09 or 10 Elections UK?

[liberty]

Well as we know in the UK a Government can hold office for up to five years, this means the next election must be on April 5th or before. So let us delve into the world of fact and fiction, speculation and theories.

In our "polls" the Conservative Party seem to have the highest majority, being aroung 40~45%, and gained 35% at the election in Europe.

The Labour Party has hit a major low in the last century to when it only started, this is making it look bad for the party and may give them something to worry about.

Gordon Brown has admitted that the last few weeks have been terrible ones and the climax was probably the Speaker Election when only 2 participants were labour and one only gained ju st over 70 votes, meaning 275 would prefer a Tory speaker.

Now we have the next bit of bad news for Labour, Glasgow Bi-Election. Glasgow is traditionally Labour, and if it falls into the hands of the Conservatives, or SNP, then Labour are going to be facing more and more bad news.

Now let us delve into Fiction and Speculation.

The BNP have been feared as they gained two seats in the EU, yes let us get scared, but as we know we had 72 seats up for grabs, wo is a very low number. And let's not forget that this was done by Proportional Representation, a system that means having the sixth highest poll gives you.. one seat. As we use a more fair and honest First-Past-the-Post system this will not happen and will more generally reflect the views of the public in a general election.

Labour had worse days when the "Pound in your Pocket Speech" was addressed and until Gordon Brown says that they are safe for most stupid thing to say ever.

Now for the final one theories.

That Labour will most likely lose the next election, if Gordon Brown is there or not.

That the party will not be able to find someone willing to replace him till the general election.

That David Cameron will enjoy a 70% or more MPs in the house.

That we will not see a change in Speaker when it comes to the Crunch

That the BNP cannot gain power if we have First Past the Post system


Your views.

[Ananke II]

Hey, don't knock proportional representation. It works well in Denmark and some of us far prefer it to the First-Past-the-Post system.

Don't really know enough about UK politics to comment on that, but I do follow the happenings there with interest, whenever possible.

[Relalix]

proportional representation is very corrupt. on a smaller scale, it is used at the CILIP carnegie - and if one person doesnt like a book thats got 4 votes, hell go for one that has 3. that way - tie break. and then they cant go for that book again.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO SECRET BALLOT?

and the BNP are a bunch of morons in my opinion, so how they represent two of Britains counties Ill never know.

[Ananke II]

Jun 24, 2009 2:11:21 GMT -5 Relalix said:

proportional representation is very corrupt.

There's several different ways of doing proportional representation. Which means that there's probably cases were it doesn't work well. Where I live it works by splitting parliamentary seats in two piles. 135 (+2 for each of Greenland and the Faroe Islands) MPs are elected by proportional majorities in their constituencies (which all elects several MPs), while the remaining 40 seats are allocated to the parties depending on their total vote. That way smaller parties get 4 MPs as long as they receive 2% of the vote without having to get a constituency seat.

[liberty]

Proportional Represntation has worked before, but the system the EU uses let's thugs in suits into the Parliment and we shall not stand for that.

I feel the best way to handle PR is to not have it, or at least not use the EU way, for that is really the only wayt though, but I also feel it misguides the judgment of the few who vote, buy that I mean the BNP gained two seats in places where noone voted.

[SovietPrussia]

As we use a more fair and honest First-Past-the-Post system

In the '05 General Election, Labour for 35.2% of the vote and 54.9% of the seats, the Conservatives got 32.4% of the vote and 30.7% of the seats, and the Lib Dems got 22% of the vote and 9.6% of the vote. (source: www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/RP05-033.pdf Do the maths yourself)

Tell me, how is the fact that it took 4 times as many votes to elect a Lib Dem MP than it did to elect a Labour MP at all fair or honest?

And bear in mind that the Labour government that won the election pushed for ID cards(more beurocracy!), had a chancellor who claimed to have got rid of the boom and bust(GORDON!), built up the biggest peacetime defecit ever, really sexed up the reasons for entering Iraq. Well I won't derail the thread with my New Labour rant any further.

To return to my point, the statistics show that First past the post gives results as bloated and distorted as Kim-Jong-Ill's official approval rating.

