Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
NahhhhhhhhNot only that...the election has been, and because of hung parliament he is still PM now
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
I don't know what she's talking about in regard to the 65% part (since everyone obviously voted for the MP they wanted, not a hung parliament) but I agree with her when she asks them what they are all doing there and why they aren't at home like the 30 million other people who voted waiting just a few days for the MPs they voted for to do their jobs. But they won't even give them 3 days. No agreement as been reached so their presence is unnecessary at this time.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Thing is, if the public were desperate for PR as our election process, 100% of those who voted would have voted for Lib Dem.
The public didn't vote, individually, for a hung parliament, but 65% of the population went out and achieved just that.
I still don't think that will "fix" the problems in any way at all.
I really want, first and foremost, to be able to elect the Prime minister, to the point that I'd prefer to choose the leader I thought best over local party considerations.
The worst political decision I think has occurred in my 27 years alive, is for Brown to become the PM through a sneaky back door deal.
Officially we don't vote for the PM, but in essence that is in fact what the majority has done for decades and decades. The spirit in which we vote, is to vote for a leader and party we prefer to and only once have we been "cheated" to the letter of the law, to get another PM we've not elected in. I think that loophole needs closing, I don't think a party leader should be completely safe while serving his term as PM and the party can remove their leader if they want to. However, I think a MANDATORY election within a couple of months should be introduced if party leadership was to change and powers be somewhat limited before someone has been elected to the job.
For me, thats far more important to me than proportional representation or any other electoral reform.
The public didn't vote, individually, for a hung parliament, but 65% of the population went out and achieved just that.
I still don't think that will "fix" the problems in any way at all.
I really want, first and foremost, to be able to elect the Prime minister, to the point that I'd prefer to choose the leader I thought best over local party considerations.
The worst political decision I think has occurred in my 27 years alive, is for Brown to become the PM through a sneaky back door deal.
Officially we don't vote for the PM, but in essence that is in fact what the majority has done for decades and decades. The spirit in which we vote, is to vote for a leader and party we prefer to and only once have we been "cheated" to the letter of the law, to get another PM we've not elected in. I think that loophole needs closing, I don't think a party leader should be completely safe while serving his term as PM and the party can remove their leader if they want to. However, I think a MANDATORY election within a couple of months should be introduced if party leadership was to change and powers be somewhat limited before someone has been elected to the job.
For me, thats far more important to me than proportional representation or any other electoral reform.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Too bad UKIP 'stole' ten Tory seats....
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Sorry for cross posting, but relevant given Cleggphillia and Brown mistrust:
I love this bit:
I love this bit:
I really don't understand the doom-mongering about PR, you'd think it was some dastardly novel voting system that will boggle minds, rather than the system which is already in use in dozens of countries and even in the UK already in certain elections - and if people are worried that FPTP sounds antiquated and problematic when described vs PR - perhaps that's because it is?
I think it's great personally that people got out and added their voices to the calls for PR, I have high hopes that Clegg will stick to his principles on this one aspect, if nothing else
I think it's great personally that people got out and added their voices to the calls for PR, I have high hopes that Clegg will stick to his principles on this one aspect, if nothing else
Exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech, reminding the nation's politicians who they're working for, and letting them know what they expect from a coalition. I can't see anything wrong with that.
Kay Burley can **** off and suck Murdoch's toes, or whatever else it is that he pays her to do when her mouth is not otherwise engaged.
I really don't understand the doom-mongering about PR, you'd think it was some dastardly novel voting system that will boggle minds, rather than the system which is already in use in dozens of countries and even in the UK already in certain elections - and if people are worried that FPTP sounds antiquated and problematic when described vs PR - perhaps that's because it is?
I think it's great personally that people got out and added their voices to the calls for PR, I have high hopes that Clegg will stick to his principles on this one aspect, if nothing else
+1
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
How unfortunate that you weren't available to explain this to Cameron
Had you been, he could have got on the blower to the Queen and told her to order in the SAS and the bailiffs to kick Brown out of No. 10 so as to allow him to start restocking the cellar.
As it is, the absence of such wise advisers as yourself at the heart of the Tory party demonstrates clearly that they are simply unprepared for Government
Is there a site which can tell me about all the major voting methods?
With all the PR's, AV's and AV+'s flying around, I need to actually know what they all are
Single winner systems
AV
FPTP
Multiple winner systems
PR
MMP/AMS
STV
AV+
Electoral reform society system guide
I'm not writing it all out by hand
I really don't understand the doom-mongering about PR, you'd think it was some dastardly novel voting system that will boggle minds, rather than the system which is already in use in dozens of countries and even in the UK already in certain elections - and if people are worried that FPTP sounds antiquated and problematic when described vs PR - perhaps that's because it is?
