UK Election 2010

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Boggy1 45]

He did follow through; and published his finances in full. He did absolutely nothing wrong.

Polling stations close in one hour from now.

Every single poll in the past month has pointed to a hung parliament, but I am worried the Conservatives will get a majority by only one or two seats.

[Boggy1 45]

The polling stations have closed. The votes are being counted.

The first EXIT Poll is as follows:

Conservatives on 307 seats

Labour on 255 seats

Liberal Democrats on 59 seats

Others on 29 seats

This means a Hung Parliament, with the largest party being the Conservatives, short of a majority by 19 seats.

The Liberal Democrats seem to have actually DROPPED seats.

If this poll is accurate (they never are), then Gordon Brown and Labour will stay in power until they can sort out a coalition. If that cannot happen, then the Government may collapse and we may have another election.

For anyone who is interested, you can watch Live what is going on here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

[Boggy1 45]

The first seat is in!

For the constituency of Houghton and Sunderland South - Labour win.

The first Parliamentary seat of the 2010 Election goes to Labour. With a massive majority.

[Duke87 1,070]

You guys keep your polls open all the way until 10 PM, huh? Most places here in the US they close at 8.

[Boggy1 45]

Even though they were open till 10pm, there are reports of hundreds upon hundreds of voters being turned away:

Police officers at a polling station in Brockley in Lewisham, south-east London, tell a BBC camera crew that voters are still being allowed to vote at 10.30pm. But the returning officer for Sheffield is apologising after people were unable to cast their votes there because of huge queues at polling stations. John Mothersole admits they were caught out.quote>

Police have been called to some polling stations to move on people who wanted to vote but couldn't because they were still queuing outside at 10pm. In the Manchester Withington constituency, about 200 people were turned away. A spokesman for the returning officer for Manchester said: "The law states that the doors to polling stations must be closed at 10pm exactly, and no-one may be issued with a ballot paper after 10pm."quote>

Very confusing situation about what happens to those still queuing to vote at 10pm. According to the Birmingham City Council website: "You can process votes if people are in the polling station before the poll closes. We understand there were two 'lock-ins' in Birmingham. More details when we get them."quote>

[warrior 169]

For something that is meant to be like the core of the UK, we haven't pulled it off very well.

It's very unfair how some people have gotten to vote after 10pm and some haven't. But not every polling station being the same size an therefore the smaller ones not being able to fit as many people inside the doors at 10pm then others which are larger make using the doors as a cut off point at 10pm ridiculous.

This year with the debates, there has been quite a big increase in people getting interested in politics, now by turning people away and not being able to cope with the demand it will only undo and possible do more damage than what the debates did right.

The truth is this voting system is completely out of date and not suitable to a country like the UK. It doesn't represent the country very well, and not everyone can vote.

For example in the constituency me and my parents are in (I'm not allowed to vote as I'm too young) noone was allowed to vote for the 3 main parties Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. because our MP is the speaker and is meant to be natural.

So for country who's criticized others for not dealing with votes and democracy right it turns out we not very good at it either.

[CHR 2]

BBC coverage has finished...

Looks like the polls were correct:

Conservative - 305

Labour - 258

Liberal Democrat - 57

Other: 28

5% swing from Labour to Conservative

1 more seats to come and 1 not voting for a while.

Hung parliament, means the major parties are going to have negotiate, apparently Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are at it already.

Greens get a seat - their first time to do so.

Many voters unable to vote, due to insufficient capacity at polling booths holding local elections too.

Brown is considering going for a referendum to overhaul the voting system.

[joshphillips999 0]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

The polling stations have closed. The votes are being counted.

The first EXIT Poll is as follows:

Conservatives on 307 seats

Labour on 255 seats

Liberal Democrats on 59 seats

Others on 29 seats

This means a Hung Parliament, with the largest party being the Conservatives, short of a majority by 19 seats.

The Liberal Democrats seem to have actually DROPPED seats.

