[Closed] Democracy ?

Because you don't vote for deputy pm's, ministers etc (or even the prime minister, in reality). They're appointed at the discretion of the pm.
All you vote for is your local mp.

Cameron and Clegg in unelected leader shock!

(yep, like you say same as every other PM and deputy PM)

It's called proportional representation isn't it?

how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem

64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM. What's your point?

lib dem MP's make up 39% of the coalition

we the people voted for the MP's who made the laws which allow this

DemoCrazy isn't it?

roblerner - Member
how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem
64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM. What's your point?

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

lol @ statistics being quoted

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings.

[i]By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings. [/i]

I'm interested, where are all these non-voters commenting on things?

The reasons why have been explained in various media over the last week or so...

Personally, I am bitterly opposed to the ridiculous political system in this country. It is steeped in out dated principles and symbolism and gravitates against progress. In particular I utterly reject and despise the class system as personified by the aristocracy and Royal Family........

However, I am prepared to hold fire on the revolution and give the current situation a chance. It is just possible that we might be seeing the beginning of something new, although I would be much more likely to believe it were the vested interests that are so obvious on the PM’s side of the fence not so entrenched in that aristocratic background of his.

Jury out, sitting on fence commenced

Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

It's not the govt that I wanted but it's the only time that I've ever known a govt where the majority of the public have at least a representation of the party that they voted for.

I hope that this is how it will be from now on.

The Constitutional Unambiguosness National Taskforce is hopelessly over-stretched. My men have been working around the clock for weeks trying to de-mystify something that really isn't very complicated at all. They desperately need more and better leaflets, and possibly some more helicopters.

I think that the Directorate Institute of Constitutional unKonfusioningness might need to get together with the Constitutional Unambiguosness National Taskforce to give birth to better public understanding.

64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM.

Or by CaptJon's preferred method of counting, 78% of the electorate didn't vote Labour.

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

Should be 70 odd % of those that voted in this election.

I'm guessing everybody missed the fact that in 2005 65% didn't vote Labour, yet Blair ended up as PM without having anybody holding his hand.

Or by CaptJon's preferred method of counting, 78% of the electorate didn't vote Labour.

Correct, shows you how p*ss poor the system is.

Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

Well, PR. Obviously. 🙄

Under the current system, the following could happen:

Party A win 326 seats, by just one vote in each constituency, with a very small turnout.
Party B win 324 seats by a landslide, with 100% turnout in every constituency.
Party A form a government, with a much smaller share of the vote than Party B.

(Equally, the Queen might decide Party B can form a government.)

PR- the system which will result in none of the voters ever getting what they voted for?

I've been having a good laugh at the LibDem voters coming on the radio complaining that they didn't vote for a Tory government. What exactly did they think they were voting for? Did they not listen to what their leader said during the election campaign? Do they not understand what their party's principle policy will lead to?

(Equally, the Queen might decide Party B can form a government.)

Surely people actually understand this stuff by now?

geetee1972 - Member
Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

A modern democracy, preferably with an elected Head of State, no hereditary peers and a limitation on how long any one person can be an MP.

Pretty much seeking to bring the best brains in the country into the government.

Oh yeah and PR obviously.

"The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings."

With a 10,000 con majority for umpteen years you can kinda see why some people might not bother.

Actually, no she can't. She doesn't have that sort of decision making power. Party A would win a Queen's speech vote, Party B would lose one, hence Party A's leader is the only plausible choice.

Surely people actually understand this stuff by now

i'm 99% bored of it all 😉

t'is all very daft tho

equally 56.8% of people didn't vote for Labour in 1997 but they got a landslide 418 seats (out of 659), but this time around 59.1% of voters did vote for one of the parties in government who amassed a total of only 363 seats (out of 649, with 1 seat vacant), which is not excessively past the winning post.
OK I know that 59% didn't vote for a ConLib coalition, but it's interesting and rare that a majority of voters have their choice in power (sort of).

