for a party AND a leader, not just the party itself.
Otherwise it defeats the object of the party leaders promoting themselves.
In which case, surely that justifies a real reason why this should not be allowed? Nobody voted for them?
I think it will be a disgrace if Lib Dem form with Labour, unless there is a re-election when Brown steps down. Otherwise that is incredibly unfair.
Um, when in the General Election did we have the choice to vote for a leader?
I remind you again, in the election we each voted for our LOCAL MP. We have no right to choose who is leader of the party.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
I remind you again, in the election we each voted for our LOCAL MP. We have no right to choose who is leader of the party.
No, I think you misread my meaning.
We voted for the party, right. The representative of that party locally. As in, no we didn't vote for the national leader in a tick box fashion.
But what I mean is by voting for your said party, you are in effect voting in not just your local representative, but also the main leader of that party nationally.
So if you vote your local labour candidate, you also are thus voting in Brown as the national head of that.
So what if you voted Labour, but some of that influence was that Brown would be the figurehead?
And when Brown isn't going to be that, some of your reason to vote becomes devalued.
If you went shopping and bought a tin of peaches, you'd expect what you chose. Peaches, tinned. But what if you selected them at the shop, went home, and when you opened them, yes, they were peaches, but they were in a totally different state to what you thought you'd bought. They were suddenly peach SEEDS. Same thing, but not quite what you intended.
Does that give you a right to return it? In the same sense for voting.
We are voting for the Labour party, and part of that vote is that if they win, Brown is the leader.
Some people who voted would have wanted Brown specifically. If someone else stood, then surely to some, part of that vote reasoning isn't the same.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
We voted for the party, right. The representative of that party locally. As in, no we didn't vote for the national leader in a tick box fashion.
But what I mean is by voting for your said party, you are in effect voting in not just your local representative, but also the main leader of that party nationally.
So if you vote your local labour candidate, you also are thus voting in Brown as the national head of that.
So what if you voted Labour, but some of that influence was that Brown would be the figurehead?
And when Brown isn't going to be that, some of your reason to vote becomes devalued.
If you went shopping and bought a tin of peaches, you'd expect what you chose. Peaches, tinned. But what if you selected them at the shop, went home, and when you opened them, yes, they were peaches, but they were in a totally different state to what you thought you'd bought. They were suddenly peach SEEDS. Same thing, but not quite what you intended.
Does that give you a right to return it? In the same sense for voting.
We are voting for the Labour party, and part of that vote is that if they win, Brown is the leader.
Some people who voted would have wanted Brown specifically. If someone else stood, then surely to some, part of that vote reasoning isn't the same.
I see what you are saying Dave, a similar story back with John Major.
However, the same happened with Brown, which is much more directly related.
Both Brown and Major were drawn in mid term over someone else.
The difference is that Major then won an election, and at the time it happened to be the most popular elections and he won by a truckload or support. People had a chance to vote him in, and he won.
But Brown has not yet been voted for nor won, hence the unjust reasoning if he got to serve further and treated as a 'winner'.
Today, a lot more people did want Cameron and the Conservatives. Labours massive drop in popularity serves this fact.
The fairest thing would be to call a re-election, and maybe sit on a hung parliament for a few months, as short as possible. Maybe in that timespan, there could be a universal system agreed that the next election voting would be handled better.
Cameron should be prime minister right now. In a revoked voting system, I think the results will reflect this. I know facts say otherwise, I agree, but the way the system works, and the newly increased popularity of the Lib Dems meant that it was a tough margin to swing it by a huge margin. Paper thicknesses, at best. Despite being unpopular and losing a lot of support, Labour suddenly still have a chance. It isn't right.
How many parties are there across european nations that work well with hung parliaments? Are they as diverse as here? I have no idea. What about numbers of main parties?
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
However, the same happened with Brown, which is much more directly related.
Both Brown and Major were drawn in mid term over someone else.
The difference is that Major then won an election, and at the time it happened to be the most popular elections and he won by a truckload or support. People had a chance to vote him in, and he won.
But Brown has not yet been voted for nor won, hence the unjust reasoning if he got to serve further and treated as a 'winner'.
