[quote][cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]if the conservatives had won outright you could have said goodbye to electoral reform. A hung parliament with a coalition gives it a chance. perfect outcome. the big winner - none of the above. I'm delighted. Reform. Reform. Reform.[/quote]
how can you honestly believe that it is right that a party who has won more seats had over 2 million more votes in favour of them over the closest next party not be a reflection of the what the country wants.
I dont understand how this can happen and i dont really give two hoots about politics.
What you are saying is that it is right that Labour potentially can stay in even though it has lost over 80 mp's
please dont just say things like that when people clearly dont understand the alternitives, explain why it is such a good thing and try to help those that dont have the political nous as those that do[/quote]
I have no agenda for any party. I think it is pretty clear the current electoral system does not allow the views of the public to be clearly represented. The Lib Dems for example have had nearly 6.5 million votes and yet have only obtained 51 seats whilst Labour have 8.2 million and 248 seats (as of 10.30am). At the same time the Conservatives have had more people vote for them than any other and yet can still not form a government. This result is not democratic.
So we have a couple of choices.
1, Reform of the electoral system from a 'first past the post' to any system which more clearly represents the views of the public.
or
2, Another election. Where we go back to the tired choice of Labour or the Conservatives.
The only path to electoral reform is a Lib / Lab pact as the Conservatives have stated they are against the idea. So if it means Labour staying in power for the short term to obtain electoral reform I consider that an acceptable trade off. However if the Liberal Democrats can convince the Conservatives to change their policy on electoral reform I would go for that coalition as well.
The simple fact is I want my vote to count and at the moment it doesn't.
We need some form of PR - that's obvious, but there is no truly representative system out there that is fool proof and the other risk is that we will have to get used to coalition governments and deal making.
As for what should happen now...
Technically Brown is PM until he resigns, dies or is removed by the Queen, the latter is only a theoretical right as she doesn't get involved in decision making. But in order to progress things he should resign - if he doesn't it'll look like he's been a bad loser and the Tory party will claim that they have a mandate and won't recognise the government. if that happens the Queen should ask Cameron to form a government.
As the Lib-Dems made no gains and are more-or-less where they were yesterday they can hardly claim a mandate or to be part of the decision making process so I'd be very tempted if I were Cameron to form a minority government hoping that there would be enough abstentions and that the Ulster Unionists would support for him in parliamentary votes, as a minor bonus the Sinn Fein MPs nver turn up anyway. Once he has is feet under the table and when things start to go wrong he can call another election and ask for an absolute majority and this time he may just get it.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners cheers for that
now another bit of help if someone had 37% of the seats and Labour on current figures 29% of the seats would it mean that DC would under the Reformed way still be PM due to having the most % of seats?
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners cheers for that
now another bit of help if someone had 37% of the seats and Labour on current figures 29% of the seats would it mean that DC would under the Reformed way still be PM due to having the most % of seats?
Maybe but that assumes that everyone would vote the same way in a reformed election.
If you currently live in a safe labour or tory seat but you want to vote for the other party your vote counts for little so you may not bother or vote for a loony fringe party.
If you currently live in a very close seat - let's say Libdems and Labour are neck and neck - then you might not vote for your actual choice - let's say the Tories - as you would rather vote LD to keep labour out or the other way round.
So it would change the way people vote as well as how the votes are counted.
[cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]It does worry me that people are please with the hung parliament or a coalition because of electoral reforms which I totally understand but the emphasis has to be on fiscal responsbility and management not tomorrow or next week but now.
Agreed, but a hung parliament might force a few compromises through which could improve the political system or at least aim to make it more representative.
If the Tories won an absolute majority why would they want to tinker around with a system that might deny them power at the next election?
Totally agree but we cannot have a period in limbo that lasts too long. The Tories running a minority government in return for Lib Dem support and an agreement on electoral reform seems, whilst not ideal, the best quick fix at present.
I agree but I think we in the UK worry too much about quick action and "strong" government when we have seen that that often means knee jerk reactions, sticking to dogma, refusal to listen any other ideas or views or bring in competent people from other parties.