Berm Bandit - Member
Personally, I am bitter

Fixed that for you.

As to the system - it's not that complicated. Not enough people voted tory, so they have to get other people on their side. Simples. 59% voted for lib dem or tory, so that's what we got.

Fail to see the problem here. Re-hashing the stats and reprhasing sentences doesn't make any difference. In any case, you all knew the rules so either STFU or all vote lib dem next time to back PR.

Its also why a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper would be a very meaningful addition. Personally I live in a tory very safe seat, and generally spoil my ballot paper, because I want to register an interest in the process, but cannot bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Frequently my preferred option do not even waste money on putting up a candidate.

I've been having a good laugh at the LibDem voters coming on the radio complaining that they didn't vote for a Tory government.

It's great, equal to having a laugh at how compromised the Tories are having to rely on the Libdems for a majority.

I actually find the regional variation of voting patterns really quite disturbing.

Torys virtually all representation in the shire counties in england. One MP from Scotland and under 20% of the vote.

labour - almost all urban areas especially in the north of england

Lib dems - peripheral rural areas

This is a country divided.

[img] [/img]

molgrips - Member

Berm Bandit - Member
Personally, I am bitter

More sad that folk such as yourself cannot see through the con that has been perpetuated in this country for generation upon generation rather than bitter. Curiously I really hope that Clegg and Cameron deliver, but I am sorry to say that is hope rather than expectation.

What would be particularly interesting is if you could overlay a map of the UK similarly coded for tax revenues, i.e. net tax contributions per head of population, using the constituency boundries as a guide.
You could probably also do the same thing for employees in the public sector and get a similar picture.

Well clearly not you.

More sad that folk such as yourself cannot see

Take off your forum prejudice glasses for a minute mate.. I was making a joke there.

I am absolutely in favour of PR or even RON, I do not believe the current system is anything like as representative as it should be. I agree with you mostly except.. well... the strident even vitriolic tone of many of your and others posts is wearing thin.. sorry..

Can we not have relaxed sensible debate instead of all this hot air? Not meaning to be insulting or offensive.. just a constructive suggestion?

OK, so explain to me what's wrong with my analysis, Junkyard.

Isn't this precisely why we need a clear written constitution??

Incidentally anyone know any good reason not to have one?

So TJ, along with an independent Scotland, you'd also suggest a Rural Parliament and an Urban Assembly?

Is the distribution of seats really a big shock? Why are voters in Scotland any more disenfranchised than Labour voters in rural England? Or indeed BNP voters?

Isn't this precisely why we need a clear written constitution??

aracer - Member

So TJ, along with an independent Scotland, you'd also suggest a Rural Parliament and an Urban Assembly?

Is the distribution of seats really a big shock? Why are voters in Scotland any more disenfranchised than Labour voters in rural England? Or indeed BNP voters?

I really have no answer to this - but I think that map shows clearly a divided country and my impression is this is more polarised than it was a generation ago.

it cannot be good for the UK to have this massive divide

geetee1972 - Member
The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings.

That is a ludicrous argument and i still can't believe there was an advert which tried to disseminate that point of view.

For many people not voting is part of the political process and an expression of their opinion. Moreover, none voters still pay tax and still receive public services in return. Just because they didn't vote doesn't mean they can't comment on thing they paid for and use.

The problem lies with those idle people who didn't vote, those who voted, for whatever party, had a fair idea that a hung parliament would result, so in effect the voting population got the govt we deserved.

how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem,
more than 90% of mp's ar'nt lib dem,and yet good ole Nicky boy can end up deputy head.
im neither here nor there about the situation,its probably a good thing,
i just find it ironic that a Democrat holds a very promonent position,when nobody really wants him.

The other 60 million of us got together and decided to fix it this way just to annoy you.

When you say "nobody really wants him"... well I do. Personally I think the current solution is the best we could have hoped for given the outcome.

