FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

Can anyone explain to me what the hell is going on here? The tories have the majority but are still not in?

They don't have a "majority" its 262 seats for over 50% of the seats I believe.

If the tories formed a government now, it'd be a minority government - If every tory Mp voted for them, and every other party voted against them the tories would lose the vote (talking about parliamentary votes for things like legislation).

Ah, i get it now. I think the figure is 324 seats though cause that's the one that is being banded around on Sky News...

It's kinda dumb that Labour can theoretically stay in, what the fck is the point of democracy if they do?!

[vaptin]

Let's not go into the flaws of British democracy, we'll be here all day.

[Denthúl]

326 is the number. It's now impossible for them to reach it. Labour get the first chance at a deal with other parties, since they're the current governing party.

And you think that makes up for just what the party and its members are?

If it makes this place a better country to live in then yes.

to you too

Unbelievable.

[Juliet P]

They need 326 for a majority.

[vaptin]

They need 326 for a majority.

kkl, my mistake.

[zurich_allan]

Can anyone explain to me what the hell is going on here? The tories have the majority but are still not in?

They don't have a "majority" its 262 seats for over 50% of the seats I believe.

If the tories formed a government now, it'd be a minority government - If every tory Mp voted for them, and every other party voted against them the tories would lose the vote (talking about parliamentary votes for things like legislation).

Ah, i get it now. I think the figure is 324 seats though cause that's the one that is being banded around on Sky News...

It's kinda dumb that Labour can theoretically stay in, what the fck is the point of democracy if they do?!

It's precisely because of democracy that they can. You're looking at the situation from the wrong side when it's really just common sense - There are 650 seats in commons, if one party doesn't reach 326 (over 50%) then they don't have a majority. At present, the Conservatives have the largest number of seats, but it is still a minority - it would be entirely undemocratic if they automatically get to run the country on that basis. sure, if nobody else can reach an agreement to work together then that's what likely will happen, but it would be an absolute disaster for the UK if it came about. No major decisions for change would ever be reached if other parties didn't agree with them, as they would be outvoted every time. The same goes if a Labour minority government or Liberal minority government had been on the cards.

The democratic thing to do is for a majority to rule, and the only physically possible way of that happening is through coalition - whether that is a Conservative / Liberal coalition (extremely doubtful) or a Labour / Liberal coalition (a possibility), or indeed some other combination of parties is what remains to be seen.

A lot of people are banging on about percentage of votes etc. i.e. such and such a party receiving 30% of the vote, another getting 24% etc. but those figures are utterly irrelevant under a parliamentary system - you do not vote for the party as a whole, or indeed the leader (unless you are his/her constituent), you vote for our own constituency MP, and it's the combined number of MP's that make up commons and the potential government.

People can argue about the pros and cons of the system, but that's what we currently have. May of course change in the future.

What I don't want to see is an idiotic presidency style system, though I fear we may be moving in that direction following the leaders debates, and this idiotic perception that people have of 'electing' the Prime Minister. People saying 'Gordon Brown was never elected as Prime Minister'. NEWSFLASH - No prime minister has ever been elected by the public, his / her party has. Not Thatcher, not Blair, not anyone!

[vaptin]

I'd prefer a presidentially election style thing, where we elect the prim minsiter direct who will have no constituency.

[zurich_allan]

I'd prefer a presidentially election style thing, where we elect the prim minsiter direct who will have no constituency.

If you think that then you simply don't understand either the UK constitution or Parliamentary politics. Either that or you don't agree with our entire political system. Care to elaborate with valid reasons?

A presidential style election is fine if the general public can be trusted to vote based on substantive issues that they understand, and have a basis for comparison with other candidates. The unfortunate reality of the UK (and I'll seem cynical I know, but I don't care because it's true) is that our general population are politically ignorant - the majority would vote for a party leader based on charisma, looks, charm or other utterly irrelevant reasons, and not based on what a decision of that magnitude should be based on - the underlying politics and manifesto. It's a highly dangerous road to go down.

