so what now?

[ColJack]

with no clear majority there seems to be a buzz over what the lib dem leader is going to do.. but he was nowhere near the other 2 so why is he so important?
I don't follow politics if you can't tell.. never was interested in it..

 

[corgiman]

if he joins with one of the other two then they would have an unassailable lead (ie if they have more votes than the rest of parliament put together)

to have a majority in the HOP you need 326 seats, with 326 seats even if everyone else ganged up and voted against you YOU could still out vote them!

Hence why at the mo Nick clegg is probably the most important Politician in The UK.

Mind you If England was not part of the UK we would have a stonkingly HUGE Tory Majority

Question Why are we in the UK??

sod getting out of europe lets get out of the UK

 

[joinerjohn]

Problem with Nick Clegg is, he's sat on the fence all the way through the build up to the election. Equally hates Labour as much as the Tories. Now he has to decide who to side with.
In the end he'll probably side with whichever party offers proportional representation.
If he comes down on the Tory side, you watch when it comes to a debate on PR. Labour will start complaining saying PR isn't right for the British people ( when during the election campaign, they did promise steps towards PR).
If the Limp Dems side with Labour, then it will be the Tories who will be saying that PR doesn't work.
Anyway, when will we hear the results of the investigations into the postal voitng scandals that have rocked this election?
Interesting that the team that investigates voting irregularities in third world banana republics was brought in.

 

[joinerjohn]

Well Brown has just been on TV outside 10 Downing St. He says if Nick Clegg wants to come and talk, we will offer a change to the voting system as a matter of urgency.
Meanwhile, back in the studio, the presenter is telling us that Lord Poncey Mandelson said proportional representation WAS part of Labours Election Manifesto, back in 1997.
Well it's took them 13yrs and a hung parliament for PR to become top of the agenda.

 

[flooringman]

Er...this isn't what they call politics is it?

 

[Infidel]

Er...this isn't what they call politics is it?

Politics is actually quite simple, it's only when you throw in politicians that it gets ****ed up.

Get a stadium give em all a sword last man standing is pm, simples.

 

[joinerjohn]

Er...this isn't what they call politics is it?

Politics???? Sounds more like Brown trying his hardest to cling on to his unelected position. PR? Christ if we had PR he knows he would not have been standing in front of No 10 this afternoon.

 

[Deluks]

Get a stadium give em all a sword last man standing is pm, simples.

That's how it's done in certain parts of the USA...

hence why Conan The Barbarian is Governor of California

 

[RedHerring2]

if he joins with one of the other two then they would have an unassailable lead (ie if they have more votes than the rest of parliament put together)

Not quite. If he joins with Tories, then yes, an unassailable lead.
But if he joins with Labour there won't be an unassailable lead.
e.g. Labour 258 Lib Dem 57 = 315 (plus 6 SNP 'cos they've already said they'll cosey up to Labour. Maybe 3 Plaid Cymru also)
Total Lib Dem/ Labour/SNP/Plaid Cymru = 324
Tories can defeat bills by courting 19 others. Tories 305 + 19 Others = 324.

Probably highly unlikely that all 'Others' would cosey up to Tories though.

But you can see the fine balance.

 

[ColJack]

can the elected "locals" not switch their allegiance now?

ie candidate XX decides that now he's got in he prefers the ideals of another party.

 

[ajstoneservices]

if he joins with one of the other two then they would have an unassailable lead (ie if they have more votes than the rest of parliament put together)

to have a majority in the HOP you need 326 seats, with 326 seats even if everyone else ganged up and voted against you YOU could still out vote them!

Hence why at the mo Nick clegg is probably the most important Politician in The UK.

Mind you If England was not part of the UK we would have a stonkingly HUGE Tory Majority

Question Why are we in the UK??

s** getting out of europe lets get out of the UK

Haven't heard a better answer all day

 

[Lincsbodger]

Well Clegg is in a quandary.