I have to say that I also find the "I didn't vote Lib Dem to get Tory" bleating a bit pathetic.

Look at it the other way. If you hadn't voted Lib Dem, you'd probably still have got Tory, but Tory in with the right wing of their party wielding a lot more power.

Grown ups get by by making compromises.

Doesn't matter who you voted for, Murdoch and his mates are the real government....

Which would simply write down the way it currently works.

Given that it is so obvious and clear, could you please explain to me in detail how the system works then or even how I am supposed to find out? And how are the electorate supposed to know in advance of an election, when even the commentators and politicians aren't clear on it?

Any chance that might impact on how people chose to vote?

You think a constitution would explain all that? See if you can find the bit about hanging chads in the US constitution.

right place.
im not annoyed mate,i just find it intriguing that the lib dems got to affect the government,when, by their own admission had a disappointing initial election result.
im hoping to be pleasently suprised with what they can come up with,
if its 'responsibility and radicalism' then im all for that,but then not too happy if the middle earners are gonna get smacked for more tax.
it looks like NI contributions are going to rise,even though David said they would'nt increase them.
im happy we now have two intelligent individuals, in Clegg and Cable, in the mix, they appear honest and will answer questions,,it will be interesting to see if that last's.

i just find it intriguing that the lib dems got to affect the government,when, by their own admission had a disappointing initial election result.

The alternative was, effectively, no government...

bluemooner, I wasn't criticising you really - just banter, but there definitely is a large group of people that are whinging about voting Lib Dem because they didn't want Tory.

But what where they expecting? Not a Lib Dem Govt eh?

What they actually wanted was a Labour Govt, in which case even more people would have voted for something else.

Clegg isn't there because you voted for him, he's there because Cameron wanted him in [b]his[/b] Govt

Are you goijng to complain as soon as Cameron promotes someone to the Lords so he can have them in Govt? Like Adonis, or Mandleson were. It's exactly the equivalent scenario and it's Cameron's choice to have them in.

BUT clearly the LIb Dems think they can do more good in someone else's Govt than outside in opposition.

aracer - Member
You think a constitution would explain all that? See if you can find the bit about hanging chads in the US constitution.

Is that the same as I can't?

Well which bit do you want explaining exactly? I can't think of anything major to do with the whole electoral process where the procedure (which is undoubtedly written down in some civil service manual or other) isn't well known. There has been a lot of explanation about this in the press recently you know, and whilst it might seem all complicated and arcane, each individual part is actually very straightforward.

Well how about what happens in the event of an election such as the one just gone and where the incumbent government decides to stay put with a minority, but the opposition has in fact got more seats than them.

What are the options open to the PM ?

right place.
i hear what you're saying, but am i right in saying Clegg could have gone in with labour to form a lib lab government.
if thats the case then Cameron obviously would'nt have been PM,and could'nt have included Clegg in his government.
btw,dont confuse me with someone that knows politics, i gave up trying to understand it when i realised how difficult it was to get a straight answer from them.

Well how about what happens in the event of an election such as the one just gone and where the incumbent government decides to stay put with a minority, but the opposition has in fact got more seats than them.

What are the options open to the PM ?

In practice no PM would risk losing a Queen's speech vote - would resign first and ask somebody else to have a go.

But what if he didn't, and what if there wasn't a cohesive vote of no confidence, how about if Say Sinn Fein or the BNP held the balance of power and chose to be mischevious with it? Most importantly how does the ordinary Joe in the street figure it out?

So given the fact that you beleive that its all written down in a manual somewhere I ask again what good reason is there for not having it out in the open? After all its our system of Government, so why shouldn't we know?

Could it possibly because it suits the system not to have it written down and open to scrutiny, as its so full of anomalies and throw backs to a past which is not longer relevant?

But what if he didn't, and what if there wasn't a cohesive vote of no confidence, how about if Say Sinn Fein or the BNP held the balance of power and chose to be mischevious with it?

