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

[Jim Gamma]

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

Except that it's not fifteen hours, is it? Most people get up and have to go to work in the morning. I'm up at 7AM, on the train by 8AM, and in work by 9AM. Then I work all day and get home at around 6PM. So it's 4 hours for me.

And don't try saying "Get up earlier", because the polling station is nowhere near the train station for me, and going to vote first would lead to me being late for work.

 

[Smiley]

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

So, you have four hours of time available to you. Isn't that enough? Are the lines at the polling place that long? If this is a big issue for the UK, then mail-in ballots should be seriously considered.

 

[John Picard]

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

Except that it's not fifteen hours, is it? Most people get up and have to go to work in the morning. I'm up at 7AM, on the train by 8AM, and in work by 9AM. Then I work all day and get home at around 6PM. So it's 4 hours for me.

And don't try saying "Get up earlier", because the polling station is nowhere near the train station for me, and going to vote first would lead to me being late for work.

A few questions:
1) Do the polls promptly close at 10pm or do they close when the queue disappears?
2) Does British law provide that employers must allow citizens to vote? (US law does this)
3) Isn't four hours enough time for you to exercise the Right to Vote?

People in Iraq certainly endure worse than you in order to vote, so I think you're being a bit ridiculous with your complaints. In my area, in the US, the polls are open from 7am-7pm. I have leeway either way of getting to the polls on election day; however, even with 12 hours most Americans are apathetic like yourself.

 

[Jadzia]

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

i'd rather get rid of the monarchy and the peers thanks.

I would prefer that they remain.

If people are voted into power, the government is going to attract the power hungry, who are perhaps going to be guided more by their own power hungry agendas than they are the objective welfare of their nation.

Two things:

(1) I do like that a proportion of our government consists of people who haven't clawed their way to the top. People who are born into power are likely to be fairly ordinary people, who have responsibility forced upon them. Their presence and influence help to shield our nation from potentially harmful politics.

(2) The monarchy and hereditary peers consist of fairly large families with a great sense of tradition, so are unlikely to up and leave the country should things go awry. They have their offspring to think about, and want a country that is fit for them, and an economy that is stable and prosperous in the long term.

Hereditary peers are less likely to want to sacrifice the long term successes in favour of short term gains; which is what a power hungry person would be more inclined to do, and 10 years later could emigrate with the wealth they've accumulated while in office, and leave the mess they've made behind.

 

[SiorX]

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

A few questions:
1) Do the polls promptly close at 10pm or do they close when the queue disappears?

By law, you must be holding a ballot paper before 10pm in order to be allowed to vote. A few of the polling stations went out and handed ballots to people in the queue before ten and then kept the polls open long enough for them to vote, but there were a number of places where several hundred people were turned away.

2) Does British law provide that employers must allow citizens to vote? (US law does this)

Nope.

3) Isn't four hours enough time for you to exercise the Right to Vote?

People in Iraq certainly endure worse than you in order to vote, so I think you're being a bit ridiculous with your complaints. In my area, in the US, the polls are open from 7am-7pm. I have leeway either way of getting to the polls on election day; however, even with 12 hours most Americans are apathetic like yourself.

There's really no need to be an arse about this.

People weren't expecting the incredibly long queues because there hasn't previously been a problem with that. The UK generally has a pretty good voter turn-out. The last elections, turn-out was lower. For some reason, some of the busier centres weren't sufficiently prepared for the (anticipated) volume of people this time.

As a result, some people didn't get to exercise their right to vote. There are reports of people queuing from 8 and not getting to vote. That's not something one would have expected from experience.

There was a cock up. Which is wrong, and a genuine cause for complaint. There's absolutely no call for shooting everyone who didn't get to vote down as lazy.

Maybe some of them are single-parents working long shifts who then had to get the kids fed and wait for the minder before they could get out to vote. Maybe some of them were students who skived off in the pub until a few hours before the polls closed. Either way, long queues due to understaffed polling stations are first and foremost a reflection on the preparations of the councils, not on the electorate.

(Seriously, have you met the British? If they were told to queue from three in the morning, they'd do it.)

 

[Starkers]

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

Well looks like Cameron and Clegg are being sensible about this, and props to Clegg for sticking by his word about the larger party having first option at government. Now either he's an honest politician or a very canny one, either way he's gone up in my estimation now.

Ah Captcalhoun, yes Labour have poured millions into public services, but where did that money come from? Much of it came from how well Ken Clarke had built up the economy before Blair came in. A lot of it came from plundering people's pensions and some from selling off our gold reserves for a pittance. And what did we get for that money? We got better public services, that's undeniable, but we didn't get services proportionally better to the amount of money coming in? Did we buggery, because Labour didn't insist on public sector reform. Pour billions into the public sector and its bound to get better, but they could have made it even better if most of that money hadn't been pissed away on pay hikes, stupid technology that doesn't work and consultant after consultant.

