Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Democracy Under Serious Threat


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm hoping now that Cameron will call Clegg's bluff.

Let him form the bungle coalition with Mandelson and let's see where it takes them.

It's almost certain to collapse into acrimony, they'll be unable to resolve the fiscal position and no-one will ever trust Clegg again.

Tories can stand back and let it implode then come back with a majority in 6-12 months.

The only risk with it, and it's a biggie, is that we'll have a sterling 'crisis' and the 'solution' which needs to be quickly implemented on a Sunday night will be to be 'saved' by the IMF and Europe. Clegg and Mandelson would have no qualms signing us up for that one, just as 300 million Europeans found themselves committed to fiscal integration without being asked when they woke up this morning. But I think probably even the Tories will do this eventually so I wonder how much any of this really matters. It's perhaps of short term marginal significance at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What like 99.9% versus 50.000001%

Come, come now

Was it you that wrote:

Like I suggested, let's go for a 100% coalition to keep you happy.

A majority is more than 50% or more. Not 52%, not 59%. There is no other definition that I care to know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

And this is one of them.

When even Labour MP's, ex ministers and peers are saying that imposing a new voting system without a referendum is just not on you know something is going badly wrong in the heart of Nu Labour.

I am 49 years old and this is the most serious threat this country has faced in my lifetime IMO - even worse than the 1970's.

I know that people may find this amusing and this thread will probably get shunted into off topic

BUT

This is actually really serious

:blink:

I visualise a fat man in his fifties dressed in the style of a Tudor nobleman waddling out of his palace, unfurling a scroll of parchment and saying:

"Proles, you now have a new voting system tha ensure we will be in power for ever. That is all."

And then he waddles back inside.

Edited by Tecumseh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping now that Cameron will call Clegg's bluff.

Let him form the bungle coalition with Mandelson and let's see where it takes them.

It's almost certain to collapse into acrimony, they'll be unable to resolve the fiscal position and no-one will ever trust Clegg again.

Tories can stand back and let it implode then come back with a majority in 6-12 months.

The only risk with it, and it's a biggie, is that we'll have a sterling 'crisis' and the 'solution' which needs to be quickly implemented on a Sunday night will be to be 'saved' by the IMF and Europe. Clegg and Mandelson would have no qualms signing us up for that one, just as 300 million Europeans found themselves committed to fiscal integration without being asked when they woke up this morning. But I think probably even the Tories will do this eventually so I wonder how much any of this really matters. It's perhaps of short term marginal significance at best.

I think it is too late, it looks like the deal is done.

IMO you are right re. a Lib Lab coalition, it is just not realistic but the Libs bluffed and Cameron blinked. He's offered a referendum on PR and that's game over as far as I can tell, we should get the news tomorrow.

The factor you ignore I think is that had Cameron called the bluff, he would immediately have been considered a fool for letting power slip from his fingers when he was so close; as far as I know such move is considered a mistake and rarely forgiven; his political career would never recover. That's why I think he didn't do it despite the odds being in his favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

I think it is too late, it looks like the deal is done.

IMO you are right re. a Lib Lab coalition, it is just not realistic but the Libs bluffed and Cameron blinked. He's offered a referendum on PR and that's game over as far as I can tell, we should get the news tomorrow.

The factor you ignore I think is that had Cameron called the bluff, he would immediately have been considered a fool for letting power slip from his fingers when he was so close; as far as I know such move is considered a mistake and rarely forgiven; his political career would never recover. That's why I think he didn't do it despite the odds being in his favour.

referendum means continued FPTP system. The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government and that any other form of electoral system will reduce their being able to do this. Referendum = FPTP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

referendum means continued FPTP system. The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government and that any other form of electoral system will reduce their being able to do this. Referendum = FPTP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

referendum means continued FPTP system. The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government and that any other form of electoral system will reduce their being able to do this. Referendum = FPTP.

This is the proper reply, don;t know what happened with the previous one and can't edit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

referendum means continued FPTP system. The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government and that any other form of electoral system will reduce their being able to do this. Referendum = FPTP.

OK, I try again, the reply is posted when I click bold (!?). Here it is again, I hope:

"The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government"

Oh no they didn't!

And my guess is that half of those that did only did it to get rid of Labour, not because they believe the Cons are any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

OK, I try again, the reply is posted when I click bold (!?). Here it is again, I hope:

"The English know they voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government"

Oh no they didn't!

And my guess is that half of those that did only did it to get rid of Labour, not because they believe the Cons are any good.

Well, they voted in 297 Conservative MPs and only 191 Labour MPs. I don't know what your definition of "overwhelming" is, but mine would run to an excess of 106 MPs over Labour. I suspect you're confusing the English result with the British result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they voted in 297 Conservative MPs and only 191 Labour MPs. I don't know what your definition of "overwhelming" is, but mine would run to an excess of 106 MPs over Labour. I suspect you're confusing the English result with the British result.

Correct me if I'm, wrong but only 33 or 36% of voters voted for the Tories. That is not an overwhelming majority, it is a minority. The seats, under the current system do not represent popular votes.

And yes, the number I'm looking at is WRT the UK, not England. Is it relevant to look at England in isolation in United Kingdom election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

Correct me if I'm, wrong but only 33 or 36% of voters voted for the Tories. That is not an overwhelming majority, it is a minority. The seats, under the current system do not represent popular votes.

And yes, the number I'm looking at is WRT the UK, not England. Is it relevant to look at England in isolation in United Kingdom election?

I think it is relevant to look at England as the massive bulk of the population lives there and it is clearly demanding a Conservative government. It is not getting one however because of the voting patterns of five million Scots and three million Welsh. Also remember the impact of the six million immigrants Labour imported as they traditionally vote for Labour. Looks like this really helped them.

