UK General Election 2010

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The Lib Dems did not get more votes than any other party as you state.

I meant that the Lib Dems got more votes and higher share than they did in the last election, but because of the wonderfully democratic FPTP voting system they got less seats.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

When Brown leaves the Palace after talking to the Queen, he'd better make sure his microphone is off... :eek:

I don't think that the Queen is daft enough to ask where Eastern Europeans are flocking from.

[Dave B]

The Queen, maybe, but Phillip? :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

I find it humourous. This thread is well populated by Lib Dem supporters who all for changing FPTP as a voting system, and are all for a minority with Labour. All the talk of how bad Brown and Blair are and all the rest of it goes right out the window when they have a chance to bury Brown for good. Now they want a coalition with a party the MAJORITY of the country didn't vote for. The majority certainly didn't vote for Cameron I understand, so while I get why Cameron isn't a popular choice, his party has the most seats. Any way you slice it, they got the most votes. They should have first go at creating a government.

PR would dictate a coalition of parties would run the situation. PR almost ensures a coalition of parties run the country. All the Lib Dem supporters were all for it if it was with Labour (Despite their hatred of Brown), but don't want it if it is the Tories. So...are you really committed to the idea of a coalition or is it just the coalition you want to back? PR doesn't eliminated petty politicking, it probably encourages it...

FPTP is a lousy system on a lot of levels, but the minute you have 3 parties or more, no system really works that well. The seats handed out by PR with more than 3 parties will almost always ensure a coalition. Well, what we will see now in the UK is a defacto coalition. Even if The Lib/Dem's don't formally back the Tories, they will need to listen to Clegg's positions to gain the backing to pass legislation.

So...where is the difference really? There isn't .....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Canadian news had just said Brown had gone to see the Queen, likely to signify he is stepping down, which means it is up to Cameron now....

[Dave B]

Well on BBC news we have a helicopter tracking a Jaguar down the Mall past the Palace and non of the news readers have a clue who's in the car.. lol.. Is it Cameron? Brown??? :p
The silver Jag? T'was Cameron, and wasn't it pleasing to see a kid standing in a layby flicking the V's at him? :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The British Prime Minister is driven to the Queen in a car made by an Indian owned company.

Victoria will be turning in her grave.

[Daika]

At least Cameron have a mandate unlike Gordon lurking in the shadow and somehow got to be prime minister (at least pretend to be in my view)

[Cooper_S]

At least Cameron have a mandate unlike Gordon lurking in the shadow and somehow got to be prime minister (at least pretend to be in my view)


Indeed he dose... t0o bad it is a mandate of only 36.1% of the nation... that is shockingly low... a Pyrrhic victory I think.

[Daika]

Indeed he dose... t0o bad it is a mandate of only 36.1% of the nation... that is shockingly low... a Pyrrhic victory I think.

It is the best solution unless you want Cleg or someone from Labour. Somebody needs to be prime minister.

[Cooper_S]

Do not get me wrong, I have no problem with Cameron becoming PM, regardless of how unfair the system is, it is the system we have and as leader of the largest party he should be PM.


My comments was a dig at the nonsense of calling 36.1% a mandate and believing it

[Mark in Oshawa]

Indeed he dose... t0o bad it is a mandate of only 36.1% of the nation... that is shockingly low... a Pyrrhic victory I think.

It is the best any one party is going to do when you have Northern Ireland and Scotland with sizable regional parties muddying the choices, and you have all in all, about 6 parties capable of electing MP's. It will be harder and harder for any party to get more than 40% of the popular vote in a nation such as that.....

He has the most votes of all the parties, and the most seats, so he deserves his crack at it. The opposition have him outnumbered, so he has to pass legislation with some support from the other side. Hardly undemocratic....

[J4MIE]

Ah poor show. I haven't seen my dad cry for a long, long time.

:(

[Daika]

How much did Tony (making a lot of money with speeches) Blair got in terms of the percentage of votes compared with Cameron?

[Cooper_S]

Hardly undemocratic....

The conservatives 306 seats = 47% of all seats, libs 57 seats = 9%

Yet the actual share of the votes cast was 36% against 23%

That no matter how you slice it is undemocratic.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The conservatives 306 seats = 47% of all seats, libs 57 seats = 9%

Yet the actual share of the votes cast was 36% against 23%

That no matter how you slice it is undemocratic.

ya..so? you bring in PR...you still have a coalition...you still have people trading off interests and bringing every law down to a consensus.

It is only Lib Dem supporters on a UK thread that seem to really get bent out of shape about this....