And so what the fuck if Cameron went to Eton? Did anyone give a fuck that Blair went to public school? Do you honestly think Brown is working class? He's upper midde class aristocracy born with as much of a silver spoon in his mouth as Cameron, just more of a dour Scottish posh bloke! And of course surrounded by other bastions of the working classes like, ooh Mandleson, or Harman, or a host of others. Nobody should be judged on the accident of their birth, that's a fucking sanctamonious thing to do. They should be judged on their actions. Why don't we give Cam a chance before writing him off eh?

Part of me actually wanted Gordon to win so he'd be the one who had to make the tough decisions because he wasted so much of OUR money (shame some of it wasn't on equiptment for our troops eh?)

I was really hoping for a Tory majority with the Lib Dems the clear oppostion, Labour's time is past...

 

[Haggis and tatties]

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

Its been a interesting election this time round, i do get the overall feeling that people really have had a hard time deciding on which party to vote for simply because they have been trying to decide which party will be the least corrupt once in....that's been a hard decision, i voted as i have always voted but i personally had a hard time because all i see now in westminster are fat lazy morally bankrupt individuals fighting for the ability too feather their own nests for the next 4 year....its literally been like trying to pick between a rock and a hard place.

 

[John Picard]

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

A few questions:
1) Do the polls promptly close at 10pm or do they close when the queue disappears?

By law, you must be holding a ballot paper before 10pm in order to be allowed to vote. A few of the polling stations went out and handed ballots to people in the queue before ten and then kept the polls open long enough for them to vote, but there were a number of places where several hundred people were turned away.

2) Does British law provide that employers must allow citizens to vote? (US law does this)

Nope.

3) Isn't four hours enough time for you to exercise the Right to Vote?

People in Iraq certainly endure worse than you in order to vote, so I think you're being a bit ridiculous with your complaints. In my area, in the US, the polls are open from 7am-7pm. I have leeway either way of getting to the polls on election day; however, even with 12 hours most Americans are apathetic like yourself.

There's really no need to be an arse about this.

People weren't expecting the incredibly long queues because there hasn't previously been a problem with that. The UK generally has a pretty good voter turn-out. The last elections, turn-out was lower. For some reason, some of the busier centres weren't sufficiently prepared for the (anticipated) volume of people this time.

As a result, some people didn't get to exercise their right to vote. There are reports of people queuing from 8 and not getting to vote. That's not something one would have expected from experience.

There was a cock up. Which is wrong, and a genuine cause for complaint. There's absolutely no call for shooting everyone who didn't get to vote down as lazy.

Maybe some of them are single-parents working long shifts who then had to get the kids fed and wait for the minder before they could get out to vote. Maybe some of them were students who skived off in the pub until a few hours before the polls closed. Either way, long queues due to understaffed polling stations are first and foremost a reflection on the preparations of the councils, not on the electorate.

(Seriously, have you met the British? If they were told to queue from three in the morning, they'd do it.)

Point taken, and I didn't mean to come across as an ass. People here won't vote in a General Election if it's cloudy or overcast (I am not joking).

I'd be pushing for election reform if I couldn't vote in the time alloted.


The last two "big" elections people turned out in large numbers in my Precinct were:
1) The vote to ban cockfighting (Oklahoma)
2) The 2008 Presidential Election

 

[MNM]

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

Not in terms of actual number of votes, they didn't.

They won very few seats. that is all that matters with our voting system.

Always? When was the last time this happened?

Yes. I'm clearly forgetting all those elections past where the Lib Dems got anywhere near enough seats to genuinely seem like they had a chance of winning the election...

 

[bigdaddy]

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

What I really don't understand is...

According to British tradition, Gordon Brown as PM would have the first opportunity to form a coalition with the Lib Dems. If such a coalition is formed, which many consider unlikely, the government would in all likelihood last less than a year before a new election is called.

So can someone explain to me who, how and when a new election is set?

 

[Tulin]

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

At least in the US and England voting is not compulsory. Here in Australia you have to or you get fined.

Always thought that kinda sucked.

 

[bigdaddy]

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

At least in the US and England voting is not compulsory. Here in Australia you have to or you get fined.

Always thought that kinda sucked.

That is the dumbest thing I have heard heard. I think it's time for a world wide revolution.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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

Its been a interesting election this time round, i do get the overall feeling that people really have had a hard time deciding on which party to vote for...

Oh, definitely. It's sad, you know? At age 12 I knew who I wanted to vote for and why. But of course I couldn't. By 14-15 I was so frustrated and desperate to participate in politics. By 17, the older and wiser me was just tired of- and disgusted with- the whole system. This was my first general election, and I just had no idea. It was basically, "who do I hate the least right now? Which party do I think will do the least damage?" All the enthusiam is gone.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

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

What I really don't understand is...

According to British tradition, Gordon Brown as PM would have the first opportunity to form a coalition with the Lib Dems. If such a coalition is formed, which many consider unlikely, the government would in all likelihood last less than a year before a new election is called.

So can someone explain to me who, how and when a new election is set?

As I understand it, which may be incorrect...

If the current Prime Minister doesn't resign, his government stays in power at least until the Queen's Speech in a few weeks' time,whether or not a coalition is formed. If he resigns, the party with the most elected MPs (the Conservatives in this case) gets to write the Queen's Speech. If the vote on the Queen's Speech fails, an election has to be called. If it passes, a minority government can be brought down by a vote of confidence at almost any time by defeat in an early day motion (sounds scatalogical, does it not?) or a supply bill. None of this is enshrined in law -- the UK doesn't have a written constitution.

