Stupid bloody politics!

[HughJars]

Hapless has it spot on, if it wasn't for Scotland and Wales we would have had a massive landslide to the Conservative party and that is a fact. England was virtually blue apart from the traditional Labour strongholds in the north east and west. It would seem that Scotland held off a Torie landslide and handed a very poor third placed Liberal party far more power than it has any right to wield. How the heck can a failure off a party be allowed to choose the next government is totally beyond me.

Good point, although if it hadn't been for England (mainly southern England it has to be said) then we would have had a Labour landslide. That is also a fact.

And as this was the UK elections, you can't just decide which part of it has votes more worthy, just because they happened to vote for your choice of party.

 

[CrapHacker]

Tories 10.7 million, Labour 8.6 million, LibDem 6.8 million.

Tories got 37% of vote this time but no majority, in 2005 labour got only 35% of vote but managed a majority. In that respect Tories have as good a claim to govern as Labour did.

This is what I don't get.

On the radio today there was an interview with a politician about this 'anomaly'.

The politician's reply went along the lines of ;

Well this is what the game's all about. ( GAME ?? )
Labour are historically good at making their vote count.
They work on the marginals and make sure that it's in these seats they get their supports voting.
The Tories', however, is less active, and more democratic, and possibly older, so that people feel the ought to vote no matter where they live. So a lot of their votes are 'wasted' by people voting in safe seats.

To paraphrase a good book I once read :

All voters are equal, but some are more equal than others

Not the best definition of democracy that I've ever read.

 

[viscount17]

The problem with Proportional representation is just how do you do it.

The obvious way is all the parties make a list of their candidates and, starting at the top, the more votes you get the more of your candidates get in.
The trouble with this is that the list is topped by all the party hacks - many of whom deserve to be voted out. You get in on surviving, not because you're any good.

The other problem is that it totally divorces the MP from the electorate - who represents you? (not that they do anyway!) I think that most of the elctorate want closer representation (more responsibility - and we should have the right to sack them!) - prospective MP should have to live in a constituency (and for more than a dogwatch) before being eligible to stand.

One proposal is to even out the size of constituencies (job for life sitting on that boundary commission!). What they really want are more smaller constituencies as that will mean more MPs - all of whom we're paying!

 

[19th]

It was interesting to have Sally Magnassun(spl?) on TV on Sunday night presenting a BBC programme on the reason Scots vote Labour.

She shadowed two Tory PPC's as they organised their attack and doorstepped the areas. She/we were left in no doubt of the candidates ability and trust placed in them by the public, but this was not reflected in the votes cast.

She then did a follow up after the election to question this and included not just the PPCs but Annabel Goldie, the current leader of the party in Scotland and old Scottish Tory MPs, like Teddy Taylor.

The conclusion was that the main reason why Tories will not vote Tory in Scotland is related to the sense of community - 'Yes it is good for me BUT what about the others??'

This, they found, is different in England where the individual thinks about their position first and the community second.

 

[Dodger]

Here's one for you to ponder and help me to understand?

Over the last month we had to endure the falsification and fanciful propositions of those egotistical clowns jostling for one of the 650 seats on offer at Westminster. Last Thursday votes were placed and the public chose to ditch the unelected person who masqueraded as the Prime Minister - mainly, I guess because he was held responsible for the economic mess the country had got itself into. I seem to remember he was the person who raided pension funds to lavish that money on quangos and the like - so the public were not buying any of his 'fabricated' promises. They also chose not to have anything to do with the guy who was supposed to be the new 'boy wonder' widely tipped to lead the Lib Dems to second place - replacing Brown & Co as the second party.

Fast forward two days and the results of this 'circus' are announced and not surprisingly - Brown is booted out with the lowest vote for a Labour party for 30 years and Boy Wonder is humbled into third place and losing two seats into the bargain.

This is where I get lost - the British Constitution then allows the guys who lost (or rather were deselected by the British public) to get together to form an alliance that could become the government of the country. As I understand it - in a democratic nation the person or party winning the most votes and seats is the people's choice and should govern.

What is even more confusing is the notion that The United Kingdom (whatever that means) allows all the people who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote/select the ministers that will make up the 650 who are justified to sit in Westminister and draw exorbitant salaries and expenses that the taxpayer must pay for. While at the same time the three places mentioned previously all have their own governments but the people of England have no say in selecting the ministers in those three countries - yet still have to pay for them and put up with them. Brown was elected to parliament because somewhere in a backwater in Scotland a few misguided souls deemed him to be a competent and capable person - who by default became the PM - did anybody in England have any say in that process?

Now the nation is holding its collective breath in the fear that he may become a figurehead in a coalition government until such time as the Labour dimwits select a leader - which could be in September. You couldn't make this stuff up.

The nation is supposed to be a Democracy - where the people elect the persons they believe have the backbone and common decency to represent their views and requirements at the highest 'court' in the land. That democracy was nothing more than an autocracy for the past 13 years - firstly Blair and more recently Brown and now it gives the impression of Communism. The will of the people is being manipulated by a bunch of losers - who are being paid by the same people they are misrepresenting.

How does that make any sense??????

 

[haplesshacker]

So Brown quits as PM now. How does Dave know? Was he just watching tv as Brown pulls into Buck House and thinks "gee, I wish I didn't have garlic for dinner, Ive gotta leave and see Liz."

Yet we still don't know if any deal has been struck with the Lib Dems or what it contains.

Somehow I don't think this is over for sometime yet.

 

[drawboy]

He has no choice. Labour needed the Lib Dems to agree to a coalition and also all of the other party MP's inc Snp, Ulster unionists and the Green, Yeah like that's going to be harmonious. Even if the Tories and Lib's do not form an alliance Gordon Brown has no possible position to hold. Once the Libs said no to him he was finished.

 

[HughJars]

What is even more confusing is the notion that The United Kingdom (whatever that means) allows all the people who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote/select the ministers that will make up the 650 who are justified to sit in Westminister and draw exorbitant salaries and expenses that the taxpayer must pay for. While at the same time the three places mentioned previously all have their own governments but the people of England have no say in selecting the ministers in those three countries - yet still have to pay for them and put up with them. Brown was elected to parliament because somewhere in a backwater in Scotland a few misguided souls deemed him to be a competent and capable person - who by default became the PM - did anybody in England have any say in that process?

The reason these "backwaters" now all have a devolved parliament of their own, is precisely becasue of the patronising, ignorant, borderline bigotted views such as this so often expressed by those in southern Britain!

 

[viscount17]

If, as it seems, the Conservatives and Liberals have agreed to pursue a change in electoral policy the biggest favour they can do the country is to outlaw party politics within Westminster.

Party can come into it during an election as a means of determining who could be PM but once elected they should ALL be working for the common good as they are paid to do.

I was royally peed off by a Labour MP interviewed this morning when he said 'of course the Labour Party will be doing all in its power to sabotage the coalition'.

Sod the good of the country, sod the British citizens - just so long as they can go on with their small minded squabbles.


- and yes, i know it's a pipedream.