I'm really not sure what you think is so complicated, hidden away, full of anomalies or irrelevant about our system. A lot of this stuff is actually out in the public domain anyway, it's just not really very interesting.

Let me summarise for you:
You vote for an MP in a constituency - the person who wins the most votes in a constituency becomes the MP.
Each MP has one vote in parliament - everything going through parliament is passed or rejected on a simple majority vote (except where legislated otherwise - eg the forthcoming 55% no confidence proposal).
This includes votes of confidence in a government - the incumbent government stays where it is and does its work until such time as either it loses a confidence vote, or generally before that the PM resigns and hands over to a new one.
When a PM goes to the queen to resign he recommends a new one who will be able to win a confidence vote amongst MPs. If there is no person who can, time for a new election.

Or do you want the minutiae of how all the individual government departments work? Exactly what part of the system is it you have a problem with, and how do you think a constitution would help. Just because it's all old fashioned and steeped in tradition doesn't make it wrong.

Clegg isn't there because you voted for him, he's there because Cameron wanted him in his Govt

No, he's there because Cameron [i]needed[/i] him in order to form a government. Cameron [i]wanted[/i] a Tory majority.

LibDems complaining they have installed a Conservative government = daft.

Have they read the coalition "manifesto", esp. the chapters on constitutional change and rights?

It's a liberal government propped up by the Conservatives.

I am absolutely delighted.

eg the forthcoming 55% no confidence proposal

It's not. It's a 55% for dissolution proposal.

A vote of confidence would still be 50% +1 BUT at that point, others (Current PM with different partners) would have the opportunity to put together a new Govt without an election.

The idea behind this (I think) is to stop small parties being able to join a Govt, then torpedo it themselves without the Govt being able to try to put together a different coalition.

No, he's there because Cameron needed him in order to form a government.

I disagree. He could have formed a minority Govt. There was some talk of this over the last few days. Did you see any of the coverage?

bluemooner,

i hear what you're saying, but am i right in saying Clegg could have gone in with labour to form a lib lab government.
if thats the case then Cameron obviously would'nt have been PM,and could'nt have included Clegg in his government.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Clegg / Brown diaries to have the definitive answer on this, but it seems that Labour realised that even with the Lib Dems on board they wouldn't have had sufficient numbers to hold the Govt together in the rough times ahead - so talks never got past the exploratory phase.

As the Tories have a few more MPs than Labour then together with the Lib Dems they actually have a buffer in numbers that will let them pass legislation even if some of their own MPs were to rebel. This is also why some of us quite like the outcome, because the voice of the more looney right wing Tories won't count for so much as their votes are neutralized by the nice left(ish) Lib Dems

This is also why some of us quite like the outcome, because the voice of the more looney right wing Tories won't count for so much as their votes are neutralized by the nice left(ish) Lib Dems

If it all works, it could be far better than either party in power on its own - let's see.

"No, he's there because Cameron needed him in order to form a government."
I disagree. He could have formed a minority Govt

(except where legislated otherwise - eg the forthcoming 55% no confidence proposal).

Proof of my point I think you'll find.

Charles Walker, Conservative MP for Broxbourne, said: "This is perhaps just a little too much for our unwritten constitution to bear."

He added: "We have a quasi-presidential system here, without the checks and balances. This would be the loss of an enormous check."

Great quote from the BBC Website this morning.

There's a problem with the 55% for dissolution policy. But it's needed to prevent the risk of a lib/lab ambush against a minority of Cons. I don't think they'll get it through though. It might even get dropped before the Queen's speech.

Proof of my point I think you'll find.

It can be whatever I want it to be becuase its unwritten and therefore cannot be contradicted, so at the moment my point is that I'm right and you are wrong. 8)

Buzzlightyear - Member
There's a problem with the 55% for dissolution policy. But it's needed to prevent the risk of a lib/lab ambush against a minority of Cons. I don't think they'll get it through though. It might even get dropped before the Queen's speech.