[Shelter from the Storm]

I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Labour will lose its government after the next election. While the economy (not Labour's fault - blame that on George Bush and his big business thieves friends) will undoubtedly account for most of the voter discontent, there is also a rift among traditional Labour supporters caused by Tony Blair's sycophantic decision to join Bush in the Iraqi war. I know that, personally, I have had difficulty supporting Labour after that.

Nonetheless, I repeat here what I have stated elsewhere: The worst Labour government is better than the best Conservative government.

[Isles of Nixon]

Remember when Brown wanted to call elections within the year he became PM? My, how times have changed. He's so desperate to hold on to power that he's gonna wait and wait and wait until he HAS to call the election. Under his watch, councils have switched to Tory, Labour took two drubbings thus far and the Mayor of London switched from Labour to Tory.

So Brown, your days are numbered and call the elections sooner rather than later so that the UK can recover from the scandals that have plagued the country under your ineptness.

[Lion Kindom]

First, PR is the fairest system I can think of, it works for most places, and it favours minority representation. There are two main methods, the d'Hondt, and the Saint Lague. But back on topic.

I think the Tories will get an unfortunate advantage due to the fact that bad things have happened during Labour regime, most of which wasn't their fault. But I agree with Shelter when he says:

The worst Labour government is better than the best Conservative government.

[SovietPrussia]

Well John Major never got the UK into a terribly conducted war over some very shaky evidence. And then came David Kelly's suicide and Whitewash, some resignations in the BBC, I could go on. And for Tony to not admit wrongdoing?

Baldwin, Disraeli, Bonar Law, Heath, Eden; none of these Conservative Prime Ministers are remembered for a style over substance spindicalist mess of their own creation.

The Labour government is long past its sell by date, but I'm too cynical these days to be too hopeful about Cameron either. Really, the sooner we get voting reform the better. Then I might think that the two ruling parties aren't that obsessed with their own power. It's times like this that I'm glad I'm in an almost Lib Dem constituency.

[Lion Kindom]

Lim Dems, are something I don't ever remember in power.

[SovietPrussia]

Well the 'Lib Dems' as they exist today were only formed back in 1988 when the Liberal Party )which had been out of power since Lloyd George left office just after WW1) and a splinter group from the Labour Party, the Social Democratic Party merged. The SDP were formed when the Labour Party became a bit less left-wing under Neil Kinnock. So the more radical Labour Party members left.

[Lion Kindom]

I like what the Lib Dems stand for, but I'm not sure about them. Never seen them in action.

[Isles of Nixon]

Fact of the matter is that the Labour brand is like milk that has long past its expiration date. The UK needs a fresh new face who can handle the issues and they don't have to look farther than David Cameron. Someone who can channel Maggie and be around for a long, long, long time to come.

There was a time when Labour actually stood for something. Tony Blair smartly told Ian Paisley that he had to work to solve the crisis in Ulster during the Clinton years and then was a staunch ally of America and President Bush, and rightly so, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. That took courage and skill, something that is terribly lacking with Labour.

It's not just the national leaders, it's the entire brand, hence why they got their butt kicked to the curb the past two years. The sea of Tory victories over the past 24 months isn't the result of just one or two bad eggs, it's the result of gross incompetence.

[MinnaCaroline]

sounds like the GOP.

[SovietPrussia]

Jul 13, 2009 20:20:26 GMT -5 Isles of Nixon said:

Fact of the matter is that the Labour brand is like milk that has long past its expiration date. The UK needs a fresh new face who can handle the issues and they don't have to look farther than David Cameron. Someone who can channel Maggie and be around for a long, long, long time to come.

Well Blair was that fresh new face back in 1997. And while the first few years went great for foreign policy, things really went downhill for that department in 2003.

But my cynicism aside, I don't think the Conservatives are going to make this mistake: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm or are going to freeze Icelandic bank assets
using the 2001 terrorist act.

And I'm glad we agree about Maggie then.

[Lion Kindom]

As I see it, the Terrorism Act is for terrorists, not Labour party hardcores...

[SovietPrussia]

Well my point is that it's being greatly abused by the government for other purposes.

[Shelter from the Storm]

I have to confes that lefties like me have been disaffected by "New Labour," but there is really no viable alternative to vote for. The same thing has happened in Canada (where I am now living) to the NDP which has steered a course towards the center in order to become more electable.