Brown is desparate to stay in power, so he'll give Clegg whatever he wants, including seats inthe cabinet and a referendum on PR.

BUT

In propping up labour, he and the LibDems will incur the wrath and disgust of most of the electorate, since labour got butt ****ed and lost more than 100 seats and 3 million votes . Labour clearly have no mandate, and considering the Lib Dems also lost seats and can also not claim to have a mandate, keeping labour in power for there own benefit would be morally unacceptable, and if Clegg isnt careful, it could come back on him and bite him in the arse big time

HOWEVER

A lot of the Lib Dems dont like the Tories and it stick in there throats to have to do a deal with them, despite the fact the Tories have increased there share of the vote by 2 million AND got the most seats and therefore unarguably have the moral high ground and can claim respectability in there claim to be government

BUT

by doing a deal with the Tories, the Tories wont go as far as Labour in offering electoral reform, which is balanced by the moral respectability of supporting the party with the moral high ground.

SO, I should think Cleggy is is sitting on the toilet ringing his hands at the moment, torn between power and respectability. After all, in the past the Lib Dems have always been the party that can claim the moral high ground, if they now abandon it for power, they will be hypocrites.

I also observe, as I predicted, that the slimy toad Mandelson is positioning ready to execute Brown, so that he can stay in the power game.

 

[ajstoneservices]

I also observe, as I predicted, that the slimy toad Mandelson is positioning ready to execute Brown, so that he can stay in the power game.

Do you think he'll do from behind in the library with a pipe

 

[ColJack]

to be honest I just don't get it..
if the conservatives have the most seats then don't they win?, aren't they the government?

you can't have england beat the germans 3-2 in the world cup final but say that the germans still win just because the team that came 3rd in the playoffs decide to support them.... it's simply not true....

so they need to get more than 50% of the total seats to get into power? why? so that they can steam roller their ideas through
if the lib dems decide to side with one side ( giving them the most votes ), can't they then change their minds halfway through the year and decide that the other party are actually right on some issues and support them?
( making it in effect the lib dems that are in controll as they decide the outcome of any vote by putting their 10%, or whatever, in with the ones they decide are doing what they want them to? )

 

[Lincsbodger]

to be honest I just don't get it..
if the conservatives have the most seats then don't they win?, aren't they the government?

To rule you need to have a majority i nthe house, you need to win 326 seats. It isnt like a football match, you need to be able to outvote the rest of the house. Loo kat it like this - we didnt just have one election, we had 650 simultaneous ones, and to rule you needed to win 326 of those elections.

you can't have england beat the germans 3-2 in the world cup final but say that the germans still win just because the team that came 3rd in the playoffs decide to support them.... it's simply not true....

entirely different, cant be compared to the way it works in Parliament.

so they need to get more than 50% of the total seats to get into power?

yes

why? so that they can steam roller their ideas through

well not steamroller. How can you conduct a viable set of policies in government if you can be defeated and outvoted when you try and change teh law. Imagine trying to drive a car where the three other peopel in the car can also press the accelerator and brake and move the steering whell. You need one set of people only making decisions.

if the lib dems decide to side with one side ( giving them the most votes ), can't they then change their minds halfway through the year and decide that the other party are actually right on some issues and support them?

Yes and chaos woudl ensue. the government is the party that governs, you cant have the opposition making laws up. whats the point of having a government in that case. Might as well let random people off the street make up laws. Theres has to be orderly conduct of business, the government governs, not the opposition. And you have to realise that a government can be brought down by losing a vote, so once you start defeating the government out of malice then its time for another election. And government instability makes the money markets jittery and financial chaos would also ensue, countries credit rating gets downgraded, deep poo becomes even deeper. We just cant be having it, we MUST have strong stable governments.

( making it in effect the lib dems that are in controll as they decide the outcome of any vote by putting their 10%, or whatever, in with the ones they decide are doing what they want them to? )

yes, they are the Kingmakers, there 59 MP's now hold more power than the other 500. Hardly a 'balanced' way to proceed, is it?