World Politics

[Solitaire]

It is a pretty strange system. But as long as it is keeping the Tories out im ok with it. I cant believe that the Lib Dems are seriously considering joining with the Conservatives. I dont see that partnership achieving much, but then again realistically I dont think a Lib-Lab gvt could do much either. We are probably going to have to go back to the polls pretty soon.

It just shows that the debates didnt have that much of an impact. I felt sorry for Nick Clegg (well, until he started cosying up to the Tories)

 

[Vickyyy]

It just shows that the debates

didnt​

have that much of an impact. I felt sorry for Nick

Clegg​

(well, until he started

cosying​

up to the Tories)

So did I, he seemed so dejected.


Thanks for shedding some light on the whole Hung Parliament thing I'm still a bit baffled by it all and can't really see it lasting long.

 

[talkingtocactus]

Lisa, they can't join with the Ulster Unionist Party as they didn't get any seats...

good point, yes i knew it was contingent on that i just kind of forgot to say so!!

It is a pretty strange system. But as long as it is keeping the Tories out im ok with it. I cant believe that the Lib Dems are seriously considering joining with the Conservatives.

just before the election i think it was reported that the lib dems said they'd be more likely to join with the cons than with lab - i wonder if that lost them any votes, actually, because i know a LOT of people who were only really voting lib dem because they didn't want to vote labour but a lib dem vote was tactical against the tories. it wasn't clegg that said it but someone a bit lower down and they were quite uncomplimentary about labour.

I dont see that partnership achieving much, but then again realistically I dont think a Lib-Lab gvt could do much either. We are probably going to have to go back to the polls pretty soon.

agreed.

It just shows that the debates didnt have that much of an impact. I felt sorry for Nick Clegg (well, until he started cosying up to the Tories)

same - i can't say i blame him, in his position he didn't really have much choice, he'd have to cosy up to someone he didn't like either way. i liked what rich hall said on c4 about clegg's apparent opinion that the debates had won the whole thing for him. i can't remember it verbatim but i think clegg had likened himself to obama and hall said something like "obama took years to become president, he went through senate, etc etc, you, clegg, were on tv for 90 minutes. that's less than jedward" :lol:

i guess we'll have a reelection sometime imminently. but i wonder if maybe this will push for more electoral reform? the FPTP system is workable in a two party scenario but with more support than ever for the lib dems (apart from when it mattered!) and more smaller parties, it seems pretty silly to keep going with it. i know PR has many many flaws but it would be more accurate.

oh yeah, and what about all the people getting turned away?! as david mitchell said "we can't even run a bloody election properly" :lol: - although it is a pretty serious matter: poll stations ran out of ballot papers because of unexpectedly high turnout, people queued for 2 hours and then got turned away anyway because the polls MUST close at 10. actually a couple of stations stayed open a bit longer: but who was more right, the ones that stayed open half an hour later (illegally, technically) but allowed people to vote, or those that laid down the law and closed? after all it wasn't the fault of the voters that they were turned away - no one expects to have to queue for 2 hours!

 

[shazza_018]

It's true the debates had no impact at all and 'Cleggmania' fizzled out. I may surprise some by saying this but I hope that a deal is made soon and quickly b/c the longer this goes on the more our economy suffers. For the sack of this country I would not be against a Con/Lib government. Stability is whats really needed right now, the more the uncertainty continues the more the markets suffer.

 

[Solitaire]

^ Working for the council I know several people who were working in the polling stations yesterday. I havent seen them yet, they had all taken today off work to get over the long day! but they started at 6 in the morning, they were down to be there til 10pm, which they did. Law states that the ballots close at 10pm. Why should they go against the law, and stay there any longer- there day was long enough. So lots of people voted, tough luck, should have been there earlier. Or got a postal vote, like me. Obviously it wasnt right not having enough ballot papers in some of these places, and that should be dealt with. But all I have seen in my local paper is students complaining about queueing. Well, it wasnt that long ago that I was in Uni, and I was free most of the day! They didnt need to leave it until the last minute. I was just speaking to someone who's brother was doing the one at Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg's constituency, where there was all the trouble when the ballots closed. He said it was mainly students there too.
Sorry, rant over.

 

[shazza_018]

^The thing is some people were queueing hours before polls closed and they still weren't able to vote, this is not the governments fault or an issue about the law, it's simple that the councils weren't prepared to deal with the large turnout imo.

 

[talkingtocactus]

It's true the debates had no impact at all and 'Cleggmania' fizzled out. I may surprise some by saying this but I hope that a deal is made soon and quickly b/c the longer this goes on the more our economy suffers. For the sack of this country I would not be against a Con/Lib government. Stability is whats really needed right now, the more the uncertainty continues the more the markets suffer.

yeah, stability is important but i'd hate to see a con/lib coalition. mind you i think i'd hate to see an outright con government even more. i reckon there'll be a 2nd election fairly soon, there's no way this can continue for more than a few months. all the times in the past that a hung parliament's happened, it's been re-done within months.

