If you say so. Can you let me know when the opportunity to vote for the coalition was given?
[I'll accept that 0.088% of the population gave them a mandate in Eastleigh, but apart from that???]
It is borderline-impossible to get more than 50% of an electorate to vote for a single manifesto.
The answer to that problem, is not to simply skew the system such that a "majority" is manufactured out of artefacts in the way seats are calculated.
"Voting for the coalition" is a classic indicator of the low level of sophistication inherent in our system. Votes are cast, and then the overall direction of the government is decided based on the relative powers of the parties which form the government.
The current coalition is flawed because the Liberal Democrat side is woefully under-represented relative to the votes cast. That isn't the fault of the coalition, or coalitions in general. It's the fault of the system.
It is borderline-impossible to get more than 50% of an electorate to vote for a single manifesto.
The answer to that problem, is not to simply skew the system such that a "majority" is manufactured out of artefacts in the way seats are calculated.
"Voting for the coalition" is a classic indicator of the low level of sophistication inherent in our system. Votes are cast, and then the overall direction of the government is decided based on the relative powers of the parties which form the government.
The current coalition is flawed because the Liberal Democrat side is woefully under-represented relative to the votes cast. That isn't the fault of the coalition, or coalitions in general. It's the fault of the system.
The point I was making is that people had the opportunities to vote for individual parties, and if a party had won, then it would have a mandate. However, no party won enough seats to form a government so a coalition was created. The coalition agreement was not voted upon by anyone, therefore it has no mandate. I am not saying that we don't have a lawful (or awful) government, but that the present coalition government has no mandate from the voters.
The point I was making is that people had the opportunities to vote for individual parties, and if a party had won, then it would have a mandate. However, no party won enough seats to form a government so a coalition was created. The coalition agreement was not voted upon by anyone, therefore it has no mandate. I am not saying that we don't have a lawful (or awful) government, but that the present coalition government has no mandate from the voters.
But define "won".
No party has won an election in this country since 1931 in terms of a true mandate. Winning doesn't just mean that you get more votes than anyone else. It means that you have more votes than the others combined.
In the absence of a complete mandate, each of the major parties has a partial one -- they can all lay claim to having some right to govern.
Each of the coalition parties has a partial mandate to govern, as did both Labour and the Tories in 2005. The difference in this case is that, whereas in previous administrations a partial mandate translated into complete power, now each partial mandate must be accumulated to achieve power.
This is closer to a genuine mandate than goverments past.
The point I was making is that people had the opportunities to vote for individual parties, and if a party had won, then it would have a mandate. However, no party won enough seats to form a government so a coalition was created. The coalition agreement was not voted upon by anyone, therefore it has no mandate. I am not saying that we don't have a lawful (or awful) government, but that the present coalition government has no mandate from the voters.
if you want to blame anyone for the reason we have a coalition, try the 15 million who didn't vote.
a coalition is what we've got, its what we have to abide by, and the chances are, we will end up with a coalition at the next election (economy status depending).
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee -28/01/11
No government for many decades has won the votes of a majority of those who voted in an election, given the fact that most constituencies are won on three or four etc cornered fights and the winning candidate seldom wins a majority of the votes cast. Thus winning an election does not necessarily grant a government a 'mandate'.
One to remember when we're told how popular Thatcher was.;)
Thatcher was and is incredibly popular. You don't win / top polls for best PM by being unpopular. The problem is that she was divisive and a huge number loathed her, although more people were generally positive about her than negative.
People who have not voted have voted in the sense they choose to let others decide on their behalf
What is 100% is nobody voted to have a Con/Lib government therefore they have no mandate on behalf of the electorate
Basically the bunch in now are there on a technicality but it's a sham
Must have been the ultimate betrayal by Lib voters when Glegg shacked up with the Tories which I am sure will tell it's own tale since I think he will get the boot at the next election
Thatcher was and is incredibly popular. You don't win / top polls for best PM by being unpopular. The problem is that she was divisive and a huge number loathed her, although more people were generally positive about her than negative.
