Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[PMKeates]

Apart from currently a party has to get 50% of the seats where as I was suggesting that the part with the most seats, wins, ie conservatives would have won the election we have just had

The problem with that, and the reason we generally require a majority, is that if you don't get more than 50% of the seats the "rest" of the legislature can block your proposals and render your government ineffective.

Therefore, to prevent that, you need to form coalitions!

 

[Berserker]

terms are fixed to prevent the risk of the government calling an election when it suits them.

Consider the 1974 scenario - where the Government fell within months of the last hung parliament. Could an election be called in that case, and if so, what is to stop sabotage?

I don't know the answer to this - my enquiry is to find out.

 

[chriscpritchard]

Apart from currently a party has to get 50% of the seats where as I was suggesting that the part with the most seats, wins, ie conservatives would have won the election we have just had

A party doesn't need 50% of the seats, it just needs to command the respect of the commons. I would be pretty annoyed if a party that got a minority of seats got in, it would be totally and utterly farcical. People have clearly said they don't want every single tory policy implemented... It would not be fair to have what is, in essence, an elected (but not even by 50% of the seats, let alone votes) dictatorship for 5 years!

 

[PMKeates]

People have clearly said they don't want every single tory policy implemented... It would not be fair to have what is, in essence, an elected (but not even by 50% of the seats, let alone votes) dictatorship for 5 years!

The trouble is that UK politics is very adversarial and aggressive, and so there's a lot of opposition for oppositions sake and not necessarily because they believe it genuinely reflects the wishes of those who voted for them.

The electorate are generally not as politically or ideologically divided as the parties.

 

[chriscpritchard]

The trouble is that UK politics is very adversarial and aggressive, and so there's a lot of opposition for oppositions sake and not necessarily because they believe it genuinely reflects the wishes of those who voted for them.

The electorate are generally not as politically or ideologically divided as the parties.

And that's something I hope will change with the current outcome, and the hopeful introduction of PR!

Edit: I'd just like to add, I'm a member of the Lib Dems, and though I'd prefer a LabLib coalition, with the current result I would not be able to support it out of principle!

 

[LOAM]

What worries me about a lab/lib/others coalition is that the snp and Plaid Cymru have basically said they want A. Money for their support (Plaid Cymru said 300 million extra for wales a year) and B. Non of the proposed cuts can take place in Wales or Scotland. We simply can't afford to do that, is Labour prepared to ruin England so brown doesn't loose his coveted power?

 

[PMKeates]

And that's something I hope will change with the current outcome, and the hopeful introduction of PR!

I'm not sure if I'd prefer it? Our politics is certainly more.. interesting than the norm, if a little tiresome at times, and arguably we get the same amount of work done as anywhere else.

 

[Dolph]

Consider the 1974 scenario - where the Government fell within months of the last hung parliament. Could an election be called in that case, and if so, what is to stop sabotage?

I don't know the answer to this - my enquiry is to find out.

Fixing the terms is something that has been done in other parliaments where the electoral system tends towards a coalition (including the scottish parliament) which forces people to work together.

Being known as the difficult group does not help your electoral chances in the slightest.

The only time I would suggest an election must be called in such a situation is within 6 months of a change of leader of the largest party (and as such a change in PM)

 

[chriscpritchard]

I'm not sure if I'd prefer it? Our politics is certainly more.. interesting than the norm, if a little tiresome at times, and arguably we get the same amount of work done as anywhere else.

More interesting, but I prefer a consensus style of politics, it's more representative!

 

[z3r0]

What worries me about a lab/lib/others coalition is that the snp and Plaid Cymru have basically said they want A. Money for their support (Plaid Cymru said 300 million extra for wales a year) and B. Non of the proposed cuts can take place in Wales or Scotland. We simply can't afford to do that, is Labour prepared to ruin England so brown doesn't loose his coveted power?

Exactly. A coalition that included the nationalists would be a disaster for England.

