Ding Dong, the Witch is dead...

[Raven]

I hope Labour do form a coalition, it will be the end of them for the next 20 years if they do.

Unelected.
Fuck the country up even more.
Profit.

 

[Scouse]

That example was of our current First Past the Post. PR would be closer to the more accurate reflection in the second half of the example...

 

[Tom]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but EVERY Prime Minister we have ever had has been unelected.

Can you tell me when you last saw a ballot paper asking you to vote for a Prime Minister? No?

That's because we choose our MP to represent us in the Commons and the Queen will then invite someone - who will be able to command a majority - to form a government on her behalf. Presidential-style TV debates haven't helped the public appreciate this, but we have never had an elected Prime Minister.

Last week 15 million people voted for left-wing, progressive politics whilst only 10 million voted for the Conservatives. Like it or not a Lib-Lab coalition DOES have broad support amongst the public and it DOES have democratic legitimacy.

Sigh. Didn't you notice the [sic] in my post? Thanks for the uninformative lecture, it isn't as though I didn't already understand exactly how these things work.

By the way, the second half of your post is a load of crap, and a great many people may be about to discover just how "progressive" the loony left truly is - ie, not at all.

 

[MrHorus]

By the way, the second half of your post is a load of crap

It is?

You have some secret evidence that the result of the election was fabricated and that 15 million people did not vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats?

 

[nath]

Thats because they represent a protest votes for those fed up with the other 2

As far as I recall, Lib Dems only got 1% more of the votes than they did last time so that doesn't seem to fit with your appraisal of the situation.

 

[Tom]

It is?

You have some secret evidence that the result of the election was fabricated and that 15 million people did not vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats?

What's this, more loaded bullshit? Where did I say anything like that?

 

[Wij]

It is?

You have some secret evidence that the result of the election was fabricated and that 15 million people did not vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats?

As I pointed out. So what. Nowhere on their ballot paper does it say "Lib Dem then Labour second" so your argument is sophistry. I could just as easily say that 18 million people voted to get rid of Labour.

 

[Zenith.UK]

All figures from BBC Election coverage.

Con got 10,706,647 votes (36.1%)
Lab got 8,604,358 votes (29.0%)
LD got 6,827,938 votes (23.0%)

Total votes cast 29,653,638 (65.1% of the electorate).

18,946,991 people didn't vote for Con.
21,049,280 people didn't vote for Lab.
22,825,700 people didn't vote for LD.

Leaving aside tactical voting, everyone voted for the person/party that they wanted to represent them in Parliament. You had one vote for one candidate. Based purely on that, Con gathered the largest numbers of both votes and MPs.

At the end of the day, all these pundits, bloggers and talking heads can complain and talk but they can't do a single thing. There is *ONE* person who can choose a Prime Minister and that is Queen Elizabeth II. She chooses the leader of the dominant party to be Prime Minister. If there is no party with clear dominance, she chooses the party leader most likely to command the confidence of the Commons.

Gordon Brown by convention is "holding the fort" until there is a resolution to the current impasse in the Commons. Once LD have made their collective mind up, The Queen will call whoever commands the largest coalition to be Prime Minister. Until then, all speculation is pointless.

 

[Pfy]

It is?

You have some secret evidence that the result of the election was fabricated and that 15 million people did not vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats?

"... And then of course, there are all the people whose jobs have been privatised over the years, but who still work pretty well exclusively for the public sector - ie hospital cleaners, dustmen, IT staff, etc etc. How many? We have no idea, but our guess is at least another quarter million, taking our public sector employment total up to around 7 million.

So, of the 28.9 million people currently in employment (see here), around one-quarter of them are employed by the government (aka the taxpayer)..."

(Burning our money: How Many People Work For The Government?)

Ok, so theres a good majority of your 15mil.

"... The total number of people claiming benefits in the UK has been forecast to rise to more than 6 million when official figures are published later this month, according to the Conservative think-tank Policy Exchange.


The latest official figures, published in February, showed that the total was 5.8 million. This included 1.4 million on job seekers' allowance and 2.6 million on employment support – until recently known as incapacity benefit. People claiming other benefits – as lone parents, carers and because of disability – are also included..."

(Six million Britons to claim benefits - Home News, UK - The Independent)

Theres another 6 million. I honestly beleive the only people that vote labour nowadays are either people hung up on the Tories, or people now dependant on the state through either benefits or the fact that they are employed and don't want to be part of the cuts in public spending.

I don't for one second beleive that people are voting for 'progressive politics'.

 

[Billargh]

When I read the thread title I genuinly thought Thatcher had kicked the bucket.

 

[Ctuchik]

When I read the thread title I genuinly thought Thatcher had kicked the bucket.

nonono, she will live forever and when you least expect it she will come thundering and claim power to never let it go again!!

 

[Athan]

Theres another 6 million. I honestly beleive the only people that vote labour nowadays are either people hung up on the Tories, or people now dependant on the state through either benefits or the fact that they are employed and don't want to be part of the cuts in public spending.