[zweiblumen]

I'm both fascinated and very worried, the Lib-Dems hold the key to this, they could do a deal with either Labour or the Conservatives. If the Lib-Dems do a deal with Labour it will be seen as a coalition of the losers, but I cannot see a Lib-Dem/Conservative coalition working because politically they are too far apart. The Lib-Dems desperately want reform of the voting system, Labour have promised a referendum on this (although this is not exactly what the Lib-Dems want), the Conservatives are opposed to electoral reform however. If the Lib-Dems ally themselves to the Conservatives and there is another election (as is likely) they could have shot themselves in the foot by not allying themselves with a party that has promised electoral reform ... it could be their only chance of getting the representation in parliament that they deserve. If the Tories win a second election they will not implement any electoral reform measures.

[vaptin]

I'd prefer a presidentially election style thing, where we elect the prim minsiter direct who will have no constituency.

If you think that then you simply don't understand either the UK constitution or Parliamentary politics. Either that or you don't agree with our entire political system. Care to elaborate with valid reasons?

A presidential style election is fine if the general public can be trusted to vote based on substantive issues that they understand, and have a basis for comparison with other candidates. The unfortunate reality of the UK (and I'll seem cynical I know, but I don't care because it's true) is that our general population are politically ignorant - the majority would vote for a party leader based on charisma, looks, charm or other utterly irrelevant reasons, and not based on what a decision of that magnitude should be based on - the underlying politics and manifesto. It's a highly dangerous road to go down.

Yes, I know how the system in Britain works. It's parliamentary democracy with a fusion of powers, we vote for our Mp who represent us and are accountable to us, the Mps (and the lords) then check the governments actions and technically the government are accountable to parliament.

The problem is, people already are voting with more empathise on leaders, look at how the prime ministerial candidate debates effected the polls, the massive media focus on the lives of the leaders. The whole thing about Gordon Brown being an unelected prime minister is a symptom of this. The decline of ideology and rise of pragmatism for New Labour and Cameron's conservatives has probably also contributed.

Setting up a separate election for the prime Minster's job, allows people to vote for the leaders, no worries, and it then means that when it comes down to parliamentary elections people will vote on the character of their individual Mp, or the policies the party represents. I suppose the main flaw is once we formalise the idea of voting for a leader, when it comes to parliamentary elections people will still vote based on the leader anyway - although personally I doubt it. It would also make it easier for us to have ministers who aren't Members of Parliament.

[Frosty]

Whatever happens in terms of a coalitions and minority government this parliament wont last long it's too weak and flawed there will be another election before to long.

[Jamie]

Great for a new dad, child tax credits and working tax credits? Gone.

[Gaz]

Great for a new dad, child tax credits and working tax credits? Gone.

dave says work harder.

[Jamie]

Great for a new dad, child tax credits and working tax credits? Gone.

dave says work harder.

47hours a week.....
Gonna be hard. But have been advised it only applies to familys earning over 50k

[scotty]

Great for a new dad, child tax credits and working tax credits? Gone.

dave says work harder.

47hours a week.....
Gonna be hard. But have been advised it only applies to familys earning over 50k

What's the problem then? If someone is earning £50k a year they can easily get by incredibly comfortably without the need any extra tax credits!

It's precisely because of democracy that they can. You're looking at the situation from the wrong side when it's really just common sense - There are 650 seats in commons, if one party doesn't reach 326 (over 50%) then they don't have a majority. At present, the Conservatives have the largest number of seats, but it is still a minority - it would be entirely undemocratic if they automatically get to run the country on that basis. sure, if nobody else can reach an agreement to work together then that's what likely will happen, but it would be an absolute disaster for the UK if it came about. No major decisions for change would ever be reached if other parties didn't agree with them, as they would be outvoted every time. The same goes if a Labour minority government or Liberal minority government had been on the cards.

It seems you have a different interpretation than me then. I understand what you are getting at though, it's a fair point.

What I don't want to see is an idiotic presidency style system, though I fear we may be moving in that direction following the leaders debates, and this idiotic perception that people have of 'electing' the Prime Minister. People saying 'Gordon Brown was never elected as Prime Minister'. NEWSFLASH - No prime minister has ever been elected by the public, his / her party has. Not Thatcher, not Blair, not anyone!

I agree - the amount of times i've heard someone slating <insert party leader here> or ranting 'why did you vote for him?' recently is so backwards, i have a feeling it's already way past that point.