It has been a reality for years in many parliamentry systems based on the Westminister model. I didn't say there isn't room for PR, but lets just calm down and realize what changes is the feeling your vote counts. Well whup de do...the way you will be governed WONT change....your govenrment will still be a bunch of people elected from all over the nation trying to find a middle ground because no one party is likely to get strong majorities any time soon. Welcome to the reality I have seen for 2 straight elections in Canada now....

Look at nations with PR. Always a coaltion government...and last I looked, I vote for ONE party. I don't have a second choice. If I had a second choice, I might care..but most people LIKE one party. Period...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

ya..so? you bring in PR...you still have a coalition...you still have people trading off interests and bringing every law down to a consensus.

It is only Lib Dem supporters on a UK thread that seem to really get bent out of shape about this....

It has been a reality for years in many parliamentry systems based on the Westminister model. I didn't say there isn't room for PR, but lets just calm down and realize what changes is the feeling your vote counts. Well whup de do...the way you will be governed WONT change....your govenrment will still be a bunch of people elected from all over the nation trying to find a middle ground because no one party is likely to get strong majorities any time soon. Welcome to the reality I have seen for 2 straight elections in Canada now....

Look at nations with PR. Always a coaltion government...and last I looked, I vote for ONE party. I don't have a second choice. If I had a second choice, I might care..but most people LIKE one party. Period...

But with more Lib Dems as MPs the coalition would be more balanced. Instead, what we are getting now is a Conservative government with a few 'token' positions for the Lib Dems.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But with more Lib Dems as MPs the coalition would be more balanced. Instead, what we are getting now is a Conservative government with a few 'token' positions for the Lib Dems.

You really think it would be really balanced? Whether it is 20 votes by the Lib Dems or 60 in a coalition with the Tories, they all can vote as a solid block and either scupper the deal or not on anything getting passed.

The numbers as Cooper pointed out are NOT fair, I wont quibble if that is all you care about, but the nuts and bolts of how legislation is passed don't change. If you don't have the seats, you have to broker deals with other parties, who can have whips making sure all their MP's vote as a block. Clegg wouldn't have more influence under a PR situation. The Tories need his votes now, and they would under PR....Where is the actual difference?

[Cooper_S]

How much did Tony (making a lot of money with speeches) Blair got in terms of the percentage of votes compared with Cameron?

1997 Lab = 43.55% turnout was 71.4%
2001 Lab = 41.41% turnout was 59.2%
2007 Lab = 35.3 % turnout was
2010 Con = 36.1% turnout was 65.1%

[Mark in Oshawa]

What is more, FPTP means each area is electing one person to represent the district. That's it. Under PR, you don't often know who you could be electing to lead you until all the counting and proportioning is down. Parties can put hacks in for "at large MP's" to make up for the lack of actual seats won...

You really want appointed hacks to have the same voting privledges as someone your riding elects? Many of these party loyalists are often people who are connected...but cannot get elected in a riding or have been defeated by their local riding. Sometimes, PR is just as political as an appointed house would be...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You really think it would be really balanced? Whether it is 20 votes by the Lib Dems or 60 in a coalition with the Tories, they all can vote as a solid block and either scupper the deal or not on anything getting passed.

The numbers as Cooper pointed out are NOT fair, I wont quibble if that is all you care about, but the nuts and bolts of how legislation is passed don't change. If you don't have the seats, you have to broker deals with other parties, who can have whips making sure all their MP's vote as a block. Clegg wouldn't have more influence under a PR situation. The Tories need his votes now, and they would under PR....Where is the actual difference?

Under PR a Liberal/Labour coalition might have been more realistic as they wouldn't need the Scots, Welsh and Irish parties to achieve a majority.

[Cooper_S]

ya..so? you bring in PR...you still have a coalition...you still have people trading off interests and bringing every law down to a consensus.

It is only Lib Dem supporters on a UK thread that seem to really get bent out of shape about this....

It has been a reality for years in many parliamentry systems based on the Westminister model. I didn't say there isn't room for PR, but lets just calm down and realize what changes is the feeling your vote counts. Well whup de do...the way you will be governed WONT change....your govenrment will still be a bunch of people elected from all over the nation trying to find a middle ground because no one party is likely to get strong majorities any time soon. Welcome to the reality I have seen for 2 straight elections in Canada now....

Look at nations with PR. Always a coaltion government...and last I looked, I vote for ONE party. I don't have a second choice. If I had a second choice, I might care..but most people LIKE one party. Period...

are you truly as dumb as the comments you post suggest... I hope not... If you like undemocratic systems then knock yourself out, but You would be the first to complain if you were to have your rights removed because 36% think you should have them removed.

