2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

I'm budgeting for no pay-rise for the next 2-3 years. Besides my chosen profession had an arrangement for pay that worked just fine for over 25 years until it was torn up by labour for no good reason, we weren't given huge payrises as and when the government felt like it.

I would suggest that the Police are not dealt with as 'normal' workers due to the restrictions placed on officers private lives.

As for your question I can see most public sector workers having to accept no payrises for the next few years which would be fairer than paycuts.

So, what are you complaining about then? You got healthy pay rises and I presume you didn't refuse them and now you have got what you wanted, a pay freeze.

Originally Posted by ashgray

democracy damien,what democracy.there even going to change the voting rules without asking the british electorate if its ok to do so.
A minority party wants it changed,labour are that desperate to remain in power that they'll offer the libdems anything they want.
please tell me whats democratic about that.in my book its bribery or blackmail,its certainly not democracy.

actually they will have a referendum

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Funny, I thought they said they would give first chance to the party with the most votes and seats - talking to someone else at the same time doesn't sound like doing that to me.

But convention dictates that they negotiate with the incumbent government first.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

actually they will have a referendum

Link

Labour are understood to have offered the Lib Dems legislation to bring in AV immediately and then have a referendum on bringing in a fuller system of proportional representation.

That would mean that if there was to be an election soon after bringing in AV then the election would be using AV.

Crumbs, now Scottish Labour MPs are lining up to insist they won't sit on the Government benches with the SNP. Given the loud and very public objections from so many Labour MPs, I don't understand why the Dark Lord and his acolytes are still trying.

Tom Harris (Lab, Glasgow South) won't even support a bill on AV. And I bet he's not the only one.

it's getting very confusing now ,GB said he was going to resigne ,now he is saying he will step down around the time of the party conference that's months away

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I am just sick to death of a system where my vote doesn't count, every time I vote in a general election it's a wasted vote.

Totally understand that.

My vote isn't as wasted in my current constituency of Cambridge as it was in previous ones, at least. The last two I lived in were ridiculously safe seats, where there wasn't really any point in voting if it wasn't for the eternally incumbent MP.

Originally Posted by danielf

Well, I think they should try to get more out of it as it seems to me that electoral reform won't be on the agenda for a while after this. If they agree to a half-baked compromise now and try to get more at a later date it won't look very good. Having said that, the Tories don't look likely to give them any more.

I should add that my preference right now is for a Lib/Con coalition, as the numbers for Lib/Lab are just too soft.

I do think they should try & get more, but I find it highly unlikely that that could be possible. I think even offering up AV was probably extremely hard for the Tories to stomach, & I'm quite surprised that they actually did.

My heart would be more for a "progressive coalition", despite my hatred of many things New Labour has done, but my head quite clearly says Lib-Con: as you say, the numbers just won't work for Lib-Lab. I cannot see a Lib-Lab-Nats coalition being even remotely stable. And we need a stable Government right now, which isn't going to fall apart. If that means compromises on both sides, then so be it.

Originally Posted by punky

The Lib Dems are peeing me off now.

The country continues to go to pot, The Tories want to get things started righting recession, deficit, unemployment... And all the Lib Dems care about is making sure they can feather their nests by forcing an AV voting system on the public.

Priorities, priorities.

They're not forcing anything on the public. You can always vote "No" in a referendum...

Why should the Lib Dems just walk straight into a coalition with the Tories without getting some sort of deal? The Tories have no mandate to govern - they need the support of the Lib Dems, whether as part of a formal coalition, or some sort of "confidence & supply" deal.

Originally Posted by Mick

No it is not weak Damien - A party which is in Government has the power to stop abuse of such a systems - the Labour party allowed it while they were in power and only apologised and reformed (Or so we are led to believe they have) the expenses system when their utter greed got found out.

Labour were hardly the only party tainted by the expense system scandal... Yes, they were in charge, but it didn't stop MPs of other parties taking the mickey with it...

Originally Posted by Escapee

The Lib Dems just need to make up their mind who they are going with.
I believe a Lib Dem/Con government has a chance, but a Lib Dem/Labour will be a short government before another election.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Mick

They may not have a mandate to govern - but they did get 2 Million more votes from the British people - surely that holds a lot of weight - this is a clear message that the British people didn't want the Lib dems in power and that they didn't want Labour in power - all this messing about by all the parties, and the Lib dems thinking nothing but themselves haven't they shown their true form don't you think?

Is it any wonder why voter apathy in this county is so high when you get this nonsense going on for days on end. It's an utter farce.

As I mentioned earlier, under our system of government, the fact that they received more votes is irrelevant. The right to form a Government goes to whichever party or group of parties have (or can cobble together) a majority and so can "command the confidence of the House of Commons". Getting more votes than another party does not matter with respect to the system: The Tory party did not win enough seats for a majority, so it did not win... No one won.

If you want to talk about how many people did not want Labour in power, & how many people did not want the Lib Dems in power, then also consider this: 15.4 million people did not want the Tories in power (Lab+Lib), that's 4.7 million more people than those who did want the Tories. So surely that's a "clear message" that people don't want David Cameron?

Until we ever (if we ever) get rid of our current FPTP system, that's simply how it goes...Numbers do not matter, at all, other than the number of seats to reach a majority in the Commons. Anything else is irrelevant unless we have a proportional system.

Yes, it sucks! But that is how it is. That is the system. There is no rule, nothing at all, that says "Tories got the most votes = Tories get to form a Govt.", or "Tories got the most seats = Tories get to form a Govt.". Not unless they hit the magic mark of 326.

Originally Posted by ashgray

there even going to change the voting rules without asking the british electorate if its ok to do so.

I assume you do not understand the concept of a "referendum" then?

