It doesn't matter who you vote for....

[Tonyf]

.... the government always gets in.

[Patmobile]

Don't you find it strange that politicians in UK (and probably elsewhere) spend so much time slagging off their opponents and their opponents' supporters in the most insulting way possible, instead of expounding clearly and rationally their own views and aims, and the full details of their proposed policies?

Don't they know that every time they open their mouths like this they insult 60% of the nation? The same people they claim to represent after they win.

No wonder the percentage of voters is declining. Who would want such insulting, bullying, closed-minded, jumped-up, self-important, strutting, egomaniacal prats to represent them?

And they have the nerve to call themselves "leaders".

Roll on the revolution!

Patrick

[Sbesley]

Well actually it's worse than that!

On the 5th of May the Labour party polled 9,556,183 votes, give or take a few hundred dodgy postal votes here and there...

This means their 'mandate' constitutes just 21.5% of the those registered to vote.

This leaves of rather depressing prospect of a government elected by scarcely more than one in five adults talking about their policies being dictated by the 'popular vote'.

Stephen.

[RayB]

[quote]Don't you find it strange that politicians in UK (and probably elsewhere) spend so much time slagging off their opponents and their opponents' supporters in the most insulting way possible, instead of...[/quote]

**Roll on the revolution!**

The problem is - Who's going to lead the charge? No names pop-up in my mind.

[Dick Smith]

Stephen - as Charles Kennedy has said many times, we are now in a 'time of three party politics'. So instead of dividing by two to get an equal share of the vote for each party you divide by three, which gives about 34% to be the largest party. The Labour Party got about 36% IIRC, the Tories 33% and the Lib Dems about 24%, so it looks as though CK is right. So of course he winning party's share will be less than in 2-party days.

As to the 21%, unless we make voting compulsory there will always be a bunch of apathetic so-and-sos (often the biggest moaners) who abstain (or just don't bother). We can't take abstentions into account - unless you want to allocate them to candidates by a kind of political pools panel. So the Labour vote was over 66% of what it might have been.

[bryansmith]

Dick - I got a little lost with your maths (it has always been a problem for me) but even on your reckonings more people (Tories + Lib Dem) did NOT want Blair & Co. in office than did want them.  This has probably been the case in most elections but I think it is a sad reflection on our system. Having said that I cannot think of a better one as proportional representation or similar systems seem to create more problems than they solve.

 

[RayB]

[quote]Dick - I got a little lost with your maths (it has always been a problem for me) but even on your reckonings more people (Tories + Lib Dem) did NOT want Blair & Co. in office than did want them. ...[/quote]

** Having said that I cannot think of a better one as proportional representation or similar systems seem to create more problems than they solve.**

AMEN!! That is government run by a committee of different opinions. A nightmare!

[Sbesley]

Will,

The fact remains that a small margin of advantage gives the 'winners' all the spoils. Perhaps some sort of PR system could add a few checks and balances to the untrammelled power of a government elected by 21.5% of voters.

I think my view is that of the 17,047,916 registered voters who didn't vote, many took an active decision not to vote rather than simply couldn't be bothered!

The politicians have to earn enough respect to make people consider they are worth voting for, something that they appear to find increasingly difficult to do.

[RayB]

[quote]Will,The fact remains that a small margin of advantage gives the 'winners' all the spoils. Perhaps some sort of PR system could add a few checks and balances to the untrammelled power of a government ...[/quote]

**I think my view is that of the 17,047,916 registered voters who didn't vote, many took an active decision not to vote rather than simply couldn't be bothered!**

People who don't vote have absolutely no right to complain.

Checks and balances should be between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government in order to have any validity or chance of working. No one group should have total power. Hence the the description of the UK as a 'constitutional dictatorship'.

[Dick Smith]

Bryan - no government has achieved 50% of the popular vote since 1931, and that was the National Government of Ramsay MacDonald when there was, in effect, no official opposition.

