lib are talking to labour please tell me it's not so

Sir_Humphrey

moggylover wrote: »

1%, or even 5%, of the population should NEVER be allowed to be considered more important than the rest: that is a feudal system and not a democratic one;)

This is the main reason why I dislike FPTP. The small % of voters in very marginal seats are more important than other voters.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

Thanked when I meant to quote, but won't remove thanks.

TBH I think either party would like to disown BNP. I always have BNP voters down as boneheads...and don't rally think anymore about it.

They may be boneheads lost, but in general I think it is right to think that they are more likely to be socialists who have become disenchanted with the bad effect that large numbers of immigrants (especially those at the low-skilled end) have on wages and jobs for British people.

I don't like their views: but I can understand where they are coming from.

jamespir

im not sure as it cna be any worse than a lib tory coallition

abaxas

jamespir wrote: »

im not sure as it cna be any worse than a lib tory coallition

Here are a few options for you..

1) Labour majority

Somerset

If anyone cares to face the fact that 2/3rds (or at least, 64%) of the voters voted clearly for ANY party but the Tories, then a Tory government could NEVER claim to be democratically elected in this election.

Here's a really novel idea, two parties each got about 1/3 of the vote (not the seats: the vote) and to my mind that suggests that the Country is pretty much evenly split between them and that the result that would best represent the wants of the PEOPLE

I think there's one clear winner - overwhelmingly the majority vote - and with the current chaos I might join them.

Party - Seats - Vote

Conservative 306 10,706,647
[SIZE=+0]Labour 258 8,604,358 [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
Liberal Democrat 57 6,827,938
Democratic Unionist Party 8 168,216
Scottish National Party 6 491,386
Sinn Fein 5 171,942
Plaid Cymru 3 165,394
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 110,970
Green 1 285,616
Alliance Party 1 42,762
UK Independence Party 0 917,832
British National Party 0 563,743
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force 0 102,361 English Democrats 0 64,826
Respect-Unity Coalition 0 33,251
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 26,300
Christian Party 0 18,623
Independent Community and Health Concern 0 16,150
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 0 12,275
Scottish Socialist Party 0 3,157
Others 1 319,891
Eligible to vote but did not 0 16,346,362
Turnout 29,653,638
Total eligible to vote 46,000,000

[/SIZE]

jamespir

abaxas wrote: »

Here are a few options for you..

1) Labour majority

and if the other tory majority

moggylover

sir_humphrey wrote: »

but the current system splits the left-of-centre vote. Face it, there are more centre-left people than centre-right people in the uk.

Personally, i think av is insufficiently proportional.

Perhaps if well-off/rich people did not cling together in rich home-county enclaves, then the tory vote would be better distributed under fptp.

:t:t:t:t:t:t

silvercar

Cameron options.

According to an article in yesterday's Times:

David Cameron has three options other than plumping for opposition, which he does not (and should not) want to do. The first is No Surrender: go it alone, and form a government without the Liberal Democrats. The second is Unilateral Disarmament: offer proportional representation and in effect merge the two parties. The third is Principled Negotiation: be imaginative, be generous but don’t leap into a deal that would split your party.

No Surrender is possible. Cameron could simply forge ahead, presume that any Clegg-Brown talks would founder, and wait to form a government. But if Clegg and Brown do make a deal, the Tories would then be locked out of office.

The Unilateral Disarmament option is surely impossible. To concede proportional representation to Clegg would be to split the Tories asunder and Cameron could be left competing to lead a new party of centrist politicians that finds itself excluded from power.

That leaves Principled Negotiation. PR is the crunch issue. Cameron cannot concede a referendum — unless, of course, the Commons demands one in a free vote. But PR and electoral reform are not the same thing: fixed-term Parliaments, for example, are part of the second, but not the first. A hard bargain can be won, given the strength of the Tories’ numbers and the weakness of Clegg’s position.

Can someone explain PR? I understand AV gives you 2nd (and 3rd) choice votes. AV+ adds it it a second list of MPS to soak up unused votes. What does PR bring?

silvercar

Sir_Humphrey wrote:

Perhaps if well-off/rich people did not cling together in rich home-county enclaves, then the tory vote would be better distributed under fptp.

Don't the benefit reliant, labour voting chav's cling together on council estates?

julieq

The issue isn't some much one of who forms a government, that's largely a numbers game, and certainly a Lib/Lab coalition is no worse in itself than any other kind in itself, except that it would be led by the big losers from the election.

It's that the Liberals appear to be taking advantage of the situation to force through a change to the voting system without a mandate or any sort of consultation, aided by Brown's desperation to hang onto power at all costs for as long as possible.

The Daily Mash put it aptly, as usual: "Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Mr Brown's statement 'smoothed the way towards a stable government' involving an as yet unidentified prime minister, a collection of lying, two-faced wh0res, some Welsh, Scottish, Irish and possibly Cornish nationalists, a lady from Brighton who drives a car made of yeast, as well as the Roly Polys, the Wurzels and the Average White Band. "

This is a political mugging, to be followed by more political muggings via the peculiar inversion of a finely balanced hung parliament whereby tiny minorities carry disproportionate weight.

And the complaints are not coming exclusively from whining tories, unless David Blunkett and John Reid have suddenly switched sides. John Reid in particular made an extraordinarily perceptive contribution yesterday, pointing out that there is a longer game to consider.

There is an opportunistic position here and there is a principled position. The interests of the Liberals and in fact all of us who want a moderately centre left government - which includes myself and I suspect a very high proportion of Conservative voters, i.e. measured social provision and health care backed by some degree of personal responsibility, without excessive state interference in our daily lives - would in fact be better served by working with the largest party, influencing its actions, towards the actions needed to stablise the economy.