General Chat

Oh, but as far as "what the electorate wanted" - gotta agree with that one, I mean disagree with that one. ;)

1/3 of the electorate wanted one thing, 1/3 wanted another thing, and 1/3 wanted something else, roughly speaking. Just like where I am. They're all different things, at least within a certain fairly narrow spectrum.

If I want an apple and you want a grapefuit, it doesn't mean either of us wants fruit salad!

"Politics make estranged bedfellows". (Goodman Ace).

Pundits...lmao

They can twist words and rejig statistics a treat! They don't speak for me!

Our shares, in the defence sector, rose by 5% today. That still means they are down by 95% over the past 15 months.

I expect when the market opens again tomorrow they will drop again.

We just need sophisticated weapons to be called into Downing Street so the parties can have a proper war then something good would come out of this pile of cr*p..lol

Sue x

LOL Janey, that is really good

"If I want an apple and you want a grapefuit, it doesn't mean either of us wants fruit salad!"

Can i borrow it without paying you copyright fees ?

Tbh TW I saw a lot of those public debate type programmes where a good few people were openly saying they relished the idea of a hung parliament...and were intending to vote to maximise the possibility of one so some did vote with that in mind. x

Then more fool them I say Muffy.

I don't know anyone who consciously voted for a hung parliament, but in the hopes that one party or another would form a Government the day after. But to make general statements that the electorate as a whole WANTED this, is wrong. There may well have been a minority who did, but do you really think there were enough of them to have actually caused the election to result in hung Parliament?

Sadly I do know a couple of people in real life that did just that TW...and now they're really regretting it...and, like I just saidto them........be careful what you wish for and thanks a bunch lol xx

But they were all saying if you vote LibDem you would get a hung parliament, yet they lost seats, so it can't have been because of them, it's just the balance of Labour and Conservative votes that did it. Quite simply, not enough people voted Tory to get Labour out, and not enough people voted Labour to keep them in. Almost, but not quite.

There is no way the electorate could manipulate votes in order to achieve a hung parliament through a combined effort.

Who would vote for a disaster anyway?

Sue x

There was a lot of tactical voting to keep the conservatives out, you could argue that there were more people that didn't want a conservative government than there are supporting them.

Toatlly agree - how could the electorate want a hung parliament - it implies we went out of our way to get one! I know there is the internet to contact others, but did thousands, nay millions of people contact each other and work out who would vote for whom to create a hung parlaiment?
Highly unlikely!!

The reality is, there's not much between them - they're all much of a muchness.

Trouble is each party inherites the crap created by the previous party ie Thatcherite/Tory to Labour ...and dont learn from its own misgivings,

Is a hung parliament a disaster? Janey made a very good argument before the election on the advantages of a coalition government.

History will tell you it always has been for the UK. It may work in some other countries but the set-up here sends it straight on the road to failure.


(which is another reason for electoral and political reforms)

I can't comment on Canadian domestic politics.

Of course it's a disaster, until it's resolved everything is in limbo. For me personally, any government which includes labour in any capacity other than in opposition is a disaster too.

Sue x

Please correct me if i go wrong here...

The Conservatives ( spit lol ) have the majority of seats, but not the required number to 'govern outright''....

Instead of all this 'climbing into bed with' that Clegg seems so keen on , why can it not just be accepted that the Conservatives are in power with a minority ... they try and put through whatever measures they see fit, Labour opposes...and the Lib Dems vote according to their own lights on each proposal , with NO pre-arranged deals on the table?

The real life folk I know who were keen on a hung parliament voted lib dem to try and splinter the vote...

But I agree...it can't have been too widespread looking at the Lib Dem Share of the vote.

Of course maybe when it boiled down to it...once in the booth most who were saying they would vote Lib Dem to try and secure a hung parliament had a last minute change of heart....which the loss of seats would seem to back up xx

I thought a coalition government worked quite well in WW2 but I haven't studied the period so I may have missed something.

I'd go for that Rose as I said earlier in the thread. They will stand or fall on their policies and if necessary go back to the country for another election.

Sue x

SRS there is a massive difference between a pact and a coalition. Coalition would mean two colours in cabinet, pact just means, in the main, support during parliamentary votes, or abstentions if they went completely against the 'secondary' party's published mandate.

I haven't either SRS but i suspect that in WW2 although the same differences were there in the parties, when faced with a 'common enemy' other than each other, they made more of an effort?