[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]I just done some maths and to have a majority of just one seat there would have to be a coalition of Labour, Liberal, SNP *and* Plaid Cymru. What a cluster**** that would end up being.
Salad
I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post.
I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England.
Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.
[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]I just done some maths and to have a majority of just one seat there would have to be a coalition of Labour, Liberal, SNP *and* Plaid Cymru. What a cluster**** that would end up being.
Is that including the Alliance MP in Northern Ireland, because she's essentially a Lib Dem
EDIT Cameron's statement seemed weak. He just repeated Tory policies and said 'hey, Lib Dems, you say something similar on these issues'.
A Committee on electoral reform is very very weak. If I was a Lib Dem, I wouldn't take it - Labour would side with the Tories in it
[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]I just done some maths and to have a majority of just one seat there would have to be a coalition of Labour, Liberal, SNP *and* Plaid Cymru. What a cluster**** that would end up being.
Is that including the Alliance MP in Northern Ireland, because she's essentially a Lib Dem
+ 3 seats from the SDLP, which is effectively Labour in N.Ireland
[quote][cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]Salad I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post. I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England. Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.[/quote]
Only 10 seats in Scotland, Wales and NI? That's not very representative of the UK is it.
If the Lib Dems are smart they will only demand one thing from Conservatives or Labour - immediate electoral reform through a public referendum. It's the only way they can convert their votes to seats. Cameron's party will not let him offer anything more than a cross party discussion of this issue. So can't see a deal between Conservatives or Lib Dems. Labour have already publically offered a referendum to the Lib Dems. So over the next couple of days I would expect a deal to be made between the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP etc. This coalition would hold until the referendum took place. Once the new electoral legislation was passed into law the coalition would collapse and another election would take place.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]Salad
I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post.
I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England.
Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.
Only 10 seats in Scotland, Wales and NI? That's not very representative of the UK is it.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]Salad I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post. I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England. Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.[/quote]
Only 10 seats in Scotland, Wales and NI? That's not very representative of the UK is it.[/quote]
[cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]If the Lib Dems are smart they will only demand one thing from Conservatives or Labour - immediate electoral reform through a public referendum. It's the only way they can convert their votes to seats. Cameron's party will not let him offer anything more than a cross party discussion of this issue. So can't see a deal between Conservatives or Lib Dems. Labour have already publically offered a referendum to the Lib Dems. So over the next couple of days I would expect a deal to be made between the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP etc. This coalition would hold until the referendum took place. Once the new electoral legislation was passed into law the coalition would collapse and another election would take place.
That is a possibility. The Libs could then reign-in the Tories on the more right-wing legislatures they wanted to bring in (repealing the hunting ban, for instance), which would be no bad thing.
[cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]If the Lib Dems are smart they will only demand one thing from Conservatives or Labour - immediate electoral reform through a public referendum. It's the only way they can convert their votes to seats. Cameron's party will not let him offer anything more than a cross party discussion of this issue. So can't see a deal between Conservatives or Lib Dems. Labour have already publically offered a referendum to the Lib Dems. So over the next couple of days I would expect a deal to be made between the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP etc. This coalition would hold until the referendum took place. Once the new electoral legislation was passed into law the coalition would collapse and another election would take place.
First off, I don't think Cameron was ever going to offer PR immediately in a statement on TV. He may budge in negotiations, he may not. He'll have to budge on something, and PR seems the easiest of them all.
I have no idea how that referendum would go if the Conservatives were in opposition. I'd expect them to campaign on it as a referendum on the last 13 years of Labour and say that PR would guarantee 100 more years of Labour incompetence in government etc etc. Not saying any of this is true (in fact, I think very little of it is true), but that's a winning campaign in a referendum, I think.
[quote][cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]and based on that jonny73 who would win if the electorial reform with todays figures??
Lab Cons LIB[/quote]
Depends on how far reaching the reforms go.[/quote]
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ has a lot of detail about electoral reform options. In general though electoral reform benefits smaller parties.
[quote][cite]Posted By: IA[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]If the Lib Dems are smart they will only demand one thing from Conservatives or Labour - immediate electoral reform through a public referendum. It's the only way they can convert their votes to seats. Cameron's party will not let him offer anything more than a cross party discussion of this issue. So can't see a deal between Conservatives or Lib Dems. Labour have already publically offered a referendum to the Lib Dems. So over the next couple of days I would expect a deal to be made between the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP etc. This coalition would hold until the referendum took place. Once the new electoral legislation was passed into law the coalition would collapse and another election would take place.[/quote]
First off, I don't think Cameron was ever going to offer PR immediately in a statement on TV. He may budge in negotiations, he may not. He'll have to budge on something, and PR seems the easiest of them all.
