Red Ivor told me..........

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord B. I don't agree with you re policies,but I do agree that in the present crisis,it is important that the Tories and Libdems forget their prejudices and get together to put forward a sensible plan to get us out the s--t!!

My prediction is that they won't be able to do that - because they (and their supporters) are too far apart.

Labour and the LibDems MIGHT be able to achieve an agreed plan. They will get second go at trying to achieve this - probably on Tuesday or Wednesday.

If they can't achieve anything, the Tories will get third go. And we'll see what Cameron can achieve with a minority government. How long will that last? A few months at most. And, during that time, we will see lots of blood spilt. Including Cameron's, when his Tory enemies decide to knife him. And, in the middle of that unpleasant episode, the other parties will combine to bring down the government with a vote of no-confidence timed at the very worst time for the Tories.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I think you missed my point. I'm not voting on the past, I'm voting on right now. Gordon Brown right now is not as popular as David Cameron, say what you want but thats the way the votes fell. More of the voting public voted Tory than Labour - shuffle your deck chairs as you want. If the Tories don't form the majority of the government which will be in place shortly then we must have reform.

I think also you'd be suprised to realize that some people DO vote for a Prime Minister and not a party. Whilst their vote is technically for the party, the face of that party can command a return, good or bad.

I don't disagree with that.

Brown is a dead duck.

But so is Cameron. And Clegg too, if he does the deal with Cameron.

 

[Bluejuice]

well as you cast a vote illegally, so your opinion on the system is void.

My vote still counted, and I am perfectly entitled to one

 

[Don Quixote]

In comes Milliband and saves the day. HERO.

 

[Acker79]

in fact the Steve Miller Band would be better

I wouldn't want that joker running this country...

 

[BensGrandad]

Harty what you seem to conveniently forget is that in this election the Tories had the biggest turn around of seats for 80 years so obviously a large number of people do actually want them to be the new government. Has been said many times PR does not and will not work all it will do is give a minority party like Lib Dem seem extra unwarranted power.

 

[Scoffers]

Agreed.

But there aren't enough Conservative MPs to prevent that happening, if Clegg decides to do a deal with Labour. And a deal with Labour might well deliver what the Lib Dems want ... proportional representation, more LibDem MPs, and a permanent role for the LibDems in running the country.

Does it actually matter that much? Isn't it very likely that a second General Election will come, sooner rather than later anyhow?

 

[larus]

a greater load of bollocks than spouted by that deluded saints fan. Congratulations!

See you live up to your username. Labour have screwed up the finances of this country FACT.

 

[jimhigham]

The whole issue of electoral reform is a devil and is one of the few where I really don't know which way is best.

I am well aware of the distortions brought about under FPTP. How can it be fair that the LibDems take 23% of the vote and secure a little under 9% of the seats?

However, under the current system, fringe parties such as the BNP are kept safely at bay. Under full PR such parties would be far more likely to gain seats. Then, because coalition government is far more likely to be required, those seats are going to be a much more desirable commodity. As far as I can tell, PR is far more likely to provide power to fringe parties far in excess of their perceived support.

Grateful for any cogent arguments that might persuade me either way. I'm stumped.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

Cameron & the conservatives gained 97 seats which is a huge turnaround with 36% of the vote if Labour had achived 35/36% they would have won a majority!

The consevatives have the mandate to govern as the largest party, a loose agreement with the libdems should be agreed so that policies can be implemented in the short term so that we can get through this difficulft economic period.

We should then have another election is about a years time with some reforms on the first pat the post system so that it is not skewed in labours favour.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Block F

All well and good but look at the voting figures.

65% of turnout 44 million electorate of which 10 million voted for the Tories.

So less than 25% of the total electorate voted for Cameron and co, not such a clear mandate after all?

That is wrong. Anyone who didn't vote for one can not complain who's in power and second of those who did bother more voted for the Tories than Labour so they do hold the mandate to govern.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Harty what you seem to conveniently forget is that in this election the Tories had the biggest turn around of seats for 80 years so obviously a large number of people do actually want them to be the new government.

What a load of tosh. For starters labour had a bigger turnaround in 1997, +140-odd.

Secondly, elections are not based on who flipped the most seats, otherwise Kinnock would have won in 1987 and 1992 and the tories in 2001 and 2005

and yes, a large number of people want the tories to be the new government. But not enough

 

[The Maharajah of Sydney]

No party in government has EVER changed its leader to coincide with a general election. It's the way the UK constitution works.

Just as a matter of interest, tedebear ... when Paul Keating became prime minister of Australia, how long was it before the next general election took place? Likewise Billy McMahon?

Both nations have the same system. Neither of them elects a prime minister.

It's called a Federal election here .
It was 15 months until Keating faced the electorate ,
21 months for McMahon .

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I don't like the Tories or Cameron, but they won. Cameron should be PM. It's a joke that Brown hasn't stepped down already.

 

[jmsc]

Had PR been in place for this election, the tories would still have won,

No they wouldn't, they would have had the largest single party vote but this would have been way under 50%, not a win!

Labour have screwed up the finances of this country FACT.

That is an opinion not a FACT

However, under the current system, fringe parties such as the BNP are kept safely at bay. Under full PR such parties would be far more likely to gain seats.

Grateful for any cogent arguments that might persuade me either way. I'm stumped.

You could have P R which excludes any party that gets less than 10% of the vote? Not sure this is a good idea but it would keep the extremists out.

The consevatives have the mandate to govern

I'm sorry my young chum, the 'consevatives' (sic) don't have a mandate to govern because they got less than 50% of the vote.

I don't like the Tories or Cameron, but they won. Cameron should be PM. It's a joke that Brown hasn't stepped down already.

They didn't win, they got less than 50% of the vote and until any deals are done between whatever parties, Gordon Brown is still the prime minister.
If you don't like it, I suggest you vote for a party that reflects your views.

 

[BLOCK F]

My prediction is that they won't be able to do that - because they (and their supporters) are too far apart.

Labour and the LibDems MIGHT be able to achieve an agreed plan. They will get second go at trying to achieve this - probably on Tuesday or Wednesday.

If they can't achieve anything, the Tories will get third go. And we'll see what Cameron can achieve with a minority government. How long will that last? A few months at most. And, during that time, we will see lots of blood spilt. Including Cameron's, when his Tory enemies decide to knife him. And, in the middle of that unpleasant episode, the other parties will combine to bring down the government with a vote of no-confidence timed at the very worst time for the Tories.

Lord B.Your prediction may well be correct,but putting tribalism apart,I sincerely hope you are wrong.The problems in the country are too great and we need a stable Government in place asap.This is a time for true 'statesmanship' and I sincerely hope that our elected representatives from all parties can put aside political differences for the good of the country.
I am hopeful,but perhaps my faith will be misplaced....at the moment I still reckon we will see a Tory/Libdem agreement.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm sorry my young chum, the 'consevatives' (sic) don't have a mandate to govern because they got less than 50% of the vote.

they still have more of a mandate than either of the other parties.

 

[cuthbert]

Cameron President, Clegg vice and Vince cable for Chancellor.

Its funny how people are banging on about PR, BUT PR will give us this every time.

I assume the word President was a slip? Her Maj would not be amused.

 

[jmsc]

they still have more of a mandate than either of the other parties.

Pedant alert! it's not possible to have 'more of a mandate'

Dictionary: Mandate (politics), the power granted by an electorate

The electorate didn't give that power to any party!

 

[Jam The Man]

I don't want Brown, I think David Milliband would be good for the whole country, in fact the Steve Miller Band would be better than Gordon.

Made me chuckle amongst the het up debating on this thread!