Exit Poll & result discussion

STV is a form of Proportional Representation - I think they use it in Ireland and Scotland.

 

Country was OK in 1995.

 

i thought it was sexually transmitted vote

 

Looks like Gordon is standing down so a deal can be done between Labour and the Lib Dems.

 

Thats because Major was a class act. With glasses like that you could rule the world.

 

The BBC never go on about how he was 'unelected' for the first 2 years.

 

before the election most people were focusing on the qualities of brown, clegg and cameron as people and leaders. now its all about policies on electoral reform, the economy/public financing and to a lesser extent social reform. this hung parliament has been such a blessing.

 

That's a shabby post. Major was elected PM by the British voters. The problem with Brown was that nobody wanted him as PM in the first place and the recent election bore that out.

 

In this country we elect the party and not the leader. The leader is chosen by the party. It's turning in to an American election with debates and people choosing their vote based on the party leader.

 

that's a rather naive way of looking at it. of course the majority of voters vote for the leader. there are local exceptions and principled voters but the majority are swayed by the leaders. you only have to look at the way the polls reacted to the first debate.

 

Then thats the voters problem , not the constitution

As i have said many times , the imbeciles that breathe the same air as me , i call them xfactor ***** , deserve everything they get when they dont understand the simple workings of an election process

 

There is an issue though Leights. People vote for a party, for a democratic process, however, we all know that the actual policy of any one party is decided by a very small group of people at the leadership level, who then enforce this across the whole party through the whips.

In my Utopian democracy, we'd ban politcal parties altogether by decree, then each constituency would be contested by independents, who would turn up at Westminster and represent their local community's interests and vote accordingly, not according to any party line.

 

I agree Moog
But that doesnt change how it works NOW , and peoples lack of understanding of it , doesnt make it legally wrong

 

Do you have patent on that term or am I allowed to use it? It seems to be the best description of the general pubic (sic) I have come across.

Trouble with lots of headless chickens voting on important national issues like the economy or defence is that nothing will ever get decided upon as everyone has their own agendas. The is that you ssume
these people have an ounce of sense when in actual fact they are in general "X-factor *****", which is to your credit but naive.:biggrin:

 

xfactor ***** :sign15:

Never has there been a better description for the muppets of this country.

 

I disagree entirely with that Hornmeister. Bear in mind here, that whilst no party whip would be in place to propose policy, there would also not be entrenched positions opposing it. If there was policy which would be of benefit, then it would receive support from wide sections of the House.

 

By the way, whilst I hate the "X-Factor" nature of this country as much as anyone, I think Britain's Got Talent is ****ing brilliant.

 

Any shred of credibility you may have once had has just flown out the window:forehead:


:biggrin:

 

No way Meister.

That gymnastics troupe and the bloke who could swallow a billiard ball were incredible. I think that BGT is awesome.

 

You're right, clearly i don't understand :forehead:

 

:forehead: :biggrin:

 

Lol , fair one

 

As the Majority of people on this forum voted for Lib Dem either as a 'Tactical vote' or as they wanted them to run the country. Would you still vote for the Lib Dems in light of there coalition with the Tories?


For me personally i wouldn't, due to my dislike of not only David Cameron and Osborne etc, but also due to the fact that i disagree or don't like the majority of there policies.

 

I'm wondering if this is the final nail in the coffin for them. A reduced number of seats when the incumbent has done a dreadful job and now getting into bed with the enemy. I predict less seats next time, might be worth merging with the Tories permanently if they can get satisfaction from policy negotiations.

 

i think its the right decision. it would be wrong to ally with labour given their past record on electoral reform and having less seats than the tories.

the biggest accusation levelled at the lib dems prior to the election was that they were a bunch of art college drop outs unfit for government. this is going to the be the only chance they're likely to get for the next century of proving that wrong

 

Ken Clarke is back :dismay:

 

This.

 

How can you :dismay: about Ken Clarke?

I think the Lib Dem's supporters will judge them on their record. They have got serious concessions out of the Tories and 5 Lib Dems into the cabinet. This would never have happened any other way.

 

Because I saw him in a conference once and he seemed to be your typical cigar smoking, right wing Tory toff bag.

He also looked like he was going to roll over and die, I've never seen such a red face.

 

Pretty weak. Ken Clarke is anything but a "right winger" in the Tories and is, I think, a very safe pair of hands to have in the cabinet. I'm very glad to see him back in the front line.

 

He does smoke cigars though and for that:dismay:

 

:sign15:

 

I see the Labour party got over 4000 new members sign up yesterday. I'm guessing most of them voted Lib Dem and were not happy bunnys.

 

Swings and roundabouts. Whatever votes they lose from the left, they can just as easily gain from the right.

The big issue here is that for the first time in decades, the Lib Dems have relevance. They could have given that up, but for what? To remain a marginal irrelevance for the rest of time?