The Politics Thread

[fatshaft]

yeah , yeah. all i know is folk voted for a local mp , a load of them make a government. gordon brown or david cameron werent on the ballot, nor did it say if you vote for someone who loses then the statistics can be skewered towards proving changing how you vote.

i did know that the non-tories in parliment could team up and vote against them on laws and that.

certain folk keep using national statisics and overall votes to prove no one (on here?) wants the tories.

if either the av+ or the PR bollox i dont get becomes law. how do you vote tactically ?

No - still not having it.

No one is using statistics (as far as I've seen) to prove no one want the Tories. 10m people voted for them, which is more than voted for either Labour or Lib Dem.

Unfortunately, that didn't get them enough seats to form an outright Government (one that's guaranteed to win a vote assuming all its MP's vote for it), but they can request of the outgoing Prime Minister that they form a minority Government, in the event that they can't find a coalition partner that gets them over the win-line.

Your bit about non-tories teaming up to vote against the tories is a bit unfortunate, as that's equally what the tories are trying to do with with the lib dems. As a party that didn't win big enough to form a Government on its own, they're having to team-up with another party, who normally they wouldn't give the steam off their pi$$ to - to enable them to vote against Labour and the other parties and be sure of carrying legislation through the house.

The last point about how do you vote tactically under AV and PR - is one of the fundamental points. Under pure PR you wouldn't have to vote tactically. My one vote for Screaming Lord Such would count as one vote and if he got enough of them up and down the country, he'd get a seat. Bit different under AV and AV+ as there's progressively more tactical bits and less proportional bits.

Final point. The country has never voted for a Government on a greater than 50% share since 1931. The party in power never represents the will of most of the electorate, the voting system is just rigged to make it look that way. 6 out of 10 cats said they didn't want the glorious Thatcher years - 6 out of 10 cats said they didn't want the glorious Blair years - the last two elections this has been nearer 6.5/10 who didn't want Labour last time and don't want the Tories this time. Hardly what you'd call a "resounding mandate".


all thats well and good i kind of understand , i kinda dont. i know why people like it, i just think its wrong.

my point is that the margin of defeat or whatever should not be a factor in who wins. if the libs lose 49-51 49-51 and win 80-20 theyve got more votes overall but its done by town.
Town number 2 might not give a shit that town number 3's bins havent been emptied.
You just end up with a government folk didnt like enough to vote proper for. bizarrely thats what we have now , so i cant even see the point of changing it. it kinda works like what the pr campaigners want now. its doing what they want.

and my "fears" over it being proper [after some finding out] apparantly its called "monotonicity criterion" and some voting systems fail it. certain types of PR might not fail it some might do. whatever. theres probably other methods of 'authenticity' too.

when i vote , i vote to win , i dont piss about with tactical voting . if i lose - fair enough. i dont want losers in. at least the other side won. i can live with my losing vote being 'ignored' in some winner takes all situation. i can see people going "why? i couldnt" but i just can.

cant see going "this thick bastard doesnt get it" will help them change it though. they'll come off as condesending.

but whatever.

thanks.

totally agree.

Is that better now?

[Worthy4England]

all thats well and good i kind of understand , i kinda dont. i know why people like it, i just think its wrong.

my point is that the margin of defeat or whatever should not be a factor in who wins. if the libs lose 49-51 49-51 and win 80-20 theyve got more votes overall but its done by town.
Town number 2 might not give a shit that town number 3's bins havent been emptied.
You just end up with a government folk didnt like enough to vote proper for. bizarrely thats what we have now , so i cant even see the point of changing it. it kinda works like what the pr campaigners want now. its doing what they want.

and my "fears" over it being proper [after some finding out] apparantly its called "monotonicity criterion" and some voting systems fail it. certain types of PR might not fail it some might do. whatever. theres probably other methods of 'authenticity' too.

when i vote , i vote to win , i dont piss about with tactical voting . if i lose - fair enough. i dont want losers in. at least the other side won. i can live with my losing vote being 'ignored' in some winner takes all situation. i can see people going "why? i couldnt" but i just can.

cant see going "this thick bastard doesnt get it" will help them change it though. they'll come off as condesending.

but whatever.

thanks.

Bins being emptied is down to local elections not general elections.

I guess it's a bit like the glass half full or glass half empty conversation. No one has won a majority of the electorate, for 80 years, so in that sense, this election is no different, other than no one party has a governing mandate from what's left. You could look at it from the point of view that whichever coalition gets in is therefore a coalition of parties that didn't win, but it's more acceptable to have a coalition between the leading didn't win party and 3rd place, than the 2nd party and 3rd place.

[CAPSLOCK]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Tory or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

[Worthy4England]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Facist or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

I've corrected your obvious mistake.

I think it would be interesting - you're right all the tactical voters could vote Facist or centre left, but give that coalitions would be more the norm than single party politics, then there would be none of this "we won, but not quite, so we don't have a mandate" bollocks. It would be expected that a coalition was formed from the off (depending which system is pursued)

[thebish]

it is vaguely irritating - is it not - that people are littering phone-ins and interviews (even MPs FFS) - pointing at the current situation - and saying - see, that's what PR would get you...

when - EXCUSE ME - this is what FPTP has got us!

[thebish]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Tory or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

anyone who imagines that the Labour Party is anywhere close to any sensible definition of "commie" has clearly missed the brain boat....