That is idiotic... and saying well that's the system live with it is stupid... the system is broken and needs fixing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

are you truly as dumb as the comments you post suggest... I hope not... If you like undemocratic systems then knock yourself out, but You would be the first to complain if you were to have your rights removed because 36% think you should have them removed.

That is idiotic... and saying well that's the system live with it is stupid... the system is broken and needs fixing.

I am not calling you stupid so please, ratchet down the rhetoric. I am just pointing out that while you can live with this fantasy every vote counting is going to mean precisely the right number of MP's per votes cast, you are living in a fantasy land that it will actually MEAN things change in how government is run. At least, if no party gets more than 50 percent of the seats, and with the number of parties gaining traction in the UK, coalition/hung parliaments will be a fact of life. In which case they will all operate the same way. Minorities have to have people they can dance with.

All I know is the harsh reality of it is the UK ran very well for almost 200 years with the current party system and while it isn't FAIR....it isn't unfair either. The harsh reality of it all is you can make the system into one with PR or keep it the same, but politicians will inevitably disappoint you, and they in minority situations, no matter how they happen, will have to get along with their opponents. This will happen in the UK now...and it would have been likely the same situation if you had PR. You also would have 2/3 of your PR apportioned seats for the Lib/Dems coming from a pool of people Mr. Clegg feels worthy. They were not however directly elected....so where is THAT fair?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Under PR a Liberal/Labour coalition might have been more realistic as they wouldn't need the Scots, Welsh and Irish parties to achieve a majority.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, you would have a merry Christmas. IF you had PR, who is to say people would have voted the way they did either?

If people wanted Gordon Brown gone under a PR situation, you think they would vote for any party that would turn around and give him a coalition chance? Is there any real responsiblity for leading a govenment when half your cabinet comes from another party? Can you imagine the back biting and positioning that goes on?

Listen, I get PR is fairer. 20% of the vote means exactly that number of MP's should be to that party. I get it, I know you guys want it, and I get why you think you need it, but the reality is government isn't run by strict numbers. There is horse trading, backroom deals, and with coalitions, a lot of positioning and back stabbing going on because no party wants to be the minor one in a coalition. They all want the top job....and you end up with more elections, and often a less clear mandate to lead. They are however a reality when you have a parliamentry system with more than 3 parties more often than not.....so PR wouldn't change that reality...but you would have the illusion that you were getting something you are not now....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, you would have a merry Christmas. IF you had PR, who is to say people would have voted the way they did either?

If people wanted Gordon Brown gone under a PR situation, you think they would vote for any party that would turn around and give him a coalition chance? Is there any real responsiblity for leading a govenment when half your cabinet comes from another party? Can you imagine the back biting and positioning that goes on?

Listen, I get PR is fairer. 20% of the vote means exactly that number of MP's should be to that party. I get it, I know you guys want it, and I get why you think you need it, but the reality is government isn't run by strict numbers. There is horse trading, backroom deals, and with coalitions, a lot of positioning and back stabbing going on because no party wants to be the minor one in a coalition. They all want the top job....and you end up with more elections, and often a less clear mandate to lead. They are however a reality when you have a parliamentry system with more than 3 parties more often than not.....so PR wouldn't change that reality...but you would have the illusion that you were getting something you are not now....

People who want PR aren't stupid enough to think that we wont get coalitions. The biggest problem with the majority governments that they get what they want without compromise. So in the past we have had half a decade of privitisation from the Tories, followed from half a decade of nationalisation by Labour.

[Mark in Oshawa]

People who want PR aren't stupid enough to think that we wont get coalitions. The biggest problem with the majority governments that they get what they want without compromise. So in the past we have had half a decade of privitisation from the Tories, followed from half a decade of nationalisation by Labour.

Well, that is the way things happen in most nations. It is democracy. Didn't Churchill point out it was a terrible system, except it was better than all the others?

I don't deny PR works, but endless coalitions means a lot of decisions made by committee. I think you would have that if you had one hung parliament after another too....so really it wouldn't change much.

I don't think PR is horrible, but it isn't the panacea you guys believe either.

[driveace]

Well said Mark,Under the agreement,with the Conservatives,is that the AV sytem will be put to a referendum,but that the Conservatives will not recommend it.
After all the retoric from the Labour party about forming a coalition with the Lib Dems,the story from LibDems tonight is that the Labour did not want a coalition,with them and were time wasting,and wanted the deal to fail!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well said Mark,Under the agreement,with the Conservatives,is that the AV sytem will be put to a referendum,but that the Conservatives will not recommend it.
After all the retoric from the Labour party about forming a coalition with the Lib Dems,the story from LibDems tonight is that the Labour did not want a coalition,with them and were time wasting,and wanted the deal to fail!

