|
How are you going to vote on May 7th? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative |
|
72 | 6.22% |
| Labour |
|
410 | 35.41% |
| Liberal Democrat |
|
46 | 3.97% |
| UKIP |
|
69 | 5.96% |
| Green |
|
199 | 17.18% |
| SNP |
|
121 | 10.45% |
| DUP |
|
0 | 0% |
| Sinn Fein |
|
35 | 3.02% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
20 | 1.73% |
| Respect |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
56 | 4.84% |
| BNP |
|
23 | 1.99% |
| Some flavour of socialist party |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Some flavour of communist party |
|
27 | 2.33% |
| Independent |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Other |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Total: | 1158 votes | ||
|
This thread got really lovely really fast. The party that has the best chance to form the biggest working majority has the right to form a government and it is upto the other parties to vote for or against the queen speech said government proposes. Whilst the incumbent has the right to try first to form a government, if the other parties can form a government, then that is also legit. How is that so hard to understand Jesus Christ.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
ronya posted:legitimacy matters a lot when it's 2015 and not 1915. In the other, the biggest worries seem to be that people might vote for a 'libertarian non-racist party', people might get radicalized and shout a lot, and that the northern third of the country that peacefully decided to stick around might vote for a nationalist party that wants involvement in Westminster.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
A grand coalition would solve the legitimacy issue fairly decisively.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
THATCHER BRAINWASH posted:This thread got really lovely really fast. Legit in a procedural sense and legitimacy in the eyes of the public are not the same thing and are both instrumental to ruling effectively.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:A grand coalition would solve the legitimacy issue fairly decisively. Finally, someone talking some sense.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Which scenario produces an outcome where IDS kills himself live on TV?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:So you're saying that if the Tories get the most seats they should automatically be in power, even though they haven't won under the system we use to elect and form governments? It's 'institutional procedure' to follow the basic rules of the system, instead of throwing that out to satisfy people who don't know how it works (or people who lost power and don't like it)? no - rather, non-state mechanisms of organization and messaging, like the press and civil-social organizations, will concoct and promote plausible new rules on-the-fly - rules which favour their own pet agendas, left-wing, right-wing, or neither. People will gather quietly in party national executive headquarters and assess the flow of opinion, as far as they can gauge it. Then they'll decide whether to concede or contest.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In one of these two years, the government were legit worried about a workers revolution, attacks by anarchist cells were a real thing, people were engaging in public acts of civil disobedience to get the vote, and the western half of the country was on the verge of becoming a powder keg and starting an actual war to separate. yup. The diminution of stakes is exactly why people are also less willing to open fire in defense of institutional prerogative and extant rights. You want it enough - fine, whatever, you can have it. This is known as bourgeois liberal democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Basically if Labour end up in a workable minority but have less votes/seats than the Tories you can expect poo poo to hit the fan in a spectacular fashion. Paper's like the Sun and the Daily Mail will be full of articles calling the government illegitimate, cartoons of Milliband on a second place pedestal snatching a first place medal from Cameron's neck and the like. Tory spin would go into overdrive and in all likelihood it would work and public opinion would turn against Labour. Polls already show that people think the largest party should always govern and good luck to Labour trying to change people's minds on this. Of course this is all bullshit and goes against how the parliamentary system is supposed to work. And of course if Labour do have a functional minority they could theoretically just press ahead and hope that they can get through unscathed and things will be better in 5 years time. I'm not convinced that this would work though, I think Labour would be forced into another election.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Mainwaring posted:Basically if Labour end up in a workable minority but have less votes/seats than the Tories you can expect poo poo to hit the fan in a spectacular fashion. Paper's like the Sun and the Daily Mail will be full of articles calling the government illegitimate, cartoons of Milliband on a second place pedestal snatching a first place medal from Cameron's neck and the like. Tory spin would go into overdrive and in all likelihood it would work and public opinion would turn against Labour. Polls already show that people think the largest party should always govern and good luck to Labour trying to change people's minds on this. just reading this post makes me physically angry, I have no idea how i'm going to manage on Friday.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Mainwaring posted:Polls already show that people think the largest party should always govern and good luck to Labour trying to change people's minds on this. Congratulations on Scottish Labour for repeating this myth ad nauseum since about October.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
THATCHER BRAINWASH posted:This thread got really lovely really fast. because if Labour says "we don't think it's right for us to contest the largest-party mandate" and whips all their MPs into obeying, none of the other parties have any hope of forming a coalition larger than the Tory bloc, even without Lib Dem and, really, the precedent of biggest-working-majority was not made to coexist with the fixed term parliament making it harder to force a collapse of that majority
