After Election Stalemate

iolanthe07

This means that approx 21% of the electorate voted for them (assuming a 60 % turn out) but they have a 'mandate' to wreck the country.


Only 22% of the electorate voted Labour in 2005 and they have wrecked the country. It is called 'democracy'!

Batchy

We should have voting over a week, and not accept a result less than 95% showing/turnout.

The fact is, the 40% who dont show up, would vote for non of the above.

All people want is ... fairness. to work and be rewarded, to be sick and be supported, to buy a house at a reasonable affordable price. To have neighbours who are reasonable, to not suffer at the hands of criminals, to not be victimised just cause you like cars, or other forms of transport. To be able to earn money for your retirement, to have savings and get decent interest on it, is this too much to ask? Kids, school, earnings, homes and transport... its just not rocket science. Do we really need... CDO's or derivatives or hedge funds? seriously... chop their balls off, simple as that. Lets get back to making things (cars) and engineering, and bright innovation, and designing things of greatness.

zappahey

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Lets say 35% of people who vote, vote Tory and they get a small majority.

This means that approx 21% of the electorate voted for them (assuming a 60 % turn out) but they have a 'mandate' to wreck the country.

I won't even get started on the fact that in such a scenario, the Lib Dems might get 28% of the vote and only get 80 odd seats.

Whats fair about that ?

If the rest don't care enough to vote, then they get the government they deserve.

The alternative is to make voting compulsory, as it is here in Belgium.

Really2

zappahey wrote: »

The alternative is to make voting compulsory, as it is here in Belgium.

From what I have seen on this forum it makes Belgium sound like a very boring dictatorship.

What happens if you don't vote? Do you get bunned until you repent and spend a day removing icing and glace cherries off yourself.
(I know this is highly unlikely as it sounds moderately exciting and fun)

JP45

barrymoney wrote: »

Didnt Clegg say that whichever party 'has a mandate' deserves to form a government. So, if Tories win by a few seats, and win the popular vote, then he cant form a coalition with labour since they lost by both criteria. But, GB will offer libdems PR. He'll turn it down?

Yep, I'm pretty sure Clegg did say that, ie that in the event that the Tories win the popular vote and gain the greatest number of seats, then he'd be morally-bound to seek a coalition with the Tories rather than Labour.

The other thing that's become pretty clear over recent weeks (through briefings to the Press) is that Nick Clegg has a deep (healthy) antipathy towards Gordon Brown, much of which apparently stems from his experience in negotiating with Brown over Parliamentary reforms in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal.

AIUI Clegg has made it clear that one price to be paid in the event of a Lib-Lab pact would be that Gordon Brown would have to make way for someone more reasonable, which probably means almost any member of the Cabinet other than Ed Balls. So at least there's a chance we'd finally be rid of Brown which would be some consolation.
.

StevieJ

JP45 wrote: »

AIUI Clegg has made it clear that one price to be paid in the event of a Lib-Lab pact would be that Gordon Brown would have to make way for someone more reasonable, which probably means almost any member of the Cabinet other than Ed Balls. So at least there's a chance we'd finally be rid of Brown which would be some consolation.
.

I think he retracted that.

kabayiri

Talking of seats vs % of votes, did anyone see Dispatches last night?

A statistician worked out the 'weight' of your vote based on things like size of the electorate in your constituency, and how long had the current incumbent MP been in office, etc.

It turns out that in Bootle, the safest seat in the country, your vote carries 300 times LESS weight than in the most marginal constituency. To back this up, they went to Bootle and asked about the campaigning done in the area. It turns out that LibDems and Cons both chose not to fight the seat with any vigour, with one party describing it as a 'dead duck'.

So much for your vote and opinion counting then? It truly is a postcode lottery at the moment.

torontoboy45

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Lets say 35% of people who vote, vote Tory and they get a small majority.

This means that approx 21% of the electorate voted for them (assuming a 60 % turn out) but they have a 'mandate' to wreck the country.

I won't even get started on the fact that in such a scenario, the Lib Dems might get 28% of the vote and only get 80 odd seats.

Whats fair about that ?

nothing at all. and the argument raises its head every few yrs, only to be quietly forgotten by the duopoly at GE times.

I've been watching politics from a safe distance ( a bit like the Ld's and their predecessors ) for nearly 30yrs and have never been able to understand the argument against PR.

a not too bad example of where a form of PR has been in place since 1949, and seems to work reasonably well for the economy without the need for 'strong' (i.e non-coalition) gov. is germany.

the press, with its hysterical headlines about the 'dangers' of a HP, doesn't fool me. if a HP leads to any form of PR then all the better.

kennyboy66_2

kabayiri wrote: »

Talking of seats vs % of votes, did anyone see Dispatches last night?

A statistician worked out the 'weight' of your vote based on things like size of the electorate in your constituency, and how long had the current incumbent MP been in office, etc.

It turns out that in Bootle, the safest seat in the country, your vote carries 300 times LESS weight than in the most marginal constituency. To back this up, they went to Bootle and asked about the campaigning done in the area. It turns out that LibDems and Cons both chose not to fight the seat with any vigour, with one party describing it as a 'dead duck'.

So much for your vote and opinion counting then? It truly is a postcode lottery at the moment.

As an antidote to Bootle, 7 miles east and you have a marginal constituency of Liverpool Wavertree (despite Labour winning in 1997 with a 19k majority) and the battle is more intense than I have known in any election in my lifetime.

We have daily (sometimes twice a day) newsletters / personalised letters from the Lib Dems.
My sister in law (same constituency) was offered a lift to the polling station by her Labour candidate. She lives approx 35 yards from the polling station.

Obviously the Tory candidate is effectively absent - as the Lib Dems point out on every single leaflet - "The Tories, They can't win here".

A._Badger

torontoboy45 wrote: »

nothing at all. and the argument raises its head every few yrs, only to be quietly forgotten by the duopoly at GE times.

I've been watching politics from a safe distance ( a bit like the Ld's and their predecessors ) for nearly 30yrs and have never been able to understand the argument against PR.

a not too bad example of where a form of PR has been in place since 1949, and seems to work reasonably well for the economy without the need for 'strong' (i.e non-coalition) gov. is germany.

the press, with its hysterical headlines about the 'dangers' of a HP, doesn't fool me. if a HP leads to any form of PR then all the better.

I'm relatively open-minded about PR but I would enjoy the look of anguish on the faces of its strongest advocates when minority parties started to gain traction as a result...