What is it with the tories

[Barnham Seagull]

And was that more than the other 2 main parties?

Labour 35.3%
Conservative 32.3%
Lib Dems 22.1%

 

[gull-able]

It was one of the Liberals main manifestos promises but yet they got the lowest vote of the big 3 so how can it be right they are going to anyone that will listen and demanding a change in return for their support?

Which is why they are talking to labour.

you have to ask two questions

- Is Pr more democratic- i believe it is as it generally delivers what the electrate voted for.

- If it is more democratic, and if cameron believes in this great Democracy then why wont the tories allow us to have a referendum on PR.

Because if the tories agreed to a referendum on PR cameron would be PM today, you have to wonder do the tories really believe in democracy!!!!

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I disagree its bringing personal comments into the argument. Just stick to the topic.

 

[User removed 4]

In the absence of an outright majority for any party:
If the majority of the country votes left of centre, then a coalition should be formed of left of centre parties. If the majority of the country votes right of centre, then a coalition should be formed of right of centre parties.

That's all I'm saying, but I am making the assumption that the LibDems are slightly left of centre.

the crux of the matter is that i dont belive the majority of the country is left of centre, i think the electorate is far more polarised than that, new labour occupy the ground that is the lib dems natural territory, and we have people who are then left or right wing , with obviously different degrees, but the bottom line is , i believe that political bias in this country is more pronounced than 'slightly left of centre'

 

[Marshy]

What I find ironic in all this is, that it is effectively the Scottish (40 seats) and Welsh (26 seats) Labour voters who are dictating what happens in Westminster, when they already have their own Parliaments and Assemblies. The English vote gave the Conservatives a clear mandate to govern, but this will not be reflected in the "English" Parliament

Amen to that, wise words.

 

[sten_super]

Yep agree with you any other coalition also has a mandate to govern, my point is that 52 % of the country wanted either a liberal or labour mp in government and therefore if that happens then a majority of the electrate will be represented at westminster is that not a mandate!!- you show all the nous and political intelligence of the average tory voter.

You acuse me of having no intelligence, yet your posts have got more holes in them than a piece of edam. A couple of points;

We will all be represented at Westminster; that is why we vote for a local MP, not for a Prime Minister.
No coalition can claim a mandate from the people, because the people did not vote for a coalition party, they voted for individual parties. I think you are confusing the word 'mandate' with 'majority'.

 

[Superphil]

No under PR you get preferential voting which is more democratic so all seats would have more counts an example.


First prefernce - you vote for your chosen canditate
second preference you vote for whoever you would like to win if you first prefernce fails.

count

- if a candatate gets over 50 % of vote at first count the are elected.
- If vote split between two (or more depending on share of vote)the you go to a second count where the canitate with the least votes both first and second prefernce is elimated, and so forth.


.

I though that was AV, not PR, but thanks for cleraing that up. If it ever comes in, and I am not allowed to vote for the ONE candidate I want, to the exlcusion of all the others, I will probably not vote at all.

The process should be, IMO, to elect who you want by voting for one candidate, for me there is no other alternative I would grant the honour of my vote to. They can go whistle, turnouts would drop like a stone if that system comes in, IMO of course.

 

[Superphil]

- If it is more democratic, and if cameron believes in this great Democracy then why wont the tories allow us to have a referendum on PR.

I could have sworn the Tories had agreed on a referendum.

 

[gull-able]

Gull-able ,your post is possibly one of the most abysmal I have read for some time.I have no information on the likelihood of inbreeding amongst pillocks like you,but judging by your comments,the chances must be pretty high.As for Cameron being thick I think we can take it as read that he has rather more grey matter than yourself.

I actually genuinly believe myself to be more intelligent that cameron, and i am serious which is kind of worrying for any conservatives. Just look at his face that kind of blue blood inbreeding takes centuries to perfect.

 

[Rookie]

Which is why they are talking to labour.

you have to ask two questions

- Is Pr more democratic- i believe it is as it generally delivers what the electrate voted for.

- If it is more democratic, and if cameron believes in this great Democracy then why wont the tories allow us to have a referendum on PR.

Because if the tories agreed to a referendum on PR cameron would be PM today, you have to wonder do the tories really believe in democracy!!!!

But Cameron has said there should be a referendum.

 

[gull-able]

I could have sworn the Tories had agreed on a referendum.

Not on PR only on the alternative vote system, which is a far more watered down version.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

I actually genuinly believe myself to be more intelligent that cameron, and i am serious which is kind of worrying for any conservatives. Just look at his face that kind of blue blood inbreeding takes centuries to perfect.

With and argument like that there is simply no reson to continue the debate

 

[gull-able]

But Cameron has said there should be a referendum.

Not on PR he hasnt becuase he would be lynched by his own party if he did

 

[Rookie]

I actually genuinly believe myself to be more intelligent that cameron, and i am serious which is kind of worrying for any conservatives. Just look at his face that kind of blue blood inbreeding takes centuries to perfect.

Seeing some of your posts I think that is pretty unlikely

 

[gull-able]

I though that was AV, not PR, but thanks for cleraing that up. If it ever comes in, and I am not allowed to vote for the ONE candidate I want, to the exlcusion of all the others, I will probably not vote at all.

The process should be, IMO, to elect who you want by voting for one candidate, for me there is no other alternative I would grant the honour of my vote to. They can go whistle, turnouts would drop like a stone if that system comes in, IMO of course.

You dont have to place a second preference vote, this would mean your vote would only count during the first round of voting.

 

[Napper]

Labour 35.3%
Conservative 32.3%
Lib Dems 22.1%

more like

Lab 39
Con 32
Lib 22

 

[Acker79]

Has anyone else noticed how it is the labour supporters who are most vocal and viciferous about how they should be the rightful new government (even though they didnt get as many votes as the Tories). Whereas the Tory supporters are tending to be somewhat more gracious about it, and allowing the process to be carried out by the MPs and relevent authorities.

Nope.

I've noticed Tories and their supporters emphasising their largest share.

I've noticed Labour and their supporters emphasising the lack of mandate.

There have been gracious, and not so gracious on both sides, and the press have highlighted the grace/lack of grace depending on their own bias.

 

[Simster]

Not on PR he hasnt becuase he would be lynched by his own party if he did

I think they were offering a referendum on PR to the LibDems last night, after shitting themselves on hearing of Gordon Brown's pending resignation.

 

[keaton]

I disagree its bringing personal comments into the argument. Just stick to the topic.

So my insult was to say you have a job relating to facts and figures?

 

[auschr]

PR might work with the conservatives, can always form a coalition with ukip and the bnp