If this poll is accurate (they never are), then Gordon Brown and Labour will stay in power until they can sort out a coalition. If that cannot happen, then the Government may collapse and we may have another election.

For anyone who is interested, you can watch Live what is going on here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/quote>

It was extremely accurate. The conservatives are at 305, and two more seats are to be declared. One of those is likely to happen today (predicted conservative), and the other is going to be held on the 27th may, but thats a conservative safeseat.

So its 307 for conservatives, as predicted. Labour at 258, up three, still pretty close. And Lib dems actually down two, so they dropped even more than expected. Not a good day for clegg. Then the 'others' got one less seat. So in fact it was pretty accurate.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And there you are, a minority situation.  The Brits call this a hung parliament.  We call this a minority government.

Seems the Conservatives in the U.K. have cold feet and want some kind of binding agreement (coalition) with the Liberal Democrats.  They'd be better off with an informal working agreement rather than being forced to name cabinet ministers from outside their own party.  We make it work with a lot of brinkmanship, but considering the disarray of all parties after that election, a formal coalition is unnessary.

In Canada we have found that, with opposition parties holding the government's feet to the fire daily, we have a better deal without a majority.  Parliament is what it is meant to be, a lot of talking while getting things done in committee.  Once you have an iron-clad (even a coalition) majority, you can ignore the bunch opposite, and run rough-shod over everything.

Oh!  And congratulations to the Green Party.  They have finally elected one seat.  Maybe the Canadian Greens can do at least as well next time out.  .... A voice crying in the wilderness ...

[Boggy1 45]

 Well; what a train wreck this election has been.

Being a Liberal Democrat supporter, I'm pretty horrified by the results and the drop in the seats. Especially after the surge in popularity they enjoyed. My constituency thankfully stayed Lib Dem; though I was close to tears when the results were being released. It was incredibly tense. 

The are serious questions to be asked about our polling system. We've had bomb threats, hundreds of voters turned away due to a mess up on the electoral register, the loss of hundreds of postal ballots, stations running out of paper ballots, stations closing later than they should have, stations turning away hundreds of voters after the 10pm deadline. The Electoral Commission will be conducting a full investigation. 

 

Here are the final results. One constituency is still to be declared as mentioned; but they will be voting later on in the month due to a death of one of the candidates. 

 

 

So, we are in proper Hung Parliament territory. The first time in decades. Labour and Gordon Brown are still in power, at least for now. But things will be moving fast to try and form a coalition.

David Cameron has reached out to the Liberal Democrats in an effort to form a government - after the UK general election resulted in a hung parliament.

The Tory leader, whose party won most seats but was short of a majority, said he wanted to make a "big open and comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said it could include Lib Dems in cabinet.

Labour leader Gordon Brown has already stressed his party's "common ground" with the third biggest party.

With results from all 649 constituencies contested on 6 May now declared, the Tories have got 306 seats - or 307 including the previously Tory held Thirsk and Malton where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate. It leaves the party just short of the 326 needed for an outright majority.

Labour have finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down 5, and other parties 28. The Conservatives got 36.1% of votes (up 3.8%), Labour 29.1% (down 6.2%) and the Lib Dems 23% (up 1%).

Past practice under Britain's unwritten constitution sees the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament having the right to make the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm quote>

 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: warrior

The truth is this voting system is completely out of date and not suitable to a country like the UK. It doesn't represent the country very well, and not everyone can vote.

For example in the constituency me and my parents are in (I'm not allowed to vote as I'm too young) noone was allowed to vote for the 3 main parties Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. because our MP is the speaker and is meant to be natural. quote>

No one in your area was allowed to vote for some of the parties but other people in other areas were?     

What was "meant to be natural"?   

I'm not sure I'm following all of this but it sounds a bit like the situation we had in 2000 when the popular vote and the electoral vote had different results.   The mechanism is different but both situations seem to indicate a population where there is no majority opinion.