 

[Westyfield2]

Was speaking with a high level banker today... "if this isn't sorted out by the beginning of the week the effect on the economy will make the banks bailout look tiny"...

 

[PeterNem]

A party doesn't need 50% of the seats, it just needs to command the respect of the commons. I would be pretty annoyed if a party that got a minority of seats got in, it would be totally and utterly farcical. People have clearly said they don't want every single tory policy implemented... It would not be fair to have what is, in essence, an elected (but not even by 50% of the seats, let alone votes) dictatorship for 5 years!

But it was fair in 2005 when 63.9% of the population voted against labour? I keep reading now from Labour supporters that it wouldn't be fair for the Tories to govern when so many people voted against them. Are they blind to how our system works and how the percent of the vote has been split in previous elections?

 

[chriscpritchard]

But it was fair in 2005 when 63.9% of the population voted against labour? I keep reading now from Labour supporters that it wouldn't be fair for the Tories to govern when so many people voted against them. Are they blind to how our system works and how the percent of the vote has been split in previous elections?

I don't think it was fair...

 

[z3r0]

But it was fair in 2005 when 63.9% of the population voted against labour? I keep reading now from Labour supporters that it wouldn't be fair for the Tories to govern when so many people voted against them. Are they blind to how our system works and how the percent of the vote has been split in previous elections?

Yeah, it makes me laugh when I hear from Labour MP's that theres an 'anti-tory majority in this country'.

Opportunist ********.

 

[atpbx]

What worries me about a lab/lib/others coalition is that the snp and Plaid Cymru have basically said they want A. Money for their support (Plaid Cymru said 300 million extra for wales a year) and B. Non of the proposed cuts can take place in Wales or Scotland. We simply can't afford to do that, is Labour prepared to ruin England so brown doesn't loose his coveted power?

The answer to that is yes, Labour and brown will do anything, ANYTHING to stay in power.
They have no shame, no respect for the population and no respect for our basic rights, which explains a great deal about most of their legislation for the past 13 years.

If it meant a Zimbabwe style land grab of all english land and property, Brown would do it to get the scots to keep him in No10.

 

[meghatronic]

Interesting:

David Blackburn at The Spectator Coffeehouse writes: Paddy Ashdown conceded that events in Greece "have concentrated the mind". This can only mean that Clegg and Cable are coming round to Osborne's thinking on the need to reduce the deficit to calm the markets. On Friday, I would've said that a Lib-Con pact was unthinkable; it's a little more likely [today].

(surprise surprise Tory's were right...)

Was speaking with a high level banker today... "if this isn't sorted out by the beginning of the week the effect on the economy will make the banks bailout look tiny"...

I've got a few friends in IB/Stocks/Corporate banking - they're all wanting to pull sickies this week.

 

[PeterNem]

Brown would do it to get the scots to keep him in No10.

Isn't that what happens already? If you only look at the English seats, the tories would have a majority.

 

[meghatronic]

Isn't that what happens already? If you only look at the English seats, the tories would have a majority.

What worries me about a lab/lib/others coalition is that the snp and Plaid Cymru have basically said they want A. Money for their support (Plaid Cymru said 300 million extra for wales a year) and B. Non of the proposed cuts can take place in Wales or Scotland. We simply can't afford to do that, is Labour prepared to ruin England so brown doesn't loose his coveted power?

You can take the man out of Scotland, but you cannae take Scotland out the man.

 

[LOAM]

The answer to that is yes, Labour and brown will do anything, ANYTHING to stay in power.
They have no shame, no respect for the population and no respect for our basic rights, which explains a great deal about most of their legislation for the past 13 years.

If it meant a Zimbabwe style land grab of all english land and property, Brown would do it to get the scots to keep him in No10.

Brown would I agree, Labour as a party though I don't think so, there already seems to be noises coming from some back benchers about the situation. There comes a point where the need of the country out weight the needs of the party.

With regards a con/lib coalition, there comes a time where for now differences have to be put aside and the issue of national debt has to be addressed.

 

[z3r0]

God help us if we get PR.