I think it's great personally that people got out and added their voices to the calls for PR, I have high hopes that Clegg will stick to his principles on this one aspect, if nothing else
The biggest problem with PR is that, without sufficient protection, we could have this situation every time, and could end up with a PM we couldn't get rid of (look at how Brown is behaving now, imagine how much worse it would be under PR) even if their vote collapses.
There are ways to ensure PR leads to what the people want in the UK, but it might mean we do things slightly differently to others.
I remain convinced that if we end up with a rainbow coalition, it will kill any chance of electoral reform far quicker than the Lib Dems siding with the tories assuming that the referendum is honoured...
Right... She's a newsreader, bound by Ofcom impartiality rules. She was interviewing him, not the other way around, she should not have conducted herself in the manner in which she did. It's sickening to see this putrid style of news channel making it's way to the UK, I hoped that we would forever be free of a British Fox News. Thank you Mr Murdoch.
Agreed,
Its the newsreader's job to report the news and what's going on not offer an opinion.
Its a simple concept and that silly cow just made herself look stupid.
Also her questions sounded like they were written by a 4 yr old
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/08/kay-burley-sky-news-twitter
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
In light of today's revelations on the Tory's previously secret plans on Europe, I suspect that this is the best that can happen.
Before the election, Nick Clegg advocated the establishment of a grouping of the prospective chancellors of New Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats along with experts from the Bank of England and elsewhere urgently to determine and implement an economic recovery and stability plan. This would give an indication of what can happen if people cooperate rather than compete.
Sadly, I suspect that David Cameron has disappointed his party and Cashcroft to such an extent that he would not be able to deliver on this; amongst other things, the Tory Little Islanders will insist on the necessity to concentrate on a war with Europe and a few thousand Tory party donors will demand changes to Inheritance Tax, the Tory party will only accept electoral reform that guarantees them eternal dominance in Parliament, etc., etc., etc., scuppering any hope of cooperation
After the revelation yesterday of Brown abusing Clegg on the phone? (Yes, I know it's subsequently been denied, but let's be realistic here, it's at least as valid a story as the one you refer to.
The Tory stance on Europe shown in that letter is exactly what Cameron said in his speech where he invited the Lib Dems to join him. Namely that no more power will be given up to Europe. I'm not sure why it is such a shock.
Before the election, Nick Clegg advocated the establishment of a grouping of the prospective chancellors of New Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats along with experts from the Bank of England and elsewhere urgently to determine and implement an economic recovery and stability plan. This would give an indication of what can happen if people cooperate rather than compete.
Sadly, I suspect that David Cameron has disappointed his party and Cashcroft to such an extent that he would not be able to deliver on this; amongst other things, the Tory Little Islanders will insist on the necessity to concentrate on a war with Europe and a few thousand Tory party donors will demand changes to Inheritance Tax, the Tory party will only accept electoral reform that guarantees them eternal dominance in Parliament, etc., etc., etc., scuppering any hope of cooperation
You mean like Labour with AV?
interesting times, if Clegg doesn't get PR out of this, he and the lib dems are finnished.
The country voted for a hung parliament. The country should have a vote on PR. I believe most people will become further disilussioned with parliament if this carries on much longer and ends up with some fudge. We could end up like greece if they don't get their act together.
The country voted for a hung parliament. The country should have a vote on PR. I believe most people will become further disilussioned with parliament if this carries on much longer and ends up with some fudge. We could end up like greece if they don't get their act together.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Clegg suggested to Brown that he should step down as PM; Brown didn't agree and got angry at Clegg's temerity - what a shock, quick, pass the smelling salts Doris
You can read the full text of the letter HERE, I'm not sure that Cameron spelled out the contents in such clear terms but then perhaps I missed it. We have known for quite some time that Hague is a devious customer who is not to be trusted over anything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Source? Those who broke the story (at the New Statesman) say that it was Brown who was threatening Clegg, not the other way round.Clegg suggested to Brown that he should step down as PM; Brown didn't agree and got angry at Clegg's temerity - what a shock, quick, pass the smelling salts Doris
And if he goes crawling to the losers to do so, they will also be finished as the country will vote it down.
They also decisively turned against labour, which is something Clegg needs to remember. Labour are less popular now than the Tories were in 1997.
Clegg suggested to Brown that he should step down as PM; Brown didn't agree and got angry at Clegg's temerity - what a shock, quick, pass the smelling salts Doris
Even if that was the case, Clegg is only saying what the country has voted for....
From his speech on Friday.
That pretty much fits in exactly with the suggestion to pass legislation to ensure that it cannot happen. The return of powers was not mentioned in the speech, but was covered in the manifesto.
Do you instead advocate that the Lib dems should join with the most unpopular labour party since 1983, even though they won't have a majority and the public will hate them for it?