[Shelter from the Storm]

Jul 13, 2009 21:32:15 GMT -5 MinnaCaroline said:

sounds like the GOP.

I always did like Minna! ;D

[Ananke II]

Jul 15, 2009 19:41:17 GMT -5 Shelter from the Storm said:

I have to confes that lefties like me have been disaffected by "New Labour," but there is really no viable alternative to vote for. The same thing has happened in Canada (where I am now living) to the NDP which has steered a course towards the center in order to become more electable.

See that's why having more than 2-3 viable parties is a good thing. Means you don't have to vote for the least bad option. I never leave the ballot box feeling dirty for having voted for a party, because the only other parties are so far away from your political views, that voting for them just isn't an option.

[Lion Kindom]

I know, only 2 parties means you can:
-Vote for the lesser evil, to try to insure the worst doesn't win.
-Not vote, thus negating your right to democracy.

All bad ideas....

[CCBlue]

As a UK resident and voter, my opinion is that it doesnt matter which party gets in, unless the local council you have is the same as the national party. otherwise they just go out of their way not implementing the policy of government.

The conservatives will win by a landslide, and idiots like the BNP always have a chance when only 40% of the people vote. It is a priviledge to be able to vote, people that dont have the priviledge must curse those that dont take the opportunity to use it.

[LondonCity]

i dunno who i am going to vote for tbh. the Labour party are led by an absolut f*** wit, the Tories are obvs all knobs. But I don't want to vote Lib Dem. i'll probs end up voting Green.

[SovietPrussia]

I have to confes that lefties like me have been disaffected by "New Labour," but there is really no viable alternative to vote for. The same thing has happened in Canada (where I am now living) to the NDP which has steered a course towards the center in order to become more electable.

Well when labour started moving towards the centre, the lefties left to form the SDP. Later they merged with the liberals. Charles Kennedy, a former SDPer found himself in charge of the Party a few years ago.

i dunno who i am going to vote for tbh. the Labour party are led by an absolut f*** wit, the Tories are obvs all knobs. But I don't want to vote Lib Dem. i'll probs end up voting Green.

Well why not the Lib Dems? They're an excellent party which I trust to defend for my civil rights much more than the big two who have simply got too used to bring in power.

My big problem with them is really their new position on tuition fees. I work hard acedemically and do all that extra-curicular shiz, but if I plan to go to one of the top Unis in the country, say Oxford or Cambridge, then paying fees will be difficult. My parents don't have high paying jobs and I'm signed up to the Education Maintenance Allowance. If it weren't for this safety net my family would be screwed. I'm a big fan of self-betterment, but tuition fees are going to be a serious issue for me in about a year or so and prevent me doing my best.

Keeping the fees is simply trying to make a quick buck at the expense of longer term economic success. There are hundreds if not thousands of young people just like me who put a huge personal effort into their own education and take responsiblity for their own lives, but don't have the resources to be truly sucessful and contribute to society at the academically highest levels. Abolishing the fees and giving out more substantial grants to the best performers will give the country the highly skilled workforce it needs to compete in the world.

If the Lib Dems want to find money somewhere, cut back on management positions in the public sector and use the funds for frontline public services. Red tape needs to be rolled back in both sectors to make the economy drastically more efficient.

Yes, if the Lib Dems, or in fact any party will put that into their manifesto along with some voting reform, local government empowerment and civil rights defence, they'd have my vote. And maybe lower the minimum voting age to 16 so I can actually do that.

[Vetok]

I'm going to vote UKIP. The Lib Dems are all talk no action, Labour, well, who's planning to vote for them? BNP are all racist filth and Conservatives are nearly as untrustworthy as Labour! Nope, I'm definitely going with UKIP.

[SovietPrussia]

Well that's not really fair to say that about the Liberals. They haven't been given the chance to act on their words.

But UKIP's key policy is total withdrawal from the EU. Despite its numerous and serious flaws, the free trade is nice. Pulling out will make trade with Europe a lot more difficult, bureocratic and expensive. This will translate as less economic activity. Another recession isn't exactly desirable. Especially since we're still recovering from this one.

And quoted from their site,

The UK Independence Party is calling for a five-year freeze on immigration into Britain and a future policy that would see migrants controlled by a points system similar to that operated by Australia and New Zealand.