For what it's worth I'm 100% dependent on state benefits and I didn't vote Labour. I know you didn't say "everyone dependent on state benefits votes Labour because...", but I still thought it was worth stating.

 

[Athan]

Here's an example of first past the post (ripped shamelessly from New Scientist):

Suppose 15 people are asked to rank their liking for Milk (M), Beer (B), or Wine (W).

Six rank them M-W-B.
Five rank them B-W-M.
Four rank them W-B-M.

In a plurality system (like ours) where only first preferences count the outcome is simple: Milk wins with 40% of the vote, followed by Beer with Wine trailing last.

Result: M-B-W.

So. We all prefer milk, right?...

Wrong. Nine voters prefer Beer to Milk and nine voters prefer Wine to Milk - both clear majorities in favour of the alcoholic beverage. At the same time, ten people prefer Wine to Beer.

By pairing off all these preferences we can see the truly preferred order to be W-B-M.

Result: W-B-M

Someone asked about STV.

First assume there are two 'seats' available, as STV doesn't apply to single-seat constituencies[0]

Now, tall up all votes: 15

Work out the quota to be elected: (total votes / (seats + 1)) +1 = 6

Examine first preference votes and see if anyone got to/over the quota. Yes, Milk did, it's elected, and as it's with precisely the quota we don't have to do any vote redistribution shenanigans.

Now, of the remaining candidates neither has the quota. We now redistribute votes of the lowest to the others. But as there's now only Beer left that'll be the second, and Wine is cast aside.

Result: M and B (no W).

No, it's not a very interesting example . You'd want multiple different vote orderings per 1st preference for starters, which is more realistic. And, going on what just happened in the General Election (assuming no-one changes 1st preference because they get to express preference at all) we'd not want anyone winning at the first round.

Do note, however, that if you add in two more M-W-B votes they'll end up redistributed to Wine, and it'll get in instead of Beer (the quota is still '6' as it comes out as 6.66... and you round down, both extra votes list Wine next, so they go to it on 2nd preferece).

I'm sure anyone interested can go google/wikipedia for more details.

[0] - Damn it, actually it does work for single-seat elections, just it then devolves to Instant Run-off Voting. Quota is (15 / (1 + 1)) + 1 = 8. No-one wins first round, lowest 1st preference is eliminated (Wine), and 2nd preferences taken (all Beer), Beer now has 9 and wins.

 

[Embattle]

Neither of the main two parties want to really change the current voting system, which is sadly natural.

 

[Ch3tan]

Okay so STV would suck nearly as much as FPTP, so what about the AV system being offered rather than fully blown PR?

 

[Athan]

Okay so STV would suck nearly as much as FPTP, so what about the AV system being offered rather than fully blown PR?

AV is just "tally all votes, is anyone over 50%? No? Eliminate lowest candidate and use those votes' next preference. Repeat until someone has >50%". i.e. it's the same as the Instant run-off I quickly added in in that footnote.

One thing to understand is that if you want a) The popular vote control the overall number of seats each party has, and b) Choose who represents you locally, then there is no perfect voting system. In fact there's some theorem that proves there simply can't be a perfect voting system at all.

STV is cited as being best for making the highest number of votes have the most say in the outcome. Just it's a big change, both for really needing multiple-seat constituencies, and for its complexity. AV/IRV is pretty simple to understand.

There are some wrinkles where you'd do something like merge constituencies to have half the number we now have, but have 2 seats for each. One seat is chosen on that constituency's vote, you vote for the person. You have a second vote which is for the 'party list', you vote for a party. Then the national popular vote is tallied and the extra seats assigned based on that such that you make the overall proportion (including the 'person' seats) match the popular vote. This can use either closed (you vote for the party, and they have a list of candidates in a fixed order for assignment) or open lists (you vote once, but for a particular candidate per party, out of a list).

Heck, go do some reading

AV is probably the easiest to get through in the UK right now as it doesn't require wholesale change of constituencies (either through further increasing the number of sitting MPs, something that has to be impractical... or merging constituencies to form multiple-member ones), and is conceptually easy to understand.

 

[Pfy]

For what it's worth I'm 100% dependent on state benefits and I didn't vote Labour. I know you didn't say "everyone dependent on state benefits votes Labour because...", but I still thought it was worth stating.

Course it is and it was a bit of a rash generalization for me to make but was more to make a point that this ideal that people REALLY voted for political reform is poo.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ah sky news + alistair campbell.


YouTube - Campbell v Boulton arguing live on Sky News

Fantastic. I bet Adam Boulton has been waiting 13 years to have a proper pop at that twat live on telly. He wouldn't have dared before now.

 

[Calaen]

Fantastic. I bet Adam Boulton has been waiting 13 years to have a proper pop at that twat live on telly. He wouldn't have dared before now.

