|
Post by ovechkin8 on May 19, 2009 15:59:13 GMT -1
Well what does qualify any of these MPs for government anyway ? They are thick as shit and its no wonder the country has gone downhill/ The whole system is broken and needs fixing because the word democracy has become a token one. Fixed term parliaments, PR , and a slimmed down parliament is what is required and people who actually know something about their field of expertise in each department. Rantzen probably has more life experience than any MP. I'll be voting UKIP as I also want this Eurocrat nonsense to stop. The amount of fraud,nepotism, corruption and bureaucracy beggars belief . Not to mention the lack of democracy involved. The more power is devolved to a local level to address local issues the more efficient administration becomes not the other way round. Scientists involved in information theory have shown this conclusively. And while we are at it slim down the number of councillors to smaller numbers. Does it really take 40 councillors (also claiming this that and the other) to make decisions for a smallish town ?
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on May 22, 2009 15:04:24 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on May 28, 2009 12:38:24 GMT -1
Margaret Moron's standing down! ;D I noticed that she didn't even have the decency to offer a proper apology for her expenses, or even admit she'd done wrong, though Ever a politician, right to the very end
|
|
|
Post by Pete the Wolf on May 29, 2009 11:00:36 GMT -1
Julie Kirkbride (my local MP for Bromsgrove) is standing down as well over the uproar around her. She and her husband (also an MP) claimed each other's houses as their second homes, meaning they technically had no main home but to second ones. Bromsgrove residents put together a petition calling for her to quit that gathered 4000 signatures.
Won't change anything with regards to the party though, as Conservative have a major stranglehold on the constituency that I'd be surprised to see change.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on May 29, 2009 11:06:28 GMT -1
Surely, with all these politicians announcing their resignation, the correct thing to do now would be to call a general election in the very near future? After all, these politicians now have no motivation to continue doing their job properly, so can we really trust them to do it? They certainly haven't proven themselves trustworthy in any other way!
Once the full list of casualties has been drawn up, let's get on with replacing them ASAP and get an election underway, and draw a line under the matter as a victory for democracy - after all, for once, the scumballs are being forced to listen to the demands of the people!
|
|
|
Post by Pete the Wolf on May 29, 2009 11:16:06 GMT -1
What are the rules regarding winning a general election? Does a winning party need at least 50% of the votes or just the most? Despite the loss of confidence in Labour, they still outnumbered the Tories 350-193 in 2005 (Lib Dem with 63), so I can't see them being overtaken. However, if they need at least 50% of the seats to win outright, that's 324 seats they need. I can see Labour losing enough marginal seats (please let one of them be Redditch and get rid of Jacqui Smith! ;D) to possibly see them lose that ourtight majority. Things could be VERY interesting methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on May 29, 2009 11:39:00 GMT -1
Based on current polls, at an election tomorrow the Cons would take 43% of the vote, while Lab would get around 23%, and the Libs somewhere around the same. So short of a Lib-Lab alliance, the Cons would waltz into power!
|
|
|
Post by derbiean on May 29, 2009 15:56:00 GMT -1
Based on current polls, at an election tomorrow the Cons would take 43% of the vote, while Lab would get around 23%, and the Libs somewhere around the same. So short of a Lib-Lab alliance, the Cons would waltz into power! A Lib-Lab alliance? They might as well as they all the same anyway
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on May 31, 2009 7:18:07 GMT -1
Just to keep that thought up to date, the latest poll reads as follows:
Cons: 40% Lib: 25% Lab: 22%
And no, 'Lib' and 'Lab' aren't mixed up there. Apparently, Lab have hit an all-time opinion poll low!
|
|
|
Post by Pete the Wolf on Jun 3, 2009 10:59:37 GMT -1
Margaret Moron's standing down! ;D I noticed that she didn't even have the decency to offer a proper apology for her expenses, or even admit she'd done wrong, though Ever a politician, right to the very end She's now been banned from standing in any other constituencies, along with four other Labour MPs! Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears are standing down from Cabinet. The mess the Government's in just keeps getting bigger.
|
|
|
Post by derbiean on Jun 3, 2009 18:50:29 GMT -1
Good serves u right u greedy bitch
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Jun 3, 2009 18:55:42 GMT -1
Hazel Blears has nicely stitched Gordon up hasn't she!