I said it would be a Conservative minority too....

They have their shot...and if they blow it, there will be an election and maybe something new comes along. I think the Lib/Democrats deserved more seats, but they might get more than they deserve next election. Who is to say? PR is a more "fair" system....but when you have one coalition after another, what does it really mean for the man on the street? In the end, you have parties doing deals often in back rooms....

[Cooper_S]

In the end, you have parties doing deals often in back rooms....

PR is not the be all and is not perfect y any means but it is fairer, no question.

As for coalitions doing deals, why is that wrong. I mean each party goes to the electorate with their policies for Education, Tax, Economy, Health etc... is that not so.

Now the results as polled meant as a nation 36% favoured Conservative policies, 29% Labour policies and 23% those of the Lib-Dems, that is fair to say.

So why should 100% of the conservatives policies be made law when 64% o the electorate did not want them.

There is naturally some overlap in the relevant polices so why not form a coalition where more of what was actually supported get a chance to become law.

Coalitions do work well all over the world, they work better or worse depending on the make up, they avoid the rather roller coaster ride we have see in the FPTP system where EVERY government is a minority in the sense that none gets 50% of the vote but do get huge seat majorities to pass their own legislation were by the nationalise everything only to have it all change and everything privatised again...

unpopular laws (Poll Tax anyone) would be hard to pass in coalition. I see that as a good thing.

[Rollo]

David Cameron as PM... oh hell.

How long do you think it will be before the NHS and the BBC are privatised?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/28/kick-in-the-privates-115875-21926813/
"No matter what cast-iron guarantees David Cameron gives in public, it is now clear, in private, he is discussing abandoning the NHS as we know it."

He's already held talks with "interested" parties on the subject before Christmas last year, and frankly I don't see a return to Tory Premiership producing any other result.
Faced with a large debt problem, privatisation of public assets suddenly looks very attractive indeed.

If there's one thing the Tories need, it's an American style health care system, because if more poorer people start dying off they were only more likely to vote Labour anyway.

And as for the BBC, well Murdoch has already complained that he doesn't like it, and he already gave his support to the Tories anyway. All it would take is for the Conservative Party to be white-anted and voila...

If you thought "Broken Britain" was bad, you aint seen nothing yet. "Completely ****ed Britain" is coming in 2015.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo...take off the political blinders. Cameron isn't going to do anything of the sort. You really think Clegg is going to stand by and let him do that? He has a minority. What is more, what a party says it is going to do on face value should be accepted. He may have people in his party wanting to turn the UK inside out, but it wont happen in this situation. What is more, the UK needs to get some sort of control over their growing debt situation, so there will be a rationalization, but if there is anything radical, the UK will have an election because Clegg and the opposition Labourites will pull the plug. You really have the best situation. It gives Labour a chance to get a new leader with new vision, Clegg can prove he is ready for prime time, and the Tories can be the bad guys while balancing the books. If you really are objective about all of this, this is a best case scenario for all the parties....it is the NEXT election that becomes most vital.

[Rollo]

Rollo...take off the political blinders. Cameron isn't going to do anything of the sort. You really think Clegg is going to stand by and let him do that?

Not only will he "let him do that" but he'll back him to the hilt in doing it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269045/General-Election-2010-Nick-Cleggs-demand-NHS-broken-up.html
Nick Clegg has called for the NHS to be 'broken up' and said the Lib Dems should consider replacing it with a European-style insurance system.
In a little-noticed interview before he took over as leader, he said the party should consider a social insurance system to replace the present tax-funded Health Service.
I can't find the article, but I remember Clegg personally writing an opinion piece to The Telegraph on about Dec 19 last year, also to that effect.

[Mark]

A disaster for the United Kingdom. At least Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are somewhat insulated from it all with their own governments. Those of us in England are going to get the full force of it. It feels rather like I think many Americans must have felt when they saw Bush getting elected, it's not going to go well.

[Dave B]

We're fooked, then.

The leaked letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/tory-eurosceptic-letter-william-hague)written by our new foreign secretary William Haugue last week (when he assumed they'd be in government) suggests that all our good relationships with the EU are in jeopardy, and Cameron's plans on public spending put the economic recovery at risk.

Rollo, not sure that he'll privatise the BBC. What he will do though, and what he's been planning ever since the Murdoch family courted him, is to abolish OFCOM and allow Sky and his old employers ITV more freedoms, while freezing or cutting the licence fee so that the BBC can't compete on an equal footing. This will eventually lead the public to question why they fund a state broadcaster and it will be the public who demand the closure of it. Cameron will then say that all he's doing is responding to market forces.

