[Closed] Time for Gordon Brown to go

iDave + 1
Whatever side of the fence you're on, it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won fair and square. At least Clegg has a sense of fairness which many on here could learn from.

I'm sure when it's clear that the Cons will be able to command the confidence of parliament Brown will resign
He's already requested that senior civil servants help them with anything they need

Dave + 1
Whatever side of the fence you're on, it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won fair and square. At least Clegg has a sense of fairness which many on here could learn from.

Tories haven't won anything yet. And honestly, would anyone want Cameron as PM when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?

First past the post is supported by both the main parties, can't suddenly start bleating about it being unfair when your man doesn't get the required number of seats.

What a load of nonsense - the Tories haven't won anything - they got just over a third of votes cast from a 65% turnout - how does that give them constitutional, moral or any other kind of authority?

They got 2.1 MILLION more votes and 48 more seats.

when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?

WTF? They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule? Labour and lib dems don't have a majority put together.
Edited for bad maths.

With the tories offering Clegg well, **** all, Labour still has everything to play for.

It will be funny to see it all slip through the tories fingers because they are so entrenched in their own dogma.

And potentially we could have a [i]coalition[/i] centre ground government that literally represents the majority of voters for once.

Last time this happened Labour had the most seats but the Tory [Ted Heath] didn't resign either

because that the rules

No, I'm pointing out that those are the rules to which the political parties abide by. If Cameron becomes PM perhaps they should change it? Never going to happen.

They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule?

Not unpopular enough though were they?

You have also got to realise that while the Tories are the SINGLE biggest party, they are not the majority as the other parties have more seats combined.

If the tories get thirsk and malton, they and the DUP equal the LD and Labour.
Alone they will only have 9 less seats than the other 2 combined.
On top of the, there's the fact that Clegg actually has some morals and has stated that the party with the most should get first crack at forming a govt.
Personally, I'd quite like to see a tory/LD alliance, they might moderate each other. And, going by your rules, it would be FAR more representative of the UKs votes than a lab/LD govt.

Never mind Brown, I feel like posting a celebratory thread about getting Mandelson out of office.

I always tell folk you can't know someone you don't [i]actually[/i] know, but I make an exception with him.

The embodiment in one toady man of all that is wrong with British politics.

If the LibDems agree not to vote down a Conservative Queen's Speech, then Cameron goes to the Queen to ask permission to form a government. If Gordon doesn't vacate number 10 forthwith, the Queen sends the army in.

I suspect the last part won't be necessary though.

Listening to him droning away on the radio.

GO NOW GORDON!

CAN'T YOU TAKE A HINT!

He's like that guest you invite to a party who just won't go home when it's over, and keeps boring you to tears with his dull anecdotes even though he's the only person left and you just want to go to bed.

Gordon Brown will hang on until grim death, he was not elected to become PM in the last election and got the job by accident not by the ballot box. It was quite amusing to see him trying to act like a statesman outside No 10 this morning, get the hint Gordon time to fall on your sword!

Last time this happened Labour had the most seats but the Tory [Ted Heath] didn't resign either

Labour/Lib Dem coalition simply won't be a workable government - even with SDLP and Alliance they're still 7 seats short of a majority (though in reality given the terrorists don't take their seats you only really need 324, so they're only 5 seats short). They'd need the support of the SNP to get anything through (as no other coalition gives them enough seats).

The conservatives got the majority but not the legal amount.

Few options and it is based on the Lib Dems and Tory negotiations.

Lib Dems will Back Tory Dave if they can agree.

Shock would be if Lib dems backed labour or choose to be independant which nobody can see but you never know.

How long will it be until we know?

The thing is, Gordon knows he's a goner whatever happens (even if Labour/Lib Dem do try to form a minority coalition it will be without him), so he might as well hang on for a few more days to give him time to pack his stuff. The constitutional question here is, if the current incumbent can't form a government behind him (I don't believe there's any way he can) does somebody else from the same party still have priority?

though in reality given the terrorists don't take their seats

Who are you talking about?

1. What the hell. Nothing will really change. Well nothing that will make a difference to the normal man in the street.
2. Whats pissing me of is this pact thingy. Call it ignorance if you like but absolutley no where have i seen the idea that a governemnet can be anything but the party with the most seats. Ie Tories have the PM. Theyhave the most seats. Agreed they may not win the various votes within parliament. ONLY Now do I hear that its possible that 2 parties can get together and because they have more seats in total do they have the PM. Am I confuse/dim or totally effing furious. Lets say I voted LL. Its because I want them in. Not one of the others. If my LL vote went, say to labour, which put them back in I would be furious.
Have I got this straight or not? Admit to ignorance partly because I disaprove of party politics. Too many MPs back their party when they should back their constituency that put them in place. Even and especially if it differs from what their party wants. Ditto personal preference.

Who are you talking about?

Sinn Fein.

WTF? They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule?

I'm suggesting there should be a Lib/Labour/SNP coalition 😉 - which would be more popular than the Tories were. Honestly - the tories couldn't even manage to convincingly beat one of the most unpopular prime ministers in history, in the middle of a financial crisis.