I have no idea how that referendum would go if the Conservatives were in opposition. I'd expect them to campaign on it as a referendum on the last 13 years of Labour and say that PR would guarantee 100 more years of Labour incompetence in government etc etc. Not saying any of this is true (in fact, I think very little of it is true), but that's a winning campaign in a referendum, I think.[/quote]
You're right they are at the beginning of negotiations and are not going to give much away immediately. However the Conservatives are also rumoured to be suffering major internal splits on the pr issue. Cameron would not have the support of his party on this issue. For the Conservatives it doesn't make much sense to go for PR. Personally I think if we held another election tomorrow I'm pretty sure the Conservatives would win an outright majority.
But i do have to admit my head is starting to hurt at all the permutations.
[cite]Posted By: johnny73[/cite]If the Lib Dems are smart they will only demand one thing from Conservatives or Labour - immediate electoral reform through a public referendum. It's the only way they can convert their votes to seats. Cameron's party will not let him offer anything more than a cross party discussion of this issue. So can't see a deal between Conservatives or Lib Dems. Labour have already publically offered a referendum to the Lib Dems. So over the next couple of days I would expect a deal to be made between the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP etc. This coalition would hold until the referendum took place. Once the new electoral legislation was passed into law the coalition would collapse and another election would take place.
First off, I don't think Cameron was ever going to offer PR immediately in a statement on TV. He may budge in negotiations, he may not. He'll have to budge on something, and PR seems the easiest of them all.
I have no idea how that referendum would go if the Conservatives were in opposition. I'd expect them to campaign on it as a referendum on the last 13 years of Labour and say that PR would guarantee 100 more years of Labour incompetence in government etc etc. Not saying any of this is true (in fact, I think very little of it is true), but that's a winning campaign in a referendum, I think.
You're right they are at the beginning of negotiations and are not going to give much away immediately. However the Conservatives are also rumoured to be suffering major internal splits on the pr issue. Cameron would not have the support of his party on this issue. For the Conservatives it doesn't make much sense to go for PR. Personally I think if we held another election tomorrow I'm pretty sure the Conservatives would win an outright majority.
But i do have to admit my head is starting to hurt at all the permutations.
As far as I understand the news coverage, the Conservatives only have to offer a referendum on PR. They can stay neutral on the referendum or even campaign against it if they want.
As I said already, David Cameron wants to be a world leader. That requires negotiation and compromise. If he and his party refuse to do that, then he doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister and his party are the wrong option for the UK.
Can someone please explain why it needs a referendum to change the voting system?
Johnny, can you please tick 'BBCode' underneath your comment before you click 'Add your comments'. Makes it come out all nice in a quote box.
I like the STV option in your above link very much. That's what I'd like to see.
[cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite]I think he was talking about results in England
Ah, right.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]come on oggster get with the programme man ;-)
even me the voting numpty got that bit
That's what you get with dipping in with only a 5 minute scan of the thread, while stopping for a tea break, NLA ...... I just haven't had the time today to follow the thread properly.
What is interesting is that pre-election the talk was about punishing the MPs for their expenses abuse but that seems to have not been a major issues for most voters.
There was a lot of talk about votef apathy but the vote appears to have increased. I've not checked so tell me if I'm wrong.
There was a lot of talk about antipathy to politics and swings to minor parties and the Lib Dems but other than the green candidate who was always in with a chance that didn't happen either.
What has happened is that ALL the three main parties have been punished, unintentionally, by us voters as none has really won. The Tories fell short from a winning position Kevin Keegan style, Labour got a Charlton at Millwall like mauling losing dozens of seats and Lib-Dems didn't move on to the next level Curbs stylee ; - )
And far from people being less interested or just not caring the hung parliament seems to have energised and engaged people. Voters want to know what the options are, people on here are talking about PR and coalitions like we normally chat about 442 or 451. That has to be a good thing
The world doesn't seem to have come to an end with no government. Maybe we can do without for a bit longer.
Comments
didnt she want to ban page 3
I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post.
I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England.
Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.
It would be weird having two polar opposite parties forming a coalition.
Is that including the Alliance MP in Northern Ireland, because she's essentially a Lib Dem
EDIT Cameron's statement seemed weak. He just repeated Tory policies and said 'hey, Lib Dems, you say something similar on these issues'.
A Committee on electoral reform is very very weak. If I was a Lib Dem, I wouldn't take it - Labour would side with the Tories in it
Can't say I'm a fan of a 'dolly mix' government. Would much prefer Con-Lib
I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post.