Other countries cope with coalitions and interregnums (sorry just wanted to use that word) and the buses still run, the markets operate and business carries on. So far it's only been a few hours.
I just hope the resolution of the govt is quicker than the takeover of Charlton ; - )
Brown has first dibs on talking to Clegg to form a coalition. However Clegg wants to talk to the Conservatives first as they have the clearest mandate to govern. This is going to run and run...
[cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]if the conservatives had won outright you could have said goodbye to electoral reform. A hung parliament with a coalition gives it a chance. perfect outcome. the big winner - none of the above. I'm delighted. Reform. Reform. Reform.
how can you honestly believe that it is right that a party who has won more seats had over 2 million more votes in favour of them over the closest next party not be a reflection of the what the country wants.
I dont understand how this can happen and i dont really give two hoots about politics.
What you are saying is that it is right that Labour potentially can stay in even though it has lost over 80 mp's
please dont just say things like that when people clearly dont understand the alternitives, explain why it is such a good thing and try to help those that dont have the political nous as those that do
I have no agenda for any party. I think it is pretty clear the current electoral system does not allow the views of the public to be clearly represented. The Lib Dems for example have had nearly 6.5 million votes and yet have only obtained 51 seats whilst Labour have 8.2 million and 248 seats (as of 10.30am). At the same time the Conservatives have had more people vote for them than any other and yet can still not form a government. This result is not democratic.
So we have a couple of choices.
1, Reform of the electoral system from a 'first past the post' to any system which more clearly represents the views of the public.
or
2, Another election. Where we go back to the tired choice of Labour or the Conservatives.
The only path to electoral reform is a Lib / Lab pact as the Conservatives have stated they are against the idea. So if it means Labour staying in power for the short term to obtain electoral reform I consider that an acceptable trade off. However if the Liberal Democrats can convince the Conservatives to change their policy on electoral reform I would go for that coalition as well.
The simple fact is I want my vote to count and at the moment it doesn't.
i think thats what we all want thanks for filling me in on the alternatives it is a response that i can understand now
i cant help but feel there are millions of people in this country like myself who do not understand the alternatives on offer or how things are calculated, in my layman brain if you get the most votes and the most seats you should win, there has to be winners and losers in every thing like this however if there are fairer ways to get winners and losers then we should look to that option.
Henners do people actually vote like that i mean if i wanted to vote Labour or Tory or Lib dem then i would i definatly wouldnt look to vote for someone else to stop someone getting in.
[quote][cite]Posted By: supaclive[/cite]I would let Scotland run Scotland, give them no subsidies and watch them fall apart - if you removed Scotland and Wales from the votes, the Tories would have a majority in England and the rest can go f*ck 'emselves because HOWEVER BAD IT GETS, they are unable to vote anything but Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru - the mind boggles![/quote]
totally agree with that.
They showed an example on the news that other night of a scotish MP who voted for getting rid of tuition fees in the scotish parliment but voted against it in westminster, effectivly saying that it is ok for the English to have to pay fees but that the Scots don't!!
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]in my layman brain if you get the most votes and the most seats you should win
..........
Except winning the popular vote isn't the same as winning the plurality of seats in the HoC.
BFR forgive me but that has gone rght over my head what do you mean by plurality of seats in the HoC
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: supaclive[/cite]I would let Scotland run Scotland, give them no subsidies and watch them fall apart - if you removed Scotland and Wales from the votes, the Tories would have a majority in England and the rest can go f*ck 'emselves because HOWEVER BAD IT GETS, they are unable to vote anything but Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru - the mind boggles!
totally agree with that.
They showed an example on the news that other night of a scotish MP who voted for getting rid of tuition fees in the scotish parliment but voted against it in westminster, effectivly saying that it is ok for the English to have to pay fees but that the Scots don't!!
How can that possibly be right?
another reason that Voters are so disenchanted with parliment in this country if you vote in westminister you should not have a scottish parliment if you have a scottish parliment you should not vote in westminister
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners do people actually vote like that
They most certainly do NLA, if you know you have no chance of getting the candidate you want, then it is basically a way of making your second choice count.