Are Sinn Fein terrorists?

From above"Tories haven't won anything yet. And honestly, would anyone want Cameron as PM when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?"
But he has. He has more seats so he has beaten him. Like it or not he should be the Pm.
Anyway back to the original post.
Brown was C of E? hadn't noticed. Even so he has ****ed me up. I work,pay taxes, drive, live I the countryside, respect the law and occasionally use the NHS. In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago. If he was C of E it his fault. He wasn't even voted in.

Are Sinn Fein terrorists?

Not currently. But they never take up their seats in Westminster, it being the belly of the beast and all. So it affects the number of seats a coalition would need.

I'm suggesting there should be a Lib/Labour/SNP coalition

the tories couldn't even manage to convincingly beat one of the most unpopular prime minister blah blah

Lib/Labour/SNP coalition

Gordon will love that. He's never managed to be prime minister by winning an election before, why should he start now?

But he has. He has more seats so he has beaten him. Like it or not he should be the Pm.

Does anyone understand first past the post? Or are you all crying foul because it hasn't delivered the right result for you?

I like Gordon Brown and want him to stay. Are people not better of now than they were 2 years ago??

ThankYouVeryMuch

breatheeasy - Member

Doom mongers again...
Goodbye NHS if Dave gets in and unless you're on £150K min you will lose out.

Can no one else see the irony in those statements.

Doh! will read my posts before posting lol

Sinn Fein members would refuse to swear allegiance to the Queen, meaning they would therefore forfeit the right to vote in Parliament. Meaning that being there would be a waste of time. I see.

So Aracer's just being a bit inflammatory by calling them 'terrorists' then? Ok.

For a horrible moment, I thought Al-Quaeda had infiltrated British Politics...

In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago

Hmm, sorry to hear that. Care to explain how?

it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won

They got 2.1 MILLION more votes and 48 more seats

. [b]Ie Tories have the PM. Theyhave the most seats. Agreed they may not win the various votes within parliament[/b]. ONLY Now do I hear that its possible that 2 parties can get together and because they have more seats in total do they have the PM. Am I confuse/dim or totally effing furious. Lets say I voted LL. Its because I want them in. Not one of the others. If my LL vote went, say to labour, which put them back in I would be furious.

If any party should have the right to be part of a govt, it should be one with the most votes/seats (whichever) BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT THE MOST PEOPLE WANT.

Dont get me wrong here I think all parties have some sort of moral claim here but Dave is the best initally. He wont pay the price the Lib Dems ask for so I cant really see how this will pan out.

I'd say it was convincing personally. 2.1million others would as well.

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

he is correct as, like your grasp. Dave has a simple majority not an absolute majority so his moral authority is not absolute

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

yyyup 🙂

So Aracer's just being a bit inflammatory by calling them 'terrorists' then?

Apologies for worrying you though.

LIB -LAB PACT, sounds ok,

LIB-CON PACT.

OR

CON -LIB PACT,

Nough said eh.

In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago

Hmm, sorry to hear that. Care to explain how?

Carelessness, most probably 😉

the problem is that MANY more people dont want them to rule than do want them

Selective. MANY more people don't want labour to rule. Even MORE don't want lib dem to rule.
So, how are you figuring that (out of the big 3), the two LEAST popular get the prize?

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

If you think the result/system isn't fair here's a chance for you to make your voice heard:

[url= http://www.takebackparliament.com/ ]takebackparliament.com[/url]

I've not failed in **** all. Who is the most popular party? Who lost 90 odd seats? Who failed (comically) to get into double figures?

Under the current system all the other party's are more popular actually, combined they have more seats.

By all of your comments, I can only assume that you are massive fans of the FPTP system.

I'd prefer PR.

But here's news for you(again :roll:), your boy callmedave and his party are massive fans of FPTP. So do you prefer PR? Then you may have voted for the wrong party, but I suspect you're only whinging about it because now after the election it didn't give your party of choice an outright majority.

You really need to stop bleating on about this, you sound like a scratched record...a scratched des o'connor record at that, those were the rules that all parties accepted and the Conservatives even after this result want to continue to use.

By all of your comments, I can only assume that you are massive fans of the FPTP system.

You've missed the mark by a long way again.

You're the one spouting the rules. make your mind up.

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives, big brother society, surrender of the EU rebate, open doors immigration policy, expenses sleaze from the whiter-than-white party, pension fund hitting, no more boom and bust yet presides over the mother of all crashes. For f*cks sake Gordon, resign.

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives

Do you really think so ?

Well if that is the case, then surely David Cameron has the moral, legal, and mandated obligation, if he becomes PM, to ensure that those responsible for these illegal acts, are put on trial.

The Tories are after all, the party of "law and order".

So Tony Blair going to be put on trial then ? ...............cool 8)

Well if that is the case, then surely David Cameron has the moral, legal, and mandated obligation, if he becomes PM, to ensure that those responsible for these illegal acts, are put on trial.