UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possible

[captcalhoun]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

i voted for Labour, not just because i can't stick the Tories, but also because Labour's done a lot for me and mine and because we had a decent Labour MP and i don't particularly like the LibDems. i like them even less now.

the Tories didn't win the election because they didn't get a majority. Labour however, did lose the election...

irrespective of the five-year parliaments, it's plain wrong Cameron wants to change it so you need 55% of MPs to vote against the government in a no-confidence vote. 51% is over half and that's the way it is now. it's cynical to say 55% is some how better.

had a good laugh today at the Daily Fail's quotes of Tories and LibDems slagging each otehr off before the election, including Ken Clarke and Chris Huhne saying they'd never work with each otehr's parties and Osbourne saying no LibDem would be in government after the elections.

 

[cultcross]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

Yes, the press love to play that game whenever politicians work together. It's frankly that attitude which keeps politics so partisan and polarised. If we can't put aside the differences between politicians we've never even met, what chance do they have?

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

irrespective of the five-year parliaments, it's plain wrong Cameron wants to change it so you need 55% of MPs to vote against the government in a no-confidence vote. 51% is over half and that's the way it is now. it's cynical to say 55% is some how better.

It wasn't 51% before, it was 50% +1 person.

And the Labour-instituted version in Scotland, which this model is taken from, has a 66% limit.

And it was in Labour's campaign as well, which they've suddenly forgotten (and if they'd won and set up a coalition with the LDs it would have presumably been 66% as in Scotland).

Also, Labour keep saying the rule will be that 55% of MPs have to vote against the government in a no-confidence motion, but that's a bald-faced lie. A no-confidence motion can still bring down the PM as normal, but the 55% rule is do with forcing an election, not ousting the ruler.

In the unlikely event that the LDs suddenly decided they like whichever Milliband takes over Labour, and make a deal with them, they could still force a no confidence motion and in theory put a LibLab Alliance in power *without an election*

What the 55% rule says is that 55% of MPs have to vote for an election to be called, within 28 days of a no-confidence failure, for there to be an election.

This basically means Cameron can't just ditch them, because they'd then vote with Labour for an election.

It makes the place a lot more stable - cos another election this year would be a Tory majority, and Labour out of business, as well as slaughtering the economy.

In other words, the 55% thing is something Labour wanted, it's to Labour's advantage, and it's about time they stopped pretending that either of those were the case.

ETA- reading this back, it becomes ever clearer that Labour is the party who most of all is putting tribal lines ahead of economic stability, for all of Gordon's speeches about the latter.

 

[cultcross]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

irrespective of the five-year parliaments, it's plain wrong Cameron wants to change it so you need 55% of MPs to vote against the government in a no-confidence vote. 51% is over half and that's the way it is now. it's cynical to say 55% is some how better.

It wasn't 51% before, it was 50% +1 person.

And the Labour-instituted version in Scotland, which this model is taken from, has a 66% limit.

And it was in Labour's campaign as well, which they've suddenly forgotten (and if they'd won and set up a coalition with the LDs it would have presumably been 66% as in Scotland)

But, but, Labour says its the END OF DEMOCRACY!

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

irrespective of the five-year parliaments, it's plain wrong Cameron wants to change it so you need 55% of MPs to vote against the government in a no-confidence vote. 51% is over half and that's the way it is now. it's cynical to say 55% is some how better.

It wasn't 51% before, it was 50% +1 person.

And the Labour-instituted version in Scotland, which this model is taken from, has a 66% limit.

And it was in Labour's campaign as well, which they've suddenly forgotten (and if they'd won and set up a coalition with the LDs it would have presumably been 66% as in Scotland)

But, but, Labour says its the END OF DEMOCRACY!

Democracy, of course, being the Greek word for "vote Labour cause the Tories are bad, M'kay...."

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

It wasn't 51% before, it was 50% +1 person.

And the Labour-instituted version in Scotland, which this model is taken from, has a 66% limit.

And it was in Labour's campaign as well, which they've suddenly forgotten (and if they'd won and set up a coalition with the LDs it would have presumably been 66% as in Scotland)

But, but, Labour says its the END OF DEMOCRACY!

Democracy, of course, being the Greek word for "vote Labour cause the Tories are bad, M'kay...."

And look at Greece now.

 

[Hermiod]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

I didn't vote against Labour or the Tories, I voted for the Liberal Democrats.

I agree with your main point. The largest group of people in Britain who voted did so for the Conservatives, but not a majority. We didn't get a Conservative government, we got a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government. Between the two of them and their other allies such as the DUP, they do make up a majority.


An insufficient number of people were convinced that the Conservatives should form a government so we ended up with a one balanced out by one with views that will quite often oppose theirs. This is a good thing, in my view.

Alistair Campbell can keep whining about this as much as he likes, it won't make him right.

Pretty much agreed completely. Especially the first line.

Even the horrible grammar in the third paragraph ?

 

[cultcross]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

That's why I said 'pretty much'

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

(this poster went to a grammar school and got mediocre grades at best and went to the local college for three years and did okay.)

 

[Geckothan]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

Privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies are people too, and often smart ones at that.

 

[trampledamage]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

Privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies are people too, and often smart ones at that.

And usually work as merchant bankers.

It's the privately educated eejits who want to run the country and who don't mind waiting for all the money who become politicians.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

then really, you need to be voting for, well, some kind of Party that doesn't exist in the UK...

 

[Mr Cool Dude]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

CONDEM. I've seen the future, and it's murder.

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

then really, you need to be voting for, well, some kind of Party that doesn't exist in the UK...

maybe i should start my own.

you can be my Justice spokesman

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

then really, you need to be voting for, well, some kind of Party that doesn't exist in the UK...

Or, really ... anywhere.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

then really, you need to be voting for, well, some kind of Party that doesn't exist in the UK...

maybe i should start my own.

you can be my Justice spokesman

Not a bad offer...

 

[Starkers]

Re: UK election. So much for our votes counting - worst result possibl

democracy supposed to be rule by the people, for the people. not by a buncha privately educated eejits who only care about getting rich and making money for them and their buddies.

PEOPLE POWER!!!!

then really, you need to be voting for, well, some kind of Party that doesn't exist in the UK...

maybe i should start my own.

you can be my Justice spokesman

You could change your name by deed poll to Harold Saxon