 

[Starkers]

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

At least in the US and England voting is not compulsory. Here in Australia you have to or you get fined.

Always thought that kinda sucked.

I think the time to really worry is when they make who you vote for compulsary

Do you at least get a 'none of the above' option?

 

[Starkers]

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

Its been a interesting election this time round, i do get the overall feeling that people really have had a hard time deciding on which party to vote for...

Oh, definitely. It's sad, you know? At age 12 I knew who I wanted to vote for and why. But of course I couldn't. By 14-15 I was so frustrated and desperate to participate in politics. By 17, the older and wiser me was just tired of- and disgusted with- the whole system. This was my first general election, and I just had no idea. It was basically, "who do I hate the least right now? Which party do I think will do the least damage?" All the enthusiam is gone.

Its a shame you feel that way. I do honestly beleive that a large proportion of MPs, from all sides, do go into politics with good intentions (and frankly it isn't for the money really, board members of the NHS Trust In work for earn more than the Prime Minister does.) they just differ in how to achieve it.

Unfortunately whoever won/wins this election is going to have to make not very nice choices and things are going to get crappier...but there's really no way around it, we've maxed out our credit card and now we need to get our finances in order.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

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

What I really don't understand is...

According to British tradition, Gordon Brown as PM would have the first opportunity to form a coalition with the Lib Dems. If such a coalition is formed, which many consider unlikely, the government would in all likelihood last less than a year before a new election is called.

So can someone explain to me who, how and when a new election is set?

As I understand it, which may be incorrect...

If the current Prime Minister doesn't resign, his government stays in power at least until the Queen's Speech in a few weeks' time,whether or not a coalition is formed. If he resigns, the party with the most elected MPs (the Conservatives in this case) gets to write the Queen's Speech. If the vote on the Queen's Speech fails, an election has to be called. If it passes, a minority government can be brought down by a vote of confidence at almost any time by defeat in an early day motion (sounds scatalogical, does it not?) or a supply bill. None of this is enshrined in law -- the UK doesn't have a written constitution.

I thought his government stayed in power only until the coalition was formed, if a coalition is formed.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

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

It would be difficult for the Conservatives to get a working majority when the 6 million people who are effectively employed by the government would tend not to vote for their own dismissal, pay freeze, or pension cuts.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

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

What I really don't understand is...



So can someone explain to me who, how and when a new election is set?

As I understand it, which may be incorrect...

If the current Prime Minister doesn't resign, his government stays in power at least until the Queen's Speech in a few weeks' time,whether or not a coalition is formed. If he resigns, the party with the most elected MPs (the Conservatives in this case) gets to write the Queen's Speech. If the vote on the Queen's Speech fails, an election has to be called. If it passes, a minority government can be brought down by a vote of confidence at almost any time by defeat in an early day motion (sounds scatalogical, does it not?) or a supply bill. None of this is enshrined in law -- the UK doesn't have a written constitution.

I thought his government stayed in power only until the coalition was formed, if a coalition is formed.

The convention is that the current government stays in power until the PM goes to the Queen and resigns. Most would not want to suffer the humilation of a defeat on the Queen's Speech, plunging the country into another election so soon after the previous one.

 

[captcalhoun]

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

i'd rather get rid of the monarchy and the peers thanks.

I would prefer that they remain.

If people are voted into power, the government is going to attract the power hungry, who are perhaps going to be guided more by their own power hungry agendas than they are the objective welfare of their nation.

Two things:

(1) I do like that a proportion of our government consists of people who haven't clawed their way to the top. People who are born into power are likely to be fairly ordinary people, who have responsibility forced upon them. Their presence and influence help to shield our nation from potentially harmful politics.

(2) The monarchy and hereditary peers consist of fairly large families with a great sense of tradition, so are unlikely to up and leave the country should things go awry. They have their offspring to think about, and want a country that is fit for them, and an economy that is stable and prosperous in the long term.

Hereditary peers are less likely to want to sacrifice the long term successes in favour of short term gains; which is what a power hungry person would be more inclined to do, and 10 years later could emigrate with the wealth they've accumulated while in office, and leave the mess they've made behind.

hereditary peers are being dumped out of the Lords. most of them were/are old farts who didn't have a bloody clue.

life peers are just as bad, becuase they're all cronies (on ALL sides!) who paid a ton of cash and got a title for it. Hello, Lord Ashcroft.

it's fundamentally undemocratic that unelected toffs and cronies can stop laws being passed by the government elected by the people, no matter which party it is.

as for Cameron, his education and his class count for a lot. he's lived a priveldged life of nobby schools, nobby university and got jobs without EVER living and working in the real world. he got his first job thanks to a friend of his dad and he got jobs in the Tory central office off the back of cronyism.

i don't like ANY MP who's never lived in the real world or had a real job. Cameron's just the biggest example of the worst of them, Osbourne and the rest of the Bullingdon Club mob in the Tory party are just as bad.