UK General Election 2015

[Scuffers]

As a country, we are just not that good at coalitions yet, there still quite new to us.

In an ideal world, I would like no party politics, with mps working together on doing the right thing, rather than being whipped to doing the party thing.

Yes, this will not happen ant time soon....

[McWigglebum4th]

I have two problems with the whip system

1 we the public aren't allowed to do it.

2 they don't use real whips

[FiF]

Or hold out in a minority government as long as possible. The wreckers would be shown up for what they are. The business of government would carry on carrying on. The business of politics might be paralysed. So what? Might slow the useless pobs from interfering with all sorts of stuff just because it's whatever the other lot did.

I agree with Guam that the attitudes and shrill outpourings from the three main parties and their tribalistic supporters seen here and elsewhere has had the effect of marginalising the minor parties, which frankly is a shame.

The country has in this and the next election what together amounts to a once in a lifetime opportunity to show these failures that they are just that, unacceptable failures. Yes before anyone picks me up on it, fully aware of the dissonance in referencing a once in a lifetime opportunity as over the course of two elections, but this is simply a reflection of the failings in the fptp system and the behaviour of the tribes.

[Bradgate]

TEKNOPUG said:

The answer is to re-address that constituency boundaries - something that the Tories wanted to do but strangely, the LibDems opposed.....anyone would think that they want a hung parliament every election....

That was tit-for-tat because the Tories wouldn't agree to Lords reform. Anyone would think they want an unelected, unaccountable Lords with a Tory majority in perpetuity.....

[Zod]

Bradgate said:

TEKNOPUG said:

The answer is to re-address that constituency boundaries - something that the Tories wanted to do but strangely, the LibDems opposed.....anyone would think that they want a hung parliament every election....

That was tit-for-tat because the Tories wouldn't agree to Lords reform. Anyone would think they want an unelected, unaccountable Lords with a Tory majority in perpetuity.....

No, it was a breach of an agreed deal. The LibDems promised to agree to boundary reform in return for the referendum on AV.

[BlackLabel]

Zod said:

rover 623gsi said:

Neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to win enough seats to form a majority government. Therefore, the question is "what coalition do you want?"

Personally, I think UKIP will win very few seats so the only for the Tories will be another term with the Lib Dems.

Labour could possibly form a govt with SNP - but even as a bit of a leftie I don't like the thought of that and I also think that lots of Labour supporters wouldn't really want that either. They would rather go into govt with the Lib Dems.

So, my view is that even though they will lose seats, the Lib Dems will still have a major part to play.

On the figures in today's FT prediction, the Conservatives would have the most seats (just), but would have fewer seats combined with the LibDems than Labour combined with the SNP. A formal coalition would trump an informal agreement between Labour and the SNP, but the unholy alliance would no doubt act as wreckers for five years, making it impossible for the coalition to govern.

What a mess!

Most of the predictions as things stand are that Con+Lib won't reach the 326 needed whereas Lab+SNP will. So we'll have a situation where party number 2 is in government propped up by party number 5 (in terms of the national vote). A real mess indeed.

However with 5 weeks to go the Tories will be hoping for those numbers to change.

[FiF]

Scuffers said:

As a country, we are just not that good at coalitions yet, there still quite new to us.

In an ideal world, I would like no party politics, with mps working together on doing the right thing, rather than being whipped to doing the party thing.

Yes, this will not happen ant time soon....

Or ever probably.

One small thing I would wish to add to your wishes, even if it's a rather abstract notion. MPs have the right to the Right Honourable title, I would like to see ethics and behaviour which justifies that.

[anonymous-user]

handpaper said:

Zod said:

Slight problem with that: he needs Parliament to vote for a dissolution, because of the ridiculous Fixed Term Parliaments Act that he and Clegg hastily and foolishly agreed upon in 2010. The wreckers can just vote against.

Not quite, a no-confidence vote can still trigger an early election, if it is not reversed within 14 days.

Ah, but the wreckers - if they want to play a game - may decide not to vote in favour of a no confidence motion. They will obstruct and disrupt a minority Tory Govt, but won't allow it to get out and call another election.

FiF said:

Or hold out in a minority government as long as possible. The wreckers would be shown up for what they are. The business of government would carry on carrying on. The business of politics might be paralysed. So what? Might slow the useless pobs from interfering with all sorts of stuff just because it's whatever the other lot did.

