Re: UK Election
Maybe not, but that is what the British government has always worked on, so whether it ever changes, who knows lol
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → UK Election
Maybe not, but that is what the British government has always worked on, so whether it ever changes, who knows lol
it's not like there's too many...
how else could it work? it sounds like the fairest way...
[]
> The Empire Of Kane wrote:
> I would imagine that we will end up with a conservative lib dem coalition. Labour need to get out, and clegg recognised this by talking to the conservatives first due to the fact they got the most votes. The main problem in the lib tory alliance is going to be electoral reform. Under proportionate representation, I.E each group getting the same percentage of seats to votes, it would have been an even more tightly formed vote. which the conservatives want to avoid.
Clegg didn't initiate these talks, Cameron did. This was a little underhanded of the Tories (shock, horror), as proper conduct would have been to let Labour make the first move as the standing government. Labour however couldn't do this, as the LibDems would never have agreed to any coalition as long as Gordon Brown was still Labour leader. But what's this? Gordon has announced he's stepping down, with a new leader to be announced at the Labour conference in September? Brilliant piece of political manouvering by Labour (and Brown), opening the way for talks between two Parties with much common ground. Guess some politicians still do know what the right option is and can put aside their selfish career aspirations for what is best for the country as a whole.
seems odd the guy can pick his own date
Congress sometimes tries that, it doesn't fly
"OK hand over the gavel"
"We haven't formally seated the new Congress"
"OK go ahead, the election was 2 months ago"
"No hurry, got a few unfinished matters"
"Give it up!"
"No! MINE MINE MINE MEEEEE"
he can choose his date as traditionally the new leader is unveiled at the next party conference. he could call a special 'party leadership conference' (how do they think of these names lol), but as he's already mentioned the Manchester conference in Sept that's the date chosen. Gives the potential leadership candidates time to get put forward and to garner support from their peers. how quickly do you think they can pick a leader from the rabble? even jesus took years to come forward ![]()
we're dooooooooooooooooomed. Cameron's in!!! [spineless motherloving donkey felching ballsack]
i'm moving back to canada. pronto.
You guys could've had a Dutch ruler again, and you blew it! ![]()
Mr. Brown stepped down... looks like Tory's are getting in after all... god help us all ![]()
tee hee.. wikipedia's entry for David Cameron got hacked.. it said David 'c**t face' Cameron, the first homosexual prime minister of the uk
What's his platform?
think republican crossbred with King (he's direct descendant of William IV, William the Conqueror to you) mixed with a healthy smattering of soulless lizard from outer space.
some poofy former Home Secretary was quoted as saying "There's no more thankless job in the world than Prime Minister"
I can think fo about 9500 guys in Afghanistan who'd argue the point
true.. anyone know Boris Johnson (londons mayor)? i want him as pm. think George Bush dumb but with no warlike streak, Prince Phillip tactless without the racism. can see it now
ringing up foreign leaders: 'uh hello, is that pakistan. i'd like a tikka masala and some pilau rice please. oh and 2 naans and a grandad. hyuk hyuk'
Lib Dem + Conservative...
It does give Lib Dems a chance to prove they can do (some of) the job(s).
and now for the pomp and ceremony of a change of government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8aKKF1-f-A
> ☭ Fokker wrote:
> Lib Dem + Conservative...
It does give Lib Dems a chance to prove they can do (some of) the job(s).
That it does. However noone will ever take them seriously due to the major backsliding on their main campaign issues to form this coalition. They've now got 6 of the Cabinet positions (out of 24), including deputy Treasury. Forgive me for being suspicious but I feel the positions they've been given are all to provide useful scapegoats for if the Tories policies fail.
They've got 5 cabinet positions - deputy to the treasury isn't a cabinet position.
The Lib Dems haven't got huge seats in cabinet, although we don't know the full makeup of the cabinet yet. We know Nick Clegg is Deputy PM (looking forward to his first PMQs, which will be soon as a visit to Germany and the US is already on the cards, the latter has already been written into the PM's diary for the summer) and that Vince Cable will have a brief covering economic issues, including banking. Whether he'll be business secretary or deputy to the treasury or not is not known.