Today, a lot more people did want Cameron and the Conservatives. Labours massive drop in popularity serves this fact.
The fairest thing would be to call a re-election, and maybe sit on a hung parliament for a few months, as short as possible. Maybe in that timespan, there could be a universal system agreed that the next election voting would be handled better.
Cameron should be prime minister right now. In a revoked voting system, I think the results will reflect this. I know facts say otherwise, I agree, but the way the system works, and the newly increased popularity of the Lib Dems meant that it was a tough margin to swing it by a huge margin. Paper thicknesses, at best. Despite being unpopular and losing a lot of support, Labour suddenly still have a chance. It isn't right.
How many parties are there across european nations that work well with hung parliaments? Are they as diverse as here? I have no idea. What about numbers of main parties?
DaveEllis Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Countries rattled off on Twitter which exist with
> a coalition government are as follows - Scotland,
> Wales, Ireland, Poland, Canada, Australia,
> Germany, Brazil, Portugal, New Zeland,
> Netherelands, Finland and some argue Belgium, but
> that is a unique situation apparently. I don't
> know much about these countries governments, but
> given how many of them there are and how they
> haven't yet collapsed into ruin, I'm going to
> think this coalition idea isn't as bad as The Sun
> makes it out to be. The rest of the world must be
> looking at us thinking, "What's all the fuss
> about? Get on with it!".
Well, here atleast, in Holland, the government has collapsed err, 4 times in the last 8 years, 8 years would normally be 2x 4 years, so 2 governments, but since 2002 we have had 4 different ones, mind you, all with the same leader, so it's probably just a case of that leader cocking up time after time, and somehow, getting re-elected every time. Luckily that seems to change next month, at the new elections.. Belgium is a political mess, but that's because you have the Flemish (Dutch speaking) and the Walloon (French speaking) people, so you can guess that causes trouble. All other country's seem to go good though, as far as I know.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Countries rattled off on Twitter which exist with
> a coalition government are as follows - Scotland,
> Wales, Ireland, Poland, Canada, Australia,
> Germany, Brazil, Portugal, New Zeland,
> Netherelands, Finland and some argue Belgium, but
> that is a unique situation apparently. I don't
> know much about these countries governments, but
> given how many of them there are and how they
> haven't yet collapsed into ruin, I'm going to
> think this coalition idea isn't as bad as The Sun
> makes it out to be. The rest of the world must be
> looking at us thinking, "What's all the fuss
> about? Get on with it!".
Well, here atleast, in Holland, the government has collapsed err, 4 times in the last 8 years, 8 years would normally be 2x 4 years, so 2 governments, but since 2002 we have had 4 different ones, mind you, all with the same leader, so it's probably just a case of that leader cocking up time after time, and somehow, getting re-elected every time. Luckily that seems to change next month, at the new elections.. Belgium is a political mess, but that's because you have the Flemish (Dutch speaking) and the Walloon (French speaking) people, so you can guess that causes trouble. All other country's seem to go good though, as far as I know.
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. A lot more people want Tory over Labour. But
> if you count up the amount that DIDN'T want Tory,
> it comes to a far higher number than the ones who
> did. So you cannot use the phrase "a lot more
> people did want Cameron". The numbers do not lie.
> First Past The Post
>
> Tory: 307
> Labour: 258
> Lib: 57
> Other: 28
>
> Alternative Vote
>
> Tory: 281
> Labour: 262
> Lib Dem: 79
> Other: 28
>
> Single Transferable Vote
>
> Tory: 246
> Labour: 207
> Lib Dem: 162
> Others: 35
You can't use the angle that more people didn't vote for the winner, because I would be willing to bet over the years, if you added all the votes from anyone BUT the winner, you'll always get more... Lol. That is logical and somewhat silly to even suggest. No offence.
But you still have to see that regardless of any system bar the bizarre one we have now, the Torys will still come out on top hands down this time.
As you say, number do not lie. Of all votes counted, they were the specific party that were chosen the most over the others.
One way or another, this time next week we will have a Conservative government.
This has been an amusing thread, I think I have been the sole supporter of the Conservatives in both this forum and pretty much the entire list of my facebook friends bar about 4 people - 3 of which are close family!
