-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
RedShift said:
I know his secret.
killer_clank
Member
Dimbleby is spot on there - there's no way for Gordon Brown to come out of this situation as Prime Minister.
killer_clank
Member
BBC News are saying 3 cabinet positions have been offered to the Lib Dems by the Tories, including Transport Minister.
PumpkinPie
Banned
killer_clank said:
Hypothetically, what could this mean if the Lib Dems take up the offer?
PumpkinPie said:
It'd mean nothing, probably constant arguments in the cabinet between the LD and Tories and ultimately a reshuffle later on, getting the LD out of the cabinet, LD withdraw their support, coalition crashes and burns, new election begins.
But new election under shitty FPTP, soo nothing changes.
I cannot see how this Con-Lib coalition would serve the LD interests at all.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
killer_clank said:
Might as well throw Scottish Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary to them as well whilst they're giving out the best seats in the house.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Salazar said:
Ah, good ol' John Reid. He called Paxman a "West London wanker" and got away with it.
Xavien said:
Sorry, it seemed as though every was laughing over transport minister too much to realise that bigger jobs had been offered alongside. In any case the only way a coalition is going to happen is if there's at least a referendum on electoral reform, this is just the Tories teasing the Lib Dems with the offer of some power.
PumpkinPie
Banned
D4Danger said:
Hmmm, surely they (LD) would then be the ones responsible for cutting transport services for the budget, and then they would be out of favour with the public? Cameron has it all planned...good man!
Surely the best thing for Labour to do would be to go with the Lib Dems and let Clegg be the PM?
They'd still be in power, but it would give the people what they wanted, and make it seem like Labour aren't just gaining an advantage over the broken voting system.
Then if everything is a fuck up, with Clegg being the PM, it would make it look like it was the Lib Dems fault.
They'd still be in power, but it would give the people what they wanted, and make it seem like Labour aren't just gaining an advantage over the broken voting system.
Then if everything is a fuck up, with Clegg being the PM, it would make it look like it was the Lib Dems fault.
PumpkinPie
Banned
CRD90 said:
Lol, who wants Clegg as PM? If that was what people wanted the Lib Dems wouldn't have finished last.
DSWii60 said:
Its ok
Yes the Tories are teasing them with power, but that power would be so fleeting, its far more in their interests to push PR as hard as they can, something that in the long term would secure far more power for the lib dems than what paltry morsels have been offered here.
TheGreatDave
Banned
CRD90 said:
What
freethought
Member
Those job offers aren't true apparently.
PumpkinPie
Banned
CRD90 said:
I'm not sure but I think there was another party in this election who, you know...got the most votes.
That's the way PR works. Parties form left and right blocs, and based on combined votes (Tory/DUP vs Lib/Lab/SDLP/Alliance) that chooses who is in power. Not single parties.louis89 said:
People vote for ideals, not party leaders. People voted for a progressive government.
Souldriver
Member
Well, not entirely. I think in many countries, the first option after the cards have been dealt is that the biggest party gets to form a government. Whether that is a right-wing party that got 30% of the vote, even though the 3 left parties got 60% combined. That right-wing party should get the change to negotiate with all the other parties to try and form a coalition. Only when that party fails to do so, it becomes more of a "who gets to a 50+% coalition first" kind of deal, whether or not the bigger/biggest parties are part of it.Sage00 said:
Souldriver
Member
I was talking to my dad about the UK elections and how I found it funny that no party could be very happy with the results:D4Danger said:
- Cons didn't get majority, what was supposed to be a piece of cake all things considered
- Labour lost hard, however still managed to stay sort of relevant after the elections
- Lib Dems didn't get their surge, instead they went down actually, but they can play a role in the government
Odd situation
louis89 said:
I'd agree, except that Tory support isn't exactly conclusively strong. They didn't win according to the system we operate under. They "only" got 36% of the vote - more than anyone else yes, but personally I find it difficult to swallow that a party wins on that percentage. If they'd gotten a higher percentage, I'd (begrudgingly!) accept the will of the people was for a Tory government. But to talk of a mandate on a percentage like that just doesn't work for me. And that's before we get into the arguments that ~50% of the electorate voted for 'lefter' parties than the Tories. A minority with a political view that is further to one end of the political spectrum than the majority can get power because there that end only has one main party and the other end has 2?
I know that's how it works, I know that's the system, but I'm genuinely confused as to how that can make sense. I've not heard a convincing argument for it, the only response I've seen (not here but in the media) is seemingly a shrug of the shoulders and "Sorry, that's how it works!" platitudes.
Anyway, unrelated to any of the above or your point, I saw this and liked it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell-higgs/4585861905/
louis89 said:
I always find it rather interesting. Sure, if you're talking parties then it sounds bad, but if you talk *ideologies*, suddenly it's rather better. I mean, you could argue that a majority of the electorate voted "Not Tory" - but then you could argue the same about "Not Lib Dem" and "Not Labour".
That's another of the problems with this system, really. I imagine more Lib Dem voters would be happy with Labour in power than the Tories; I imagine more Labour voters would be happy with Lib Dem in power than the Tories. In having to choose one and only one party it ends up that having a more general preference for a political approach can get sidelined and the votes for that approach could be split.
It's possible that the Conservatives are the least popular of the 3.louis89 said:
Right-wingers would just support Tories, but progressive votes are split into Labour and Lib Dem, and while there are some Lab supporters who prefer Con to Lib, and some Lib supporters who prefer Con to Lab, the polls indicate not just overwhelming support of Lab/Lib coalition over Cons, but also overwhleming support of a Lab/Lib coalition over a Lib/Con coalition.
I think it more logically to consider it sickening that Cons can form a government with 36% of the vote, than Lib/Lab forming a government with over 50% of the vote.
Additionally, ALL 3 parties were losing parties, so two losing parties making a overwhelming victory in the eyes of the public at over 50% of the popular vote, and more than Cons in seats (but because of the messed up political system, still somehow less than half of the seats), would then, together be the most popular.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked