Tomorrow

[Deleted account DD]

The Lib Dems are a left of centre party. Most political commentators seem to regard them as being to the left of the Labour Party.

and as you yourself said they're shuffling to the right. The days of clearly defined left right or centre mainstream parties is acknowledged as long gone. Particularly with reference to the examples of both Tony BLiar & Camerons politics

When I was at school, 23% + 29% was greater than 36%.

Andrew

Your schoolboy maths may be correct but the application of them in context to the debate isnt

 

[Deleted account DD]

On the contrary, proportional representation would result in outcomes that give minor parties an inappropriate (excessive) amount of power. The present result could well become typical if the first past the post system was abandoned.

If you read my post again, you'll see that it begins "I have heard it said". IIRC, it was Michael Portillo who was saying it (but not advocating it).

Andrew

Ive read the post several times already the proposal is essentialy a coalition. I reiterate on the basis of seats lost and gained, and even deeper, the proportion of votes won it is clear the majority want a new broom.

We run under a first past the post, very little of what is going on is legally enforcable. Therefore we should follow 1/ those figures ....which leads to........2/ the clear wishes of the franchised public in determining the primary party. It is then up to them to decide what they want to do to get a ruling majority.

You will never shift me on that one

 

[Deleted account DD]

Do you really think that any woman would be daft enough to want to be the next PM?

Not at the mo, only one of the best pms we ever had did who demonstrated qualities, like em or not, that our new (or old pm in new clothes) is going to have to demonstrate in shed loads.


Anyway busy afternoon coming up no time for interesting things like this

 

[andrewk]

Your schoolboy maths may be correct but the application of them in context to the debate isnt

It will be interesting to see, at the next election, the extent to which those schoolboys maths stack up. It will not be good for the Lib Dems if those who thought they were voting for a principled left of centre party come to realise that they were mistaken.

I've been having a ponder this morning about which cabinet seats I'd give to the Lib Dems if I were David Cameron. Whilst the titles might be slightly different :lol, maybe something along these lines ........

Nick Clegg - Minister for Electoral Reform

Vince Cable - Minister for Taking the Blame

Paddy Ashdown - Minister who should have known better.

Can you suggest what names DC might actually choose for these posts?


Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

No idea which way they'll stack up at the next election but Cameron is ahead of any other single group on seats held which brings me neatly into one question I've been itching to ask but waiting to see if anyone has actually thought of in this flurry coalition excitement,

What is to stop Brown following the wishes of the electorate and stepping aside allowing Cameron to form a minority government

The answer starts with noth and ends in ing

Thats the measure of Brown, his desire for powere, his morals and his relationship with the electorate in a simple question and answer.

 

[andrewk]

What is to stop Brown following the wishes of the electorate and stepping aside allowing Cameron to form a minority government

Why do you keep making nonesense statements about the wishes of the electorate? More than 50% of the electorate voted for left of centre parties and not for Cameron. Cameron does not have a majority of the vote or a majority of seats.

The Queen's speech is due on 25th May 2010. If Cameron is installed as PM now and cannot come to an agreement with the Lib Dems, then he will be defeated on the Queen's Speech and will have to resign. Is that what you want to happen?


Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

Why do you keep making nonesense statements about the wishes of the electorate? More than 50% of the electorate voted for left of centre parties and not for Cameron. Cameron does not have a majority of the vote or a majority of seats.

Because its not nonsense (that's your ill evidenced opinion). You really seem to be struggling with this concept and process . Perhaps there is a case for a statutory de jour constitution that's easy to follow, I don't know :nenau

It is actually a very very simple concept but you need to understand some basic principles to follow it:

The Tories led by Cameron polled more votes but crucially obtained more seats than another single party. As we don't have pr, love it or loathe it, the first past the post system we do have, in theory gives him the right to take office albeit with a minority govt and now as the weekend passes imho on a higher moral footing than Browns right to stay in office.

HE THEN would decide if he wants to pursue minority rule or go coalition.