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. A lot more people want Tory over Labour. But
> if you count up the amount that DIDN'T want Tory,
> it comes to a far higher number than the ones who
> did. So you cannot use the phrase "a lot more
> people did want Cameron". The numbers do not lie.
> First Past The Post
>
> Tory: 307
> Labour: 258
> Lib: 57
> Other: 28
>
> Alternative Vote
>
> Tory: 281
> Labour: 262
> Lib Dem: 79
> Other: 28
>
> Single Transferable Vote
>
> Tory: 246
> Labour: 207
> Lib Dem: 162
> Others: 35
You can't use the angle that more people didn't vote for the winner, because I would be willing to bet over the years, if you added all the votes from anyone BUT the winner, you'll always get more... Lol. That is logical and somewhat silly to even suggest. No offence.
But you still have to see that regardless of any system bar the bizarre one we have now, the Torys will still come out on top hands down this time.
As you say, number do not lie. Of all votes counted, they were the specific party that were chosen the most over the others.
One way or another, this time next week we will have a Conservative government.
This has been an amusing thread, I think I have been the sole supporter of the Conservatives in both this forum and pretty much the entire list of my facebook friends bar about 4 people - 3 of which are close family!
Danm, I would have voted for the same party regardless of who their leader was. The fact is that I wasn't voting on personalities - I was voting on policies. The Labour policies would have been exactly the same had somebody else been leader.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
David Cameron is UK's new prime minister
Mr Cameron accepted the Queen's invitation to be prime minister
Conservative leader David Cameron is the new UK prime minister after the resignation of Gordon Brown.
Mr Cameron, 43, is in Downing Street after travelling to Buckingham Palace to formally accept the Queen's request to form the next government.
He said he aimed to form a "proper and full coalition" with the Lib Dems to provide "strong, stable government".
His party won the most seats in the UK general election last week, but not an overall majority.
In a speech at Downing Street, Mr Cameron said he and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest".
He paid tribute to outgoing PM Gordon Brown for his long years of public service and said he would tackle Britain's "pressing problems" - the deficit, social problems and reforming the political system.
Mr Cameron stressed there would be "difficult decisions" but said he wanted to take people through them to reach "better times ahead".
The Conservatives have been in days of negotiations with the Lib Dems - who were also negotiating with Labour - after the UK election resulted in a hung parliament.
But the Lib Dems said talks with Labour failed because "the Labour Party never took seriously the prospects of forming a progressive, reforming government".
Formal agreement
A spokesman said key members of the Labour team "gave every impression of wanting the process to fail" and the party had made "no attempt at all" to agree a common approach on issues like schools funding and tax reform.
"Certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform," he said.
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
Mr Cameron accepted the Queen's invitation to be prime minister
Conservative leader David Cameron is the new UK prime minister after the resignation of Gordon Brown.
Mr Cameron, 43, is in Downing Street after travelling to Buckingham Palace to formally accept the Queen's request to form the next government.
He said he aimed to form a "proper and full coalition" with the Lib Dems to provide "strong, stable government".
His party won the most seats in the UK general election last week, but not an overall majority.
In a speech at Downing Street, Mr Cameron said he and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest".
He paid tribute to outgoing PM Gordon Brown for his long years of public service and said he would tackle Britain's "pressing problems" - the deficit, social problems and reforming the political system.
Mr Cameron stressed there would be "difficult decisions" but said he wanted to take people through them to reach "better times ahead".
The Conservatives have been in days of negotiations with the Lib Dems - who were also negotiating with Labour - after the UK election resulted in a hung parliament.
But the Lib Dems said talks with Labour failed because "the Labour Party never took seriously the prospects of forming a progressive, reforming government".
Formal agreement
A spokesman said key members of the Labour team "gave every impression of wanting the process to fail" and the party had made "no attempt at all" to agree a common approach on issues like schools funding and tax reform.
"Certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform," he said.
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
a mixture of blue and yellow, does this mean it's the green party running the government then? 
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2010 10:10PM by Muks_C.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2010 10:10PM by Muks_C.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.