[Closed] Nick Clegg ...hes playing them now!

So the politicians choose the government, not the people.

Lets get a few things straight.

1) Democracy implies majority rule. We have never had that in this country
2) The first past the post system skews election results. Thats is the whole point of it.
3) The politicians choose the system, not the people. Shockingly it suits the politicians just fine.
4) The people chose not to elect a party as an outright winner, so yes, in fact they did choose to have this situation.
5) It is now incumbent on the politicians to work with that decision.

I cannot believe the arrogance of wanting to ignore what the people of this country have said very firmly in this election. It is simply that they are not satisfied with any of the major parties and they want change. Not the same old, same old rapped up in slick PR as change.

'straight PR will never happen in the UK - one simple reason, the BNP - no party is willing to countenance being responsible for The Nazis having more seats than the SNP, the greens, Plaid Cymru, DUP or SLDP - Fifth biggest party, over half a million votes!'

That's one of the reasons we need PR, then when the BNP gets some seats it will force the major parties to deal with them by reclaiming voters rather than let them continue to be a continual thorn in everyones side as they are now.

I disagree with this line of argument. There are different types of PR and not all of them lead to a host of noisy minorities in parliament. For example, the Alternative Vote system used in the Scottish Parliament has not resulted in any BNP MSPs. In fact, the only parties represented in the Scottish Parliament are the SNP, Labour, Lib-Dems, Conservatives, Greens and 2 independents. No BNP, UKIP or whoever else.

Obviously that could just be because we're smarter up here... 😉

EDIT: Just checked, it's not actually AV in the Scottish System, it's "Plurality First Past the Post"... apparently...

Just watched that Alistair Campbell clip - he's a slimy **** but he's good!

Labour is doing exactly what it should be doing right now.

In order to extract more centre left promises from the Tories, Nick Clegg needs to make Cameron think he could still gang up with the other parties.

Everybody knows Clegg hates Brown. Dumping Brown signals to the Tories that Lib/Lab might not be bluffing, so Cameron has to put a better deal on the table.

All Clegg needs to do is judge how far he can push Cameron, and shake hands at that point.

It'll all be done & dusted by 4pm today.

I never thought I'd say this but considering the results of the election, it's high time now for a devolved England. It's clear that the political desires of the various countries in the UK are at odds with each other and we should all be allowed to decide our own fate.

On the Clegg topic, I get the feeling this process won't be doing him or his party any good in the eyes of the electorate. To my mind, the LibDems are very much coming across as self-serving, despite the facade about doing the best thing for the country. Paddy Ashdown even stressed this morning that his priority in politics was "his party and his friends". No mention of the country whatsoever.

grum - Member
Just watched that Alistair Campbell clip - he's a slimy **** but he's good!

He's brilliant. Just a shame he's not applying that to anything other more useful than just trying to keep a bunch of selfserving politicians looking good (ish). (NOTE - that's a comment on politicians in general, not specifically NuLab).

I think the a ConLib coalition could work. If the Tories whipped well and got a few votes from the Lib Dems, they could get legislation through parliament fairly happily.

A LabLibOthers coalition would have to agree on everything, and make big concessions to minority parties. They'd not have a majority if they whipped everyone in their coalition, so they'd be relying on Tory votes to pass legislation. Given that they're likely to be forced into stupid things by the various Nationalist parties involved - cuts for England but not the rest of the UK, I can see that being very problematic for them.

Ultimately I think a LibLab coalition will create a strong public demand for electoral reform, but I'm not sure it'll be the gerrymandered UK wide PR that the LibLab bunch are hoping will keep the Tories out for all time. I think people will get seriously angry and start pushing for an English parliament, which if anything, would guarantee a series of Conservative governments.

The key thing is that this isn't a complicated issue - Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote for things that hurt English voters whilst protecting their own. That is a message that can be understood by the vast majority of people, very quickly, whereas PR is not.

I'm getting the impression that a lib/lab pact is increasingly likely. I'm not convinced its the right outcome but I would welcome it just to see Cameron's press conference afterwards 🙂 🙂 🙂

[i]I would welcome it just to see Cameron's press conference afterwards[/i]

Now that would be a [s]Tory[/s] Sky News clip worth seeing

poor rupert murdoch

hes gambled heavily on cameron being pm

not only does his news channel look even more ridiculous than normal

but his bluff of charging for the times website will be well and truly called when come june cameron hasnt been able to slash funding for the bbc and reduce the content on the bbc website

backhander, you are right.. I am sorry for being amused by a montage. As I said it shouldn't be funny, but it makes me laugh. It is the composition that amuses me, not the fact his plane crashed.