Lets be very clear on this Cameron and Clegg do not technically in the first instance set up a coalition. Camerons govt invites Clegg and his MPs to join them to form a majority coalition govt.

Thats the established protocol of it , but what's stopping him?

Quite simply Brown not moving out because he doesn't have to, the only reason he doesn't have to is because he almost has squatters rights for now whilst he's in denial, clinging on however you want to describe it, maybe waiting on the chance the Libs wont go in with the Tories? :nenau

Therefore Cameron has to take option 2 prove he has outline agreement to form a coalition to give a ruling majority, which is exactly what is going on now. Then he can go and knock on Browns door and bluntly say "Youre stuffed Sunshine....out"

And who provided the impetus to make all of this come about ?

The franchised folk of our fair land in accordance with the first past the post system we have by one action or another and we've all got to live with it for now.

Like it or not, see it as unfair or not:

The people have given Cameron the mandate in accordance with the rules.

Thats the way it is..........Simples.......Sorted

:thumbs


ps dont forget Blair and by default Brown got into office under the very same first past the post process and can be quoted as claiming to represent the people. He cant change the goalposts now

The Queen's speech is due on 25th May 2010. If Cameron is installed as PM now and cannot come to an agreement with the Lib Dems, then he will be defeated on the Queen's Speech and will have to resign. Is that what you want to happen?

If if and buts were worth money there'd be some very rich people about.

What if Clegg ambushes Cameron on policy? what if Brown doesnt resign and regroups?

More to worry about at the minute quite frankly which is probably why Clegg amongst others is taking his time.

 

[Deleted account DD]

ps the "some people didnt vote for them" argument is a very old and tired one, although I'll grant you it does suggest a need for reform but certainly for now we're stuck with first past the post :thumb2

 

[andrewk]

Quite simply Brown not moving out because he doesn't have to, the only reason he doesn't have to is because he almost has squatters rights for now

Government has to go on whilst the Tories and Lib Dems are squabbling (err sorry, negotiating) about the form that an agreement might take. I understand that you don't like the description - but those "squatters rights" as you call them are referred to as "constitutional duty" by the Beeb and just about everyone I've seen them interview recently.

Who would you have sent to the EU Finance ministers meeting today? Vince Cable?

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

ps the "some people didnt vote for them" argument is a very old and tired one

An overwhelming majority of the electorate did not vote Conservative. Even a majority of those who actually voted put their 'X' against someone other than a Conservative.

Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house. At the moment, DC does not - though the Lib Dems may well present him with one.

"They sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7).

Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

An overwhelming majority of the electorate did not vote Conservative. Even a majority of those who actually voted put their 'X' against someone other than a Conservative.

Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house. At the moment, DC does not - though the Lib Dems may well present him with one.

"They sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7).

Andrew

If you are going to perpetuate a debate or pass comment please at least have the decency to put any quotation used in full or explain the context of the part you are using.

Your quotation above is only half of what I said and has the opposite meaning of what I actually intimated.

 

[briggie]

If you are going to perpetuate a debate or pass comment please at least have the decency to put any quotation used in full or explain the context of the part you are using.

Your quotation above is only half of what I said and has the opposite meaning of what I actually intimated.

why cant they take turns according to their percentage of the vote ? :augie:lol

 

[Deleted account DD]

. I understand that you don't like the description - but those "squatters rights" as you call them are referred to as "constitutional duty" by the Beeb and just about everyone I've seen them interview recently.

Ok then Andrew I can produce as quotes (and did from a broadsheet) to the contrary as well as reference to the cabinet guidance.

But as you seem you seem to rely heavily on the "constitution" , a term I definitely have no problem with when understood correctly. Youre saying Brown has to remain in office so please supply me with a link to the place where it says that is a constitutional requirement, I mean 100% statutory, not moral or protocol. I will happily be shown to be wrong if you find it, I really dont think it exists but as my studying was some years ago I could easily be wrong.