[ThomasSimpson 466]

Traditionally the main 3 parties do not field candidates against the Speaker, because he is neutral (not natural) and does not have a party (although he was Conservative). However this time round, UKIP and the BNP fielded candidates in the Speaker's seat in Buckingham.

[warrior 169]

Yep I have no idea why I wrote natural (I might have written that on my phone which has like predictive).

So has any one in other countries heard anything about England's voting? There been quite a few people saying we should move to an electronic vote. And most (or at least a lot) want a referendum on the voting system.

[Ny24 0]

The only reason that some people did not get the chance to vote was because they left it too LATE. A woman on the radio was complaining because she did not get to vote even though she was in the queue, but she started queuing at 9:25pm 35 minutes before the polling stations close, she should have got their earlier she had 15 hours to vote within.

[Duke87 1,070]

This I find interesting: you can be at the polling place before closing time but still not be allowed to vote if you haven't gotten to the front of the queue before the doors close. Over here we don't do that - everyone in line at closing time is permitted to vote, but no more people are allowed to get on line.

I assume the dark green in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein?

[CommodoreTech 5]

It seems a lot of people say the conservative victory is the result of an 'out-dated' and unfair voting system. This only seems to be because of some random thing people have with the Tories, they think they're a morally wrong party and that Cameron is some reincarnation of Thatcher. They also seem to be 'worried' that the Tories will get into power. Why? They're gonna hunt you down or something? They're still a democratic party, just slightly more right than Labour. (Labour is no longer left-wing, lets face it). This is so stupid. Like when people say 'voting for the BNP is wrong'. No, its your opinion. I'm sure the Nazi's thought it was wrong to vote for anyone but them. We wanna ban people voting a certain party cos we don't like the fact Labour's 13 year term has seen the rise of the far-right in a DEMOCRACY? Sure, that's democratic. Vote for these selected group of people, who we, the governing body deems suitable. 

Many middle class voters in England like to pat themselves on the back by being 'fair and caring' by voting Labour, yet all they're doing is corrupting the system. This is stupid, vote for policies, not ideologies. Also, anyone noticed how the BNP is racist and homophobic? Yes, when they're at their strongest, the perfect time to give them a voice in parliament with proportional representation.

I think this is because i'm a staunch direct democrat. I hate forcing ideologies onto people (such as socialism, capitalism or any others) and think only politicians with sufficient knowledge (not to offend less intelligent people, a phrase which typifies this culture obsessed with being tolerant and politically correct) should propose ideas to the public, and they vote on it. Essentially, like the American system where certain parties try to push for yes or no on 'Proposition ...'. Kinda like government by referendum. Its slow, but if there's a strong leader in the government, then the country has nothing to worry about.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Timmystwin 201]

Originally posted by: CommodoreTech

It seems a lot of people say the conservative victory is the result of an 'out-dated' and unfair voting system. This only seems to be because of some random thing people have with the Tories, they think they're a morally wrong party and that Cameron is some reincarnation of Thatcher. Many middle class voters in England like to pat themselves on the back by being 'fair and caring' by voting Labour, yet all they're doing is corrupting the system. This is stupid, vote for policies, not ideologies. Also, anyone noticed how the BNP is racist and homophobic? Yes, when they're at their strongest, the perfect time to give them a voice in parliament with proportional representation.

I think this is because i'm a staunch direct democrat. I hate forcing ideologies onto people (such as socialism, capitalism or any others) and think only politicians with sufficient knowledge (not to offend less intelligent people, a phrase which typifies this culture obsessed with being tolerant and politically correct) should propose ideas to the public, and they vote on it. Essentially, like the American system where certain parties try to push for yes or no on 'Proposition ...'. Kinda like government by referendum. Its slow, but if there's a strong leader in the government, then the country has nothing to worry about.quote>

It isnt because the tories got in, it is that the whole thing is unfair no matter who got in. I personally do not believe in the Conservative party due to their centrelining, a party that goes for votes cant always be trusted. And if you give the BNP a voice, it will be drowned by the MASSES of other seats that dont think the same way, think of it as them getting 2 seats and there bieng 648 other rational thinkers.