Electoral reform is a dead duck and they know it. A referendum can't take place without the consent of parliament, and the Tories will block it at the first hurdle. Again, Cameron can say "well I tried", but I'm sad to say we're stuck with FPTP for another generation.

The Liberal Democrats had one big chance to forever change the way we do politics in this country, and they've blown it - and sold their soul in the process. Getting into bed with the Conservatives has probably cost them the majority of any future votes, and the electoral reform which they so dearly craved has slipped through their fingers.

Make no mistake, I'm not defending Labour's record here: they've made some awful decisions. But Cameron's Conservatives don't represent "change", no matter how many times he bangs on about it. They represent self-interest, cuts to frontline services, and the continuation of a flawed voting system.

This is not a day for celebration.

[ArrowsFA1]

It was interesting watching & listening to the coverage of all of this last night, but two points made stuck out for me:
Clegg has sold his party & those who voted for him down the river and how is it that a party with so few seats no has so much influence?

Once the election results were clear what options did he have? No-one can change how the country voted, and the way the country voted meant there had to be some kind of partnership or coalition for there to be a government. Of course the Tories could have tried to survive as a minority government but what a mess that would have been. The last thing we need at the moment.

So, Clegg had a choice. Labour or Conservative and he went for the Tories, giving the country a majority government. Time will tell whether he was right or wrong but the LibDems were put in this position because of the way the country voted.

For those who don't like the outcome (and the sight of Cameron in Number 10 will give me sleepless nights for weeks!!) what other options were there?

[ArrowsFA1]

Electoral reform is a dead duck and they know it. A referendum can't take place without the consent of parliament, and the Tories will block it at the first hurdle. Again, Cameron can say "well I tried", but I'm sad to say we're stuck with FPTP for another generation.
Sadly I agree. I think the Tories have done what they needed to do to form a government and from here on in we, and the LibDems, will be in for a rough ride.

[Eki]

SeLSNzEorbI

[Mark]

The Liberal Democrats had one big chance to forever change the way we do politics in this country, and they've blown it - and sold their soul in the process. Getting into bed with the Conservatives has probably cost them the majority of any future votes, and the electoral reform which they so dearly craved has slipped through their fingers.


Quite, They are in government, but at what cost. Certainly things are much clearer for me now i.e. Liberal Democrat = Tories. Considering that a large part of their vote base came from people disaffected by Labour. The choice is now stark, between Labour and the Conservatives. I fear the Liberal Democrats have cast themselves into obscurity for the sake of a few years around the cabinet table.



This is not a day for celebration.

It's a disaster for the UK at large, and most probably, me personally.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think people are being blinded by their Tory rage. This is not a Conservative government, we have Liberals in the cabinet for god sake! To suggest that the Liberal Democrats are Conservatives is ridiculous. Vince Cable, Chris Huhne etc. are all left wingers who will not let the Tories do anything they don't agree with.

What other options did Clegg have? In a Lib/lab coalition either Clegg or Brown would have been PM. The press would have had a field day if that happened.

If you don't like Cameron as PM don't blame Clegg, blame the British public! After the Conservatives got the highest share or the vote last week Cameron was the only person who could be PM.

[fandango]

Well, the situation now is that the Tories have to do things well. They have to try and impress the electorate, and then call a mid-term election at the right time to try and get a majority. With new people in government, perhaps this is a good thing for the country.

The LibDems have to get some kind of reform which gives them the seats that reflect their percentage of the vote, and they have to try to show that their influence on government has been positive.

Labour need to go away and come back with a new leader and some new ideas. They need to be a strong opposition, better than the Tories were when Blair got in. This looks possible.

So I don't think the situation is as black as some think. More consultation, more compromise. It could work.

[Mark]

Well, the situation now is that the Tories have to do things well. They have to try and impress the electorate, and then call a mid-term election at the right time to try and get a majority. With new people in government, perhaps this is a good thing for the country.

Well the first thing the LibDems did was make sure that this can't happen. i.e. Have 2 years until the Tories think the time is right and then have the rug pulled from under them.

Under the new deal we'll now have a fixed term parliament of 4 years.

[Mark]

The forum election poll results, if using an entirely proportional system. would translate into a parliament as follows:

Labour 90
Conservative 134
Liberal Democrat 314
Other 112

Still a hung parliament as the LibDems with 314 seats are still 21 seats short of an overall majority. But the big difference in this party is that the 'others' hold more seats than even the Labour party does. I reckon the LibDems would forum a minority forum government :p

[GridGirl]

With a proportional system would as many people have voted for the LibDem's. A protest vote is relatively easy to do with our current voting system. Proportional representation may influence a protest vote I would have thought and more people may have voted conservative or labour.

