1) Constituency boudaries do change, but it's not something that happens to every constituency at a fixed point in time. It's possible that they're looked at every so many years, but left as they are, but we do get the odd change here and there from time to time.
2) Coalition governments here are rare. The last time it happened - which I think was in 1974 (I was 13) it didn't last more than a few months and another election was called. I know it works in many European countries, but we seem to be entrenched in this adversarial system. The thing is, that while the consensus seems to be that the British electorate (or the 60-odd percent of it that bothered to vote) has voted for change, and that a Hung Parliament was predicted, the same electorate doesn't really seem to have had much of an idea as to what would happen when it, well, happened!
Interestingly, one of the LD's main aims has been to reform the voting system over here and have us adopt some form of Proportional Representation. And of course, if we are to do that at some point, we're going to end up in this situation - with no outright winner - more often. The percentage of the vote went, IIRC 34% Tory, 29% Lab and 23% LD. Labour have about 260 seats and the LDs under 60 - but with only 6% less of the vote than Labour took. And that's both crazy and wrong. But with PR, their representation in parliament will definitely increase, but we're still going to be in the same boat.
3) According to the BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/) the Lib Dems actually LOST 5 seats overall, and you can see the other gains and losses by the other parties there.
4)Ah, I've said some of that in point 2) I think the difference is that the back-room horse-trading is being done in order to give one party the overall majority (326) of MPs which is needed for that party to be able to pass their legislation. Yes, of course there are always more deals to be done, and on a free vote, MPs of any party are free to vote however they want. But at other times of course, they're brought into line by the whips who ensure that they'll vote the way the party wants/needs them to, which I know also happens in the US. But what's happening now is a way of trying to ensure that whichever party ends up being the majority in the coalition is still able to pass whatever they need to without being blocked at every turn and ending up with a stalemate that is no good for anybody. Basically, they need the 326 as a starting point.
A Lib-Lab coalition won't cut it, as they still won't have enough votes to get anything through on their own. Labour is going to have to rely on what the news is calling a "rainbow coalition" which will also involve the smaller parties, like the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, all of which have their own agendas. And of course the more parties are involved, the more cracks there are likely to be. The argument that is currently running is this; in Scotland, most of the seats were won by the SNP and Labour, so it’s not fair on them to have a Conservative led government when hardly anyone in Scotland voted for them. But most of England voted for the main three parties, and it’s not fair on them to have important matters that affect them as much as anyone else be decided by the SNP. And of course that brings the whole West Lothian Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question) into play, but that’s another discussion!
I'm not a fan of the Tories (I voted LD) - but they still got the largest number of votes. If we go by a "majority rules" rule most of the time, then it's only fair and democratic that we do the same here, regardless of how much I'm not keen on the idea. They didn't get an outright majority, so they need the Lib Dems, and if they can hash something out, we'll have a right-of-centre-with-left-leanings government. Which might not be too bad a thing!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-05-11 10:36 am (UTC)1) Constituency boudaries do change, but it's not something that happens to every constituency at a fixed point in time. It's possible that they're looked at every so many years, but left as they are, but we do get the odd change here and there from time to time.
2) Coalition governments here are rare. The last time it happened - which I think was in 1974 (I was 13) it didn't last more than a few months and another election was called. I know it works in many European countries, but we seem to be entrenched in this adversarial system. The thing is, that while the consensus seems to be that the British electorate (or the 60-odd percent of it that bothered to vote) has voted for change, and that a Hung Parliament was predicted, the same electorate doesn't really seem to have had much of an idea as to what would happen when it, well, happened!
Interestingly, one of the LD's main aims has been to reform the voting system over here and have us adopt some form of Proportional Representation. And of course, if we are to do that at some point, we're going to end up in this situation - with no outright winner - more often. The percentage of the vote went, IIRC 34% Tory, 29% Lab and 23% LD. Labour have about 260 seats and the LDs under 60 - but with only 6% less of the vote than Labour took. And that's both crazy and wrong. But with PR, their representation in parliament will definitely increase, but we're still going to be in the same boat.
3) According to the BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/) the Lib Dems actually LOST 5 seats overall, and you can see the other gains and losses by the other parties there.
4)Ah, I've said some of that in point 2) I think the difference is that the back-room horse-trading is being done in order to give one party the overall majority (326) of MPs which is needed for that party to be able to pass their legislation. Yes, of course there are always more deals to be done, and on a free vote, MPs of any party are free to vote however they want. But at other times of course, they're brought into line by the whips who ensure that they'll vote the way the party wants/needs them to, which I know also happens in the US. But what's happening now is a way of trying to ensure that whichever party ends up being the majority in the coalition is still able to pass whatever they need to without being blocked at every turn and ending up with a stalemate that is no good for anybody. Basically, they need the 326 as a starting point.
A Lib-Lab coalition won't cut it, as they still won't have enough votes to get anything through on their own. Labour is going to have to rely on what the news is calling a "rainbow coalition" which will also involve the smaller parties, like the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, all of which have their own agendas. And of course the more parties are involved, the more cracks there are likely to be. The argument that is currently running is this; in Scotland, most of the seats were won by the SNP and Labour, so it’s not fair on them to have a Conservative led government when hardly anyone in Scotland voted for them. But most of England voted for the main three parties, and it’s not fair on them to have important matters that affect them as much as anyone else be decided by the SNP. And of course that brings the whole West Lothian Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question) into play, but that’s another discussion!
I'm not a fan of the Tories (I voted LD) - but they still got the largest number of votes. If we go by a "majority rules" rule most of the time, then it's only fair and democratic that we do the same here, regardless of how much I'm not keen on the idea. They didn't get an outright majority, so they need the Lib Dems, and if they can hash something out, we'll have a right-of-centre-with-left-leanings government. Which might not be too bad a thing!