No worries max. I know nothing of UKIP, but I felt genuinely sorry for him when I saw the pics. which just looked like and older gent(?) obviously in a lot of pain and scared witless. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

but I would welcome it just to see Cameron's press conference afterwards

The thing is, as per Stephen Fry's blog, I don't think he will be upset as in many ways, it'd be the best thing for them. If LibLab happens then the Tories can take the position of having stuck to their principles while the LibLab have 'stolen' the election (and also using this as a reason to avoid PR). If as seems likely, a LibLab coalition doesn't last too long then the Tories will be in a very strong position for the next election and stand a good chance of an outright majority, particularly as we're in for bad times in the next year or so as cuts start to really bite...

tron - Member
A LabLibOthers coalition would have to agree on everything, and make big concessions to minority parties. They'd not have a majority if they whipped everyone in their coalition, so they'd be relying on Tory votes to pass legislation.

They would have a majority - labour, Lib dems, nationalists gives a majority No need for tory votes

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Except Thatcher - well many on here would support than anyway....

They would have a majority - labour, Lib dems, nationalists gives a majority

Sorry, you're right. Labour + Liberals doesn't give a majority, so they are reliant on the nationalists. They're still in the position of having things dictated to them by the nationalists, and creating a demand for an English parliament.

the longer this goes on the more i'm hoping for an ultimately unpopular minority con govt. forcing another election in the autumn with a strong, electable labour leader.

the only plus side of a lib/lab alliance would be electoral reform.

Tron - It would be a bit of a shaky "broad church" tho

All the people crying about a potential Lib-Lab coalition - how come a Con-Lib coalition is considered acceptable?

The tories fail to win an outright majority so try and offer concessions to a party they are almost entirely opposed to in terms of policy in order to be able to form a government. Given that the Lib Dems came third why isn't David Cameron offering a Lab-Con coalition? 😉

Let the Tories have it - it's a poison chalice

a Lab-Con coalition

Now, THAT would be fun 🙂

[i]Given that the Lib Dems came third why isn't David Cameron offering a Lab-Con coalition[/i]

far right plus far left - surely the outcome of any decisions made would be in the middle? So the "general population" will be happy? Only the right and left wing extremists, and the nutty parties will be dissapointed.

Sounds like a plan

🙂

far right plus far left

I'd say the LibDems are further left than Labour

Fail to see why this is so hard to understand. Elections are NOT competitions, seriously. Get this out of your heads folks.

They are to the political idealists in all parties.

To my mind, the LibDems are very much coming across as self-serving, despite the facade about doing the best thing for the country

As for the BNP getting seats under PR it would occur.That is the unfortunate thing about a true democracy you cannot marginalise small parties as happens with FPTP. I suspect that no party would be in a hurry to form an alliance with I doubt the members could stomach it.... imagine a PM with Griffin in the cabinet as say foreign secretary or perhaps International aid? They would have seats but just be ignored IMHO.
PR has issues but its strength is that every vote counts and I cannot really see how you can be opposed to that just becaus eyou dont like how some of the people vote

It's these partisan political shenanigans that frustrate people. What about the poor bl00dy country?!

PR has issues but its strength is that every vote counts and I cannot really see how you can be opposed to that just becaus eyou dont like how some of the people vote

Well you certainly wouldn't get the opportunity to vote out your unpopular MP (like Portillo, Jaqui Smith, Blears etc.) - they would be high up the list to get seats, you'd just dump the poor sacrificial lambs at the lower end of the list. And unless there is some complicated way, you'd lose that idea that an MP represents your area (however naive that is anyway...).

Maybe the populous would like to see 'cooperation' in action before they decide that PR is good.

i know what you are saying clubber. But if a lib/lab coalition gets PR up and running the tories will be out of power for a generation because neither the libs or labs will do business with them and they will never get 50% plus of the vote.

What about the poor bl00dy country?!

What about it?

What, in your day to day life, has suffered over the last few days? What do you think will really happen over the next few days if they take time to come to a decision?

I think everyone needs to get a bit of perspective.

5 Live is very entertaining at the moment as everyone tries to out-analyse each other about every nuance (mostly stories generated by the media) of the negotiations.

Great quote just now "this is the wisdom of crowds, everything seems to be working out quite well for the good of the people"

Personally I think it's great to see a few of our politicians in a different light for a change.

For example, Michael Gove, who up to now I've found quite repulsive, offering to give up his cabinet seat to a Lib Dem, but on the other hand Malcolm Ri****d, who I've never been that keen on, but who at least I thought sincere coming out with a quote about Mugabe style politics. Clearly the latest batch of Tories are a bit more reasonable than the old guard, but how much power do the old guard still have, and will they shut up and go away, or carry on doing their best to wreck their own party.