Equally one to remember when we are told how popular Blair was
Both tend to top polls for popular and unpopular PMs. Thatcher still raises strong emotions, depending how you / your family / your region did in the years she was in power. Remember, you don't top polls for being the worst PM without being incredibly unpopular.
Both tend to top polls for popular and unpopular PMs. Thatcher still raises strong emotions, depending how you / your family / your region did in the years she was in power. Remember, you don't top polls for being the worst PM without being incredibly unpopular.
Maybe, but I think GE's are a issue entirely when it comes to voting. Council and EU elections are a opportunity for a protest vote, GE's have a lot more riding on them.
Broadland went over to the Lib-Dems courtesy of the Green Party deciding not to stand and VOTWH was a straight transfer of 7.5% from Labour to Lib-Dem, which suggests strong tactical voting. The Tory vote itself held up reasonably well - if UKIP had stood I think we would have seen a substantial reduction.
It's more complicated than that...the VOTWH ward in question was held by the Lib Dems until 2011 when they lost it by only 6 votes to the Tory who has resigned...and btw there was an enquiry into those whole Council elections when ballot cards were not printed & therefore not delivered and a chunk of postal votes never got delivered either.
Plus the ward is in Abingdon/Oxford West...Lib Dem Evan Harris held that seat until 2010 and only lost it by less than 200 votes to Nicola Blackwood....the second or third narrowest majority IIRC.
No doubt some of it is tactical voting by "labour voters" but fact is they are really only adding to a strong base of Lib Dem votes to make absolutely sure they keep the Tory out....and that could well happen again come 2015
Both tend to top polls for popular and unpopular PMs. Thatcher still raises strong emotions, depending how you / your family / your region did in the years she was in power. Remember, you don't top polls for being the worst PM without being incredibly unpopular.
Very true - but then the likes of Brown is only ever at the top of the unpopular polls, nobody ever claims he is the best PM. At least Mrs T gets some support.
Maybe, but I think GE's are a issue entirely when it comes to voting. Council and EU elections are a opportunity for a protest vote, GE's have a lot more riding on them.
Broadland went over to the Lib-Dems courtesy of the Green Party deciding not to stand and VOTWH was a straight transfer of 7.5% from Labour to Lib-Dem, which suggests strong tactical voting. The Tory vote itself held up reasonably well - if UKIP had stood I think we would have seen a substantial reduction.
But if Labour voters are moving back to the Lib Dems in even local government by-elections, don't you think this is interesting in what it could mean at the GE? Labour grabbing the Lib Dem seats they hold in the urban areas but the Lib Dems holding off the Tories in the suburban/rural seats and perhaps even gaining a couple off the Tories such as Oxford East?
But if Labour voters are moving back to the Lib Dems in even local government by-elections, don't you think this is interesting in what it could mean at the GE? Labour grabbing the Lib Dem seats they hold in the urban areas but the Lib Dems holding off the Tories in the suburban/rural seats and perhaps even gaining a couple off the Tories such as Oxford East?
Sure, but I don't think it'll mean any more than it has in the past. Tactical voting has always happened and it will happen in 2015 too. I can't see any reason why there would be a notable increase in the use of it - can you? What will be interesting, and new, is tactical voting where UKIP are strong.
Sure, but I don't think it'll mean any more than it has in the past. Tactical voting has always happened and it will happen in 2015 too. I can't see any reason why there would be a notable increase in the use of it - can you? What will be interesting, and new, is tactical voting where UKIP are strong.
Except that six months ago the assumption was that Labour voters voting Lib Dem tactically had dropped drastically and that was going to benefit the Tories. Eastleigh and now local byelections seem to be proving otherwise.
Comments
So why was she given an almost royal funeral?
So no govenment has had a mandate to do anything since 1931 :eek:
No single party has, no.
And the coalition has a mandate of 0%
Errant nonsense.
If you say so. Can you let me know when the opportunity to vote for the coalition was given?
[I'll accept that 0.088% of the population gave them a mandate in Eastleigh, but apart from that???]
It is borderline-impossible to get more than 50% of an electorate to vote for a single manifesto.
