the obvious but still kind of interesting answer is that this is the outcome of a (globally speaking) moderately(ish) well functioning democratic system. This is broadly what people have voted for. You can say that it's a minority of people who actually vote for the tories, which is true, but with some fairly rare exceptions both parties for at thirty years have been triangulating and selecting candidates, making policy, doing communications based on what they think the electorate will like. They also have research systems which are pretty effective ways of hearing what the electorate want, I think. So what we get is a reflection of the desires of the british people en masse, not a perfect one obviously, but the politicians we get and the policies they choose, and how they decide to present themselves, is something that ultimately does come from the weird quirks of british people I think.again, care to explain how did you lot end up with those governing you?
again, care to explain how did you lot end up with those governing you?
Thing is, it hurts more if you clench. Damned if you do...1000 years of submitting to sodomy
I'm sure you've said this before, but I don't think that's right - about a Labour-LD coalition being possible, I mean. The two parties only got 315 seats between them, which is less than the 326 minimum needed for a majority in the HoC. (That's the theoretical minimum; I think in practice, it's half of 650 minus however many seats Sinn Fein get, plus one, since SF don't take part in the Westminster government as they consider it illegitimate in Northern Ireland. But in 2010 they got five seats, so the minimum number of seats needed for a majority government was 323, which is still more than 315.)I think I said the other day that a lot of stuff went wrong with Breixt. Another thing I would point to is the election in 2010. For those who don't know, Labour had been in power for some time, Blair had handed over to Brown as agreed when Brown stood aside for Blair to lead the parity in tthe 90s and as the election approached there was a three-way debate with the leaders - Brown, Cameron and also Clegg from the Lib Dems - Clegg performed well and there were suddenly all these crazy rumours about LDs being in with a shot in the election and so on.
Come election day I don't think that they managed an extra seat but there was a so-called hung parliament in which the Tories despite being the biggest party did not have a majority and thus could not form a government. And obviously neither could Labour. So there were a number of possibilities but the obvious one was for LD to form a coalition with either party, as they had enough seats that a Tory-LD coalition or a Labour-LD coalition would form a majority. But, LDs chose to form a coalition with the Tories which was a huge betrayal of many of their voters who had voted for them specifically to keep Tories out of power... there were many things that fell out of this, but I think it kinda destroyed LDs as a credible party and was part of the conditions that led to Cameron calling the half-hearted and poorly thought through referendum, which in turn led to the rise of Johnson and the demise of anyone with a brain in the Tory party.
I'm sure you've said this before, but I don't think that's right - about a Labour-LD coalition being possible, I mean. The two parties only got 315 seats between them, which is less than the 326 minimum needed for a majority in the HoC. (That's the theoretical minimum; I think in practice, it's half of 650 minus however many seats Sinn Fein get, plus one, since SF don't take part in the Westminster government as they consider it illegitimate in Northern Ireland. But in 2010 they got five seats, so the minimum number of seats needed for a majority government was 323, which is still more than 315.)
Presumably a majority government could have been formed by Labour, the Lib Dems, and a bunch of minor parties, most of which would probably not want to form part of a Westminster government since their raison d'etre is independence from Westminster. (Or, in the DUP's case, would be unlikely to want to go into coalition with anti-Unionist parties.)
Edit: actually, Labour, the LDs and the DUP got exactly 323 seats between them, but the DUP is very right-wing and it's hard to imagine them wanting anything to do with a Labour-led coalition.
Yeah it was ironic. But I think it's totally wrong if you know full well you had candidates who got their seat in large part because Labour had no presence in a borough and LDs campaigned as anti-tories, to then take that seat and give it to the Tories just shouldn't have been possible. After that betrayal they deserved to be wiped out as far as I could see. Especially cos once in power the Tories totally ran rings around them and although they were nominally part of a coalition, basically all they did was allow Tories to be in power for a bit, until they another election and won outright and LDs were back out into the cold. What a bunch of dumb fucking idiots.What's ironic is that, prior to 2010, the Lib Dems had spent a few years as the darlings of the British left, as they had been the only major party to vote against taking part in the Iraq invasion in 2003.
1000 years of submitting to sodomy
Yes, it was a kick in the teeth for any progressive voter who voted LD tactically to keep a Tory candidate out - and they went back on their promise on tuition fees, which was meant to be one of their main USPs.Yeah it was ironic. But I think it's totally wrong if you know full well you had candidates who got their seat in large part because Labour had no presence in a borough and LDs campaigned as anti-tories, to then take that seat and give it to the Tories just shouldn't have been possible. After that betrayal they deserved to be wiped out as far as I could see. Especially cos once in power the Tories totally ran rings around them and although they were nominally part of a coalition, basically all they did was allow Tories to be in power for a bit, until they another election and won outright and LDs were back out into the cold. What a bunch of dumb fucking idiots.
Isobel Oakeshott; AS of now, I understand that BorisJohnson is struggling to get the numbers. “I think he’s finished” says one backbencher who was asked for support. Still too early to say tho!!
David Bannerman; I am hearing many MPs are wanting to keep their support private. Lot of hidden numbers as a result. They need to get their single nominations in mind ASAP. Some confusion from last time where threshold much lower and looser nominations. I expect Boris to hit 150+ in my estimation
Yeah that might be true actually. That's a potential problem with this way of picking a leader of course.The worst scenario for the tories is if he (Johnson) just makes it over the 100 line with Sunak far ahead, because the members will vote Johnson in with the vast majority of his MPs against him.