Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 12:25 pm**

class

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 12:59 pm**

stmichael wrote:

its surprising that the 21000 they get at matches, didnt vote for that one

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 1:05 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 2:01 pm**

what big fat pile of pointlessness this all is. absolutely nothing will change, all just pointless

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 4:57 pm**

The ball is firmly in the Tories' court since Clegg's invitation to negotiate. The deal breaker - if there is one - is likely to be electoral reform i.e. a change to a PR or PR-like voting system. It's well established that the Tories much prefer to stick with FPTP, which has vastly hindered the lib dems from making any real progress (it takes about four times as many votes for them to get a seat). But Cameron has only promised an all party commission of inquiry to look at the options, which guarantees absolutely nothing. Brown on the other hand has already promised a referendum on the AV system (which already has the support of the House) and may even bow to the AV+ system if necessary. However, Clegg had prior said and emphatically so that he wouldn't work with Brown (meaning new Labour leader with no mandate - in this political climate, too tough to justify. Or Clegg as PM in a Lib-Lab coalition, unlikely because the Lib Dems placed third in share and seats and would therefore be a complete contradiction of Lib dem principles and too difficult to justify. Either way, unlikely) Moreover, the election result doesn't provide a Lib-Lab block large enough to command an overall majority - although unlikely, they might be able to work with a very small minority.

Anyway, all of this means a Conservative government with Liberal influence or a Con-Lib coalition government is the most likely outcome.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 5:49 pm**

Wouldn't PR voting mean you would be allocated an MP rather than voting for YOUR MP? So you could live in a Labour stronghold and have a Tory MP for example?

I am not really up on all this voting malarky ... never voted yet. With a Labour majority of 28k its just never seemed worth the effort

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 5:55 pm**

For the people that voted LibDem to keep the Tories out I wonder how they will be feeling knowing he is helping them back into power. There are some points Cameron won't budge on such as the refrom as mentioned above but also Trident. He will just end up building a :censored:

load of Windmills. :laugh:

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 6:04 pm**

I had to laugh at the interview with Lembit Opik after he lost his seat, I think it was with Paxman. Paxman asked something along the lines of "was it because of relationships with people like the cheeky girls" and Lembit replied that he should have known that would be the question asked as the other parties had a go at it him for and so he expected that response. So Paxman replies "okay then, lets ask how you have managed to lose one of the safest seats in parliament then !" :laugh:

And out of interest how the hell did Hazel Blears stay in? what is wrong with these people??

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 7:04 pm**

I think PR is a more democratic system and hope that Britain adopts it. However, in PR it is very difficult to win a majority and would generally mean coalition government.

From memory Labour got only about 35% of the vote in 2007, so two thirds of voters didn't want them but they got in with a big majority.

The lib dems would be chumps to fall for Cameron's offer of looking into change.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 7:06 pm**

who decides who the PM is? Is it a case of the majority of new MPs have to back the new guy?

I'm not sure what a minority government is - if the liberals don't do a deal with anyone, who decides whether there is a minority Labour government or a minority Conservative one?

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 7:12 pm**

s@int wrote:Wouldn't PR voting mean you would be allocated an MP rather than voting for YOUR MP? So you could live in a Labour stronghold and have a Tory MP for example?

The first part, yes. You can't maintain the constituency link as it is now (i.e. single-member) and have a PR voting system. There are variations, though. The Lib Dems as I understand it would like to have multi-member constituencies with a set % of the vote required to gain one seat in that constituency, as equal as possible to the % required in other seats. Meaning you vote for a list of candidates (as in EU elections) and seats are allocated accordingly. The purest form is simply to have a single national constituency, but then you'd have no constituency link.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 8:02 pm**

LFC2007 wrote:
s@int wrote:Wouldn't PR voting mean you would be allocated an MP rather than voting for YOUR MP? So you could live in a Labour stronghold and have a Tory MP for example?

The first part, yes. You can't maintain the constituency link as it is now (i.e. single-member) and have a PR voting system. There are variations, though. The Lib Dems as I understand it would like to have multi-member constituencies with a set % of the vote required to gain one seat in that constituency, as equal as possible to the % required in other seats. Meaning you vote for a list of candidates (as in EU elections) and seats are allocated accordingly. The purest form is simply to have a single national constituency, but then you'd have no constituency link.

Thanks for the info, not sure If I understand this bit "The Lib Dems as I understand it would like to have multi-member constituencies with a set % of the vote required to gain one seat in that constituency, as equal as possible to the % required in other seats. Meaning you vote for a list of candidates (as in EU elections) and seats are allocated accordingly."

Does that mean that constituencies will be larger but have more than one MP? Or does it mean we will just have more MP's?

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 8:17 pm**

PR in Ireland works by having bigger constituencies and say 5 seats for one constituency. The bigger parties might have 3 canditates, the smaller ones might just have one.

If my first choice is from an unpopular party i can still vote for him as my first choice. If he gets eliminated on the first count, they then look at who my number two choice was so if I preferred big party 1 over big party 2, I could vote him my number 2 choice.

That way I am not discouraged from voting for somebody that isnt in a big party.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 8:22 pm**

Thanks, I think I am starting to understand it now mate.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 pm**

Big Niall wrote:who decides who the PM is? Is it a case of the majority of new MPs have to back the new guy?

In a nutshell: The leader of the party that can command the house of commons. Brown remains PM until such a time that Clegg and Cameron strike a deal, where of course Cameron would be PM.

I'm not sure what a minority government is - if the liberals don't do a deal with anyone, who decides whether there is a minority Labour government or a minority Conservative one?

The political reality is that a deal will be done either way and if not then Labour won't stand in the way (when technically, they could) of the Conservatives attempting to run a minority gov't. If they weren't to win the vote on the Queen's speech (25th May) that would amount to a vote of no confidence and there would be another general election.

Liverpool FC Forum

2010 General ELECTION - 06/05/10 - All related