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
^^^ But it does, them's the rules nowronya posted:no - rather, non-state mechanisms of organization and messaging, like the press and civil-social organizations, will concoct and promote plausible new rules on-the-fly - rules which favour their own pet agendas, left-wing, right-wing, or neither. People will gather quietly in party national executive headquarters and assess the flow of opinion, as far as they can gauge it. Then they'll decide whether to concede or contest. No kidding? I'm asking why, exactly, public backing for the actual legitimate result of the election should be a concern. Obviously that's a complicated subject, since it depends on the level of public outrage, but the government doesn't actually need public support to govern. The public isn't actually involved with the decision-making and voting in government, all we really get is a vote for a representative to handle that for us - and those representatives are the ones who'll put a party in government. So apart from the electorate still being mad five years down the line (a big risk, fine) what else is there that will hurt Labour? How will it interfere with the actual process of government? Where exactly does (wrong) public opinion matter in any material way? Are the Tories going to start leading marches?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
ronya posted:because if Labour says "we don't think it's right for us to contest the largest-party mandate" and whips all their MPs into obeying, none of the other parties have any hope of forming a coalition larger than the Tory bloc, even without Lib Dem For sure, i'm just saying that, if we didn't have literally the worst press in the world, and a lovely, uninformed electorate, the idea that ANYONE won this lovely election would be hillarious instead of depressing. hmmm yes the Tory party lost seats despite the opposition losing 50 seats to begin with, they are the winners in this situation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Ugh. The idea of David Cameron walking back into number 10 with even less seats, crowing about winning, mandates and victories.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
JoylessJester posted:Ugh. The idea of David Cameron walking back into number 10 with even less seats, crowing about winning, mandates and victories. loving hell
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:^^^ But it does, them's the rules now council tax refusals to pay, I presume. that's a tried-and-tested tactic to make parliament back down. the marching only really starts when you try to get cops to enforce collection amidst high levels of refusals. that, too, is known from precedent.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Do the Tories really have the spine to stick it out for that long and take that desperate of a measure? Or what if they just fall to in-fighting and Cameron gets the axe for it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Mainwaring posted:Basically if Labour end up in a workable minority but have less votes/seats than the Tories you can expect poo poo to hit the fan in a spectacular fashion. Paper's like the Sun and the Daily Mail will be full of articles calling the government illegitimate, cartoons of Milliband on a second place pedestal snatching a first place medal from Cameron's neck and the like. Tory spin would go into overdrive and in all likelihood it would work and public opinion would turn against Labour. Polls already show that people think the largest party should always govern and good luck to Labour trying to change people's minds on this. the cliched political cartoon. the most deadly of weapons. milliband could never survive.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
but all that aside - the British establishment elite has spent two odd decades masturbating over a vision of implementing a Senate, implementing a Supreme Court, implementing devolved quasi-sovereign legislatures, and then tossing proportional representation somewhere into that stew of Americanisms; I have no clue why anyone would be confident in a righteous embrace of the parliamentary authority of the Commons and its conventions at this point. e: Labour would prolly want to do something that would raise council taxes at some point, which would be provocative without a mandate
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
ronya posted:without a mandate If they command the confidence of the house they HAVE a mandate.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Congratulations on Scottish Labour for repeating this myth ad nauseum since about October. The good news is. Scottish Labour are hosed The bad news is. Labour is hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Would the Conservatives have been better off under AV? quote:When we use these second preferences in this way, what do the results look like? The only beneficiary of AV in this election would have been the Tories. Take that, reformailures. SNAKES N CAKES fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
british people, why are you literally worse than the americans how is that even possible
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Via Peter Jukes WE WILL PAY YOU £100 TO SAY NICE THINGS ABOUT THE TORIES IN OUR PAPER.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Via Peter Jukes Oh my god
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:Would the Conservatives have been better off under AV? What a stunning revelation, AV is a poo poo compromise compared to better forms of PR.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
I know it's mostly statistical noise, but I do like to imagine some of the people this data implies. Who the hell are the UKIP (climate deniers) voters whose second choice is Green? Those have to be the dumbest protest votes ever.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Turns out all the rumors about the Tories having plans to cut child or unemployment benefits were absolutely false:quote:IDS admits Tories have not worked on where £12bn cuts will come from And Ed fishes for the endorsement of Sprinkle of Glitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw4FwDoVtew