I suspect that whatever happens the Tories are going to go through another period of internal strife - they aren't united in any way.

Whoever loses would be comforted by the fact that they might well be in next time. The fact that Lab want to stay in so much, and GB wants Lab to stay in so much he's prepared to resign suggests to me that they really really believe that the tories will shag the economy and they really really need to keep them out for the sake of the country.

Same vibe I picked up from the pre-election debates too.

It may polarise the vote though - certainly people may think twice about voting Lib if they associate them with Labour all the time. There must be plenty of Libs that favour the Cons rather than the Labs.

And if Scotland get their way there's a big chunk of red gone too.....

To be fair Molgrips, I'm sure the Cons feel the same about Labs staying in and shagging the country.

GB has been dead in the water for a while. Labour loses and he'd have to resign. Libs go for a lib lab coalition and he'd have to go. Still, I've not yet seen his definition of a stable government so he can resign, so he may cling on quite a while yet

Michael Gove, who up to now I've found quite repulsive

That's my MP you're slandering there - please do a better job next time!

Interesting stat is that if you accept that the people who voted for the Libs are probably mostly left of centre & then split their preferences 1/3:2/3 for hooking up Con & Lab you end up with a Lab/Lib alliance having almost the same %age of the public vote as a Con/Lib - 36+23/3 = 43 2/3% for Con/Lib and 29+(23*2/3)=44 1/3% for Lab/Lib. Of course you can prove anything with stats & assumptions!

And unless there is some complicated way, you'd lose that idea that an MP represents your area (however naive that is anyway...).

My MP certainly represents my area. His political views are about as far from mine as possible on a lot of things, but he works damned hard for his constituents.

Actually, just found another clip of Adam Boulton going off on one.

[url=

+ Ben Bradshaw[/url]

I thought he was supposed to be an independent news reporter? It's not terribly difficult to see where his sympathies lie.

Personally I hope the negotiations go on a bit longer as eventually Boulton will explode, which could be quite a spectacle.

He has got a valid point though.

breatheay - you are correct PR can and does strenthen the party machine -I actually posted up on the probs with PR thread theat it's main problem was strenghtening the party via lists and reducing the constituency MP.
However nothing you said actually challenged the principle of every vote counting being a fair and reasonable premise fon which to build an electoral system around .I accept PR is not perfect but it is fairer to the electorate than the current system.

He has got a valid point though.

Has he?

The tories didn't win the election. Seems some people are confusing getting more seats with winning the election. The tories do not have a mandate.

they have a simple majority - most seats - not an absolute majority. as both libs and lab are left of centre it us probably fair to say all sides have a claim and however it pans out it will appear unfair to one group who are not in the government
In essence Labour lost the election but the Tories did not quite win it. Given hiw unpopular brown is, how ****ed the economy is, the general feel fo change, the support of large swathes of the media and the targetted money of Ashcroft that is a pretty bad perfromance by them.

How many times? Tory did not win the election. Labour did not win the election. Libdems did not win the election. Considering people vote for ONE party, why on earth should the two less popular parties rule (without a majority)?
That buffoon just stated that "combined we got 5million more than the tories". Does he know that "combined", con/lib got 9million more than labour? Bradshaws argument is shit by that fact alone.

why on earth should the two less popular parties rule (without a majority)?

Does he know that "combined", con/lib got 9million

I guess he does, that's why they got first shout at coming to an agreement

what do you want to do, force them together?

But I'm not sure that Boulton is advocating a Con-Lib Govt is he?

He clearly wants is a different result to the one we got and is apoplectic that the Tories haven't got in with a majority.

well they DO have the majority of votes if not seats

I know that the outcome of this election isn't popular at STW, mainly because the demographic on here is not representative of the UK

Ding! According to Mintel, we're mainly ABC1s who read the Guardian, educated to degree level.

I can believe the bit about the Guardian, not so sure about the degrees 😀

"what do you want to do, force them together?"

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO. They quickly need to bargain for the terms based on their manifestos, and then stick to those terms for a full term. But the mindset switch from pre-election competitive to post-election co-operative is proving hard.

Lets be frank - Labour have had 13 years to give us PR, so they can't say Lib + Lab is 5 million votes more than Cons. Votes are (in the current system) irrelevant, it's the number of seats. And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

If all parties stopped spinning stuff so much then maybe the populous might engage with politics some more.

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO

so force the Tories & Labour together then? 😆

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

yes they do

"so force the Tories & Labour together then?"