Our new prime minister is a Villa fan. We're obviously screwed!!! :p

[Bezza]

Cameron is PM. That is good news :)

[fandango]

Under the new deal we'll now have a fixed term parliament of 4 years.

And if the deal breaks down....?


The forum election poll results, if using an entirely proportional system. would translate into a parliament as follows:

Labour 90
Conservative 134
Liberal Democrat 314
Other 112

Still a hung parliament as the LibDems with 314 seats are still 21 seats short of an overall majority. But the big difference in this party is that the 'others' hold more seats than even the Labour party does. I reckon the LibDems would forum a minority forum government :p

What do you mean by "entirely" proportional? There were no preferences in the poll, and therefore no transfers. Or am I missing something?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not only will he "let him do that" but he'll back him to the hilt in doing it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269045/General-Election-2010-Nick-Cleggs-demand-NHS-broken-up.html
Nick Clegg has called for the NHS to be 'broken up' and said the Lib Dems should consider replacing it with a European-style insurance system.
In a little-noticed interview before he took over as leader, he said the party should consider a social insurance system to replace the present tax-funded Health Service.
I can't find the article, but I remember Clegg personally writing an opinion piece to The Telegraph on about Dec 19 last year, also to that effect.

If Clegg said all this crap, then why is half of the left wingers here so exercised about him not being the PM and him backing The Tories? I thought he was a lefty? Oh right..he isn't?

It is to make me laugh. All I have heard about in this thread is how Clegg was going to do a deal with Brown. All you Lib/Dem supporters HATE Brown as much as you hate Cameron almost. 2/3 of the nation did NOT want Labour as the government. PERIOD. So why would Clegg go to him after the Labourites have 13 years to implement their policy.

Clegg did the only deal open to him. If he is a closet right winger, then you should have voted Labour.....if you are so scared of Cameron.

It floors me how silly people get about politics. The sad reality is, your party cant rule forever, so it is a great idea if the other party wins on occasion and screws up just enough to justify going back to your guys. The other side needs to win for a healthy democracy.

The Tories are coming to power with a minority and Clegg's party is a center/left party. I don't expect much in the way of radical change, and I don't see Cameron as that strong a leader. I think he is a bit of a twit actually...because if he was a really good strong Tory leader not running the party to the center as hard as he was, he maybe would have won this election...with a majority.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

because if he was a really good strong Tory leader not running the party to the center as hard as he was, he maybe would have won this election...with a majority.

This I don't agree with this. Cameron knew the only way the Conservatives would ever get into power again would be to take a more central position. The two previous right wingers who were leaders in elections (Hague and Howard) got destroyed by Labour.

The opposite could be said about Labour pre-Blair. They knew they wouldn't get into power if the moved away from the left. The UK wants centre politics.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This I don't agree with this. Cameron knew the only way the Conservatives would ever get into power again would be to take a more central position. The two previous right wingers who were leaders in elections (Hague and Howard) got destroyed by Labour.

The opposite could be said about Labour pre-Blair. They knew they wouldn't get into power if the moved away from the left. The UK wants centre politics.


Maybe so Jon, but Labour was in power for the last 13 years, and if you DIDN'T approve...then moving slightly to the right might work. However, the results do sort of say muddling around the middle is what works in the UK....sort of..

[Mark]

And if the deal breaks down....?


I believe the deal is for a 5 year fixed term, therefore they can't call an election before then just because they want to. However, if the deal does break down and the Liberal Democrats leave the coalition then the Conservatives would still be in power as a minority government. However if they subsequently lost a vote of confidence in the Commons, then, yes, a general election would result.



What do you mean by "entirely" proportional? There were no preferences in the poll, and therefore no transfers. Or am I missing something?

As we have no forum constituencies I mean just if the percentage of the vote directly translated to the number of MPs.

[Dave B]

Leading economists now predict that the Condems will backtrack on their pledge to reverse Labour's 1% NI rise, and may raise VAT to 20% within a year despite previously having "no plans" to do so. :s

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278006/Cameron-backtracks-NI-rise-middle-classes-face-savage-capital-gains-tax-rises.html?ITO=1490

[Mark]

Leading economists now predict that the Condems will backtrack on their pledge to reverse Labour's 1% NI rise


They already have! They've announced that the rise will come in for employees, but not employers! So as far as my take home pay is concerned, I'm still going to see the 'Labour' tax rise, despite the the tories not introducing it being one of their core election pledges. Breaking their promises on their first full day in office - good going.