I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England.
Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.[/quote]
Only 10 seats in Scotland, Wales and NI? That's not very representative of the UK is it.
Have you been following this thread ?
Lab
Cons
LIB
I accepted the point Re votes in an earlier post.
I believe the seats won indicate an overwhelming Tory victory in England.
Con 292 Lab 188 LD 42 That's 104 more than the nearest challenger.[/quote]
Only 10 seats in Scotland, Wales and NI? That's not very representative of the UK is it.[/quote]
Have you been following this thread ?[/quote]
I was being facetious.
Lab
Cons
LIB[/quote]
Depends on how far reaching the reforms go.
That is a possibility. The Libs could then reign-in the Tories on the more right-wing legislatures they wanted to bring in (repealing the hunting ban, for instance), which would be no bad thing.
First off, I don't think Cameron was ever going to offer PR immediately in a statement on TV. He may budge in negotiations, he may not. He'll have to budge on something, and PR seems the easiest of them all.
I have no idea how that referendum would go if the Conservatives were in opposition. I'd expect them to campaign on it as a referendum on the last 13 years of Labour and say that PR would guarantee 100 more years of Labour incompetence in government etc etc. Not saying any of this is true (in fact, I think very little of it is true), but that's a winning campaign in a referendum, I think.
Lab
Cons
LIB[/quote]
Depends on how far reaching the reforms go.[/quote]
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ has a lot of detail about electoral reform options. In general though electoral reform benefits smaller parties.
First off, I don't think Cameron was ever going to offer PR immediately in a statement on TV. He may budge in negotiations, he may not. He'll have to budge on something, and PR seems the easiest of them all.
I have no idea how that referendum would go if the Conservatives were in opposition. I'd expect them to campaign on it as a referendum on the last 13 years of Labour and say that PR would guarantee 100 more years of Labour incompetence in government etc etc. Not saying any of this is true (in fact, I think very little of it is true), but that's a winning campaign in a referendum, I think.[/quote]
You're right they are at the beginning of negotiations and are not going to give much away immediately. However the Conservatives are also rumoured to be suffering major internal splits on the pr issue. Cameron would not have the support of his party on this issue. For the Conservatives it doesn't make much sense to go for PR. Personally I think if we held another election tomorrow I'm pretty sure the Conservatives would win an outright majority.
But i do have to admit my head is starting to hurt at all the permutations.
As far as I understand the news coverage, the Conservatives only have to offer a referendum on PR. They can stay neutral on the referendum or even campaign against it if they want.
As I said already, David Cameron wants to be a world leader. That requires negotiation and compromise. If he and his party refuse to do that, then he doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister and his party are the wrong option for the UK.
Can someone please explain why it needs a referendum to change the voting system?
Johnny, can you please tick 'BBCode' underneath your comment before you click 'Add your comments'. Makes it come out all nice in a quote box.
I like the STV option in your above link very much. That's what I'd like to see.
According to the BBC News page, all results are in except 2:
Conservatives: 305
Labour: 258
Lib-Dem: 57
I know you posted 50 mins ago, Daggs ....... but you must have been quoting much earlier figures?
Tories have 47 more seats than the nearest challenger, not 104.
That's less than half what you're claiming.
even me the voting numpty got that bit
Conservative: 296
Labour: 191
Lib-Dem: 43
Green: 1
I still disagree with an English assembly. Regional, yes. England, no.
Ah, right.
That's what you get with dipping in with only a 5 minute scan of the thread, while stopping for a tea break, NLA ...... I just haven't had the time today to follow the thread properly.
You're gonna be an expert by the time of the next election mate ... we'll all be coming to you for explanations ;-)
For sure, better get on with learning the in's and outs so we can come to you for advice when we all head back to the polls in a couple of months !!
There was a lot of talk about votef apathy but the vote appears to have increased. I've not checked so tell me if I'm wrong.
There was a lot of talk about antipathy to politics and swings to minor parties and the Lib Dems but other than the green candidate who was always in with a chance that didn't happen either.
What has happened is that ALL the three main parties have been punished, unintentionally, by us voters as none has really won. The Tories fell short from a winning position Kevin Keegan style, Labour got a Charlton at Millwall like mauling losing dozens of seats and Lib-Dems didn't move on to the next level Curbs stylee ; - )
And far from people being less interested or just not caring the hung parliament seems to have energised and engaged people. Voters want to know what the options are, people on here are talking about PR and coalitions like we normally chat about 442 or 451. That has to be a good thing
The world doesn't seem to have come to an end with no government. Maybe we can do without for a bit longer.