Gordon Brown Stands Down As Labour Leader

[Tonka777]

About time too I think, lets hope further talks are now forthcoming to sort this mess out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8672859.stm

[TheAnimus]

http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...-lib-dems.html

[Tonka777]

http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...-lib-dems.html

Yeah, just noticed.

I think this is more than worthy of its own thread, but I'll let mods merge or delete as they see fit.

Heck, we could have a vote on it and try that democracy lark?!

[binaryknight]

glad hes gone but then the conservatives got my preferance

[kopite]

I`m pretty clueless when it comes to politics but have been watching the Election with great interest.

I have a question though. THe lib dems really want proportional represenation which from what I can gather means whoever gets the most votes should be in power so in the case of this election that would be the tories.

If lib dems do now form a coalition with labour and whoever else will get into bed with them that isnt that making a mockery of it all by letting the party with the lower vote stay in power?

[JPreston]

Well, firstly you've confused 'Lib Dems' with 'the majority of British people' (Most Britons want reform of voting system: polls) and secondly the tories would only have around the 36% (or whatever it was in the end) of seats that their share of the vote warrants. Instead, under the current system they are claiming a mandate for sole rule despite having barely one third of the votes, making a mockery of the system that they alone support.

[[GSV]Trig]

The system is broken, doesnt matter who wins if the same crap system stays in place..

[kopite]

According to William Hague they`ve said a referendum will be called for electoral reform.

I do agree that electoral reform is needed and that sounds like The conservatives are going to give the public the vote for it.

Jpreston Isnt the point of PR that who ever gets the largest percentage of the vote gets into power? So even though the tories only got 37% they still got the largest percentage so should be in power? I also thought that they where seeking a coalition with lib dems not sole rule?

[scaryjim]

nononononono. You're conflating two things. We currently have a first-past-the-post system for each seat, which is where the person with most votes wins. That gets their party a seat in parliament. It does't matter what percent of the votes you get as long as you get the most.

The point of PR is that the number of seats you get in parliament reflects the percentage of votes you received. The tories got 36% of the vote so should get 36% of the seats, i.e. 234 (they currently have 306). The libdems got 23% of the votes, so should get 23% of the seats, i.e. 150 (they currently have 57). Under PR, it is unlikely that any one party would ever get a majority of seats, as they'd need to get over 50% of the votes, so you would always have some kind of coalition government. But it would mean that the parliament would more accurately reflect the views of the population.

[samcross]

The Beeb could have chosen a slightly more complimenting screencap for the video

[Tumble]

No, they couldn't. The man's a slack-jawed gurning fool at the best of times.

[samcross]

Fair point

[aidanjt]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[TooNice]

The point of PR is that the number of seats you get in parliament reflects the percentage of votes you received. The tories got 36% of the vote so should get 36% of the seats, i.e. 234 (they currently have 306). The libdems got 23% of the votes, so should get 23% of the seats, i.e. 150 (they currently have 57). Under PR, it is unlikely that any one party would ever get a majority of seats, as they'd need to get over 50% of the votes, so you would always have some kind of coalition government. But it would mean that the parliament would more accurately reflect the views of the population.

But I guess it would look work like a permanently hung parliament (if the results of the last few election is to go by). Anything that would be passed would require at least two major parties' agreement, which I suppose would've probably stopped something like National ID card. Umm..

[oolon]

But I guess it would look work like a permanently hung parliament (if the results of the last few election is to go by). Anything that would be passed would require at least two major parties' agreement, which I suppose would've probably stopped something like National ID card. Umm..

If we believe, some opinions it would be a permanent lib+lab packet, if the liberals were able to switch between lab and con, liberals would still be in every government. You can see why they are so keen on it.

The question is after pr would the liberals offer anything of interest. With PR smaller parties can be elected so lab and con would probably break up, and independants would never get in again. It is interesting in scotland con has as many SMPs as libs. UKIP got almost 1 million votes in this election.

[TooNice]

Can't say I envy the Lib-Dem leadership at the moment. If they go with the Tory, they'll probably upset a fair number of the people who voted for them and it could be a more difficult coalition. Going Labour could open them up to a number of criticisms. On top of my head:

1. Labour probably know it needs to/is more willing to/more able able to offer a sweeter deal given their current position (2nd) and political tendencies. But the opposition could be seeing that as selling out not necessarily for the good of the country, but for political gains.

2. IF they tank (and Tory voters on this forum would say that Tory is better equipped to deal with for what that's worth) the economy further, they'll go down together with Labour. Well, the same is true with a Tory coalition, so this is really based on Tory voters on this forum being 'right'.