, and may raise VAT to 20% within a year despite previously having "no plans" to do so. :s It wouldn't surprise me at all! That and the scrapping of their promise to lower fuel duty if the price is too high, I'd full expect fuel duty to go up even faster now.

Personally tax rises don't concern me too much, it's keeping my job that's the important thing, and that's down to government spending!

[Iceman778]

yes i also thiknk so

[Mark in Oshawa]

They already have! They've announced that the rise will come in for employees, but not employers! So as far as my take home pay is concerned, I'm still going to see the 'Labour' tax rise, despite the the tories not introducing it being one of their core election pledges. Breaking their promises on their first full day in office - good going.

It wouldn't surprise me at all! That and the scrapping of their promise to lower fuel duty if the price is too high, I'd full expect fuel duty to go up even faster now.

Personally tax rises don't concern me too much, it's keeping my job that's the important thing, and that's down to government spending!

Unless you work for government, LESS Government spending in the end may result in more jobs. Companies having to cope with higher tax loads tend not to hire....

[Iceman778]

i think i should go with liberal democrate...........what you say?

[Bezza]

Will you lot stop scaremongering, you are so negative and pessimistic it is untrue.

Finally, a chance to right the wrongs of the Labour era. The country doesn’t need a government which gives in at the first sign of pressure from other countries, and it doesn’t need mass immigration and benefits to the undeserved – simply to fill the country with more left-wing voters who have a cushy life. There are plenty where I live, and it isn’t pretty.

Why did most people vote conservative? How can you object to a party being in power when they got more votes than everybody else?

Granted, not a majority, but more than Labour, and that is key.

What were the alternatives for the Liberal Democrats? A coalition with Labour was discussed, Labour turned it down – as the current voting system rewards them more than any other political party and the Lib Dems wanted to change this. Even if they had joined forces, it would not have been enough to form a government – so all sorts of other parties would have been in the mix.

The country will get change. It won’t happen overnight, of course not. It won’t be easy, but a government needs to be tough and not pander to Europe and everybody else.

Zstar Electronic Co.Ltd, Sell fire cards for DS/NDSL/NDSi, also have Wii, DSiLL, NDSi, NDSL, PSP2000, PSP3000, PS2, PS3, PSP go, PSP, Xbox360 accessories, all kinds of phones are available
http://www.zstar.hk
http://www.tigersupermall.com

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As much as I don't like him, Heseltine he made a good point on QT last night. What was the alternative to the coalition?

What we have now is the most democratic and most stable of all the options. All us centre-left people have to accept that the Tories got the highest share of the vote.

[Mark]

A coalition with Labour was discussed, Labour turned it down – as the current voting system rewards them more than any other political party

How so?

[Mark in Oshawa]

How so?

Well Mark, there was an article in a column I read (cant remember where..but I suspect there is a few columns about this that mention it) that points out the densest population districts in the UK are in the larger cities, and that is where Labour has a lot of their seats. They tend to get more of the seats per votes cast than the Tories or Lib/Dem's mainly based on the way the ridings have been gerrymandered. Not that the other parties probably wouldn't have the same done, but from what I have read, the way things are now, Labour has done very well to get as many seats as they have for their popular vote.

Those wanting PR do have a good point in that the percentage of votes cast doesn't reflect in the seat totals, but again, gaining lots of percentages points up in seats where you have a great advantage can hurt you also...

Nothing about the FPTP system is fair on paper, but the reality is, in this case, you have 3 major parties now, and no one party is likely to win a clear majority of the popular vote. So as long as the seats sort of reflect that...like they did last week, then you will get coalitions and minority parliaments....which is how the vote pretty much presents itself. Just the numbers are different...

[F1boat]

I know that some British are tough or their politicians, but from the outside they look very, very prepared, educated and advanced. I watched the elections on BBC and I was really impressed. And I congratulate the Cons - while I am more lefty, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Cameron and how he reformed the Conservative party. Well done to him!

[Mark]

Well Mark, there was an article in a column I read (cant remember where..but I suspect there is a few columns about this that mention it) that points out the densest population districts in the UK are in the larger cities, and that is where Labour has a lot of their seats. They tend to get more of the seats per votes cast than the Tories or Lib/Dem's mainly based on the way the ridings have been gerrymandered. Not that the other parties probably wouldn't have the same done, but from what I have read, the way things are now, Labour has done very well to get as many seats as they have for their popular vote.


The constituencies are largely the same as they were under Conservative Govt! I think the point is that there are a large amount of Labour 'safe' seats where the populace votes overwhelmingly Labour. Whereas the Conservatives have a more rural power base, which can often be marginal as if you have an urban area within that constituency too, then it'll tend to Labour.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The constituencies are largely the same as they were under Conservative Govt! I think the point is that there are a large amount of Labour 'safe' seats where the populace votes overwhelmingly Labour. Whereas the Conservatives have a more rural power base, which can often be marginal as if you have an urban area within that constituency too, then it'll tend to Labour.