That is why PR is the only fair and sensible way forwrd, I honestly believe anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an enemy of democracy.
I am with North London on this, trouble is Cameron will be wanting the Welsh and Scottish MP's support, they will no whave a huge bargaining chip, and will have no worries using it, I think it is grossly unfair that Scotland and Wales have an assembly and can make decisons there as well as make decisions in the House of Commons, seems wrong, looking at the news it seems Clegg has no intention of dealing with Brown and wants to talk to Cameron, could get very interesting
That is why PR is the only fair and sensible way forwrd, I honestly believe anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an enemy of democracy.
.........
But which form of PR?
Personally I'd prefer a STV (Single Transferable Vote) which gives all voters two votes, letting them vote for first and second preferences, if a candidate doesn't get a 50% majority then second votes are factored in. But then you run the risk of a candidate winning but not getting the highest number of first votes.
All PR systems (as well as the current system) are flawed, it's a case of which flaws you can live with.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners do people actually vote like that
They most certainly do NLA, if you know you have no chance of getting the candidate you want, then it is basically a way of making your second choice count.
That is why PR is the only fair and sensible way forwrd, I honestly believe anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an enemy of democracy.
then people are stoopid IMHO
Political Reform seems to be needed and as long it is better than what we have then i am all for it
[cite]Posted By: PeteF[/cite]I think it is grossly unfair that Scotland and Wales have an assembly and can make decisons there as well as make decisions in the House of Commons, seems wrong
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]country if you vote in westminister you should not have a scottish parliment if you have a scottish parliment you should not vote in westminister
But Westminster's 591 non Scottish MP's still makes many decisions which affect Scotland which the scottish MP's can do little/nothing about. For instance something like 70% of Scots are against Trident, yet the Nuclear Deterrent is kept on the Clyde. Also, MP's vote on party lines, not on national lines so a Scottish Labour MP will vote in line with the rest of the Labour party - be they English, Welsh, Irish etc - and not in line with other Scottish MP's from different parties.
[cite]Posted By: PeteF[/cite]I am with North London on this, trouble is Cameron will be wanting the Welsh and Scottish MP's support, they will no whave a huge bargaining chip, and will have no worries using it, I think it is grossly unfair that Scotland and Wales have an assembly and can make decisons there as well as make decisions in the House of Commons, seems wrong, looking at the news it seems Clegg has no intention of dealing with Brown and wants to talk to Cameron, could get very interesting
I think it more likely that Cameron will try and get the Ulster Unionists on board first - ideologically they aren't that different.
The question is at what price?
NI has a very bloated bureaucracy and relies on large hand-outs from Central Government, if the DUP, UUs etc side with Cameron the price will be that efficiency savings will have to be made elsewhere in government. Hardly democratic and that could damge Cameron politically if he's being seen to favour NI while making deeper cuts elsewhere.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners do people actually vote like that
They most certainly do NLA, if you know you have no chance of getting the candidate you want, then it is basically a way of making your second choice count.
That is why PR is the only fair and sensible way forwrd, I honestly believe anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an enemy of democracy.
then people are stoopid IMHO
Political Reform seems to be needed and as long it is better than what we have then i am all for it
[cite]Posted By: PeteF[/cite]I think it is grossly unfair that Scotland and Wales have an assembly and can make decisons there as well as make decisions in the House of Commons, seems wrong
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]country if you vote in westminister you should not have a scottish parliment if you have a scottish parliment you should not vote in westminister
But Westminster's 591 non Scottish MP's still makes many decisions which affect Scotland which the scottish MP's can do little/nothing about. For instance something like 70% of Scots are against Trident, yet the Nuclear Deterrent is kept on the Clyde. Also, MP's vote on party lines, not on national lines so a Scottish Labour MP will vote in line with the rest of the Labour party - be they English, Welsh, Irish etc - and not in line with other Scottish MP's from different parties.
i understand that then why do they need a scottish parliment and who pays for it, is it paid for by only scottish taxes ?