Law states that the ballots close at 10pm. Why should they go against the law, and stay there any longer- there day was long enough. So lots of people voted, tough luck, should have been there earlier.

well yes, but the point is that most of the people that were turned away had been queuing for quite a while before being turned away - i believe many people that were refused had got there as early as 8pm - let's face it *no one* expects to have to queue for 2 hours or more to vote! most people expect that they'll show up, vote, and leave within a few minutes - that's certainly how it's been every time i've voted (including this time), and everyone i know says it's the same for them it's a quick process, or at least people expect it to be.

saying people should've gone earlier is all well and good, but people who work long hours may not have had a chance to get to their station before 8-9pm, and they shouldn't have to stand in line for that long!

that is a long day for those working the stations tho - do they not have shifts?

there were also reports that several stations ran out of ballot papers because they weren't expecting such a high turnout which, frankly, seems ludicrous. shouldn't the expectation be that most people will vote? i know in reality that doesn't happen but you'd think they'd allow for more, not less.

 

[Solitaire]

^ No, they dont work shifts at the polling stations, it is the same 2 people all day long. They arent allowed to leave the polling staion at all. They have to bring food and drinks with them. Ive seen a few of them today, they were there all day long and said it was that busy they couldnt get up to go to the toilet for hours! They said it made the day go quicker, but was very hard. Im so glad that I decided not to do it. I hate long days.
I know what you mean about the queuing, but Im stubborn and Im still holding to my idea that most went late! I dont like queuing- thats why I, my flatmate, and all my family got postal votes. Definitely the way forward.
It would be best to have a stronger Parliament, but I really wouldnt want to see the Lib Dems join with the Tories. I m sure they will sort it out sooner rather than later.

 

[Ajbuckly]

By the way ....Greece might just be the first domino to fall. More EU - countries might be heading the same way as reported in "our" news feed today.

Ah yes, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland...

I am so pissed that Greece has been doing this for a decade or almost 30 yrs ever since they joined EU (I mean they did little twisting so they were accepted) And I feel forcing euro to so many EU countries so fast... was wrong decision.

As for Brits. Lots of news about here and I've never really thought of their system but that's just one weird system. Like if no party gets over 50% of seats, the current PM has first chance to build government. Wtf?

Yeah I heard Spain and Italy too....And still is Italy not one of G8?

I certainly hope that my country will "wake" up and plan for a better future in general. We have a guy who can "transform" orignial benzin(oil) enigines into vetableoil based engines. Thereby reduce our dependence of oil. Let´s face it ----how many 5 star hotels is need in Dubai?. But does he get any help? does our goverment support the idea?

 

[talkingtocactus]

As for Brits. Lots of news about here and I've never really thought of their system but that's just one weird system. Like if no party gets over 50% of seats, the current PM has first chance to build government. Wtf?

we do have a slightly odd system, although that's not really the oddest bit. the reason the current PM gets the first chance at government is that the mandate to govern has to be handed over by the populace to the new government and if no one gets the majority, that hasn't happened, so technically the "agreement" to govern hasn't been shifted.

our system's pretty bad tho - we use first past the post which means votes are badly spread out. basically if in a particular seat, one party gets 25% of the vote, and 4 others get 23%, 23%, 23% and 3% respectively, the party with 25% wins that seat even though 75% of the local voters voted against them.

the lib dems are pushing for proportional representation (PR) which also has flaws but i think is probably better. in the past only the 2 big parties have ever had any shot at power but recently the lib dems have been getting a lot more popular (contrary to the results of this election!) and there are many other smaller parties now. PR would be a much better way of making sure that all votes cast have some impact in the way parties are represented. FPTP is fair enough in a 2 party system, but in a multi-party system, it's massively problematic.

^ No, they dont work shifts at the polling stations, it is the same 2 people all day long. They arent allowed to leave the polling staion at all. They have to bring food and drinks with them. Ive seen a few of them today, they were there all day long and said it was that busy they couldnt get up to go to the toilet for hours! They said it made the day go quicker, but was very hard.

i'm not surprised, that sounds pretty nasty. you'd think they could have some kind of division of labour going on with people taking shifts or whatever.

I know what you mean about the queuing, but Im stubborn and Im still holding to my idea that most went late! I dont like queuing- thats why I, my flatmate, and all my family got postal votes. Definitely the way forward.

i doubt i'd ever get a postal vote unless i was due to be away - i just don't bloody trust royal mail to deliver it!

i don't like queuing either (haha, we're clearly not true brit! our national dna suggests we love queuing!) but i don't think anyone expected to queue - i've certainly never heard of queues to vote in this country before, and my dad said he hadn't either. you expect that in a nation where democracy is relatively new, but not here. in a situation where many people are working between, say, 8am-8pm (and what with allowing for commutes etc, that's probably a conservative estimate), i don't think it's fair to either demand they cry off work so that they can get to their home polling station early enough to avoid queues, or to make them queue at all really, and certainly not to deny them the vote just because there was a queue - it's not their fault they had to wait in line.