Maybe so...but I do know that what is happening the UK is pretty similar to what is happening in Canada. The Conservatives rule the rural regions and the suburbs of the major cities, and some ridings in some cities, but the urban core of most cities vote for more left wing parties.

FPTP allows for more seats for less percentage of the popular vote and vice versa but in this rural/urban schism, you get the inequities really pronounced. Add in a little gerrymandering of the riding boundries...and voila...

[Mark]

Maybe so...but I do know that what is happening the UK is pretty similar to what is happening in Canada. The Conservatives rule the rural regions and the suburbs of the major cities, and some ridings in some cities, but the urban core of most cities vote for more left wing parties.

FPTP allows for more seats for less percentage of the popular vote and vice versa but in this rural/urban schism, you get the inequities really pronounced. Add in a little gerrymandering of the riding boundries...and voila...

Quite so! It sounds very similar to the UK situation. Which is why I'd be more in favour of the system used for the EU parliament, where you have quite large constituencies which take in rural and urban areas, but you elect a number of MPs for it, chosen through PR.

They are talking at the moment about 'fixed size constituencies', which I thought they were already, in terms of population.

[Dave B]

So what have the coalition done for us so far?

Attempted to make themselves bulletproof by mandating that 55% of the Commons must vote for their abolition. Make plans to appoint up to a hundred new Lords so that their legislation doesn't get opposed. Announce an emergency budget which looks like putting VAT up to 20% despite their "no plans to do so" prior to the election. And now backtrack on human rights legislation.

Boooooooo!

[GridGirl]

The emergency budget will be announced 5 weeks today. It almost deserves it's own thread already. What ever happen's I'm sure I will end up worse off; just great.

[Alfa Fan]

The emergency budget will be announced 5 weeks today. It almost deserves it's own thread already. What ever happen's I'm sure I will end up worse off; just great.

Well what did you expect? Special exemption so everyone else pays for you?

[GridGirl]

Well what did you expect? Special exemption so everyone else pays for you?

In any given day or month I will pay income tax at 20% and 40%, national insurance, VAT, motoring tax, council tax, fuel duty and alcohol duty to name but a few taxes. Please forgive me if I'm not excited at the prospect of paying even more taxes. I assume your jumping for joy! :p

[Alfa Fan]

No obviously not. But thanks to the mismanagement of the previous government (and I was saying this even when they were popular), the country simply cannot afford to continue running such high deficits every year.

Despite all the smokescreen pulled by all three parties over it, the solutions are relatively simple. There is in essence two solutions. One is put up taxes and maintain current spending, the other is to maintain current taxes and cut spending.

Essentially the election was a choice between whether the burden should fall more on taxation (as the labour government would have done) or more on public spending (as the tory government would have done and the coalition government probably will now do).

Given those two choices I would prefer cuts in public services, for a great number of reasons. One I believe that the size of the public sector, particularly in Northern Ireland for example is far too big. It is a statistical regularity that the public sector grows slower and is less innovative than the private sector. On that basis cuts in public sector provision are going to be less harmful to economic growth than taxation policy which forces cuts in private sector.

The labour government liked to make it sound like you had a choice between cutting public funding (which they claimed would make people worse off) or raising taxation (which they tried to hide would actually also make people worse off).

Here's the tricky bit for party politics though. The cuts in public spending will hit the lowest earning proportionally more than an increase in tax which would have had a relatively higher effect on the rich. That is what a lot of people object to in this new governments policy. I'm not at all near what you would call "rich" by the way...but ultimately hampering businesses by raising taxation on them is not the way forward.

[driveace]

IF you take over a bankrupt country,as that is what the Labour government left for whoever won the election,what are you supposed to do,When there are more people employed by the state,than are employed by all the other businesses,then drastic action is needed.
The Labour party had run out of idea's,thats why they would not try to make an alliance with the Lib-Dems,and dont forget that LABOURS Liam B***** left a note for the incoming party saying,all spent ,there's nothing left,
Yes VAT may rise to 20%,BUT IT HAS GONE UP 3% in Spain and also to 22% in \southern Ireland,and besides Greece,there is also trouble in Spain ,Portugal,Ireland and Italy!!!
AND today Cameron has had the balls to tell the Germans through Merkel that we will not be helping out country's that are in trouble with the Euro.
Cant you lefty's see that after 13 years of your preferred government the country is bankrupt