Alf Bentley Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 And Atlee was voted out of office after just over a term by the people. Interesting electoral figures, though: - 1950: Lab Govt re-elected with an overall majority of 5 seats, polling 1.5m votes more than Tories (Lab 46.1%; Con 40.0%) - 1951: Tories elected with a majority, despite Labour winning more votes (48.8% v. 48.0%) and winning a total number of votes surpassed only by Major in 1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
Guest MattP Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 No I have not got negative views of Attlee at least he tried to do something for the working class.It's just that he was naive when it came to setting up a sytem that would quickly become open to abuse , and we have had to live with the consequence ever since. I agree with this, no doubt Atlee's intentions were good. He'd probably be cringing himself if he were alive to day to see the Mick Philpott's etc usuing it as a lifestyle choice.
Deucalion Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 And greedy Correction - Tories should not be allowed to vote. Then we'd be getting somewhere !!
ADK Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Sorry a term and a bit, he called one again in 1951 to try and increase his majority and lost to an over the hill and past his sell by date Churchill. Of course it was, even if people were completely desolute a war being won turns you back into a Tory. Sorry a term and a bit, he called one again in 1951 to try and increase his majority and lost to an over the hill and past his sell by date Churchill. Of course it was, even if people were completely desolute a war being won turns you back into a Tory. Well the Tories had to accept Labour policies (NHS and Nationalisation) in order to become electable, these were pretty big concessions at the time. This is similar to the way Labour had to lurch to the right post-Thatcher in order to get elected. I'd also say that Churchill has to be classed as a stronger opponent to the likes of Foot. Atlee took 48.8% of the vote in the year he lost the election, not exactly unpopular. I don't think Thatcher ever managed that much.
Alf Bentley Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 No I have not got negative views of Attlee at least he tried to do something for the working class.It's just that he was naive when it came to setting up a sytem that would quickly become open to abuse , and we have had to live with the consequence ever since. You're missing my point. Our respective views of Thatcher and Attlee are a separate issue. My point is that our politically neutral head of state (the Queen), who is supposed to represent all the people of this country, has been mis-advised to cast aside political neutrality and to favour a Tory PM over a Labour PM of equal historical standing. Constitutionally, very dodgy... Even the Telegraph thinks so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984619/Margaret-Thatcher-This-is-a-state-funeral-and-thats-a-mistake.html
Deucalion Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 The problem with changing the electoral system, which I was in favour of until recently, is it would almost guarantee the Lib Dems a say in every government from the point of change onwards. I used to think this was no bad thing but their performance and apparent lack of morals in supporting things they were supposedly dead against leads me to think they cannot be trusted.
leicsmac Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Sorry a term and a bit, he called one again in 1951 to try and increase his majority and lost to an over the hill and past his sell by date Churchill. Of course it was, even if people were completely desolute a war being won turns you back into a Tory. It was an overseas war, and one directly involving an overseas British colony. I'm sure it wasn't difficult to get the nationalistic juices flowing. Thatchers figures WERE down before the Falklands War started due to serious domestic issues, and I think it's not a great leap to suggest that without the jump in popularity that winning the Falklands War provided she would have lost the following election.
Deucalion Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 You're missing my point. Our respective views of Thatcher and Attlee are a separate issue. My point is that our politically neutral head of state (the Queen), who is supposed to represent all the people of this country, has been mis-advised to cast aside political neutrality and to favour a Tory PM over a Labour PM of equal historical standing. Constitutionally, very dodgy... Even the Telegraph thinks so: http://www.telegraph...-a-mistake.html Totally agree. She should either attend all ex-PM's funerals or none. Choosing one above the other, and especially a right wing PM, leaves the monarchy open to all sorts of accusations about partiality. Interestingly, we are soon due to have a monarch called Charles. They've always done well in the past, right?