Oh my word that would be a nuclear option! But governments of national unity only really happen during wars.

I can believe the bit about the Guardian, not so sure about the degrees

But some people here have more than one, which will lift the average 😀

there is not an arguement that could say that the fairest outcome would be the least popular parties rule.

Can't believe I am typing this again but yes there is. See, you have to take into account the relative political positions of the parties involved. Otherwise, the most sensible option would be to have lab/con for the biggest majority, given they were the first two parties. Except that everyone knows that wouldn't work on ideological grounds.

So then the largest group of parties with the closest ideals is more appropriate. If my views are best represented by lib dem say, then the next closest party is probably labour, not tories. If I'd voted labour then I'd want lib dems and nats on my side since they are somewhat left, rather than tories or UKIP.

It all hinges on whether or not you are concerned purely about the largest vote share as being representative of views, or about vote share with relative political position included.

That's the principle.. of course there are other factors in practice such as personalities etc.. but do you see what I am getting at?

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

yes they do

I stand corrected. I'm sure I saw somewhere they didn't. Sigh, just goes to show having that degree doesn't make me any brighter than a slug.

total bollocks. It's nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with policy. Lib/lab have VERY different policies and are as far apart as lib/con.

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

Don't they? I like the way you dismiss numbers of votes as irrelevant too. Given that there was no clear winner under the present system I'd say the number of votes is very relevant.

The vast majority of people who voted Labour or Lib Dem would have put the Tories at the bottom of their list if they were allowed to rank them in order of preference. Far more people voted against the Tories than voted for them - where's the mandate?

but the two least popular parties account for 52% of the voters in the UK (as opposed to 1st past the post) - whilst the (allegedly) most popular party only accounts for 36% of the vote.

So now what's fair again?

To think that people once laid their lives on the line for democracy.

Is this a democracy?

Not really!

One gets the chance to tick a box every few years, but then whoever gets voted in often doesn't do what they said they would do. Or does the opposite/something different, whilst falsely and brazenly proclaiming they fulfulled their promises. Or they sneak in significant changes in the hope that nobody notices (often successfully). If these changes are noticed, a lot of voters don't understand the effects of these changes anyway. I often ask people what they think about these significant political moves, only to be met with blank stares, or no opinion.

As a voter it's difficult to know the truth: Journalists and politicians twist things to sound the way they want them to, statistics are open to manipulation and frankly, we are subject to a lot of lies from politicians. They assume we have no memory too. Or perhaps it is they who suffer from amnesia!

People's political allegiences are primarily motivated by their own personal interests, so if one political party gerry-manders to their benefit, these supporters have little choice going forward. We should all care about the future prosperity of the country, but short term personal needs get in the way of making the right choices for everyone's longterm benefit.

Are we competent enough to vote? For example: What percentage of the voters keep up to date with what is going on and can remember what has been promised?

How many seek a balanced spread of [u]quality[/u] news sources?

How many people have their head in the sand and will vote the same way as they have always voted? Even if their party has changed beyond recognition and are no longer serving their personal short term interests?

We have all agreed to disagree this election, so under a democratic system which respects the wishes of the electorate, there cannot be any decisive leadership.

A stupid broken system!

Bring on complete electoral reform. One that is easy to understand and that is fair. How about an English assembly? All the other parts of the UK have their interests represented.

Don't suppose anthing will significanly change and that is why something like 35% of the voting population didn't feel the need to cast their vote.

Sorry to those who turned up and weren't able to. The person responsible is blaming everyone else but herself.

Far more people voted against the Tories than voted for them

71% against labour. There you go, there's your argument.

Buzzlightyear - Member

"what do you want to do, force them together?"

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO. They quickly need to bargain for the terms based on their manifestos, and then stick to those terms for a full term. But the mindset switch from pre-election competitive to post-election co-operative is proving hard.

What rubbish. If they cannot get agreement on major points of conflict then they cannot form a coalition - neither party / MPs would vote for it.

backhander - Member

............ Lib/lab have VERY different policies and are as far apart as lib/con.

again clear and utter tripe - while there are differences they are much less than between lib dems and tories.

This is the conundrum - a tory liberal coalition looks to be the best bet in one way as they would have a working majority however they are such a distance apart politically that creating a joint platform for government is almost impossible.

<tongueincheek>

Hold on, nobody has mentioned the 33% of people who didn't vote at all. Do they get included in the Labour total of people that 'clearly' didn't vote for the Cons?

Or do they form a coalition with Cameron so there is now a popular mandate of 66% of people who didn't vote for the LibLab pact?