The maths was aiming to show that in our system we govern by the principle of the largest vote, not a majority vote. In a 3-party system (which only applies in England, in Scotland and Wales it is 4-party and in N Ireland about 6) the votes are shared 3 ways (in fact about 90% of the vote, taking into account MRLP, Green, UKIP, Veritas (!), BNP etc.) so each has a nominal share of ~30%. Within this we had the situation that each party scored around that figure - Lab 35%, Cons 32%, LD 22%. The only way to get back to parties getting about 50% of the vote (not likely if there are minor parties) is to allow only Lab and Cons to contest elections. This, however, is entirely separate from the issue of the turnout, which rose slightly at this election compared to 2001 (+2% at 61.3%).

Given that the turnout was low, in historical terms, and the vote was spread 3 ways the 21% is, in fact, reasonable. Those who did not vote had the chance to do so, and their abstention can not be allowed to play against votes actually cast. I agree with Ray that those who didn't vote have no right to excuse their idleness as a 'protest', or to make any comment of the outcome of the election.

However, Ray, I believe you are American? Your description of the 3 branches of government make it appear so. Remember that in the UK the judicial branch is independent and separate from government and the executive is part of the legislative, so we can't separate them. To refer to the UK as any form of dictatorship is, however, utterly absurd, as the fact that we have quite recently held elections shows...

PR systems throw up just as many, if not more, anomalies and problems. For an example look at Weimar Germany and the splitting of votes into small and frequently single-issue or regional parties, often leading to anomalous and weak coalitions in which strong individuals (such as Stresemann) held inordinate power.

[RayB]

[quote]Bryan - no government has achieved 50% of the popular vote since 1931, and that was the National Government of Ramsay MacDonald when there was, in effect, no official opposition.The maths was aiming t...[/quote]

** Remember that in the UK the judicial branch is independent and separate from government and the executive is part of the legislative, so we can't separate them.**

You can, the same as we do, by putting the PM candidates up for separate election.

**To refer to the UK as any form of dictatorship is, however, utterly absurd, as the fact that we have quite recently held elections shows...**

That was a quote I heard from many Brits over the 17 years we lived there, Dick. I didn't make it up.

[Dick Smith]

Ray - you are making a fundamental error in comparing US and UK electoral systems - yours was designed to be as far from ours as possible! The Prime Minister is primus inter pares, and he has to emerge from the party which gains the most seats - that is the only fair and sensible way to elect a leader, IMHO, compared to the messes the USA and France have got into with a president from one side and a congress from the other. Look where that got us! Your system is designed to REDUCE the power of government, not enhance good government, having made the assumption that weak governments are good and strong governments are automatically bad.

As for the 'dictatorship' idea, well, I've heard some Brits come out with drivel in the past as well, it doesn't mean it's true. It usually means that the side they wanted to win didn't - and you only have to look at some posts on the Other Forum (which I know you have) to see how some Tories are actually unable to believe that they have been beaten, so strong is their assumption of a right to govern.

[Cardinal]

[quote]Dick - I got a little lost with your maths (it has always been a problem for me) but even on your reckonings more people (Tories + Lib Dem) did NOT want Blair & Co. in office than did want them. ...[/quote]

If less than 50% of the electorate bothered to vote, one can assume that the rest were not bothered who won. That is, they didn't vote against Labour candidates so we can safely assume that they are happy enough with them. By this version of maths, Labour won a huge majority!

[Cardinal]

[quote]Dick - I got a little lost with your maths (it has always been a problem for me) but even on your reckonings more people (Tories + Lib Dem) did NOT want Blair & Co. in office than did want them. ...[/quote]

If less than 50% of the electorate bothered to vote, one can assume that the rest were not bothered who won. That is, they didn't vote against Labour candidates so we can safely assume that they are happy enough with them. By this version of maths, Labour won a huge majority!

