Jump to content

British General Election Thread


SpiceMan

Recommended Posts

In 2005, Labour secured over 60% of the seats with 35% of the vote - hardly a 'mandate from the British people' which Tony Blair claimed it was at the time. In the current electoral climate the system is even more inadequate. While supporters of the first past the post system constantly assert it produces 'strong governments' which are able to rule effectively, the bias in the system favours particular parties, most notably Labour.

 

If the number of seats a party gained is stacked against the number of votes received, the problem becomes obvious; it takes 22,000 votes for Labour to gain a seat, 35,000 votes for the Conservatives to gain a seat, and 150,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats to gain a single seat.

 

This would mean that if the current poll ratings were acted out across the system, Labour would still be the largest party despite coming third. It is not a case of a 'third' party being a King maker, but the two parties who received more votes than Labour not receiving their fair representation.

 

A YouGov Poll on the 20th April puts the Liberal Democrats in first place with 34% of the vote, the Conservatives in second with 31% vote and Labour in third with 26% of the vote. Yet, if this happened at the general election, Labour would have 242 seats, the Conservatives 229 seats and the Liberal Democrats 150 seats. Even if people are foolish enough to believe that 'strong government' is desirable, surely it should at least be the party that the largest number of people actually voted for, rather than the party which received the lowest number of votes having the 'largest mandate' to govern? The fact stands, that even if the Liberal Democrats won as many votes as Labour did in 2001, not only would they not win, they would not even be the largest party.

 

The current system lacks credibility, is undemocratic and is completely inadequate for the three-party system that now exists within the political landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What about the UK armed forces overseas, most of whom did not get their postal ballots in time. Not really surprising as the UK can't even supply essential military equipment by air to troops in Afghanistan. The soldiers are nearly all angry at the government for funding hugely expensive defense items instead of helicopters and basic equipment. It makes sense to Brown that soldiers did not get a chance to vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think David Cameron is frustrated at finding himself without a majority, spare a thought for poor Great Yarmouth council candidate Bob Peck. Tied on 1,034 votes with Labour opponent Charlie Marsden, he was offered a pack of cards by the returning officer and told the candidate who drew the highest number would win. Mr Peck picked a three while his rival drew a lucky seven to claim the seat. Crazy? Maybe, but it's all within the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no expert on British politics. I do get a fair amount of it on my Arsenal sites just all of you get a lot of U.S. politics on a Thai site. Comes with the territory.

 

That said, I kept hearing immigration as an issue. I am well aware of the large increase in east europeans and others into the UK and especially in small areas the social services are a bit overwhelmed (possibly large areas like London, Birmingham and Manchester as well).

 

It also seems that the British national debt is tantamount impossible to bring down unless some serious cuts are made in government spending and its eerily similar to the U.S. in that the people and their government don't have the stomatch to make the tough, hard decisions in order to bring it about.

 

Maybe I'm overstating things but England seems as f**ked as the U.S. with regards to its hole (national debt, NHS, immigration, etc.) its found itself in. Am I wrong in saying this?

 

If you go down, what will happen to Arsenal?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think David Cameron is frustrated at finding himself without a majority, spare a thought for poor Great Yarmouth council candidate Bob Peck. Tied on 1,034 votes with Labour opponent Charlie Marsden, he was offered a pack of cards by the returning officer and told the candidate who drew the highest number would win. Mr Peck picked a three while his rival drew a lucky seven to claim the seat. Crazy? Maybe, but it's all within the rules.

 

 

 

Why don't they save the money spent on an election and just have all the candidates cut cards?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...