Originally posted by MrGongGong
View Post
General election results 2015
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostWho should govern, whether and to what extent they might prove to be capable of governing and the res must suely be dependent upon whether they have an overall majority or not - and, whilst there's no need for two-party coalition any longer (at least for the time being), the current government's situation is far from "victorious" in terms of the numbers of votes polled and the numbers of other parties that could well unseat thi and that government proposal.
There is undoubtedly a clear case for some sort of reform when the party with the most votes gets fewer seats than another. That has to be unsatisfactory though fortunately it's somewhat rare.
However when a party with the most votes also gets enough seats to govern reasonably comfortably I fail to see the 'bunch of losers' have much to moan about. There is absolutely nothing to stop any party (apart from possible financial constraints) putting its case before the electorate and attempting to achieve the same.
Originally posted by ahinton View PostIf petitions don't matter, why did the Tories set up an e-petition website? Of course votes and seats matter in any case but, whilst the Tories have increased their vote tally, the Labour party has increased its slightly more than has the Conservatives, despite the widespead interpretation of the results being a disaster for Labour. The main events of the election results in terms of votes polled have been a disaster for the LibDems and great successes for SNP and UKIP.
Originally posted by ahinton View PostWell, thank God for that - but whose idea is the possible abolition of UK HA? Yes, right in one - it's that of the party that's polled just enough votes and gained just enough seats to consider itself to be in some kind of "majority government" (which statistics demonstrate to be far from the case)...
It's not a question of anyone 'considering' anything, simply a matter of whether a party has won fairly and squarely by the official rules of engagement, you see.
Crying 'foul' after a defeat is the time-honoured cry of both politicians and football coaches!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostYou appear to be suggesting that the 'winner' according to the previously and universally-understood (presumably) rules of engagement should give way to some sort of curious pact between a whole bunch of mutually-despising and widely-rejected 'losers'?
Whether they are described as 'official' or not.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View Post..... against which a 38 degrees petition has, in just over a week, attracted some 254,900 signatories,...Fewer Smart things. More smart people.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostWhy?
It means most people wanted something else
if you add those who didn't vote (and NOT voting is as much a statement as voting) then you will find that the supposed "support" is very fragile indeed
You're confusing 'support' for the elected Government with 'support' for the actual electoral system and politicians in general.
The Tories won the election. It is amazing that some people can't seem to grasp this simple fact. Instead, they moan about 'unfair'.
I look forward to them staying in power in 2020. Labour won't have got their act together by then and unless the Tories nail these unnecessary strikes in the bud PDQ then the country will be heartily sick of unions and by association Labour that the Tories will probably be still in power post-2025!Fewer Smart things. More smart people.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostWhy do you assume that everyone accepts and agrees to the 'rules of engagement'? (the use of this phrase is rather telling I think)
Whether they are described as 'official' or not.
If the result had gone another way I'm willing to bet it would have been a quite different group of people moaning about the 'unfairness' of the competition, in the bitter, simmering wake of rejection.
Ah, human nature, don't you just love it!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostWhy do you assume that everyone accepts and agrees to the 'rules of engagement'? (the use of this phrase is rather telling I think)
Whether they are described as 'official' or not.Fewer Smart things. More smart people.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View Post.....
If the result had gone another way I'm willing to bet it would have been a quite different group of people moaning about the 'unfairness' of the competition, in the bitter, simmering wake of rejection.
...Fewer Smart things. More smart people.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Anastasius View PostWhere has he said 'everyone'? I think he has put the current, and excellent, state of affairs quite eloquently IMO.
YOU might be looking forward to the Tories being in power
but you seem to be stuck in the idea that there are only 2 choices
It will be sad to see Radio 3 go
and
I quite like the BBC orchestras
and won't it be great to have more unqualified people working as teachers?
The Tories won the election.
It's assumed by many (not necessarily you) that everyone is a willing participant in this 'contest'
I think (and it pains me to say it because i'm not a great enthusiast) that Russel Brand was right before he changed his mind and suggested that people should vote.
Like many people I held my nose and voted for someone I didn't believe in to try and prevent something worse happening and participation does seem to legitimise the whole sad process.
We could do so much better
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostWe could do so much better
Recalling that "the Right" didn't make a fuss when Labour won the 1997 election assumes some kind of symmetry between "Left" and "Right" which doesn't actually exist. The "Right" will follow the money, so it didn't really matter to them that Blair won that election because it was clear the interests of the ruling class would be taken care of. The "Left" on the other hand, that is to say people committed to equality and social justice, are bitterly disappointed at Cameron's "victory" not because it offends their tribal sensibilities but because it will mean further victimisation of the most vulnerable in society, more food banks, more NHS privatisation, more - what was the word - "flexibility", the demise of the BBC in its present form, and so on. Some seem to be saying that because enough people voted for this it's right. It isn't right no matter how many people voted for it. And anyway, as has been said, more people voted against it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anastasius View PostAh but there's the rub. When Labour won the last election I don't recall the same volume of moaning coming from the Right.
The wealthy don't take to the streets because there are other ways to buttress the status quo: effecting change is an altogether tougher assignment. I agree that there's little to be gained by 'whingeing' - but trying to achieve something by more positive action is just as likely to end with getting crushed under the wheels of opposite warring factions.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment