|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 9:26:47 GMT
please tell me how they didnt get a majority Do you understand what the term 'majority' means? It means they have most of the seat, not merely more seats than Labour, it means more seats than everyone else put together.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 9:33:30 GMT
please tell me how they didnt get a majority Do you understand what the term 'majority' means? It means they have most of the seat, not merely more seats than Labour, it means more seats than everyone else put together. yes i fully understand....but they could have formed a government quite legally and within the rules as well you know our system is built on first passed the post.. and they had majority votes and majority mp.s..simples any way its all over for now....till the next time pity there are not more independents
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 9:40:55 GMT
yes i fully understand....but they could have formed a government quite legally and within the rules as well you know our system is built on first passed the post.. and they had majority votes and majority mp.s..simples any way its all over for now....till the next time pity there are not more independents Er, you do realise that they would have fallen at the first hurdle. If they lost a Queen's speech vote, they would have lost a 'no confidence vote'. They needed to be able to enjoy the 'confidence of the house' before the Queen* would invite him to form a Government. *not actually the Queen, but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 9:54:46 GMT
Er, you do realise that they would have fallen at the first hurdle. If they lost a Queen's speech vote, they would have lost a 'no confidence vote'. They needed to be able to enjoy the 'confidence of the house' before the Queen* would invite him to form a Government. . yes i do realise that and that would have been imo a good thing...it would have declared to the electorate[although i think they are well aware] that the opositions were not interested in the good of the country but only in self promotion.. and another election would have to have been held.... it was obvious that SOME in the labour party were only interested in retaining power and position and couldnt give a tinkers about the country or the voters..two of them unelected ie mandleson and cambell to retain power at any price and the libs[harlot of history] who were negociating for the best deal luckily some of the the older and wiser in the labour party had things to say about it..and insisted that labour face up to the fact they had lost..kate hooey going as far as to call it obcene
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 12, 2010 10:02:46 GMT
...our system is built on first passed the post... Yes, and what that means is that in every constituency there is an outright winner, and the rest, no matter how many votes they get, have all lost. But when the elected MPs then come together to see who is strong enough to form a government, there is no 'post' that anyone can point to and claim they were 'first past' it.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 10:19:45 GMT
...our system is built on first passed the post... Yes, and what that means is that in every constituency there is an outright winner, and the rest, no matter how many votes they get, have all lost. But when the elected MPs then come together to see who is strong enough to form a government, there is no 'post' that anyone can point to and claim they were 'first past' it. numbers.....a good job it isnt priciple and integrity honesty or loyalty isnt it..blair would never have made his millions
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 10:20:13 GMT
yes i do realise that and that would have been imo a good thing The point being that he could not garner support to form a stable majority and therefor not fit to govern in his own right. So had he not joined with the Lib DEms, Brown would have been allowed to carry on, because he could, with Lib Dem support, carry a slim majority.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 11:50:56 GMT
i notice you say slim not stable when reffering to brown...mmmm would the population have been happy for brown to have carried on..considering how many seats they lost and the the fact he had less votes it could have been rather iffy many would have been even more anoyed at labour hanging on to power than the lib/con allience..difficult days but we shall have to see how it goes at least labour is gone.....after 13 plus disasterous years...i wonder how long it will take for the unions to start kicking off as they promised to do..
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 12:20:55 GMT
i notice you say slim not stable when reffering to brown...mmmm Of course, because Brown would have been able to command a slim, but stable majority, but Cameron would not as too many forces would be pitted against him. would the population have been happy for brown to have carried on..considering how many seats they lost and the the fact he had less votes it could have been rather iffy The number of votes cast are not relevant. The number of seats held are.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 13:15:51 GMT
pinched thos off skylark on the other thread """ those many Labour spokespeople who said it was right that the Conservatives, and not Labour, form the new government, with or without Liberal support."""
|
|