Posted on 05/06/2010 11:31:36 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
The 2010 General Elections in the United Kingdom are underway, and the first results will trickle in in the next few hours. Post your observations here, and let's all root for the Tories!
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Current counts:
Conservative 290
Labour 247
Lib-Dem 51
Different definitions of left/right on the US side.
Here Left = socialist and Right = free market. The BNP is socialist, as was the German National Socialist (Nazi) party, so they are on the left.
It’s pretty likely they’ll have another election soon anyway, like there was a 2nd in 1974. I suspect Labor will be willing to give Clegg whatever he wants to remain in power. Some talk of Brown stepping down and taking one for the team to get Clegg on board. Since everyone realizes there will be another election soon someone will step up and serve as a caretaker PM in the run-up to the next election(maybe Milliband or Harman).
Labor may think they can do better with soemone other than Brown at the top and take their chances in a few months in another election. Cameron meanwhile at that point will be used goods. Already having come up short with the wind at his back and everything going for him. Can he reasonably be expected to do better in a few months time?
The lib dems are in more in tune with Labor and I can’t see them going with the Tories. I say they team up for the short term and everyone tries again later on in the year.
And in the meantime, the price the LibDems will charge is electoral reform which could shut the Tories out of power for a generation by some pessimistic readings.
According to BBC it seems to be stuck at 291-251 for the last half hour or so. Twenty nine seats still out. I wonder if some of those are too close or are requiring recounts. In any case it is a big CON gain but still disappointing they did not take a majority.
itll be interesting to see what happens
reports are the Tories simply won’t and can’t move on PR voting and that’s Clegg’s #1 goal. BBC also says a lot of Tories are peeved at Cameron and the result and they start talking soon, airing their grievances.
Brown(or whoever replaces him if he’s pushed out)probably can give PR if that’s what it takes to stay in power.
Cameron has a tough choice. In the US context it would sort of be like if in 2012 the GOP knows they can beat Obama by winning a certain state, but only if they agree to violate a key principle like agreeing to keep the health care law or agreeing to not appoint an anti Roe Justice. It’d be a tough call.
The Conservatives have been out for 13 yrs. This was supposed to be their best shot in years. If they let it slip who knows when they get another one.
Although if the reports are true that PR would effectively lock them out of winning for the next 50 years, it might not be worth it.
What do you think happens? I’m guessling Labor dumps Brown for Milliband or Harman and the new leader agrees to PR with Clegg. They can then claim change since there’ll be a new PM(If it’s Harman they might even get nice boost from having a woman PM), Clegg is happy with the PR change, and they agree more on most things than the Libs and the Conservatives do.(Apparently PR will ensure Labor/lib dem dominance for the foreseeable future)
Brown comes out looking like a statesman for putting his party and the country above his personal ambition. Labor and the Lib Dems are both happy.
Paxman has been terrifying politicians in the UK ever since he destroyed former Home Secretary Michael Howard’s career (and hopes of becoming Prime Minister) in a TV interview, where he famously asked exactly the same question 12 times without Howard being able to answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI
Both Cameron and Brown refused to be interviewed by him during this current campaign until LibDem leader Nick Clegg (who didn’t have much to lose) shamed them into it by agreeing to appear on Paxman’s Newsnight program himself.
Cutting entitlements and stuff HAS to happen, no matter what party is in charge.
The most messed up result is nobody being able to form a government.
PR voting is a horrible idea.
18 seats still undeclared.
This is messed up.
I would say that the BNP are racial and national reactionaries, historical revisionists, and paternalistic in their economic policy. Essentially, they are aiming for the white proletariat and underclass ("yobs") that typically vote Labour, but are traditionalist on issues of race and nationalism.
Clegg wants Brown gone as the price for a coalition.
Current result:
Conservative 301
Labour 255
Liberal Democrat 54
Undeclared 13
12 undeclared
301 Con
255 Labour
55 LibDem
What’s “PR voting”?
Proportional representation.
Conservative
306 +97
Labour
258 -91
Liberal Democrat
57 -5
Proportional meaning every district/constituency has roughly the same number of people, like congressional districts here? I would have assumed they already had that but did not know that is not the case. So the constituencies there have different populations? Interesting. If they go to a PR system though it sounds like it still would be very difficult for one party to gain a majority. Or are they looking at some kind of alliance between Labour and the LD’s? That would guarantee leftist government I guess. Quite sad.
On a good note I see that Jacqui Smith, the minister who put Michael Savage on the banned in Britain list, was defeated. Mr Savage must be thrilled.
Proportional in the sense that seats in the House of Commons would be assigned roughly according to the level of the national vote.
Currently, each parliamentary constituency is a first-past-the-post individual election, like our elections in the US. The person in a particular constituency with the most votes wins the race.
Thus, even if your party gets, say, 30% of the vote across the board nationally, if it comes in second or worse in every constituency, none of your candidates will be elected.
This is what has traditionally happened to the Liberal Democrats, and what happened yesterday. They got 22% of the vote, but only 57 seats out of 650, because their candidates didn't get the most votes in many constituencies.
Under proportional representation, their national vote of roughly 22% would translate to some number of seats in Parliament (probably something north of 22%, since in this sort of system, very minor parties that don't get beyond a certain threshold don't get any seats at all, thus plumping up the totals of the major parties).
I've read also that the individual voting constituencies do vary in size more than one might wish, but don't really know how much they vary by, nor how big a problem this really is.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.