Originally Posted by ashgray

A minority party wants it changed,labour are that desperate to remain in power that they'll offer the libdems anything they want.

And the Tories are desperate to gain power that they are also offering the Lib Dems anything they want (well, within reason ).

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, what are you complaining about then? You got healthy pay rises and I presume you didn't refuse them and now you have got what you wanted, a pay freeze.

Way to miss a point completely.

I've accepted that my pay will most likely be frozen for the next few years and I'm sure plenty of other public sector workers are the same.

Pay rises agreed under a formula that was the same for almost 30 years have nothing to do with labour throwing money at workers and then realising way too late the rises were not affordable.

[Horace]

Kirsty Wark just likened the current process to 'Deal or No Deal' at the end of Newsnight. If Nick Clegg doesn't want to end up with 1p he better stop rejecting the banker.
As a lib-dem voter I don't really want to see the tories back in power on the back of my vote but if we get a referendum on PR which will probably be passed(60% are in favour of it currently) it'll be worth it.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Horace

Kirsty Wark just likened the current process to 'Deal or No Deal' at the end of Newsnight. If Nick Clegg doesn't want to end up with 1p he better stop rejecting the banker.
As a lib-dem voter I don't really want to see the tories back in power on the back of my vote but if we get a referendum on PR which will probably be passed(60% are in favour of it currently) it'll be worth it.

But Labour also offered a referendum, didn't they?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link

That would mean that if there was to be an election soon after bringing in AV then the election would be using AV.

Only if the Lib Dems do a deal with Labour, and only then if the AV Bill actually passed the Commons...which is hardly guaranteed. [But if it did, it's still democracy, given that it is a case of our elected representatives debating & passing a law on our behalf, which is the point I believe.] However I myself prefer a referendum, & I'd hope the Lib Dem leadership would too...I think a referendum is required to give it more legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Chris

Crumbs, now Scottish Labour MPs are lining up to insist they won't sit on the Government benches with the SNP. Given the loud and very public objections from so many Labour MPs, I don't understand why the Dark Lord and his acolytes are still trying.

Tom Harris (Lab, Glasgow South) won't even support a bill on AV. And I bet he's not the only one.

Yup. Immediate legislation on AV would fail I think (turkeys voting for Christmas, etc.), while a "Progressive Coalition" would be doomed from the start.

Originally Posted by martyh

it's getting very confusing now ,GB said he was going to resigne ,now he is saying he will step down around the time of the party conference that's months away

He has to hang around for the moment because otherwise we wouldn't have a PM.

If the Lib Dems & Tories do a deal, Brown would resign as PM, & the Queen would invite Cameron to form a Government. Brown would then later resign as leader & be replaced by the time of the conference.

If the Lib Dems & Labour do a deal, Brown would hang around for a short time as PM until replaced. I did read something today that said the Labour party rule book does allow in situations like this for a rather quicker leadership contest than usual, with someone from the Cabinet getting the job (even if only as a caretaker).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But Labour also offered a referendum, didn't they?

Labour offered AV guaranteed (no referendum), and a referendum on PR. The Tories offered a referendum on AV with the right for Tory MPs to campaign against it.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by danielf

Labour offered AV guaranteed (no referendum), and a referendum on PR. The Tories offered a referendum on AV with the right for Tory MPs to campaign against it.

Not so sure on the "guaranteed" part though, unless they whipped it.

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

So they should just roll over and accept there will be no or very limited change to a voting system that is a massive disadvantage to them?

This is a time that could make a massive difference to them, and it's not at all clear when they get the next opportunity. I'm not at all surprised they are taking their time.

But that's what i've been saying. The Tories are trying put the country first, the Lib Dems are trying to put themselves first. I don't care whether this is the best opportunity for them to do it, it's out of order.

There are at least a dozen things off the top of my head that are more urgently needed than voting reform.

Originally Posted by Damien

The Tories want to form a government with giving the Liberal Democrats as little as possible, The Lib Dems want to be part of a government and want as much as possible. They are bargaining.

I state this again. Despite what Tory Supporters may think, The Tories do not have a clear mandate to govern and must make compromises in order to do so. I love the idea of portaying the idea of PR as somehow a undemocratic power-grab, there are reasons to oppose it but it is more democratic than the current system, people get the parliament they voted for. Seems fair to me.

The Tories have made numerous concessions, and I understand they don't have a clear mandate to govern. However it appears the Lib Dems are being patently obstructive here.

Originally Posted by Matt D

They're not forcing anything on the public. You can always vote "No" in a referendum...

Why should the Lib Dems just walk straight into a coalition with the Tories without getting some sort of deal? The Tories have no mandate to govern - they need the support of the Lib Dems, whether as part of a formal coalition, or some sort of "confidence & supply" deal.

Its the Tories that have offered the referendum. The Lib Dems haven't agreed to that yet. The Lib Dems want to bring AV in unconditionally whether the public want it or not. So if the Lib Dems get their way (and they have ALL the power at the moment) I won't even get a chance to vote. Labour have offered unconditionally to introduce AV. So if they form a coalition I still won't get a say in it.

I know people keep saying "this happens all the time in ............. it's fine" but the fact that we can have 3 years of one unelected prime minister and then 5 more years with another unelected prime minister backed by a coalition of the 2 least voted-for parties puts us on par with a banana republic IMO.

So right now the UK is a rudderless ship which no one in their right mind will deal with till there is some stability and all anyone can argue about is a voting system. Personally i couldn't give a stuff about voting reform i do care however about getting our public finances sorted out and the future of this country being secured all of which are infinately more important then who votes and what system they use. Seriously this is getting beyond a joke and we are in danger of looking a joke internationally the longer this dog and pony show goes on.