Not letting anyone into the country to live and work simply because they're foreigners and giving people here an advantage simply for being British. Seems to me a little Xenophobic. A 100% open system would obviously put a ridiculous and unsustainable burden on public services, but letting some people immigrate is a much more pragmatic solution and can help balance out skill shortages or surpluses.

Later on in the article,

No one should be admitted unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds – and this to apply equally to their dependents.

Well immigrants or at least their children would learn the language anyway. It's almost impossible to get by without being able to communicate verbally with the people around you. There are people born in Britain without anything above GCSEs/Standard Grades, people who are technically against our national values by supporting the abolition of institutions like the Monarchy or House of Lords. And the UK is a welfare state where no one is completely financially independant from the public sector. We all rely on the NHS, our state-funded education system, etc. Sure, we have people who've gone private, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

[New Dracora]

Oct 29, 2009 16:00:42 GMT -5 CCBlue said:

The conservatives will win by a landslide, and idiots like the BNP always have a chance when only 40% of the people vote. It is a priviledge to be able to vote, people that dont have the priviledge must curse those that dont take the opportunity to use it.

You see people - THIS is why compulsary voting is a good idea.

[Vetok]

I'd still rather vote UKIP than BNP. UKIP has valid reasons that it presents. The BNP just say, 'Well they're blacks and Muslims and Irish so lets just throw 'em out'.

Thrown out of my own country because I'm part Irish? No thanks.

But UKIP's key policy is total withdrawal from the EU. Despite its numerous and serious flaws, the free trade is nice. Pulling out will make trade with Europe a lot more difficult, bureocratic and expensive. This will translate as less economic activity. Another recession isn't exactly desirable. Especially since we're still recovering from this one.

Not if we focus on the Commonwealth instead of neglecting it like we have been.

Not letting anyone into the country to live and work simply because they're foreigners and giving people here an advantage simply for being British. Seems to me a little xenophobic. A 100% open system would obviously put a ridiculous and unsustainable burden on public services, but letting some people immigrate is a much more pragmatic solution and can help balance out skill shortages or surpluses.

I'm not going to argue with that, but you've got to consider room. Right now the UK doesn't produce enough food for the current population, which is why we should have a cap, at least until we can get more land suitable for farming.

No one should be admitted unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds – and this to apply equally to their dependents.

I think whoever said this might have been relating to the furore about immigrants being given priority for housing.

Well immigrants or at least their children would learn the language anyway. It's almost impossible to get by without being able to communicate verbally with the people around you. There are people born in Britain without anything above GCSEs/Standard Grades, people who are technically against our national values by supporting the abolition of institutions like the Monarchy or House of Lords. And the UK is a welfare state where no one is completely financially independant from the public sector. We all rely on the NHS, our state-funded education system, etc. Sure, we have people who've gone private, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

To be fair that's just splitting hairs.

P.S.

Seems to me a little xenophobic

We're British! We call the French frogs, the Germans Huns! Of course we're xenophobic

[SovietPrussia]

Well yeah, better UKIP than BNP. But it's not like they're your only two options.

Commonwealth, I'm all for good relations with them too, but there's no reason we can't have both. Have free trade with Europe AND the Commonwealth. It'll work a treat!

As for food, we can import it. Simple. And for most of our history we have. There are lots of developing nations whose economies depend on agriculture and they can produce it a lot more cheaply than we can. It makes sense to let them continue with agriculture and for us to keep going with the stuff we're good at. And economic interdependance means that China/Soviet-Europa/Sealand will find that selling us stuff is much more profitable and beneficial to everyone than trying to wipe us off the face of the Earth. And if anyone tries to cut off our food supply by blockading our Island, they'll find out that they're the ones who were selling us the food in the first place, meaning they'll lack the source of trade revenue to continue the war effort. Genius!

Well I'd rather not give any ethnic group priority to housing, including our own. Much fairer.

Splitting hairs? I call it in depth analysis. We apply immigrants to many standards which a lot of our own people hardly meet.

Ok, maybe we Brits are a little, but we're also good at trading. We built the Empire on it! That and robbing other countries of everything they had. But trading was the bigger factor! And I think we can hide our xenophobia so we can make money by selling our subprime mortages to the rest of Europe! WE'LL BE RICH! RICH I TELL YOU!