Manwell Pablo Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 The problem with changing the electoral system, which I was in favour of until recently, is it would almost guarantee the Lib Dems a say in every government from the point of change onwards. I used to think this was no bad thing but their performance and apparent lack of morals in supporting things they were supposedly dead against leads me to think they cannot be trusted. Agreed
Guest MattP Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Totally agree. She should either attend all ex-PM's funerals or none. Choosing one above the other, and especially a right wing PM, leaves the monarchy open to all sorts of accusations about partiality. Interestingly, we are soon due to have a monarch called Charles. They've always done well in the past, right? Surely we'll go straight to William now?
Deucalion Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Surely we'll go straight to William now? Why? Camilla?
Guest MattP Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Why? Camilla? Well the Queen doesn't appear to going anywhere for a while and Charles is about 65 now. Surely Wills gets the gig next.
leicsmac Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Well the Queen doesn't appear to going anywhere for a while and Charles is about 65 now. Surely Wills gets the gig next. It's certainly a possibility. I'm sure there's a precedent buried somewhere.
Manwell Pablo Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 It's certainly a possibility. I'm sure there's a precedent buried somewhere. There is definitley one at Mt Vernon
Deucalion Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 There is definitley one at Mt Vernon I'm just amazed this thread hasn't turned into puns yet. Is the fact Camilla is a divorcee and a Catholic a bar to Charles being king?
Alf Bentley Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 The problem with changing the electoral system, which I was in favour of until recently, is it would almost guarantee the Lib Dems a say in every government from the point of change onwards. I used to think this was no bad thing but their performance and apparent lack of morals in supporting things they were supposedly dead against leads me to think they cannot be trusted. Wouldn't want to divert this into a debate about electoral reform, which would require its own thread (& has had several), but I'm not sure you're right about that. Admittedly, more proportional systems make coalitions more likely, but it really depends on the precise system. Germany has had majority governments, coalitions with FDP (like Lib Dems) & coalitions with Greens, and they don't seem to do too badly. Also, if people don't like what the Lib Dems or others do in Govt, they won't vote for them next time (as Clegg may discover in 2015). I'd still favour Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies (based on Euro constituencies, maybe), but with stronger local government & a decent (not necessarily directly elected) 2nd chamber.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Is she still dead? I can only assume that this thread is continuing because she's been reanimated.
purpleronnie Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Is she still dead? I can only assume that this thread is continuing because she's been reanimated. Mattp & flow are working on it.
flowwolf Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Totally agree. She should either attend all ex-PM's funerals or none. Choosing one above the other, and especially a right wing PM, leaves the monarchy open to all sorts of accusations about partiality. Interestingly, we are soon due to have a monarch called Charles. They've always done well in the past, right? Does anyone seriously think if the queen could vote she would vote Labour ? :D It's certainly a possibility. I'm sure there's a precedent buried somewhere. Arlington cemetary ?
flowwolf Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Mattp & flow are working on it. Yes she's gone but the great good she did for this country lives on for ever more.
ADK Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 The Lib Dems were always going to get slated. Either they hold the country to ransom by vetoing any Tory proposal or they cooperate and have to go against their own policies. I don't think many lib dem voters will abandon them, we saw in Eastleigh that where the lib dem local government was popular they retained their seat. What we will see is the protest voters moving to another party (UKIP) and the labour voters who were fed up with Blair/Brown going back to their party. Propotional representation would be better for politics. It combats short termism by making elections less all or nothing. Many issues would see different alliances formed within parliament. It still isn't perfect. Nationalist parties like the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein arn't very good for UK-wide politics. For a democracy to work we need parties that are about issues more than "we want our little region to be better off". As a voter i'd like to feel i have choice who i vote for and that those choices are meaningful, i think if everyones vote counted we would see an increase in voter turnout and interest in politics. Assuming my MP stands for re-election he will be elected, my vote will not matter, it is a safe seat. It is "democracy" yet i will have no say.
Guest MattP Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 I felt sorry for Nick Clegg. He was put in a position where he either would lose the respect of his party or the respect of the country.
Tempwan Yierban Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 I felt sorry for Nick Clegg. He was put in a position where he either would lose the respect of his party or the respect of the country. Indeed - and for a man who struggles to command such respect anyway, must have been a blow.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.