How can you argue against a LibDem/Conservative coalition government when it would represent more voters than a LibDem/Labour coalition would? You're the ones placing so much importance on representation, yet in this case you'd rather fewer voters were represented by the government.WillPS wrote:Coalitions wouldn't be automatic though, as they are not now!!
Hung Parliament outcome
I do hate this habit of people pointing about how many people didn't vote for a particular party. Our electoral system - not just first past the post - makes it unlikely that any one party will ever acheive over 50%. Due to the amount of parties around that can split the vote, it would never happen unless we went to a very basic two party system.martindtanderson wrote:The Conservatives got 36% of the votes, which means 64% of voters did not want the conservatives...
A coalition of all parties AGAINST the conservatives to change the voting system, the way parliament works, and possibly the banking sector, before calling a general election next year would be the best solution for fixing the fairness in the country.
It's not perfect, but that's the way it works. Personally I feel that first past the post isn't the hellish system that so many people seem to think it is. However, it's good to get the idea of electoral reform out in the open and discuss the future of how we might elect our MPs.
Incidentally, based on the logic - we could say that 47% of people never voted for Tony Blair back in 1997, so would you also deny that he had a mandate to govern? I'm not suggesting you would, but there we go.
Good Lord!
It makes sense for the two thirds of voters who voted for the (relatively) ideologically similar LibDem and Labour parties to be represented in parliament, rather than a rather awkward two thirds made up of Conservative and LibDem. I see that.
I think LibDem voters and party members have more affinity for Labour too.
I think LibDem voters and party members have more affinity for Labour too.
I don't understand why somebody who believes in balance and equal representation would desire a coalition of two parties that have the same values, creating a one-sided government. It would only represent the left. What about the right? A truly balanced Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition government will represent both.
I think it unlikely they'll form an actual coalition now anyway.
I think it unlikely they'll form an actual coalition now anyway.
* http://www.takebackparliament.com/
* http://www.facebook.com/takebackparliam ... ent?v=wall
and here is the group that part of the protests
* http://www.facebook.com/takebackparliam ... ent?v=wall
and here is the group that part of the protests
Left/Right is bullshit, as you know Chie.Chie wrote:I don't understand why somebody who believes in balance and equal representation would desire a coalition of two parties that have the same values, creating a one-sided government. It would only represent the left. What about the right? A truly balanced Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition government will represent both.
I think it unlikely they'll form an actual coalition now anyway.
What you need is a government that accepts and agrees with arguments coming from the other side of the house, not to be warring with those you're supposed to be allied with.
What's concerning me is that these meetings are being held behind closed doors - although I know there's precious little else they could do - but the parties seem to say one thing one minute and then the next.
Earlier today Gordon Brown came back to London for an unannounced meeting with Nick Clegg. Then earlier this evening, both the Tories and Lib Dems said they parties had no more plans to meet tonight and now we discover that Nick Clegg and David Cameron met at the Commons.
Bizarre.
Can't we just have a majority so people can go back to hating the government in the usual way? I'm not a fan of this political merry dance.
Earlier today Gordon Brown came back to London for an unannounced meeting with Nick Clegg. Then earlier this evening, both the Tories and Lib Dems said they parties had no more plans to meet tonight and now we discover that Nick Clegg and David Cameron met at the Commons.
Bizarre.
Can't we just have a majority so people can go back to hating the government in the usual way? I'm not a fan of this political merry dance.
Good Lord!
Incidentally, with the Conservatives just 19 seats short of an overall majority of just 2, I decided to do some number crunching to see how close they were in some seats. If you watched on election night, a lot of their target seats came VERY close to falling and were no doubt affected by some tactical voting. The closest 19 seats with the smallest majority compared to the Conservatives are:
David Cameron will of course have his eye on the prize and won't be thinking about a pact or coalition lasting any significant amount of time. He will hope that the deal between the Tories and Lib Dems will last long enough for them to stay relatively popular in the polls after what's considered a reasonable time by the people for them to sort out things such as the economic problems. Those seats only need a swing to the Conservatives of 1.7% or less for them to win - and if the deal goes well but Cameron is able to convince people that it's holding back progression and decision making then he may be able to get over the line with a decent majority.