Either as long as possible, or as long as they have to. It's a dangerous game for the wreckers to play, no doubt, as they have to balance the damage done to a minority Tory Govt limping on vs the damage to them in not voting the the Tories down.

The only good thing I can see that might come of it is low levels of spending. IIRC in the final Clinton term US Gov spending plummeted because Congress and the Senate were deadlocked, and so nothing got voted through, meaning nothing that involved spending money saw the light of day.

[rover 623gsi]

Guam said:

rover 623gsi said:

you want one party to have an overall majority

Where did I say that's what I want?
Come on lets play this nonsense out
Look up the word "pragmatist" (hint)

you said: Perhaps but it would likely make people realise that the nation is paralysed and force them to make some difficult choices for a clear term for either party.

To me that implies that what you want is for one of the Tories or Labour to have a majority

[Zod]

Greg66 said:

handpaper said:

Zod said:

Slight problem with that: he needs Parliament to vote for a dissolution, because of the ridiculous Fixed Term Parliaments Act that he and Clegg hastily and foolishly agreed upon in 2010. The wreckers can just vote against.

Not quite, a no-confidence vote can still trigger an early election, if it is not reversed within 14 days.

Ah, but the wreckers - if they want to play a game - may decide not to vote in favour of a no confidence motion. They will obstruct and disrupt a minority Tory Govt, but won't allow it to get out and call another election.

FiF said:

Or hold out in a minority government as long as possible. The wreckers would be shown up for what they are. The business of government would carry on carrying on. The business of politics might be paralysed. So what? Might slow the useless pobs from interfering with all sorts of stuff just because it's whatever the other lot did.

Either as long as possible, or as long as they have to. It's a dangerous game for the wreckers to play, no doubt, as they have to balance the damage done to a minority Tory Govt limping on vs the damage to them in not voting the the Tories down.

The only good thing I can see that might come of it is low levels of spending. IIRC in the final Clinton term US Gov spending plummeted because Congress and the Senate were deadlocked, and so nothing got voted through, meaning nothing that involved spending money saw the light of day.

there is indeed evidence from the U.S. and Belgium that governments that are paralysed are not necessarily bad for the economy. I don't believe that would have been the case in 2010

[MGJohn]

Guam said:

>>much snipped <<

Unless Farage can reach the massive numbers of do not usually vote, electorate out there nothing is going to really change.

... and that nothing will really change come May 7th gives us all a warm glow inside.

Roll on ....

Currently watching BBC2's Daily Politics show. "ACE" media luvvies Jo Coburn and Andrew Neil in full BBC pc-riddled swing.

Stroll on .....

[Ecosseven]

rover 623gsi said:

Neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to win enough seats to form a majority government. Therefore, the question is "what coalition do you want?"

Personally, I think UKIP will win very few seats so the only for the Tories will be another term with the Lib Dems.

Labour could possibly form a govt with SNP - but even as a bit of a leftie I don't like the thought of that and I also think that lots of Labour supporters wouldn't really want that either. They would rather go into govt with the Lib Dems.

So, my view is that even though they will lose seats, the Lib Dems will still have a major part to play.

I could see a Lab / Lib coalition but don't think that their combined number seats will give a majority. Same with Con / Lib coalition.

It looks like the SNP will be the third biggest party in terms of number seats but Labour has already ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP.

[StevieBee]

BlackLabel said:

Most of the predictions as things stand are that Con+Lib won't reach the 326 needed whereas Lab+SNP will. So we'll have a situation where party number 2 is in government propped up by party number 5 (in terms of the national vote). A real mess indeed.

Indeed it is.

Thing is, the UK is a genetically capitalist society but we're also a compassionate bunch which is why we have two parties representing both sides so close to the centre line. Truth is, whether Labour or Conservatives are in power, when all is said and done, really makes little difference to our day to day lives.

The world see the UK as a safe pair of hands. We don't do multi-party coalitions that take months or even years to form. We do simple politics and historically give our leaders a mandate to govern for at least 4 years. One can argue all day about Thatcher but what cannot be argued is that the public gave her the mandate to govern. That provides the confidence of overseas institutions and companies to invest in the UK and it's this that drives up the economy - nothing else, and it's the economy that drives everything else from there on.