I think tbh you'll find the BEEB use the term constitution in its general sense and would refer you back to a much earlier post explaining quite clearly the basis of our constitution along with the whys and wherefores of how it can be ignored

Who would you have sent to the EU Finance ministers meeting today? Vince Cable?

I would hope you know in your heart of hearts that's a rather silly question and appears only as a poor attempt at sarcasm

 

[Deleted account DD]

Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house.

You are fundamentally wrong in anything but a 2 party system.

Harold Wilson formed and led in the first instance a minority government from 1974. He did not have a ruling majority. Maybe a lot of work for the party whip though?

Cameron is the first past the post with most seats so has the right to do just that if the current folk move on

Subsequent coalition arrangements can be set up once the politicians are in place and can actually be formal or informal.

 

[extreme-4x4]

see if you had all voted the same. none of this would be an issue

what i dont get and still dont... how can we be at war with countries and the reason they say we are fighting is because these countries are run by dictators or dont have a democracy

well no one voted brown into power. and he has just done an election and lost , yet he is still in power.

but what do i know.

although a massive insult to the families of the soldiers who have not come home . if you ask me

 

[Deleted account DD]

see if you had all voted the same. none of this would be an issue

what i dont get and still dont... how can we be at war with countries and the reason they say we are fighting is because these countries are run by dictators or dont have a democracy

well no one voted brown into power. and he has just done an election and lost , yet he is still in power.

but what do i know.

although a massive insult to the families of the soldiers who have not come home . if you ask me

:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2 :bow:bow


I'm enjoying this but dont get me started on Iraq........I get angry then

One of ours is off to Afghan (a different kettle of fish imho) soon for a second tour, we worry already.

 

[andrewk]

But as you seem you seem to rely heavily on the "constitution" , a term I definitely have no problem with when understood correctly. Youre saying Brown has to remain in office so please supply me with a link to the place where it says that is a constitutional requirement, I mean 100% statutory, not moral or protocol.

I'd suggest that you spend a little time LISTENING to the news on the BBC. Just five minutes ago, they reported that Gordon Brown would have been told "in no uncertain terms" by the cabinet secretary that he had a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one is available.

If you don't like their use of terminology, feel free to argue with them. Poor as I think that some of the Beeb reporting has been during the election campaign, it is what most folks use to discover what is going on and what the relevant processes are.


Andrew

 

[tezzer]

You are fundamentally wrong in anything but a 2 party system.

Harold Wilson formed and led in the first instance a minority government from 1974. He did not have a ruling majority. Maybe a lot of work for the party whip though?

Cameron is the first past the post with most seats so has the right to do just that if the current folk move on

Subsequent coalition arrangements can be set up once the politicians are in place and can actually be formal or informal.

dave, have you ever thought about standing as an MP, you seem to be knowledgeable about politics and have some valid and strong points,but not everyone would agree with you, and i don't really see what what this thread is doing on here to be honest, it will probably lead to arguments.
it doesn't matter who gets in, they will only line their own pockets, especially the Tories. amen.

 

[paulp]

politics

Now Now

Whoever gets in get ready for it

B.O.H.I.C.A

so it does not matter

paulp

 

[Deleted account DD]

I'd suggest that you spend a little time LISTENING to the news on the BBC. Just five minutes ago, they reported that Gordon Brown would have been told "in no uncertain terms" by the cabinet secretary that he had a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one is available.

If you don't like their use of terminology, feel free to argue with them. Poor as I think that some of the Beeb reporting has been during the election campaign, it is what most folks use to discover what is going on and what the relevant processes are.


Andrew

I'm actually on sky, have been all day so apart from a few looks on ITV and BBC (broader research means better informed opinion) That and contradictory messages have being flowing forth all day. Its nice putting a day aside to sit in the conservatory

The cabinet secretary is only of course putting forward yet another message. Please dont put words in my mouth, I did not say I didnt like the terminology.

That is why I asked you for the link to the statutory requirement for him to remain in post. Have you found it yet?