[CAPSLOCK]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Facist or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

I've corrected your obvious mistake.

I think it would be interesting - you're right all the tactical voters could vote Facist or centre left, but give that coalitions would be more the norm than single party politics, then there would be none of this "we won, but not quite, so we don't have a mandate" bollocks. It would be expected that a coalition was formed from the off (depending which system is pursued)

You could at least spell it reet

Another benefit, little point keep having elections as we'll all be working together

It'll be all the best folk, so lets just have 20% of the number we currently have and if somebody dies, their son takes over

Simples

Saaaaaaves a fortune

[CAPSLOCK]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Tory or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

anyone who imagines that the Labour Party is anywhere close to any sensible definition of "commie" has clearly missed the brain boat....

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[thebish]

anyway - looks like the Lib Dems have copped off with the Tories - Brown is leaving the building...

[Lord Kangana]

link

[thebish]

bishop's intuition

[thebish]

from the BBC live-ticker:

No need to reload page, content updates automatically.

1.
1614: "I think it's time to accept that we lost the election. We should lose graciously," says Labour MP Kate Hoey.
2.
1610: Seven signs that the Lib-Lab deal may be over.Read Nick's blog
3.
1606: Large holdalls are being loaded into two government cars at the back of Number 10, reports the BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg.
4.
1602: The BBC's Jon Pienaar says talks between the Lib Dems and the Tories are now at the final "dotting the Is and crossing the Ts" stage. To use the metaphor of poker, Labour have folded and thrown in their cards.
5.
1554: Number 10 recognises that talks with the Lib Dems have not and will not reach any positive conclusion, and they are now discussing the method of declaring that their side of the negotiation is over, BBC Radio 5 Live's political correspondent Jon Pienaar says.

[Worthy4England]

I'd like to see what would happen under PR

All the folk who currently vote Liberal tactically can now vote the way they want to ie Facist or Commie

And folk who have more sense than waste their vote on Liberals in Tory/Labour strongholds might now vote Liberal

I've corrected your obvious mistake.

I think it would be interesting - you're right all the tactical voters could vote Facist or centre left, but give that coalitions would be more the norm than single party politics, then there would be none of this "we won, but not quite, so we don't have a mandate" bollocks. It would be expected that a coalition was formed from the off (depending which system is pursued)

You could at least spell it reet

Another benefit, little point keep having elections as we'll all be working together

It'll be all the best folk, so lets just have 20% of the number we currently have and if somebody dies, their son takes over

Simples

Saaaaaaves a fortune

I thought Facist was derived from the latin Facem lit: screw them over (Fascist - Oops )

So we just scrap the Commons and stick with the Lords, then at least we have the stability of knowing in advance whose son takes over.

That might work, although I predict a peasants revolt sometime in the future.

[Worthy4England]

anyway - looks like the Lib Dems have copped off with the Tories - Brown is leaving the building...

I think in the circumstances, that's probably a result.

[Verbal]

bags being loaded into gvt cars at the back of number ten, ministers heading into number 10 (a farewell?), Prescott calling for an alliance with the liberals (something he has campaigning against forever), labour ministers and lib dem negotiators/spokespersons saying that labour aren't offering a viable alternative to the tory offer.

Bell tolling.

[thebish]

rumour has it...

Dems will not oppose the Tory £6billion cuts
Tories will punt inheritance tax proposal into long grass
Tories will introduce the Lib Dem £10,000 income tax threshold policy
not sure what the deal is on europe or voting reform
arguing over who gets what job - and Vince Cable was seen in the treasury talking to staff (allegedly)
Clegg will fag for Cameron for the next 2 years
Cameron will name new baby Lloyd George Cyril Smith Cameron

[boltonboris]

How long then, until we have another General Election?

[thebish]

How long then, until we have another General Election?

i suspect the tories and lib dems have a couple of years in mind at least....

[Worthy4England]

rumour has it...

Dems will not oppose the Tory £6billion cuts
Tories will punt inheritance tax proposal into long grass
Tories will introduce the Lib Dem £10,000 income tax threshold policy
not sure what the deal is on europe or voting reform
arguing over who gets what job - and Vince Cable was seen in the treasury talking to staff (allegedly)
Clegg will fag for Cameron for the next 2 years
Cameron will name new baby Lloyd George Cyril Smith Cameron

Sky talking in terms of maybe 6-8 cabinet seats for LibDems. Which given all the rhetoric around an unholy alliance of losers would be delightlfully funny.

[ratbert]

bags being loaded into gvt cars at the back of number ten, ministers heading into number 10 (a farewell?), Prescott calling for an alliance with the liberals (something he has campaigning against forever), labour ministers and lib dem negotiators/spokespersons saying that labour aren't offering a viable alternative to the tory offer.

Bell tolling.

Apparently the bags don't belong to Brown or Darling, but the police. Presumably the new team brings its own force in?

Well, if its looking the way its looking, at least my 'team' (yellows) have finally made power, albeit with the team (blue) I like least. But the Labour deal wasn't a runner in any way shape or form. I suppose many of the blue team proposals I dislike most might be checked. We'll see; it won't be dull, however long it lasts.

Cabinet rumours are six Lib Dem ministers with Nick as deputy PM. I've got images of St Vince running rings around poor little Osborne if they're in the Treasury together.