I dont think it is right that there should be 2 parliments and why or how things can be so differnt like the perscription charges and Uni fees if you have your own parliment then vote on all things Scottish in that if you wish to vote in westminister disband the scottish parliment and have the same things like the rest of the country
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Henners do people actually vote like that i mean if i wanted to vote Labour or Tory or Lib dem then i would i definatly wouldnt look to vote for someone else to stop someone getting in.
There is nowt as queer as folk
Yes, they do.
If you look at seats where it is close the turn out is usually higher and the votes for the third party and others much lower as people vote tactically.
Not every one does it as you can see in Old Bexley where some labour bloke got a decent vote despite having no real chance to win.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i understand that then why do they need a scottish parliment and who pays for it, is it paid for by only scottish taxes ?
I dont think it is right that there should be 2 parliments and why or how things can be so differnt like the perscription charges and Uni fees if you have your own parliment then vote on all things Scottish in that if you wish to vote in westminister disband the scottish parliment and have the same things like the rest of the country
But there are some area’s that the UK will always work together on (such as foreign affairs, defence etc) unless you are proposing the break up of the UK into four independent nations which is a different matter all together. I agree that until that time Scotland (and Wales and NI) should have complete control over their domestic affairs, legislated through their respective assemblies and parliaments but the people of those nations have a right to representation in Westminster when decisions made their will directly affect them – that’s what democracy is.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Lets build a fence around the M25 and let Boris look after us lot. the rest of the country can do what they like......
He's on BBC now with Paxman and talking a lot of sense
Comments
Different elections held at another time, voting for MPs to sit in Westminster.
how can you honestly believe that it is right that a party who has won more seats had over 2 million more votes in favour of them over the closest next party not be a reflection of the what the country wants.
I dont understand how this can happen and i dont really give two hoots about politics.
What you are saying is that it is right that Labour potentially can stay in even though it has lost over 80 mp's
please dont just say things like that when people clearly dont understand the alternitives, explain why it is such a good thing and try to help those that dont have the political nous as those that do[/quote]
I have no agenda for any party. I think it is pretty clear the current electoral system does not allow the views of the public to be clearly represented. The Lib Dems for example have had nearly 6.5 million votes and yet have only obtained 51 seats whilst Labour have 8.2 million and 248 seats (as of 10.30am). At the same time the Conservatives have had more people vote for them than any other and yet can still not form a government. This result is not democratic.
So we have a couple of choices.
1, Reform of the electoral system from a 'first past the post' to any system which more clearly represents the views of the public.
or
2, Another election. Where we go back to the tired choice of Labour or the Conservatives.
The only path to electoral reform is a Lib / Lab pact as the Conservatives have stated they are against the idea. So if it means Labour staying in power for the short term to obtain electoral reform I consider that an acceptable trade off. However if the Liberal Democrats can convince the Conservatives to change their policy on electoral reform I would go for that coalition as well.
The simple fact is I want my vote to count and at the moment it doesn't.
As for what should happen now...
Technically Brown is PM until he resigns, dies or is removed by the Queen, the latter is only a theoretical right as she doesn't get involved in decision making. But in order to progress things he should resign - if he doesn't it'll look like he's been a bad loser and the Tory party will claim that they have a mandate and won't recognise the government. if that happens the Queen should ask Cameron to form a government.
As the Lib-Dems made no gains and are more-or-less where they were yesterday they can hardly claim a mandate or to be part of the decision making process so I'd be very tempted if I were Cameron to form a minority government hoping that there would be enough abstentions and that the Ulster Unionists would support for him in parliamentary votes, as a minor bonus the Sinn Fein MPs nver turn up anyway. Once he has is feet under the table and when things start to go wrong he can call another election and ask for an absolute majority and this time he may just get it.
glad Jackie Spliff has gone shame the bloody woman who wants to ban page 3 still hung on
Maybe but that assumes that everyone would vote the same way in a reformed election.
If you currently live in a safe labour or tory seat but you want to vote for the other party your vote counts for little so you may not bother or vote for a loony fringe party.
If you currently live in a very close seat - let's say Libdems and Labour are neck and neck - then you might not vote for your actual choice - let's say the Tories - as you would rather vote LD to keep labour out or the other way round.