It would be best to have a stronger Parliament, but I really wouldnt want to see the Lib Dems join with the Tories. I m sure they will sort it out sooner rather than later.

i wouldn't either, not least because they're totally contradictory in terms of policy etc, it'd be chaos!

 

[shazza_018]

There are calls from MP John Mann of the Labour Party for Gordon Brown to resign as PM. I hope he does, it would be alot easier for the party to make a deal with the Lib Dems - which would ensure that the tories stay out. I suspect tho we'll still have an election pretty soon. Who do you think would get the job? And would people be angry with another unelected PM?

 

[talkingtocactus]

^ on hignfy, hislop suggested it might be milliband. i think that's a reasonable guess. he made a point of reminding everyone that yet again it'd be an unelected pm. it's not a good situation. but i think regardless of whether lab have constitutionally lost their mandate, brown definitely has, as leader of the party. i think people would be quite angry with another unelected pm but at the moment there aren't any other options - cameron's not been fully elected either. yet.

i would be happier with a lib/lab coalition than a lib/con one, just because the libs and the cons have nothing in common politically, they're opposition! at least lib and lab are relatively more aligned. if lib dem do make a pact with con, they will get far fewer votes in any re-election, because people will see them as selling out, as not sticking by their principles, and more importantly of jumping into bed with a party they're ideologically opposite from just because they happened to have more seats, as opposed to sticking with an ideologically similar party with whom they could at least align enough to go against the party that's opposite to both of them. it just reeks of powerhungry as opposed to actually wanting to do what's right.

 

[shazza_018]

^It would cause outrage from party members and activists...I really hope he pushes for electoral reform as his most important condition. Yes people have been associating David Millband's name with the leadership for a long time now, it's seems likely. Maybe if there is another election soon, it wouldn't seem as bad that he's not an elected PM but that's just an if. It depends on how talks go with the Cons and Libs.

 

[Solitaire]

^ on hignfy, hislop suggested it might be milliband. i think that's a reasonable guess. he made a point of reminding everyone that yet again it'd be an unelected pm. it's not a good situation. but i think regardless of whether lab have constitutionally lost their mandate, brown definitely has, as leader of the party. i think people would be quite angry with another unelected pm but at the moment there aren't any other options - cameron's not been fully elected either. yet.

i would be happier with a lib/lab coalition than a lib/con one, just because the libs and the cons have nothing in common politically, they're opposition! at least lib and lab are relatively more aligned. if lib dem do make a pact with con, they will get far fewer votes in any re-election, because people will see them as selling out, as not sticking by their principles, and more importantly of jumping into bed with a party they're ideologically opposite from just because they happened to have more seats, as opposed to sticking with an ideologically similar party with whom they could at least align enough to go against the party that's opposite to both of them. it just reeks of powerhungry as opposed to actually wanting to do what's right.

I agree that if the Lib Dems were to join with the Tories they would lose alot of support. There ideologies are just too different, they would be compromising their principles.
Gordon Brown;s days are definitely numbered. Milliband is probably going to become leader, but really no one from the Lab party stands out as Leadership material. There isnt that much of a choice.

 

[talkingtocactus]

^It would cause outrage from party members and activists...I really hope he pushes for electoral reform as his most important condition.

exactly. i think electoral reform is pretty important now - the last few elections have resulted in results hugely disproportionate to actual votes. FTPT is fine if there are only 2 parties i guess, but otherwise it just doesn't work. the way things stand the lib dems and other smaller parties will only ever be tactical votes, which is a shame.

Yes people have been associating David Millband's name with the leadership for a long time now, it's seems likely. Maybe if there is another election soon, it wouldn't seem as bad that he's not an elected PM but that's just an if. It depends on how talks go with the Cons and Libs.

yep - i think the next pm, one way or another, really should be elected - the fact that brown wasn't caused all kinds of discontent.

I agree that if the Lib Dems were to join with the Tories they would lose alot of support. There ideologies are just too different, they would be compromising their principles.

true. obviously there's the argument that *everyone* in politics compromises their principles to an extent but a lib/con alliance would just make no sense!

Gordon Brown;s days are definitely numbered. Milliband is probably going to become leader, but really no one from the Lab party stands out as Leadership material. There isnt that much of a choice.

i think they are - i think if they want to be more sure of popular support they will need to get brown out and vote in a new leader of the party (internally) before any subsequent repeats of the general election - that way, win or lose, at least their party leader would have an official party mandate and would have been put to the vote by the people; brown never really had either.