I do agree to some extent with your last point however, and i think that it would be good, but the time it takes to get it done normally means that that method would take forever.  Especially as we dont have a strong single man run government.

I think proportional representation would be the way to go first, so the majority of ( for instance) 5000 liberal votes in my constituency would drown out the majority of 66 votes for the conservatives in the next door one. ( in a constituency of 38000)  This is generally true in the whole country.

Hardly fair, no matter what party it is that loses. Its also outdated, not changed for centuries.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Duke87

This I find interesting: you can be at the polling place before closing time but still not be allowed to vote if you haven't gotten to the front of the queue before the doors close. Over here we don't do that - everyone in line at closing time is permitted to vote, but no more people are allowed to get on line.quote>

I unequivocally agree.  Here in the US, the polls may close at a specified time, but if you are in line (in the queue) before closing time, you still get to vote.  I'm surprised this is not a shared POV with our UK friends.  Rather shameful, actually.

Of course, my understanding of the matter is that this was a sporadic occurence.  Some were able to vote, others weren't.  I would call this disenfranchisement.

quote>

And the 15 hours it was open, phone, postal and email votes arent enough?

[CommodoreTech 5]

True.

Of course, in Britain, that's the main problem. Things do last for centuries.

The only time we had a major constitutional upheaval, (the civil wars and formation of the Commonwealth), no great reforms were made to the British system of governance. While France had a almost entirely medieval system until 1789, it was changed to modern by 1792 and has remained so. Many other countries have done this, removed the old system in a great revolution. This has never happened in Britain, and parliament is still based on the old balance of power between, the Lands, the Lords and the Crown. Many people don't understand this, and simply disregard the Queen as some old-fashioned pointless institution, or more ignorantly as a dictator. They see the Lords as basically the chums of the Queen, a bunch of rich, landed snobs who don't care. The land is everybody left. (My definitions) This basically dates back to 1215, with the Magna Carta.

Of course, the unwritten British constitution is incredibly old, but this gives it the unfortunate air of being feudal/victorian in image. But, it is the very fact that it's survived this long that is a great testament for conservatism. Kinda like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Britain's system has been modern for many years. No other monarch in Europe let anything like the Magna Carta be signed for at least a few centuries. This means that the first past the post system in Britain is almost specifically tuned to Britain. A reason it sort of works is that once its done, we have a clear leader with (vitally) a strong government. Countries with proportional representation nearly always seem to have weak governments that are nearly always in coalition, which is essentially as damaging as a 5-year hung parliament. What i'm trying to say is that, many don't know if it will work in the UK and at this time, electoral reform shouldn't be at the top of people's agendas. The economy is very fragile and a hung parliament is only going to tip it further.

I think the idea of PR in councils is much better though. And i'd prefer a de-centralized, federal sort of system. While many thinks this only works in countries as big as the US where it has to be states, the UK has big populations in comparison. And it means Westminster having to pass laws that may only be relevant in a completely different part of the country. If it was changed to lets say, greater councils for the current 'regions' with PR in their elected senates or whatever. This would allow Westminster to focus more on things like foreign policy and healthcare and education rather than 'where to send money for a bride 500 miles away'. Of course, allow the decentralization of law to, so lets say some regions have different laws on certain things. (Like states do the US).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[warrior 169]

You don't realise either that in the UK voting can only be done by proxy (like if you in another country you can register someone else to vote for you), by post or by going to the polling station.

I find it outrageous that people in the queue who had been queuing for hours in some cases weren't allowed to vote. And I really don't understand how the police can refuse someone to vote. You here about other supposedly 3rd world countries whose police and armed forces, etc force people not to vote or to vote one way or the other. And here it happens in the UK.

