How Long Before the Coalition Implodes

[halbpro]

I think you're confusing two related concepts. What the Tories won at the last election is a "plurality", ie being the single largest party. A plurality isn't a mandate to govern - although technically in Britain the only mandate to govern you need is the monarch's invitation to do so.

A majority, in political terms, mean gaining more seats than ALL other parties combined. You can't just randomly choose Labour and the Libs as comparators, that'd be mathematically false: you have to include all MPs of every party, even independents. Therefore, the Tories failed to get a majority, in the most politically favourable climate for an opposition in my life time.

Plurality is exactly the term I wanted but had forgotten! Thanks.

 

[Storer 68]

They didn't, that's my point.

They didn't win a majority of seats, hence the coalition.
They didn't win a majority of votes, and they most definitely weren't voted for by a majority of the electorate.

I'm struggling to work out which of those assertions is most wrong tbh. The third one I suppose.

The number of votes is an irrelevance under our system. the numbers of seats however is CRUCIAL

 

[DTES]

The number of votes is an irrelevance under our system. the numbers of seats however is CRUCIAL

The number of votes is irrelevant in a practical sense. Getting >50% of the seats on under <50% of the votes cast though is a pretty dodgy claim to a "mandate" in a "moral" sense (for want of a better word, though I'm sure one exists) in my book.

 

[maltaseagull]

Sadly I think this is the reality. The sooner we get an across all party coalition where votes are cast on the merit of the proposal rather than party lines, the sooner we will see some real progress.

 

[somerset]

Not really an answer is it... are you saying yes or are you ironically saying no because the previous incumbents were useless. If the latter, thank god this government hasnt had to deal with war and the beginning of a global slide into economic instability. God knows, they didnt need any help to bugger things up.

No answer.... just a statement, rhetorical in nature, some irony involved too.... this lot are struggling to stabalise the ship that's for sure, but the previous lot?? ..... sheesh...!!!

 

[somerset]

Sadly I think this is the reality. The sooner we get an across all party coalition where votes are cast on the merit of the proposal rather than party lines, the sooner we will see some real progress.

No chance, how will you get concensus from a group of six hundred odd ego driven personalities desperate to preserve their career and privileges?

 

[Silent Bob]

The number of votes is an irrelevance under our system. the numbers of seats however is CRUCIAL

Whoever it was claimed the tories won a majoirty of the electorate, I was merely pointing out that is total nonsense.

 

[Storer 68]

The number of votes is irrelevant in a practical sense. Getting >50% of the seats on under <50% of the votes cast though is a pretty dodgy claim to a "mandate" in a "moral" sense (for want of a better word, though I'm sure one exists) in my book.

The number of votes is irrelevant in every sense of the word. In 1974 The Conservatives polled 11,872,180 agaist labour's 11,645,616 - just 226,664 more yet won 42 more seats

 

[somerset]

Whoever it was claimed the tories won a majoirty of the electorate, I was merely pointing out that is total nonsense.

Because we don't have PR.

 

[Silent Bob]

Because we don't have PR.

How would that have got more than twice as many people to have voted for the tories as actually did?

 

[brightn'ove]

The only thing we have gained from having the tories in power is that we now know that nobody knows WHAT THE f*** we have to do to fix the economy.

The illuminati better get off their asses and fix this shit before another 'party' comes along and fucks it up even more

 

[Storer 68]

Whoever it was claimed the tories won a majoirty of the electorate, I was merely pointing out that is total nonsense.

No. It's a reasonable point . It just doesn't apply to the electoral model we operate under.

At the last election
Conservatives won 47.1% of the seats and polled 36.1% of the votes
Labour won 39.7% of the seats and polled 29.0% of the votes
Liberals won 8.8% of the seats and polled 23.0% of the votes

So the Liberals win nearly as many votes as Labour but won 199 fewer parliamentary seats

The British system is ALL about winning seats and NOTHING about winning votes that don't win seats

 

[DTES]

The number of votes is irrelevant in every sense of the word. In 1974 The Conservatives polled 11,872,180 agaist labour's 11,645,616 - just 226,664 more yet won 42 more seats

Your vote figures are for the February 1974 election, in which Labour actually won more seats that the Conservatives, despite polling fewer votes. Utter, utter madness of an electoral system that allows that... but that's another debate, and one we won't get to have again for a generation - thanks Nick.

(The October election, where the Tories had 42 more seats, had vote figures of 11,457,079 vs 10,462,565).