The answer to that problem, is not to simply skew the system such that a "majority" is manufactured out of artefacts in the way seats are calculated.
"Voting for the coalition" is a classic indicator of the low level of sophistication inherent in our system. Votes are cast, and then the overall direction of the government is decided based on the relative powers of the parties which form the government.
The current coalition is flawed because the Liberal Democrat side is woefully under-represented relative to the votes cast. That isn't the fault of the coalition, or coalitions in general. It's the fault of the system.
The point I was making is that people had the opportunities to vote for individual parties, and if a party had won, then it would have a mandate. However, no party won enough seats to form a government so a coalition was created. The coalition agreement was not voted upon by anyone, therefore it has no mandate. I am not saying that we don't have a lawful (or awful) government, but that the present coalition government has no mandate from the voters.
But define "won".
No party has won an election in this country since 1931 in terms of a true mandate. Winning doesn't just mean that you get more votes than anyone else. It means that you have more votes than the others combined.
In the absence of a complete mandate, each of the major parties has a partial one -- they can all lay claim to having some right to govern.
Each of the coalition parties has a partial mandate to govern, as did both Labour and the Tories in 2005. The difference in this case is that, whereas in previous administrations a partial mandate translated into complete power, now each partial mandate must be accumulated to achieve power.
This is closer to a genuine mandate than goverments past.
if you want to blame anyone for the reason we have a coalition, try the 15 million who didn't vote.
a coalition is what we've got, its what we have to abide by, and the chances are, we will end up with a coalition at the next election (economy status depending).
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee -28/01/11
One to remember when we're told how popular Thatcher was.;)
votes != popularity
Thatcher was and is incredibly popular. You don't win / top polls for best PM by being unpopular. The problem is that she was divisive and a huge number loathed her, although more people were generally positive about her than negative.
What is 100% is nobody voted to have a Con/Lib government therefore they have no mandate on behalf of the electorate
Basically the bunch in now are there on a technicality but it's a sham
Must have been the ultimate betrayal by Lib voters when Glegg shacked up with the Tories which I am sure will tell it's own tale since I think he will get the boot at the next election
Equally one to remember when we are told how popular Blair was
Both tend to top polls for popular and unpopular PMs. Thatcher still raises strong emotions, depending how you / your family / your region did in the years she was in power. Remember, you don't top polls for being the worst PM without being incredibly unpopular.
Exactly.
compared to the opposition....:D
It's more complicated than that...the VOTWH ward in question was held by the Lib Dems until 2011 when they lost it by only 6 votes to the Tory who has resigned...and btw there was an enquiry into those whole Council elections when ballot cards were not printed & therefore not delivered and a chunk of postal votes never got delivered either.
Plus the ward is in Abingdon/Oxford West...Lib Dem Evan Harris held that seat until 2010 and only lost it by less than 200 votes to Nicola Blackwood....the second or third narrowest majority IIRC.
No doubt some of it is tactical voting by "labour voters" but fact is they are really only adding to a strong base of Lib Dem votes to make absolutely sure they keep the Tory out....and that could well happen again come 2015
Very true - but then the likes of Brown is only ever at the top of the unpopular polls, nobody ever claims he is the best PM. At least Mrs T gets some support.
But if Labour voters are moving back to the Lib Dems in even local government by-elections, don't you think this is interesting in what it could mean at the GE? Labour grabbing the Lib Dem seats they hold in the urban areas but the Lib Dems holding off the Tories in the suburban/rural seats and perhaps even gaining a couple off the Tories such as Oxford East?
Sure, but I don't think it'll mean any more than it has in the past. Tactical voting has always happened and it will happen in 2015 too. I can't see any reason why there would be a notable increase in the use of it - can you? What will be interesting, and new, is tactical voting where UKIP are strong.
Churchill wasn't king, but his was even more royalesque.
Except that six months ago the assumption was that Labour voters voting Lib Dem tactically had dropped drastically and that was going to benefit the Tories. Eastleigh and now local byelections seem to be proving otherwise.