It was obvious that 100s in not 1000s of people were turned away and yet the officials state that only 100 people were affects at the maximum. Everyone's vote is meant to count so when the officials start saying someone's vote doesn't matter you know were not much of a democracy.

People pay something like 40-50% of their income to the government and then people start getting denied the right to vote.

In sum:

Something like 50 people's vote in one constituency vote's were invalid because of a printing error, they tried to contact the voters but they were told they wouldn't be able to vote locally again.

100+s of people were denied the right to vote after queuing before 10pm.

buckingham constituency were not able to vote for the 3 main parties

one polling station (AFAIK only one) ran out of ballot papers.

i think one of the problems with the 10pm cut off is that there was a rush to count the votes. One constituency (the first one to announce it's results) was trying to beat it's record for releasing the votes just 45 minutes after 10pm. Im sorry but this sort of thing really shouldn't be rushed in order to break records.

But she started queuing at 9:25pm 35 minutes before the polling stations close, she should have got their earlier she had 15 hours to vote within.quote>

Yes, because everyone just sits around at home for 15 hours. Most people have jobs, unexpected things happen like late trains, traffic jams, long polling queues (because people were encouraged to vote, and the 3 live TV debates raised awareness of politics so by more people wanting to vote and use their right it denied others their vote). What about people who have 2 jobs? Or have kids to look after? There are many number of reasons why people couldn't get their earlier and the law states (as everyone in charge was keen to point out) that polling closes at 10pm. Not 9:25pm.

It's not the voters fault that the polling station is located in a small building so that the queue has to be outside the door. There was even one station in a caravan.

Look at these videos:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666302.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8669175.stm

So the UK one of the leaders in democracy, apparently.

[krbe 193]

Great Yarmouth takes a more pragmatic approach to voting: Labour gains Yarmouth council seat after drawing lots

[Aontan 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

And there you are, a minority situation.  The Brits call this a hung parliament.  We call this a minority government.

quote>

And almost every other country in Europe calls it a "normal parliament". 

Originally posted by: Duke87

I assume the dark green in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein?

quote>

Yes, it's Sinn Féin. They're an abstentionist party (they don't take their seats), and they won five seats. This means that, in reality, the actual number of seats is 645, meaning the number for a majority needed is slightly less, at 323.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is an awful lot of breast and gum beating going on.  The Conservatives seem to think they have to put a firm majority together with the Liberals.  The mother of parliaments has to get its act together better than that!  Why not have a minority government?  It is good for the people, and will keep the governing party on its toes.  Having to go hat in hand with its proposed legislation to the other parties is good for everyone, and an better representative democracy than having a majority to run rough-shod over everything.

The queen should invite the Conservatives to form a government, will they, nil they.  Time to perform.

[warrior 169]

About 1000 protesters were outside the building wanting a better voting system. I just wish it had been bigger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8670002.stm

[joshphillips999 0]

Originally posted by: warrior

For something that is meant to be like the core of the UK, we haven't pulled it off very well.

It's very unfair how some people have gotten to vote after 10pm and some haven't. But not every polling station being the same size an therefore the smaller ones not being able to fit as many people inside the doors at 10pm then others which are larger make using the doors as a cut off point at 10pm ridiculous.

This year with the debates, there has been quite a big increase in people getting interested in politics, now by turning people away and not being able to cope with the demand it will only undo and possible do more damage than what the debates did right.

The truth is this voting system is completely out of date and not suitable to a country like the UK. It doesn't represent the country very well, and not everyone can vote.

For example in the constituency me and my parents are in (I'm not allowed to vote as I'm too young) noone was allowed to vote for the 3 main parties Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. because our MP is the speaker and is meant to be natural.

So for country who's criticized others for not dealing with votes and democracy right it turns out we not very good at it either.quote>

So your in buckingham? Who did your parents vote for? Mine voted UKIP, but the speaker won anyway.