Chris Huhne will be Climate Change and Environment secretary. Could be a sticky one, but he's intelligent enough.
But defence, home office, foreign office, health and treasury have all gone to Conservatives. If swingeing cuts to public services - police, fire, NHS, social security - then Conservatives and only Conservatives are in control of those government posts.
Which surprises me. The cynical part of me expected the Tories to give the ministry of health to the Lib Dems - now that would have been really tricky.
Also, I'd like to point out that they haven't backslid too far on too many issues. They have a referendum on AV (hopefully they can change that to a referendum on AV+ - not ideal but better than AV and FPTP), the "pupil premium" is to be implemented, the
Thx Lat for giving me more info than I previously had. Does make for interesting reading. Shame the Cons won't scrap the Trident though.
Do you think the concessions are a sign of how much they both want Labour out, or of how serious they are about political reform?
Also: Do we really need reform? I mean, the system seems fine to me, it's the voters that's the problem. Average turnout was ~65%, thats ~35% who couldn't be arsed.
How much are you betting they were all yellow voters? ![]()
um does that 35% include people turned away?
William the Conqueror was William I.....
if only there was some global free research resource we could tap into to answer things like that
oopsie..
@ Fokker
35% of people either didn't vote or weren't allowed to vote (for reasons which are well documented within the UK).
However, there is an inherent iniquity in the first past the post system that the UK system uses, an iniquity which means a lot of people (maybe even 35%) don't actually see the point in voting. This is because there are a large number of "safe" seats which won't change hands. Constituencies in the home counties - Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire and so forth - are all so very conservative that the chances of Labour getting these seats is small. Similarly, the inner cities are dominated by labour supporters, so much so that the conservatives don't get much of a look in. By means of an example, look at the north east conurbation; it has been mostly red within living memory. My consituency - Coventry North West - is held by Geoffry Robinson (he of Peter Mandelson loan for home scandal around 1998) with a majority of more than 6,000 and this is AFTER a swing of 5.2% away from Robinson! So the question is: why bother voting in this consituency if you're not going to vote Labour? Your vote won't count or mean anything. It also means that there are only abot 100 to 150 seats (out of 650) in the whole of the UK that actually decide the outcome of the election. It means that people in these "swing seats" wield far more power than those in safe seats. All votes do not count equally, which is a bit of a problem when we're supposed to be a democracy.
Moreover, if you actually look at any election, only about 40% of the population vote for the party which wins an overall majority. Thus, 60% of people actually don't want that government nor their policies, yet they are lumbered with them. Indeed, if you look at this election, the Conservatives manged to secure the votes of less than two fifths of the population and yet came perilously close to securing an overall majority.
Also, think about this:
Conservatives: 34,989 votes per seat won (10,706,647 votes, 306 seats)
Labour: 33,350 votes per seat won (8,604,358 votes, 258 seats)
Liberal Democrats: 119,788 votes per seat (6,827,938 votes, 57 seats)
The system is fundamentally unfair and it is ludicrous to label ourselves as a democracy. It is also pretty hypocritical to try and take the moral high ground and lecture to other countries how they should govern themselves and that they should be using a democratic system when ours throws up results like this.
For what it is worth, I think we should have a fully PR voting system. It will inevitably mean that we will have coalition governments until the end of time, but I don't see that as a bad thing or something to be afraid of. I also don't think we'd have the 40+ days of negotiations which characterise/blight elections in place like Germany as the civil service is far too efficient for that. As we saw with this election in just 5 days two parties seemingly on opposite sides of the political spectrum were brought together to give what appears to be a strong coalition. I know it is hard for anyone to think that politicians can be grown up and mature, but that's what has happened. There's been give and take on both sides, and I think the best bits of both manifestos have been unified into a respectable program of government.
@ Walking Corpse
I guess you already know this by now, but I'd like to clarify that we were both right on the subject of cabinet posts! Chief secretary to the treasury is a cabinet position, but the Liberal Democrats did only end up with 5 posts: Deputy Prime Minister, Business Secretary, Chief secretary to the Treasury, Environment secretary (properly Energy and Climate Change) and Scottish Secretary.
Imperial Forum → Politics → UK Election
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.