Given that they've got a majority and have already agreed it whatever makes you think that?

The liklihood is far greater that their pals in the Lords might derail it. Incidentally, whilst we all know why they are doing it, (i.e. so they can't get kicked out), how on earth can it be right, fair or constituional?...... Sorry strike constitutional, we haven't got one have we ?? 😉

Berm Bandit, I think it works like this:

Say you have parties A, B, C and D

They have 48% 5% 5% and 42% of the seats each.

Party A forms a coalition with party B - they have 53% of the seats.

Party B gets the hump with party A and there is a confidence vote.

Currently Parties B, C and D could vote against party A, the Govt would fall and we would have a general election.

BUT with the dissolution vote as proposed, what might happen is that after the confidence vote, party A could approach party C to form a different coalition (with a different set of compromises to the ones obtained by party B) again with 53% of the seats - another workable majority, and we wouldn't have a general election.

BUT if party C didn't want to support the Govt then it would still be game over and there would have to be an election because even though party A could win the dissolution vote they couldn't pass any further legislation as they wouldn't be able to win any other vote.

It seems pretty simple and reasonable when to me, and is only being proposed to stop minority parties in coalitions from bringing down the Govt unilaterally. In our current Govt, it's not more power to the Tories, it's less power to the Lib Dems.

OK?

No it isn't! OK?

That is my whole point regarding a written constitution. It is not for the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Brown or anyone else to unilaterally decide to change the game plan for their own convenience. It is all to easy to do when nothing is committed to the public record, as this debacle amply demonstrates. I would have thought that was pretty obvious frankly.

Can I just point out that the effect of this is that 16 tories would have to rebel against their own leader to bring about a dissolution of Parliament..... for any reason whatsoever!! If that were a necessity the figure would have been pitched at 55% well before Cameron held sway over 47% of the votes! Doesn't that rather defeat the object of an election which didn't give him a majority?

Berm Bandit

It just doesn't work like that.

If you think it does work like that, why do you think the last majority Lab Govt, or the Tory one before that etc etc. didn't just pass a motion that they could be in power forever with no further elections?

This isn't renaissance Italy.

The "debacle" exists only in your mind because you don't understand the proposal.

As I've pointed out - its a technical fix to stop a minor partner in a coalition bringing down the Govt.

If a Govt couldn't command a majority of the house it would still be out of business lickety-split.

If a Govt couldn't command a majority of the house it would still be out of business lickety-split.

So why bother with the 55% thing then?

Its either meaningless or it isn't. It can't be both.

You may note that a number of Tories and constituional experts are also up in armas about it, so I suspect that my interpretation may very well be correct.

We are in the middle of constitutional change necessary to modernise UK politics. Glad it's not written down!

Re: Queen's Speech - if it's voted down, the whole game is off. Currently various back-benchers of all parties are squeaking about this. Which threatens the coalition government from the off because the majority is not luxurious and enough "rebels" want this coalition to fail. So Dave/Nick might not risk it. But I suspect that bold Dave will push it.

Its either meaningless or it isn't. It can't be both.

It's not meaningless. In fact I went to some pains to explain what the meaning is.

See my example above with parties A, B, C etc.

You seem to be going to some considerable trouble to avoid understanding the meaning.

I'm not surprised to hear that there are some fairly stupid Tories who don't understand it either. Haven't come across any "constitutional experts" who don't - maybe you could tell me which ones.

Perhaps the Tories you talk about are also in the business of giving their reactions prior to finding out what it is they are reacting to.

I think the Lib Dems have commited political suicide. yes they've got their hands on some power, but come the next election why vote Libdem you might well as vote Tory.
Any ideas of reform have gone to tied up for that now and Mr Cleg would lose his best friend!!

come the next election why vote Libdem you might well as vote Tory.