We all knew it was going to be a hung parliament. And once again, the exit poll got it pretty much bang on, despite initial scepticism because of the Lib Dem losses.
So what happened for Clegg? Did he peak too early? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. While the Lib Dems lost seats, they gained votes.
In the last general election, 2005, the Lib Dems won 5,985,414 votes. This time around, they won 6,827,938 votes. That's about a million more. But sadly, due to our electoral process, they didn't translate into seats. You can see why the Lib Dems are crying for electoral reform, and why they're supported in this by at least 20,000 Britons.
As we all know, David Cameron, having fallen short of an overall majority, has extended a thinly veiled hand of desperation to the Liberal Democrats, who worryingly might accept. Despite Nick Clegg's pre-election pledge to not form a coalition with anyone who opposed electoral reform, he's been busy in meetings all day with his MPs and peers to discuss an alliance.
And the Tories, graciously, have said they will "consider" possible election reforms.
Here's Cameron's idea.
And here's why it's bullshit.
If he manages to sell this to anyone as fair, he deserves a medal. Albeit a 'conniving bastard of the year' medal.
The Big Idea: Every constituency will have the same number of voters in. Therefore, all your votes will count for one (if you live in Hertfordshire, as I do, your votes will count for 0.1 at the moment). Sounds ideal, right? Wrong. Think carefully about what he's proposing.
Think of a constituency, which has for conveniences sake, 300 voters. Now imagine three candidates are standing - Candidates A, B, and C. They all get an exactly equal share, 100 votes each. It's a tie. Now, imagine one prospective Candidate A voter changes his mind, and votes for Candidate B. So our votes read 29, 31, 30. This means that Candidate B wins the seat. Even though effectively two thirds of the constituency has voted against him. He then goes onto the House of Commons.
Sound familiar? That's because this is basically our current voting system.
Cameron is trying to decieve voters in the most underhand, outright, manipulative way, and it disgusts me.
Showing posts with label liberal democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal democrat. Show all posts
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Monday, 19 April 2010
The Lib-Dem Lashback
After a well choreographed performance on the first debate, the Liberal Democrats have surged ahead in the opinion polls. They are now roughly even with Labour and only four points behind the Conservatives.
For the first time, the two big hitters are looking worried about the Lib Dems. In the Chancellor's debates, all the venom and spite was spat between Darling and Osbourne - poor Cable wasn't deemed important enough to attack. This was true of the first debate, minus a paltry blow or two from Cameron.
And then, suddenly, on the 17th, two days after the debate, we see these results: Conservatives: 31
Labour: 28
Lib Dem: 32
For a party who has, on average, been trailing by around 20 points, this is a huge moment for them. The election result is now no longer clear cut. The Conservatives have the most to fear; in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to side with them.
So desperately, spitefully, and clearly with a growing sense of panic, Labour and the Conservatives have begun to hit out at the Liberal Democrats.
We've all heard by now Brown patronisingly calling the Lib Dem's economic policies "mistaken". Yes, Gordon, because after the economic crash and the recession, most people do listen to you on matters of economy.
Cameron's been coming out with a few gems; "I think what it shows is that our politics has hit such a low, that people are so desperate for something to change, that they are running towards anything that's different." Clearly desperation is pushing the Lib Dems ahead, not genuine support for their policies.
It's plain to see that the Liberal Democrats, that tiny third party, who nobody has ever taken seriously before, have got the alpha males running scared.
But after his rapid growth in the polls, Cameron and Brown are going to be looking to attack Clegg in the next debate. It's not going to be pretty.
For the first time, the two big hitters are looking worried about the Lib Dems. In the Chancellor's debates, all the venom and spite was spat between Darling and Osbourne - poor Cable wasn't deemed important enough to attack. This was true of the first debate, minus a paltry blow or two from Cameron.
And then, suddenly, on the 17th, two days after the debate, we see these results: Conservatives: 31
Labour: 28
Lib Dem: 32
For a party who has, on average, been trailing by around 20 points, this is a huge moment for them. The election result is now no longer clear cut. The Conservatives have the most to fear; in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to side with them.
So desperately, spitefully, and clearly with a growing sense of panic, Labour and the Conservatives have begun to hit out at the Liberal Democrats.
We've all heard by now Brown patronisingly calling the Lib Dem's economic policies "mistaken". Yes, Gordon, because after the economic crash and the recession, most people do listen to you on matters of economy.
Cameron's been coming out with a few gems; "I think what it shows is that our politics has hit such a low, that people are so desperate for something to change, that they are running towards anything that's different." Clearly desperation is pushing the Lib Dems ahead, not genuine support for their policies.
It's plain to see that the Liberal Democrats, that tiny third party, who nobody has ever taken seriously before, have got the alpha males running scared.
But after his rapid growth in the polls, Cameron and Brown are going to be looking to attack Clegg in the next debate. It's not going to be pretty.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Profile: Vince Cable
Name: John Vincent Cable
Date of Birth: 9th May 1943
Political Party: Liberal Democrats
Position: Deputy Leader
Constituency: Twickenham
Nickname: The Cable Car
Qualifications: Studied Natural Sciences & Economics at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge
PhD in Economics from the University of Glasgow
Previous Jobs: Lectured at the University of Glasgow
Lectured at the London School Of Economics
Treasury Finance Officer to the Kenyan Government
Chief Economist for Shell
Coolest moment: Owning George Osbourne live on the chancellor's debate
Rating: Five Stars
Power Move: Strikes fear into opposition's hearts, casting freeze and immobilising them for two rounds.