So it would change the way people vote as well as how the votes are counted.
I agree but I think we in the UK worry too much about quick action and "strong" government when we have seen that that often means knee jerk reactions, sticking to dogma, refusal to listen any other ideas or views or bring in competent people from other parties.
Other countries cope with coalitions and interregnums (sorry just wanted to use that word) and the buses still run, the markets operate and business carries on. So far it's only been a few hours.
I just hope the resolution of the govt is quicker than the takeover of Charlton ; - )
They have their own assemblies to give them a measure of local democracy.
i think thats what we all want thanks for filling me in on the alternatives it is a response that i can understand now
i cant help but feel there are millions of people in this country like myself who do not understand the alternatives on offer or how things are calculated, in my layman brain if you get the most votes and the most seats you should win, there has to be winners and losers in every thing like this however if there are fairer ways to get winners and losers then we should look to that option.
There is nowt as queer as folk
..........
Except winning the popular vote isn't the same as winning the plurality of seats in the HoC.
totally agree with that.
They showed an example on the news that other night of a scotish MP who voted for getting rid of tuition fees in the scotish parliment but voted against it in westminster, effectivly saying that it is ok for the English to have to pay fees but that the Scots don't!!
How can that possibly be right?
BFR forgive me but that has gone rght over my head what do you mean by plurality of seats in the HoC
another reason that Voters are so disenchanted with parliment in this country if you vote in westminister you should not have a scottish parliment if you have a scottish parliment you should not vote in westminister
They most certainly do NLA, if you know you have no chance of getting the candidate you want, then it is basically a way of making your second choice count.
That is why PR is the only fair and sensible way forwrd, I honestly believe anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an enemy of democracy.
.....
Majority or 326+.
.........
But which form of PR?
Personally I'd prefer a STV (Single Transferable Vote) which gives all voters two votes, letting them vote for first and second preferences, if a candidate doesn't get a 50% majority then second votes are factored in. But then you run the risk of a candidate winning but not getting the highest number of first votes.
All PR systems (as well as the current system) are flawed, it's a case of which flaws you can live with.
then people are stoopid IMHO
Political Reform seems to be needed and as long it is better than what we have then i am all for it
But Westminster's 591 non Scottish MP's still makes many decisions which affect Scotland which the scottish MP's can do little/nothing about. For instance something like 70% of Scots are against Trident, yet the Nuclear Deterrent is kept on the Clyde. Also, MP's vote on party lines, not on national lines so a Scottish Labour MP will vote in line with the rest of the Labour party - be they English, Welsh, Irish etc - and not in line with other Scottish MP's from different parties.
I think it more likely that Cameron will try and get the Ulster Unionists on board first - ideologically they aren't that different.
The question is at what price?
NI has a very bloated bureaucracy and relies on large hand-outs from Central Government, if the DUP, UUs etc side with Cameron the price will be that efficiency savings will have to be made elsewhere in government. Hardly democratic and that could damge Cameron politically if he's being seen to favour NI while making deeper cuts elsewhere.
i understand that then why do they need a scottish parliment and who pays for it, is it paid for by only scottish taxes ?
I dont think it is right that there should be 2 parliments and why or how things can be so differnt like the perscription charges and Uni fees if you have your own parliment then vote on all things Scottish in that if you wish to vote in westminister disband the scottish parliment and have the same things like the rest of the country
Yes, they do.
If you look at seats where it is close the turn out is usually higher and the votes for the third party and others much lower as people vote tactically.
Not every one does it as you can see in Old Bexley where some labour bloke got a decent vote despite having no real chance to win.
as long as those that want to vote leave in plenty of time and dont leave it until the last few moments
But there are some area’s that the UK will always work together on (such as foreign affairs, defence etc) unless you are proposing the break up of the UK into four independent nations which is a different matter all together. I agree that until that time Scotland (and Wales and NI) should have complete control over their domestic affairs, legislated through their respective assemblies and parliaments but the people of those nations have a right to representation in Westminster when decisions made their will directly affect them – that’s what democracy is.
He's on BBC now with Paxman and talking a lot of sense