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

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?

As to the 1/3 of voters who didn't bother...
e**** 'em they couldn't be bothered so why should anyone else be bothered about them?

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

but it's not true... Many people voted lib dem to get labour out. I don't buy this Lib and lab are natural allies stuff, they're not. Look at issues like civil liberties for example.

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.

SO? ****ing hell, tory and lib voters put labour last. Tory and lab voters put lib dem last. Of course they do!
I didn't ignore it, it's just nonsense.

It seems to me from following politics all over the world that even the best governments seem to run out of ideas and enthusiasm and to loose sight of their roots after a decade in power.

Of course they are Porterclough - the differences are far less than tory Lib dem and look at history.

clubber - Member
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).

18 years of Tory rule which was pretty awful by the end
13 years of Labour rule which was also pretty awful by the end (and which seemed well on course to be as bad if they'd manage 18 years...)

I really don't want a government with a comfortable majority for a while thanks. Keep them scared for their seats for a while and I reckon that there's a better chance that we might get some half decent (which would be a big step up from indecent) governance.

tory and lib voters put labour last.

I bet if you asked most people who voted Liberal which would be their next best choice, it would be Labour. Seeing as the current electoral system has failed to provide a clear winner, why is it nonsense to consider what the result might have been if we had a fairer election system?

JY - not going to go back and check but it sounds like I misread your post then.

I'm tlking about the voters TJ. People voted to get Labour out, whilst not being keen on the Tories. Many libdem votes were anti labour votes, not anti Tory votes.

If this is a true democracy, I reckon there should be national vote on this mess, because too many voters' wishes will be disregarded if any of these deals go ahead.

Simple vote: either Con/Lib coalition, or Lab/Lib coalition

This assumes the liberals can actually strike a deal with Labour and the various other factions required for a 325 seat majority.

The Conservative/Liberal coalition would be by far the strongest majority and therefore the most democratic solution. However, I wonder if Clegg has the voters wishes and the future of the country in mind, or if he is putting his political interests first. If he hadn't gone to see Gordon after yesterday's announcement outside No.10, I'd tend to think the former!

I bet if you asked most people who voted Liberal which would be their next best choice, it would be Labour.

I'll take that bet. Labour lost 90 odd seats for a very good reason. And what of the 36% who voted tory, do they get a say? Or are they irrelevant because they voted for a party which you don't like?

I bet if you asked most people who voted Liberal which would be their next best choice, it would be Labour.

I'll start - I voted for Clegg, I want Labour out. Cameron with Clegg in the cabinet is what I wanted, expected, and think is the only option.

Does this help?

 

backhander have the lib dems secretly become righht wing because dave is so compelling that they are just in awe of him and his big society vision?

And what of the 36% who voted tory, do they get a say? Or are they irrelevant because they voted for a party which you don't like?

No one party has a direct mandate to rule can you take your blue shades of and stop jumping around like a small child saying it is our turn we got the most votes please. You did not win and whatever happens will be unfair to some parts of the electorate.
A fudge whoever ends up in power and i doubt either willast long. Lib lab too weak and the lib con to disparate in views especially Europe,defence, taxation and the economy.

I guess it's typical liberal behaviour: they can't make their bloody minds up and just sit on the fence!

I bet if you asked most people who voted Liberal which would be their next best choice, it would be Labour.

I'll take that bet too. I voted LD but in any of the guises I've known labour I'd never vote for them. Labour they would have been my second last choice (BNP had someone up in my consituency) if that'd been in place too. From my experience talking with people that doesn't seem uncommon either.

And I also think plenty of people (ex-labour voters) voted 'against' labour by voting Lib Dem where in the past they may have voted Tory but were put off by 18 years worth...

I voted Lib Dem,I wanted a coalition with Labour Lib Dem, with Gordon replaced by someone who could lead. Unfortunately, because of the way our first past the post system works the Cons got a disproportional number of seats a Lab Lib deal would be unlikely to stick for long, so the only option is really a Lib Con deal.

Does this help?

thanks for posting up MR clegg but are you not busy with the talks 😉

Unfortunately, because of the way our first past the post system works the Cons got a disproportional number of seats

It's Labour that got the most disproportionate number of seats.

I'll start - I voted for Clegg, I want Labour out. Cameron with Clegg in the cabinet is what I wanted, expected, and think is the only option.

OK, well that's pretty conclusive then isn't it? How exactly do you reconcile Tory and Lib Dem policy on electoral reform/immigration/education/tax etc etc?

And what of the 36% who voted tory, do they get a say? Or are they irrelevant because they voted for a party which you don't like?

I'm just saying, that more people voted for a broadly left wing, progressive option (arguably in New Labour's case) than voted Tory - given that there was no clear winner this is significant. Whatever happens, someone will probably have legitimate grounds for feeling aggrieved - but to suggest that the Tories 'won' is just wrong.

Again, in a system where they are virtually guaranteed at least a 50% chance of winning, against a very unpopular PM, in a financial crisis/recession, with all the resources they had available, the fact they didn't win convincingly is a pretty damning indictment of Cameron - as lots of people in the Tory party are apparently now starting to realise.