God, Nick Clegg is lucky to have this man. He's the Lib Dem's main selling point and he's got a good shot at Chancellor in a coalition government.
Hung Parliament?
As we all know, the general election is on may 6th. I've always been told, and stick by the dictum, that political parties don't win elections. Governments lose them. And despite this election pretty much being handed to the Conservatives on a plate, they've spectacularly failed to seize the opportunity and win by a landslide.
At the moment, a hung parliament seems to be the likeliest outcome. Cameron is just ahead in the polls - UKPR gives him an average lead of 7 points.
Hung parliaments are very rare in the UK. Our last hung parliament was in 1974 (with an election called eight months later), and prior to that, 1929. If the Tories win, it's likely to be with only a slim majority of ten or so seats. In case of a hung parliament, one of two things will happen. Either multiple parties will join together to form a coalition government, and thus have a majority, or the party with most seats will try to lead a minority government.
To win the election, the Conservative Party need to gain 116 seats. And to win the seats, Cameron needs a voter swing of 6.9%, which is pretty demanding - even Margaret Thatcher only managed 5.3%. To make matters worse, with 12% of voters this year saying they'll support independent candidates or small parties (up from 8% in the last election), the Conservatives can't even be sure of the 4.3% they need to be the largest party in Parliament. 37% of voters planning to vote Labour in marginal seats say they may still change their mind, compared to 40% of prospective Conservative voters (it's an awful 77% for the Lib Dems).
Clearly a lot is going to change after the television debates. I'm really looking forward to them. The Chancellor's debates were impressive. Osbourne neatly managed to avoid actually answering any questions about cuts, Darling tried his hardest to look stern and straight to the point - but both really failed to give clear answers. Vince Cable, on the other hand, was honest about what the Lib Dems would cut, when, and by how much (clearly, we're going to have to cut spending somewhere. That's what you do when you're in debt, and that's what the country does when it's in debt. Politicians attempting to sugar coat the cuts out to just spit it out. We're not stupid, we understand).
My favourite moment of the debates (it still gives me a gleeful thrill) was when Osbourne was busily crying out about wasteful government spending, as highlighted in figures Darling released. He claimed the Conservatives could save £6 billion in efficiency savings, which would cover Labour's planned National Insurance rise. Vince Cable rounded on him with "'George, last week you went round denouncing these government-supposed efficiency savings as complete fiction...you are now using these fictional savings to finance your tax cut. That is utterly incredible.''
There's a great video of that moment on The Telegraph's site: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7536562/Chancellors-debate-Alistair-Darling-and-George-Osborne-clash-over-deficit.html
My money's on a slim Tory majority. Unfortunately.
At the moment, a hung parliament seems to be the likeliest outcome. Cameron is just ahead in the polls - UKPR gives him an average lead of 7 points.
Hung parliaments are very rare in the UK. Our last hung parliament was in 1974 (with an election called eight months later), and prior to that, 1929. If the Tories win, it's likely to be with only a slim majority of ten or so seats. In case of a hung parliament, one of two things will happen. Either multiple parties will join together to form a coalition government, and thus have a majority, or the party with most seats will try to lead a minority government.
To win the election, the Conservative Party need to gain 116 seats. And to win the seats, Cameron needs a voter swing of 6.9%, which is pretty demanding - even Margaret Thatcher only managed 5.3%. To make matters worse, with 12% of voters this year saying they'll support independent candidates or small parties (up from 8% in the last election), the Conservatives can't even be sure of the 4.3% they need to be the largest party in Parliament. 37% of voters planning to vote Labour in marginal seats say they may still change their mind, compared to 40% of prospective Conservative voters (it's an awful 77% for the Lib Dems).
Clearly a lot is going to change after the television debates. I'm really looking forward to them. The Chancellor's debates were impressive. Osbourne neatly managed to avoid actually answering any questions about cuts, Darling tried his hardest to look stern and straight to the point - but both really failed to give clear answers. Vince Cable, on the other hand, was honest about what the Lib Dems would cut, when, and by how much (clearly, we're going to have to cut spending somewhere. That's what you do when you're in debt, and that's what the country does when it's in debt. Politicians attempting to sugar coat the cuts out to just spit it out. We're not stupid, we understand).
My favourite moment of the debates (it still gives me a gleeful thrill) was when Osbourne was busily crying out about wasteful government spending, as highlighted in figures Darling released. He claimed the Conservatives could save £6 billion in efficiency savings, which would cover Labour's planned National Insurance rise. Vince Cable rounded on him with "'George, last week you went round denouncing these government-supposed efficiency savings as complete fiction...you are now using these fictional savings to finance your tax cut. That is utterly incredible.''
There's a great video of that moment on The Telegraph's site: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7536562/Chancellors-debate-Alistair-Darling-and-George-Osborne-clash-over-deficit.html
My money's on a slim Tory majority. Unfortunately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