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Even though it actually is, and people don't understand the parliamentary system? Yes - I think a government should always care about whether or not it is perceived to be legitimate by the people over whom it rules. That hardly seems controversial to me. I mean, if enough people perceive a government to be illegitimate then at some point it becomes illegitimate, does it not? Yes, it may have been elected in accordance with a certain set of rules, but if the public lose faith in those rules as a means for electing their leaders then the government can hardly prove its legitimacy by relying on them. Of course, the fact is that a minority Labour government which does not have the most seats would be legitimate according to existing political conventions and the Tories and Lib Dems are being very devious in trying to obfuscate the issue and pretend otherwise. But at the same time the UK has a largely political constitution and existing political conventions are held in place by political considerations - if the British public genuinely comes to see a minority Labour government as illegitimate then that suggests that political support for the pre-existing conventions is breaking down. The Tories and the Lib Dems are currently engaged in a concerted effort to undermine support for the existing conventions, and to de-legitimise a minority Labour government in the eyes of the public. So Labour should definitely care about how it is perceived.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:Turns out all the rumors about the Tories having plans to cut child or unemployment benefits were absolutely false:  Genuinely backwards. "Vote for us, then we'll tell you what we'll do."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:
they could make a gameshow out of it, maybe have a big wheel of fortune kind of thing with different benefits to be selected. spin the wheel and see who gets hosed, live on tv for all to enjoy!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
I'm going to ask a few questions and I want you to answer it honestly. If Labour & SNP have to go into a coliation even if they explicitly said they weren't to stop the tories from getting in, would you accept it? Would you feel angry that Labour may let the tories in because they couldn't agree with the SNP or other parties? What is your best prefered outcome in this election and what do you think is the most likely to happen. And will you be watching Weekly Wipe tommorow?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
ronya posted:e: Labour would prolly want to do something that would raise council taxes at some point, which would be provocative without a mandate This is more like it - I'm not sure the country would be whipped up into mass civil disobedience over a perceived 'unfair' (but completely legit) election result, but this is a good example of needing people on-side SNAKES N CAKES posted:Would the Conservatives have been better off under AV? I want to see the details of this - not because I don't believe it (people will vote for anything) but it would be nice to see exactly how each constituency would fall if you needed 50% to win. Plus a lot of those second preferences would actually be first preferences under AV, and the first preferences could be distant third or fourth. Makes for a good hubris story but it's hard to actually project, without a lot of info at least
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I'm going to ask a few questions and I want you to answer it honestly. Nobody has to enter a coalition to 'stop the Tories'. quote:Would you feel angry that Labour may let the tories in because they couldn't agree with the SNP or other parties? Labour won't 'let the Tories in'. There doesn't have to be an agreement between the SNP and Labour for them to each vote against the Tories in parliament. quote:What is your best prefered outcome in this election and what do you think is the most likely to happen. Labour majority, labour minority.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:Turns out all the rumors about the Tories having plans to cut child or unemployment benefits were absolutely false: Your av/usual post combo always makes me thing you are the smug press release account. No offence, I appreciate the posts. And it'll probably come from there anyway - they don't know right now, but it'll work out that way. SNAKES N CAKES posted:And Ed fishes for the endorsement of Sprinkle of Glitter: Aloha, sprinklerinos! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
The New Black posted:I know it's mostly statistical noise, but I do like to imagine some of the people this data implies. Who the hell are the UKIP (climate deniers) voters whose second choice is Green? Those have to be the dumbest protest votes ever.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I'm going to ask a few questions and I want you to answer it honestly. that's not really an answeerable question. why do they "have to"? what new circumstance is forcing this? because that'd surely affect how anyone feels about the situation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I'm going to ask a few questions and I want you to answer it honestly. quote:Would you feel angry that Labour may let the tories in because they couldn't agree with the SNP or other parties? quote:What is your best prefered outcome in this election and what do you think is the most likely to happen.  and minority labour with informal SNP support respectivelyquote:And will you be watching Weekly Wipe tommorow?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I'm going to ask a few questions and I want you to answer it honestly. Yes quote:
A little bit, but I kind of understand their position too. They are hosed no matter what in that scenario. quote:
Labour majority or labour/snp/libe dem coalition. I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen but have a sinking feeling it's going to be the same as now with added UKIP quote:
I'll watch it at some point but not when it's on as we don't have a working TV and streaming from Iplayer is dodgy in the evenings
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:17
|
|