UK Election Result

[Jamie123]

I'm surprised there haven't been more posts about the UK General Election. The talk here is mostly about Obama, but I know a good many British people do visit here.

This morning's result is historic. I was only about 12 the last time this situation occurred - When Calaghan's government only managed to stay in power by forming an agreement with the Liberals. It looks like it's going to be a coalition this time: Unless he gets 90% of the uncounted seats, Cameron's going to have to cut some kind of deal with Nick Clegg.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Jamie123
By "votes" I mean parliamentary seats. We don't have proportional representation in the UK.

[Mahone]

I didn't vote, I'm not on the electoral roll. I'm fairly happy with the outcome though. I can't think of any scenario that I'd prefer.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mahone

[gabelpa]

I don't know right now if Cameron actually has enough for Clegg's folks to give them what they need. It looks to me, more like the coalition will have to be between the COnservatives and Labour... like that's ever going to happen.

[Jamie123]

I don't know right now if Cameron actually has enough for Clegg's folks to give them what they need. It looks to me, more like the coalition will have to be between the COnservatives and Labour... like that's ever going to happen.

Right now Cameron has 291 and Clegg has 51. Together they have 342, so if they can agree they can just about form a government together.

For Brown to win now, he'd have to come to agreement not only with Clegg's lot, but also with just about every other party.

[gabelpa]

Ahh, I see there are more results in, last I heard, and based my comment off, only about 60% had been tallied. The new news, as long as there aren't dissenters then it looks like we may get a small coalition government with a very narrow majority.

I wonder what will happen next election, will Labour slide further? The sad thing in this whole thing really is that the Pirate party UK got only slightly over 1000 votes. Yarr!

[talisyn]

I would have posted earlier but I was way confused. Still am, actually. Can someone explain in simple terms why you guys don't have a gov't that's easy to figure out like the USA?

[gabelpa]

From the info I have (US born, US citizen, no right to vote in the UK) there hasn't been any real reform in how the votes were tallied since Victorian times, when there were a lot fewer people, and a smaller portion had the right to vote.

It made sense under those circumstances, but with modern methods of communication, and our current dispersal of population, the system is broken. The US system is broken as well, just not as badly IMO. Electoral reform is in the cards, heck, Labour might have done better under a different system.

[talisyn]

I like how in the USA the people vote for who they want and then the politicians have to live with the results. Sure you can get deadlocked and go for a few years with nothing getting done, but honestly I see politicians doing nothing as a good thing sometimes

I get confused about how they do it in some countries like Italy. where people have to get enough of the elected people on their side to form a gov't or it gets dissolved and they have to do it all over again. And then you have places like Canada where the Prime Minister can totally dissolve the gov't and call for new elections.

Edited May 7, 2010 by talisyn
not trying to be too political lol

[FunkyTown]

Just so I'm sure of what you're asking: You're wondering how it is that parties that represent only a minority of the populace must be willing to make compromises with other parties that represent a different minority of the population in order to effectively govern a majority?

And you're suggesting that having two parties that basically represent nobody in said country is a better system?

I like how in the USA the people vote for who they want and then the politicians have to live with the results. Sure you can get deadlocked and go for a few years with nothing getting done, but honestly I see politicians doing nothing as a good thing sometimes

I get confused about how they do it in some countries like Italy. where people have to get enough of the elected people on their side to form a gov't or it gets dissolved and they have to do it all over again. And then you have places like Canada where the Prime Minister can totally dissolve the gov't and call for new elections. How is that listening to the people?

[talisyn]

Just so I'm sure of what you're asking: You're wondering how it is that parties that represent only a minority of the populace must be willing to make compromises with other parties that represent a different minority of the population in order to effectively govern a majority?

And you're suggesting that having two parties that basically represent nobody in said country is a better system?

What I'm saying is the people vote for who they want to run the gov't, and the president has to figure out how to work with them. Similar to the UK, but my understanding is the prime minister needs to quickly for a coalition or he's in big trouble right off the bat. That gives little parties way too much power IMHO.

I understand what you're getting at lol, and I agree to a point. But within the 2 parties there are usually enough people throughout the political spectrum to make one happy(ish) with the one you vote for.

[Moksha]

Do you Ukers also have day and night political ads on the telly like we do in the States for months before the big election?

[Jamie123]

Do you Ukers also have day and night political ads on the telly like we do in the States for months before the big election?

We have "party political broadcasts" which are like long commercials for the political parties. You also see lots of bill-boards posted in the run up to the election, telling you which way to vote and slagging off all the other parties.