We're in this totally daft scenario where it's likely we'll have a Labour led government that less than a third of the public want sharing power with a party who's sole interest is focused on one part of the country at the expense of the others, whilst kicking out the lot that are seemingly doing a pretty good of sorting out an almighty mess inherited from the last government.

The world is looking at this and thinking "WTF?"

I really cannot understand how or why we have arrived at this position other than we have somehow grown a population of the terminally thick.

For the UK to maintain and strengthen its position and well being, we need a majority, single party government with a strong opposition. Labour or Conservative or Conservative or Labour - which way round is less important.

[mrpurple]

Guam said:

In my sixty years there have been many things I did not wan,t but pragmatism required me to acknowledge and accept

Is that clear enough for you

Or do you still want to carry on inspecting the innards of this imaginary goat you think you have found?

That is the 1st time I have heard that expression in my 20 days short of 57 years

[rover 623gsi]

Guam said:

Dear lord and still it goes on
Look what I might want is different to what the reality may prove to be post the election
in the real world one has to accept that there is a situation where the Governance of the country becomes paralysed and the two main parties go back to the ballot box to resolve it.

Whether I like it or not it is still a plausible outcome,

I accept that reality as being entirely possible post the results (hence the hint about pragmatism).

In my sixty years there have been many things I did not wan,t but pragmatism required me to acknowledge and accept

Is that clear enough for you

Or do you still want to carry on inspecting the innards of this imaginary goat you think you have found?

I still don't get why you think that a second election would resolve anything. There is zero evidence to suggest that the country is firmly behind either of the main parties and there is no proof either that the failure of either of those parties achieving a majority would result in the country coming to a standstill - I happen to disagree. What is just likely to happen in the event of a hung parliament is that politicians will have take a pragmatic view - just as they did in 2010.

[rover 623gsi]

StevieBee said:

I really cannot understand how or why we have arrived at this position other than we have somehow grown a population of the terminally thick.

I suspect it is because we have 650 MPs most of whom are lying, cheating, useless, power-crazy idiots thus leaving the population with the choice of voting for different shades of st

[anonymous-user]

rover 623gsi said:

I still don't get why you think that a second election would resolve anything. There is zero evidence to suggest that the country is firmly behind either of the main parties and there is no proof either that the failure of either of those parties achieving a majority would result in the country coming to a standstill - I happen to disagree. What is just likely to happen in the event of a hung parliament is that politicians will have take a pragmatic view - just as they did in 2010.

Because there is a school of thought (and some evidence to support it, I believe) that says that if given a second chance to vote, voters' attitudes harden and the desire to deliver a clear majority government increases. Moreover, the party that is perceived by the electorate to have screwed up the prospects of a stable government being formed first time around gets "blamed" by the voters in the second ballot and suffers accordingly.

[4v6]

One things for sure, after 5 years of liblabcsnpgreen shenanigans people's heads might just emerge from their arses and they'll demand a proper change to the way this stupidity is currently being conducted.

They need to feel some real pain before they understand what it is they need to do- Think about what it is they're voting for.
British electorate= dumb turkeys voting for Christmas..........

[Gecko1978]

StevieBee said:

I really cannot understand how or why we have arrived at this position other than we have somehow grown a population of the terminally thick.

Basically the above. Scotland is a prime example people voted for a man who spent there tax's on propoganda (white paper) that was at best wishful thinking at worst down right lies. An yet 2million people lapped it up did not see any flaws in the tale they were being told.

Then after they lost seems like even more people will vote for them and thus give us a situation where we are ruled by Labour (who lets face it made a mess of a great economy they inherited) and a party that wants to bring down the UK and at the same time cause all its major firms to then up an leave (you will recall with no surpise every bank based in scotland said it would leave).

Vote for who ever you like but remember this. Rich people will always be Richer than you and if you elect partys that try and take too much this group will leave and there will the average joe be. The big issue with the left (Labour SNP and Greens etc) is they want other to pay for there crazy ideas.

[Camoradi]

FiF said:

One small thing I would wish to add to your wishes, even if it's a rather abstract notion. MPs have the right to the Right Honourable title, I would like to see ethics and behaviour which justifies that.

As a teenager I wanted to date Charlie's Angels. I wonder which of us will get lucky first