</tongueincheek>

Damm, too slow, someone got there before I could post it!

again clear and utter tripe

**** off. Libs want Pr, labour aren't bothered. Libs want amnesty for illegals, labour want a points system to allow entry. War, anti-terror?
tripe.

Add to that list Trident and ID cards.

Quote on the bbc from an unnamed labour minister.
'I havnt spent my whole life hating the tories to miss a chance to stuff them'
good to see someone is thinking of the best interests of the nation. 😯

*Gulp* politics - i've been told not to bring up the subject at parties 😀

If I was a LibDem MP I'd want to go into government with the Conservatives. Not because I'd agree with them more, but because there would be an opportunity to form a [b]new[/b] government, rather than propping up an old, tired one.
If I was a Labour MP, I would opt for honour and a spell on the opposition benches.
If I was a Conservative, I'd sell my Mother to get into power. 😈

My money's still on a Con-Lib deal.

breathesay - nothing compared to Europe / defense / education / NHS. The differences you describe are not deal breakers unlike teh differences witht eh tories

Most of the labour party would be happy to drop much of what you say as labour policy anyway - its only the policies of the right wing cabal that have taken over the party.

Sorry - you are showing your ignorance of the issues and the policies. The vast majority of the Lib dems would find it very hard to work with a right wing government - especially one that looks as far right as Cameron ( despite the window dressing) Working with Labour would be much easier.

And there lies the conundrum - sidle with a clapped out government who've lost their way because they're idealistically closer to your views or cosy up with the party who you instintively don't trust but do have a better mandate to govern as decided by a majority of the electorate...

Interesting.

If I was a Tory, I'd be hoping for a LibLab agreement and have the spin doctors ready to paint it as a betrayal of the people...

do you think the lib dems would try and get vince cable as chancellor? or would they as a minority partner have no say in cabinet roles?

backhander - Member
well they DO [lab/lib coallition] have the [b]majority of votes[/b] if not seats

No mate, the tory/lib only have a majority.

but there is not an arguement that could say that the fairest outcome would be the least popular parties rule. A vote for lab is not a vote for libdem. If this happens, then the largest single group of voters would not be represented at all. Fair?

Since the Tories are talking about a couple of cabinet seats for the LDs in a coalition, you'd expect Labour to be offering at least that. Cable for chancellor seems quite likely plus NC for something fairly meaty too.

Junkyard - it's semantics. Technically, the Tories do have a majority (also called a simple majority), they just don't have an absolute majority (eg more than everyone else combined).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_majority

71% against labour. There you go, there's your argument.

Except that you've ignored the part where I said that almost all Lib Dem and Labour supporters would put the Tories last.

TJ - I do agree, say, dropping IDs cards or some other legislation might be a good facesaver for the Labs, save the money and just shrug their shoulders and say it was the 'price' of power.

Wonder if there'll be any new polls out seeing what party people would vote for if we did the election again this Thursday knowing this result. Would it swing more to Labs or Cons or just stay the same?

clubber - Member

And there lies the conundrum - sidle with a clapped out government who've lost their way because they're idealistically closer to your views or cosy up with the party who you instintively don't trust but do have a better mandate to govern as decided by a majority of the electorate...

Yup - a decent way to put it.

I am glad to see Clegg playing hardball tho - I think the tories rather underestimated him. He has to get major concessions or he will not be able to take his Mps with him.

I often ask people what they think about these significant political moves, only to be met with blank stares, or no opinion.

Bang on. The fact is that we are moving at such a pace, that it's difficult for the politicians to understand the legislation they're passing, let alone us.

And certainly it's difficult to comprehend how politicians and the media stuff us without a basic understanding of ideas like narrative, which are really only taught in some degree courses, and mentioned very sparsley in mainstream media (Newswipe is the only example I can think of), and are therefore out of reach for most of the population.

Got to agree TJ - I'm still hoping I'll get what I wanted - Tory government with LD coalition - Tories just to get a change of government (rather than for any idealistic reasons) but LDs in there to keep them in check and to stop the worst of their tendencies.

What I really don't want is for Labour to govern in a stable coalition as I think they (Labour Party) need some 'time off' to try and remember why they exist. Long term power is consistently a bad thing IMO.

I think they (Labour Party) need some 'time off' to try and remember why they exist.

+1

Could be a new dimension to the Lab leadership race. If they find grass-roots members oppose the coalition will they come out and say it as a way of securing the popular vote yet dooming the party to another election (assuming a LibLab pact)?

As mentioned above, the interesting thing about this, is that it seems that it could be the end of 'new' labour - as 'old socialist' labour will sit more comfortably with the lib dems as its further to the left.

not a bad thing really! The population is becoming more left leaning?