|
|
|
Post by derbiean on Jun 10, 2009 20:28:53 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Jun 10, 2009 21:56:39 GMT -1
Link doesn't work... (tried copy+pasting it)
|
|
|
Post by ancientblade on Jun 11, 2009 16:26:44 GMT -1
What are the rules regarding winning a general election? Does a winning party need at least 50% of the votes or just the most? Despite the loss of confidence in Labour, they still outnumbered the Tories 350-193 in 2005 (Lib Dem with 63), so I can't see them being overtaken. However, if they need at least 50% of the seats to win outright, that's 324 seats they need. I can see Labour losing enough marginal seats (please let one of them be Redditch and get rid of Jacqui Smith! ;D) to possibly see them lose that ourtight majority. Things could be VERY interesting methinks. With the current voting system, percentage of the vote is almost irrelevant in terms of who has the right to form a government. It's the nuumber of seats that's important. There have been recent constituency boundary changes, so the number of available seats has changed since the 2005 election. I believe the total number of constituencies is now 650, meaning there are 650 seats available in the house of commons. To be guaranteed victory, you need to get an overall majority of those seats. In other words - 326. If you don't get that number (and preferably quite a few more than that) you can't guarantee getting your legislation through the house of commons. However, occasionally there is no outright winner and noone gets an overall majority. When that happens a government is formed when two or more parties coalesce, or have some sort of understanding. The Lib-Lab pact of the late 1970s came about because Labour won the October 1974 election, but with a tiny overall majority. (I think it was 3). Obviously, during a term of government for a variety of reasons seats become vacant (deaths, resignations, retirements etc). Then by elections are held in those vacant seats. Labour lost several by elections between 1974 and 1979. So although they remained the biggest party, they no longer had an overall majority. Margaret Thatcher tabled a vote of no confidence in the government in either late 1976 or early 1977 (can't remember the exact date). Labour looked set to lose this vote, but at the eleventh hour managed to put together a deal with the Liberals, and hence the Lib-Lab pact was born. In our voting system all that matters is winning a majority of seats. The pecentage of vote gained by a party can be almost irrelevant. In theory you could win a general election with just 326 votes under our system. And the share of seats that the winning party gets is usually disproportionately high when compared with it's percentage vote gained. Which is why many people favour a more proportional representative system of election. On several occasions the winning party in a general election has had less votes than the party with the second highest number of seats. In 1929 Labour won with less votes than the Conservatives. In 1951 the Conservatives won in spite of Labour receiving more votes than any other party had ever done up until that time (and the turnout was over 80% which contrasts very favourably recent turnouts). Then in February 1974 Labour got more seats than the Conservatives (although not an overall majority), but less votes. Lets ignore opinion polls for a moment and examine what has actually happened when votes were cast recently. First there were the local election results. That produced national percentage shares of Conservatives - 38%, Liberal Democrats - 28%, Labour - 23%. If that is extrapolated into general election results based on the rise and fall of each party's votes the Conservatives are likely to get a modest overall majority of around 26 seats. However, the Euro election produced approximate figures of Conservatives - 28%, Labour - 16%, Liberal Democrats - 14%. If reproduced in a general electon that would produce either a miniscule Conservative majority of around 2 seats, or a situation like in February 1974 where no party had an overall majority. Given that UKIP and The Greens are usually far bigger factors in a Euro election than a national election, I would think that unless the Conservatives suddenly lose some support, or Labour makes a significant recovery, David Cameron is likely to be prime minister with an overall majority, or at worst to be just short of an overall majority.
|
|
|
Post by ancientblade on Jun 11, 2009 16:36:02 GMT -1
Surely, with all these politicians announcing their resignation, the correct thing to do now would be to call a general election in the very near future? After all, these politicians now have no motivation to continue doing their job properly, so can we really trust them to do it? They certainly haven't proven themselves trustworthy in any other way! Once the full list of casualties has been drawn up, let's get on with replacing them ASAP and get an election underway, and draw a line under the matter as a victory for democracy - after all, for once, the scumballs are being forced to listen to the demands of the people! The situation isn't too far removed from what was happening in the final years of the Major government. The governing party was losing any election that took place and many MPs actually resigned the Conservative whip and changed parties. The govedrning party was split and there were challenges to John Major's leadership. However, he was not unseated and would not hold a general election until the last possible date on which it could be held. I don't expect Gordon Brown to act any differently.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Jun 11, 2009 16:55:49 GMT -1
Oh, I don't expect Brown to do anything other than weasel on in his highly-paid seat for as long as possible. I know what I'd consider to be the right thing, though
|
|
|
Post by ancientblade on Jun 11, 2009 17:05:48 GMT -1
Oh, I don't expect Brown to do anything other than weasel on in his highly-paid seat for as long as possible. I know what I'd consider to be the right thing, though Would you consider it to be quite such the right thing to do if he was likely to win rather than lose?
|
|
|
Post by Pete the Wolf on Jun 11, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -1
What are the rules regarding winning a general election? Does a winning party need at least 50% of the votes or just the most? Despite the loss of confidence in Labour, they still outnumbered the Tories 350-193 in 2005 (Lib Dem with 63), so I can't see them being overtaken. However, if they need at least 50% of the seats to win outright, that's 324 seats they need. I can see Labour losing enough marginal seats (please let one of them be Redditch and get rid of Jacqui Smith! ;D) to possibly see them lose that ourtight majority. Things could be VERY interesting methinks. With the current voting system, percentage of the vote is almost irrelevant in terms of who has the right to form a government. It's the nuumber of seats that's important. There have been recent constituency boundary changes, so the number of available seats has changed since the 2005 election. I believe the total number of constituencies is now 650, meaning there are 650 seats available in the house of commons. To be guaranteed victory, you need to get an overall majority of those seats. In other words - 326. If you don't get that number (and preferably quite a few more than that) you can't guarantee getting your legislation through the house of commons. However, occasionally there is no outright winner and noone gets an overall majority. When that happens a government is formed when two or more parties coalesce, or have some sort of understanding. Yep, I meant in terms of seats, not the overall vote. I didn't make that clear,sorry. Thanks for confirming that, ancientblade.
|
|
|
Post by ancientblade on Jun 11, 2009 17:13:36 GMT -1
Oh, I don't expect Brown to do anything other than weasel on in his highly-paid seat for as long as possible. I know what I'd consider to be the right thing, though And yet he claims markedly less in expenses than David Cameron, even though his constituency is miles further away from Wesminster.
|
|