You are of course right in that it doesn't really mean anything, it just bugs me that a Government can claim a "mandate" when more people voted against them than for them. It's not going to go away, ever, but it has just as much validity as the argument that we didn't vote for a coalition.

 

[Storer 68]

Your vote figures are for the February 1974 election, in which Labour actually won more seats that the Conservatives, despite polling fewer votes. Utter, utter madness of an electoral system that allows that... but that's another debate, and one we won't get to have again for a generation - thanks Nick.

(The October election, where the Tories had 42 more seats, had vote figures of 11,457,079 vs 10,462,565).

You are of course right in that it doesn't really mean anything, it just bugs me that a Government can claim a "mandate" when more people voted against them than for them. It's not going to go away, ever, but it has just as much validity as the argument that we didn't vote for a coalition.

But they do represent you whether you voted for them or not. And that's something we should never allow them to forget!

 

[Silent Bob]

No. It's a reasonable point . It just doesn't apply to the electoral model we operate under.

At the last election
Conservatives won 47.1% of the seats and polled 36.1% of the votes
Labour won 39.7% of the seats and polled 29.0% of the votes
Liberals won 8.8% of the seats and polled 23.0% of the votes

So the Liberals win nearly as many votes as Labour but

The British system is ALL about winning seats and NOTHING about winning votes that don't win seats

It isn't a reasonable point, it's just a flat out wrong statement.
The Tories didn't win a majority of the electorate, they won ~23% of the electorate.
They didn't win a majority of votes, they won ~36%.
And of course, they didn't win a majority of seats either.

To say they did any of those things is simply false.

You're really talking about something else which has not a lot to do with anything I'm saying.

 

[ChilternGull]

The sooner they go the better as far as I concerned. The way Cameron and his wealthy posh boys have demonised the poor, unemployed and disabled as a pretext for cutting welfare support is a disgrace to a so called civilised country. Even the Daily Mail is now reporting the suicide of a 19 year old who took her own life after over 200 job rejections. Tanni Grey has talked about disabled people being spat at in the street. Now Gove is manipulating the GCSE pass rate to push aspiring young people from poorer backgrounds out of the education system in to badly paid jobs with no prospects.

Before anyone says we need to cut the deficit - well we do not need to do it so badly that the rich do not get a cut in their income rate from 50 to 45%. David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

This is a Government of double standards of the rich for the rich by the rich. This will not stop Cameron trying to bathe in the reflected glory of our paraolympians while at the same time cutting the very support that gave them a degree of independence and self reliance in the first place.

 

[Titanic]

The sooner they go the better as far as I concerned. The way Cameron and his wealthy posh boys have demonised the poor, unemployed and disabled as a pretext for cutting welfare support is a disgrace to a so called civilised country. Even the Daily Mail is now reporting the suicide of a 19 year old who took her own life after over 200 job rejections. Tanni Grey has talked about disabled people being spat at in the street. Now Gove is manipulating the GCSE pass rate to push aspiring young people from poorer backgrounds out of the education system in to badly paid jobs with no prospects.

Before anyone says we need to cut the deficit - well we do not need to do it so badly that the rich do not get a cut in their income rate from 50 to 45%. David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

This is a Government of double standards of the rich for the rich by the rich. This will not stop Cameron trying to bathe in the reflected glory of our paraolympians while at the same time cutting the very support that gave them a degree of independence and self reliance in the first place.

Yeah, but we need to cut Gordon Brown's deficit.

 

[East Preston Gull]

Argh!

Anyone who believes Labour specifically caused the economic issues really hasn't got a clue what they are talking about! You can just about get away with the other claims regarding Labour however.

Yes Labour were in power when it happened, yes they made shite decisions themselves, but so did the Tories before them, so have pretty much all other countries with neo liberal policies, which right wing thinking parties developed.

Labour ARE! responsible..Gordon Brown spent the banks money on New public buildings with wonderful bloody PFI deals..the banks want it back. He did not have a clue how to get it back. He sells the gold at cheap prices..sold the mobile phone licence for 20 billion and spunked the money on the civil service..The Tories are a joke because they are being bummed by the liberal dematwats, the civil service and the BBC!....bring in Boris, at least he may make us smile while he shafts us!

 

[DTES]

David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

...and I voted Lib Dem:

 

[DTES]

The Tories are a joke because they are being bummed by the liberal dematwats

This is a hilarious argument too. The public seem to be split down two lines on the Lib Dems:

1) They are bending over, having NOTHING their own way, and letting the Tories have everything they want, so they are responsible for it all
2) They are having IT ALL their own way, stopping the Tories doing what they want, so they are responsible for it all.

Both arguments can't be true...