[bryansmith]

It is said that a country gets the Government it deserves. Does that really mean that the 50% who did not vote wanted a liar for a Prime Minister and a sneak thief for a Chancellor of the Exchequer ?. If so then Britain certainly has the Government it deserves.

[Miki]

[quote]It is said that a country gets the Government it deserves. Does that really mean that the 50% who did not vote wanted a liar for a Prime Minister and a sneak thief for a Chancellor of the Exchequer ?....[/quote]

....currently in UK soon to be in Lot et Garonne 47 eh !

So, Welcome for when you reach the 47 but I do hope you realise that the French people also have the bluddy awful govt they deserve, plus ca change.......... etc

Funny isn't it, no matter that the election is done and dusted and the people have chosen their govt in whichever way it has occurred, there are always some who can't accept it and only their choice should be in power, or it's all despicably wrong !!

I truly believe it says more about an opposition than it does for the succesful party.

[Tourangelle]

[quote]It is said that a country gets the Government it deserves. Does that really mean that the 50% who did not vote wanted a liar for a Prime Minister and a sneak thief for a Chancellor of the Exchequer ?....[/quote]

I personally think that it would be fair enough to assume that the 40% (I believe it was a 60% turnout, is that right?) don't care.

[RobS]

[quote]It is said that a country gets the Government it deserves. Does that really mean that the 50% who did not vote wanted a liar for a Prime Minister and a sneak thief for a Chancellor of the Exchequer ?....[/quote]

Wasn't Mrs Thatcher once described as being 'economical with the truth', which was just another way of saying she lied? So this PM who is a liar is that Mrs T we're talking about. And as for a sneak thief of a chancellor, can you tell me of one who hasn't given money out with one hand, whilst taking it back with the other?

[Iceni]

Facts of life whether we like it or not

The people get the govt they deserve, as my old boss said so well "things only happen when you make them happen".

Those who don't vote, don't matter (even if we did not get the opportunity - postal vote forms have STILL not arrived)

How many votes each party receives in total don't matter - only seats count

Size of majority don't matter (darling double 1st Harold was a minority in 64 or was it 66?)

As much as I detest the grocer's daughter, the original comment was not about her however true it may be - came up in Australia I believe and said about a civil servant when one of the MI5 has-beens published a book revealing not much

The passage of time will reveal how well or badly PM His Eminence has performed as PM. Remember that the much maligned Peanut Carter has now assumed god like staus in some quarters so there is hope for nearly everyone (Dubbya excluded of course).

John

not

 

[RayB]

[quote]Facts of life whether we like it or not The people get the govt they deserve, as my old boss said so well "things only happen when you make them happen". Those who don't vote, don't matter (even if ...[/quote]

**Remember that the much maligned Peanut Carter has now assumed god like staus in some quarters so there is hope for nearly everyone**

Au contraire, John. He and DDE have gone down as nice guys who were lousy, do-nothing presidents. At least George and Tony will be remembered for being the only two leaders with the guts to take-out a monster who was on the verge of being to a menace to the world. Hate them if you want to but it won't change the facts.

[Miki]

"....Carter has now assumed god like status in some quarters..."

Actually that is so very nearly true !

He has taken the mantle over as the best ex-President ever, culminating of course with his Noble peace prize in 2002 of course but was certainly rated as among the worst of serving Presidents.

He certainly has packed plenty of good work in to his life since being ousted after just one term in office.

[RayB]

[quote]"....Carter has now assumed god like status in some quarters..."Actually that is so very nearly true !He has taken the mantle over as the best ex-President ever, culminating of course with his Noble p...[/quote]

**He certainly has packed plenty of good work in to his life since being ousted after just one term in office.**

Agreed.

[Iceni]

"Actually that is so very nearly true !"

Miki

Surely you are not suggesting that I would say/write something that is NOT true

Sun shining, forecast of 22 but then 3 days rain and down to 13 - oh the joys of Living France.

John

not