[Boggy1 45]

Things are getting absolutely fascinating. Although the Liberal Democrats came third with the least amount of votes out of the three main parties; they alone are at the centre of a media storm because they alone can decide what Government will rule for the next five years. Incredible.

Lib Dem MPs and peers 'endorse' Clegg's Tory talks

The three leaders all attended VE Day celebrations at the Cenotaph Lib Dem MPs and peers have "endorsed in full" Nick Clegg's decision to talk to the Conservatives first - after the UK election resulted in a hung parliament. The Tories won most votes but were short of a majority and have asked for Lib Dem support to form a government. Gordon Brown remains PM while talks continue and he also spoke to Mr Clegg by phone. He has offered the Lib Dems talks if no deal is reached. Mr Clegg has been discussing the Tory power-sharing offer with his party. After the meeting of Lib Dem MPs and peers, Lib Dem negotiator David Laws said the parliamentary party had "endorsed in full" the strategy outlined by Mr Clegg - who said the Conservatives, as the biggest party, had the right to seek to form a government first. 'Stable government' Mr Laws added they were "determined to put the national interest before party advantage" and wanted to "play our part in delivering the stable and good government" that voters expected. He said talks had been "very positive and constructive" but did not clarify whether the Lib Dems - the UK's third biggest party - would demand a referendum on changing the voting system as a condition of any deal with the Conservatives.    An arrangement between Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid could command a majority in the House of Commons. The nationalist parties would, of course, extract financial and political concessions  Read Nick Robinson's blog An estimated 1,000 people gathered outside the Lib Dem meeting in favour of electoral reform, chanting "Fair votes now". Mr Clegg left the talks briefly to accept their petition, and told them: "Reforming politics is one of the reasons I went into politics." Mr Clegg has also met his party's governing body, the federal executive, to discuss Mr Cameron's proposals. He will need the support of a majority of MPs and the executive to enter into any deal. He has stressed his priorities, including "fundamental political reform", tax reform to make the system fairer, a "new approach" to education to give a "fair start" to all children and to the economy, but said Lib Dems would act in a "constructive spirit" in the "coming hours and days". 'Progressive alliance' However Labour backbencher John Mann has called for Mr Brown to step down as Labour leader before the party conference in September - arguing his position "rules out the credibility of a Lib/Lab pact". He said: "Gordon Brown has had a good run and whilst he was an excellent chancellor he has been seen as a poor prime minister who is out of touch and aloof. Labour lost votes because of this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: joshphillips999

Originally posted by: warrior

For example in the constituency me and my parents are in (I'm not allowed to vote as I'm too young) noone was allowed to vote for the 3 main parties Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. because our MP is the speaker and is meant to be natural.

So for country who's criticized others for not dealing with votes and democracy right it turns out we not very good at it either.quote>

So your in buckingham? Who did your parents vote for? Mine voted UKIP, but the speaker won anyway.

quote>

This is yet another example of the poor organization of the U.K. parliament.  Canada has no permanent speaker.  He is selected by a vote of all members on the first day of the new session.  This eliminates any voting restrictions.

Boggy1 has made an issue of having a set up with an absolute majority, and shown that it is really very difficult.  As I said before, the Conservatives have to face up to managing a minority government.  They will either show their metal or go down really fast.  I hope there will be enough time to fix the sad, obsolte electoral system.  What did they think would happen if you have debates on the telly?  Clearly they didn't think.

[warrior 169]

I know my mum voted for one of the independent candidates, I can't remember exactly which one though, might have been Geoff Howard. Mostly she wanted to not vote for John Bercow simply because he was the speaker (which meant the whole no 3 parties thing).

Personally I think the major issues like should we join Europe and should we use the Euro should be down to a simple yes/no vote. Where the number of votes are counted and the biggest number is the answer.

I can see the advantage to Europe, but why does it have to cost so much and where does all the money go?

Also a lot more transparency is needed on basically everything.