But a lot can happen between now and the next election - it could in reality be another 5 years away but I don't expect that a government of two parties will last that long. People will be urged to "make their minds up" whether or not they want to see David Cameron continue to run the country and as long as the signs are positive then there's no reason why he won't secure a full term with an outright majority.
Getting ahead of myself, maybe. But they are so close - and the fact that David Cameron came out so quickly to say he wanted to work with the Lib Dems was telling. Yes ok, he had to because Gordon Brown very quickly decided to show his hand - but I think if he would have stood up on Friday morning and said he was going to lobby the PM to stand down and run a minority government then this wouldn't have gone down well with the people. It would also risk a rainbow coalition involving Labour, Lib Dems and the Nationalists which could have pushed the Conservatives out completely.
By doing what he's done, it's seen as the "honourable" thing and he gets the best out of a bad situation, whether the Lib Dems agree to support him outright or he decides to rule as a minority government. Yes, there's the risk that his Queen's Speech would get voted down and effectively ensure it's a vote of no confidence against him - but could the Lib Dems get away with this after holding such constructive talks?
Lots of questions - still to be answered, but that's my view of what the medium to long term future may hold. What the outcome will be - who knows!?
- Hampstead and Kilburn - 42 votes
- Bolton West - 92 votes
- Oldham East & Saddleworth - 102 votes
- Solihull - 175 votes
- Southampton Itchen - 194 votes
- Dorset Mid and Poole North - 269 votes
- Wirral South - 531 votes
- Derby North - 613 votes
- Dudley North - 649 votes
- Great Grimsby - 714 votes
- Wells - 799 votes
- Telford - 978 votes
- Walsall North - 990 votes
- Morley & Outwood - 1101 votes
- Birmingham Edgbaston - 1274 votes
- St Austell and Newquay - 1312 votes
- Halifax - 1472 votes
- Sutton and Cheam - 1608 votes
- Somerton and Frome - 1817 votes
David Cameron will of course have his eye on the prize and won't be thinking about a pact or coalition lasting any significant amount of time. He will hope that the deal between the Tories and Lib Dems will last long enough for them to stay relatively popular in the polls after what's considered a reasonable time by the people for them to sort out things such as the economic problems. Those seats only need a swing to the Conservatives of 1.7% or less for them to win - and if the deal goes well but Cameron is able to convince people that it's holding back progression and decision making then he may be able to get over the line with a decent majority.
But a lot can happen between now and the next election - it could in reality be another 5 years away but I don't expect that a government of two parties will last that long. People will be urged to "make their minds up" whether or not they want to see David Cameron continue to run the country and as long as the signs are positive then there's no reason why he won't secure a full term with an outright majority.
Getting ahead of myself, maybe. But they are so close - and the fact that David Cameron came out so quickly to say he wanted to work with the Lib Dems was telling. Yes ok, he had to because Gordon Brown very quickly decided to show his hand - but I think if he would have stood up on Friday morning and said he was going to lobby the PM to stand down and run a minority government then this wouldn't have gone down well with the people. It would also risk a rainbow coalition involving Labour, Lib Dems and the Nationalists which could have pushed the Conservatives out completely.
By doing what he's done, it's seen as the "honourable" thing and he gets the best out of a bad situation, whether the Lib Dems agree to support him outright or he decides to rule as a minority government. Yes, there's the risk that his Queen's Speech would get voted down and effectively ensure it's a vote of no confidence against him - but could the Lib Dems get away with this after holding such constructive talks?
Lots of questions - still to be answered, but that's my view of what the medium to long term future may hold. What the outcome will be - who knows!?
Good Lord!
The BBC live election coverage webpage has been a hoot recently, they are DESPERATE for news:
BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins says a colleague spotted a junior Lib Dem aide going into Parliament carrying pizza boxes. "It may be they are sustaining themselves through the night with pizzas"