Boulton came across like a nancy boy, I thought he was having a right old hissy fit, and I would not not be suprised if he gets dressed up in a nappy fo sex.

 

[Zenith]

As in fairer to them eh

I think the Labour bit is just a gambit by the Lib Dems to pressure the Cons.

You actually think your first off the post is fairer than a PR than, despite the reality?

 

[rynnor]

You actually think your first off the post is fairer than a PR than, despite the reality?

I think my real bugbear with PR systems is coalitions - they give the little parties that dont represent the mainstream too much power.

I'd much rather have a Labour or Conservative government because they do at least attempt to have broad appeal.

When you get a coalition with nobs like the SNP, BNP, Clwyd Cymru and the NI MPs getting an un-representative amount of power surely that is equally bad for democracy if not worse.

 

[Gumbo]

I wasn't sure which election thread to put this in, and I know they're not really qualified to lecture us on elections after the Florida thing a few years ago but here is one Americans viewpoint.

"So let me get this right....you had an election, one party won 20% more votes than anyone else but he hasn't won. The guy that lost by the 2nd biggest swing ever just turned up to work as Prime Minister the following morning like nothing had happened and refused to leave. He then started flirting with the guy that really lost desperately pandering to get his support even at the expense of his own promises.

The real loser then started talking to the winner about helping them win better, but also talking to the other loser.

The two losers are now trying to play together even though they won't win. So they're going to have to let every little fringe party hold your country to ransom just so that the losing party can win because the party that won hasn't won but two parties that lost can win? Then if the two losing parties, and 3/4/5 other parties all form a committee government, the least loser will resign and you get prime minister that no-one knew about and didn't speak at any national debate??"

 

[DaGaffer]

If there's a lab-lib coalition (with all the other shitty little parties thrown in) I really think the English need to take a serious look at seceding from the Union. How can you have a situation where countries with their own laws and assemblies (Scot, Wales, NI) can override the will of the people in a third-country? When the English did that kind of thing it led to de facto devolution, but it doesn't work the other way around? If you look at England alone, its a clear Tory victory and even Lib-Lab combined would be 75 seats behind the Tories. I'd vote for a breakup of the Union tomorrow if I was given the choice. Nothing against the other countries (I'm mainly Welsh by ancestry) but England gets no benefit from this relationship anymore.

 

[Chilly]

I wasn't sure which election thread to put this in, and I know they're not really qualified to lecture us on elections after the Florida thing a few years ago but here is one Americans viewpoint.

"So let me get this right....you had an election, one party won 20% more votes than anyone else but he hasn't won. The guy that lost by the 2nd biggest swing ever just turned up to work as Prime Minister the following morning like nothing had happened and refused to leave. He then started flirting with the guy that really lost desperately pandering to get his support even at the expense of his own promises.

The real loser then started talking to the winner about helping them win better, but also talking to the other loser.

The two losers are now trying to play together even though they won't win. So they're going to have to let every little fringe party hold your country to ransom just so that the losing party can win because the party that won hasn't won but two parties that lost can win? Then if the two losing parties, and 3/4/5 other parties all form a committee government, the least loser will resign and you get prime minister that no-one knew about and didn't speak at any national debate??"

And this is why we all think the american is a retard.

 

[Chilly]

I, Chilly of England, on this day the 11th of may 2010 hereby predict that the next government will announce public sector job cuts of around 235k STRANGELY coinciding with the sale of the nationalised banks at some point in the future when they need quick win and a quick dorrar.

Why? Because the employees of our new banks are counted as public sector employees (which is correct, but then GPs and lecturers are not?).

 

[Wij]

We should have listened to the English Democrats

What's the betting that laws will only get passed with a big chunk of wedge for Scotland and Wales every time ?

 

[rynnor]

If there's a lab-lib coalition (with all the other shitty little parties thrown in) I really think the English need to take a serious look at seceding from the Union. How can you have a situation where countries with their own laws and assemblies (Scot, Wales, NI) can override the will of the people in a third-country? When the English did that kind of thing it led to de facto devolution, but it doesn't work the other way around? If you look at England alone, its a clear Tory victory and even Lib-Lab combined would be 75 seats behind the Tories. I'd vote for a breakup of the Union tomorrow if I was given the choice. Nothing against the other countries (I'm mainly Welsh by ancestry) but England gets no benefit from this relationship anymore.

Yes - I think the real damage that a Lab-Lib coalition would do is in England.

The Conservatives won here so to foist the losers on us seems wrong - if our interests and those of scotland, wales and NI are so different perhaps we really should dissolve the union?

 

[Wij]

And this is why we all think the american is a retard.

Yes. How dare he state facts ? The upstart yankee twat !

 

[Chilly]

yes they are facts. I can state lots of facts, it doesnt mean they are relevant.

 

[MYstIC G]

Boulton came across like a nancy boy, I thought he was having a right old hissy fit, and I would not not be suprised if he gets dressed up in a nappy fo sex.

Calaen = Campbell

It's so obvious now!