- Time for Gordon Brown to go
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.Posted 9 years ago
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.Posted 9 years ago
Edited for bad maths.tinribzMember
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 coalition centre ground government that literally represents the majority of voters for once.Posted 9 years ago
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.Posted 9 years ago
If the tories get thirsk and malton, they and the DUP equal the LD and Labour.Posted 9 years ago
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.WaderiderMember
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 actually know, but I make an exception with him.
The embodiment in one toady man of all that is wrong with British politics.Posted 9 years ago
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.Posted 9 years agoluked2Member
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.Posted 9 years agoflippinhecklerMember
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!Posted 9 years ago
Last time this happened Labour had the most seats but the Tory [Ted Heath] didn't resign either
By about 4 seats – not exactly the same situation as today!
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).Posted 9 years agozaskarMember
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?Posted 9 years ago
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?Posted 9 years agomattsccmMember
1. What the hell. Nothing will really change. Well nothing that will make a difference to the normal man in the street.Posted 9 years ago
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.
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.Posted 9 years agomattsccmMember
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?"Posted 9 years ago
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 **** 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.
I'm suggesting there should be a Lib/Labour/SNP coalition
Oh god no. Headed by who? That's quite possibly the worst idea I've heard today. 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.
the tories couldn't even manage to convincingly beat one of the most unpopular prime minister blah blah
I'd say it was convincing personally. 2.1million others would as well.Posted 9 years ago
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…Posted 9 years agoJunkyardMember
it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won
Backhander you need to run that by me again they won an election without gaining a majority…didnt all the parties win then by that standard? 😯
They got 2.1 MILLION more votes and 48 more seats
that is not even a majority of those who could be @rsed to vote let alone the electorate
. 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.
you cant be PM if you cant win votes in parliamnet hence why GB is PM untill he resigns or a no confidence vote. By convention the PM then resigns and/or an election is called. Cameron alone cannot win a vote of confidence so he is fecked basically. I don't really get your LL point = which party are they?- I go for you are confused personally
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.
the problem is that MANY more people dont want them to rule than do want them …you seem to overlook that little inconvenient truth and the fact that combined lab/lib have more. We areall guessing as to whether lib dems voters would rather have a lab or a con government
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.Posted 9 years ago
So Aracer's just being a bit inflammatory by calling them 'terrorists' then?
Maybe. I suppose I could have called them "ex-terrorists", but we're splitting hairs here, after all they're also Catholics, and you know what they say about Catholics? Once a Catholic terrorist…
Apologies for worrying you though.Posted 9 years ago
The topic ‘Time for Gordon Brown to go’ is closed to new replies.