36% of British voters voted for the Tories, but of course it would be a much higher percentage of English. Also, a similar percentage voted for Blair in 1997 but he got a majority out of it.

I'm no Tory, but who could argue that Miliband should be at the Dispatch Box next week when Cameron had a higher percentage support than any other leader and 306 MPS in the House?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is relevant to look at England as the massive bulk of the population lives there and it is clearly demanding a Conservative government. It is not getting one however because of the voting patterns of five million Scots and three million Welsh. Also remember the impact of the six million immigrants Labour imported as they traditionally vote for Labour. Looks like this really helped them.

36% of British voters voted for the Tories, but of course it would be a much higher percentage of English. Also, a similar percentage voted for Blair in 1997 but he got a majority out of it.

I'm no Tory, but who could argue that Miliband should be at the Dispatch Box next week when Cameron had a higher percentage support than any other leader and 306 MPS in the House?

I've got the Tories with 40% of the votes in England. Sounds about right considering the large majority of seats they got with the current electoral system.

On this basis I wouldn't say they have any legitimate claim to rule without a coalition, whether in England or the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What democracy?

80 percent of laws are made in the EU, all others are shot down by the EU courts if they raise the ire of our Euro masters.

There is not a cigerette paper between them, electoral reform, 1% here or there on the NI, IHT cuts for a handful of people, taking tax credits from higher earners - these are non issues in the scale of things, picking up pennies in front of the oncoming steamroller.

On immigration, AGW, Europe, finance and economy, the Afghanistan war, the selling out of the country to globalists, money, banking, energy and housing they are all of one mind, with only the smallest degrees of seperation.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

Edited by Britney's Piers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

I've got the Tories with 40% of the votes in England. Sounds about right considering the large majority of seats they got with the current electoral system.

On this basis I wouldn't say they have any legitimate claim to rule without a coalition, whether in England or the UK.

Then no party has ever had the right to govern because no party will get more than 50% in a system with so many parties. The simple fact is a greater percentage of people wanted the Conservatives to govern than anyone else and if only 36% voted Tory then an even smaller number voted for anyone else. PR systems ensure permanent coalitions, and I rather suspect the British are about to find out how much damage a long-term coalition government can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, a similar percentage voted for Blair in 1997 but he got a majority out of it.

I agree with you. My gripe is not with the Tories, it's with the fundamentalist Tory (or Labour when they're ahead) supporters who would claim that their party has a moral right to being in power.

I'm no Tory, but who could argue that Miliband should be at the Dispatch Box next week when Cameron had a higher percentage support than any other leader and 306 MPS in the House?

I agree that it would be absurd but this is what voters asked for. They don't want to see Cameron (or Labour or anyone else) ruling on his own. And I can fully understand this considering the abuses this country has had to suffer under the two minority parties for the last 30 years and particularly the last two.

From then anything goes, it's a question of coalitions and no minority party (in seats) can claim a God given right to govern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then no party has ever had the right to govern because no party will get more than 50% in a system with so many parties.

If they can;t command a majority then no _single_ party should have the right to govern IMO.

Otherwise what you have is 30% minorities imposing their will on the other 70% of the population. The only difference between us and Rwanda is that two 30% minorities take turns to rule, but that is still not a system I would call democracy.

Some people call it a two party dictatorship and whilst it is a bit harsh, I'm pretty sure that is how it feels to the 30-40% of British voters who are not represented by the Cons or Labs and therefore _never_ have a say in how this country is run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

I agree with you. My gripe is not with the Tories, it's with the fundamentalist Tory (or Labour when they're ahead) supporters who would claim that their party has a moral right to being in power.

I agree that it would be absurd but this is what voters asked for. They don't want to see Cameron (or Labour or anyone else) ruling on his own. And I can fully understand this considering the abuses this country has had to suffer under the two minority parties for the last 30 years and particularly the last two.

From then anything goes, it's a question of coalitions and no minority party (in seats) can claim a God given right to govern.

But Cameron is what the English voter asked for, and that'[s my point. The UK is rather unique in having four nations in one, but the massive bulk of the population of the largest nation went out last week and voted for a Conservative Govt., but it is not going to get it because of mainly Scottish voters. You know back in the 1950s the Conservatives were very powerful in Scotland but their total failure to win seats there now is keeping them out of power. That's the issue - a Tory problem to solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Relaxation Suite

If they can;t command a majority then no _single_ party should have the right to govern IMO.

Otherwise what you have is 30% minorities imposing their will on the other 70% of the population. The only difference between us and Rwanda is that two 30% minorities take turns to rule, but that is still not a system I would call democracy.

Some people call it a two party dictatorship and whilst it is a bit harsh, I'm pretty sure that is how it feels to the 30-40% of British voters who are not represented by the Cons or Labs and therefore _never_ have a say in how this country is run.

But they do have say - at election time. If the party in question cannot make an impact on a larger number of people why should they get to form a givernment?

You are supporting a system that would give power and legitimicay to any tinpot party. In fact had we had PR last week there would now be 11 fascists in the House of Commons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Cameron is what the English voter asked for, and that'[s my point. The UK is rather unique in having four nations in one, but the massive bulk of the population of the largest nation went out last week and voted for a Conservative Govt.

My reference is from the Daily Mail so I don't know how reliable that is, but it says 40% voted for Cameron in England. That is not a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact had we had PR last week there would now be 11 fascists in the House of Commons.

I'm going to be flamed here but perhaps this is what this country needs to start tackling the issues of immigration and globablisation. Serious concerns on these issues are just being dismissed outright by the major parties (whatever they may say) and it may just be that scaring everyone with a few BNP MPs would cause a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.