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
I am equally shocked to see a political party operating in it's best interests and adhering to its political views...what next
I assume you think the best thing for the country is to support dave a she got most votes then? If only a democracy was that simple.
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)?
well they DO have the majority of votes if not seats
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
No mate, the tory/lib only have a majority.
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 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?
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?
